Posted on 06/30/2015 10:09:23 AM PDT by xzins
You’re thinking of a small church, perhaps.
And, you forget “Judas” and Jesus’ parable of ‘tares’.
Start educating the flock about what could happen. First, business as usual but letting them know that when the “plant” comes, as you know they will, then the pastor gets out of the state witnessing of the marriage and witnesses before God alone. Tell them in advance that this will mean they have to be “married” twice if they want to be married in the church and that they should marry first in the church. Then dump the legal responsibilities for the state recognized marriage on the state, where it belongs. It may reduce the number of church weddings but the ones who get married in the church will really want to be there.
As of now pastors can refuse heterosexual weddings if they feel the union is un-Biblical. Like a believer with a non-believer, etc. In my church couples must submit to pre-marital counseling if they want a church wedding. Such could be an opportunity to speak the Good News of the Gospel to a while new audience.
Note: repost but relevant IMHO...
http://redneckoblogger.blogspot.com/
You’ll never find a same-sex couple that isn’t living together. That’s an immediate disqualification.
No same-sex couple is going to attend church regularly for a year just to pull a marriage scam.
“some experts believe pastors who refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages could face government repercussions.”
That’s the one right there. IMO that’s the whole end game....destroy Christian churches.
Two of my friends went to their pastor and ask him to perform their marriage and he refused because they were living together.
I have no problem with that plan. This article points out that the authority of pastors to solemnize government marriages could well be revoked.
I would recommend an intake form with statement of principles to be signed, and among those principles would be heterosexual only. Any unwillingness to sign would automatically mean ‘no wedding’.
Hmm...well, I’m technically a state employee myself. I suppose I could offer to officiate and save everyone a lot of trouble. Not sure every detail of the ceremony would be entirely well-received, the blindfolded tightrope walk over the flaming tank of oil, for one thing...
Can they turn a couple down for a ceremony based on skin color? No? Well then, they can't turn down the deviants, either. Both are now a "civil right".
The Federal courts are very diligent about protecting their decisions and their implementation. Any government official who has taken an oath to uphold and defend will be forced to perform these marriages or resign. Kennedy has made it clear that at this time, he will not entertain efforts by individuals or the government to coerce religious institutions or clergy. Why overplay a winning hand. However it will be interesting to see how the courts deal with ordinary individuals who based on their conscience refuse to take an oath to uphold and defend or perform civic duties such as jury duty. If the US Constitution is really the basis for the widespread carnage of abortion on demand and the implementation of the decadent and hedonistic homosexual agenda, then people of conscience like the 2nd and 3rd century Christians may as a form of civil disobedience refuse service. “Your honor with all due respect to your court, I would prefer not to be a juror or take this oath. In my heart I am have a deep antipathy for the institution that made the widespread killing of human life possible. If you force me to serve it is doubtful I will be able to concentrate and perform this service.” In the 1960s Mohammed Ali based on his religious convictions and conscience was excused from his civic duties. Will people of conscience be afforded the same courtesy today?
That is discriminatory and a lawsuit would ensue. .
someone said earlier ... if they're not of your congregation and haven't sttended classes, etc ....
I don't know if that will wash, but it sounds good
Just trying to “play chess” with it. Gays who are not following religion won’t be a problem. Gays who enjoy religion and wish to be married in a church or synagogue will naturally gravitate to the church in town that wants to marry them. Which there will be. I see those churches having more people and more money. Straight people will say to each other, Church X wouldn’t even marry Tom and Steve! And some of those people will be cowed to go to the more “accepting” church Y. That could be a problem, though for a generation there might be a goodly portion of people who prefer Church Y and support it. But for how long?
It seems to me that this is the prudent way forward.
Even if it were a 6-mo wait, it's hard to believe there are "rabble-rouser's" who will wait that long.
And who knows? If they were forced to submit to marriage classes and "pre-marriage" counseling, one or both might have a come-to-Jesus moment...
I’m talking about a church, not a county clerk. That’s not discriminatory. They’re told at the outset the church’s beliefs and principles, and they sign on to them, or they go elsewhere.
Churches are not required to marry just any couple who asks now. Pastors have the right to refuse to marry couples they believe will divorce later and they do so all the time.
To demand that every church begin to marry just anybody who asks will be a violation of current law and religious freedom.
Good for him; more pastors should do likewise.
They are coming after the church.
In that case, it doesn’t matter what you do, but you might as well be legally protected.
What about the sharks with frikkin laser beams? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.