Millionaire Gay Couple is Suing to Force a Church to Hold Their Wedding

[Bravus]

There's kind of a meta issue in this discussion, but it ties together the two things that are not welcome in Town Hall.

I've created a new thread elsewhere; here's the link: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/692435.html#Post692435

[bonnie]

There's kind of a meta issue in this discussion, but it ties together the two things that are not welcome in Town Hall.

I've created a new thread elsewhere; here's the link: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/692435.html#Post692435

Sorry,don't have access to that forum. This may have been better originally in Religious Liberty

[Bravus]

Good thinking. Can a kind mod move it?

[Kevin H]

This is a rough situation for their church with the church/state situation as pointed out. Here in the US the couples can find churches who would be willing to do the ceremony. However with a state church that is part of their congregation and mission whether they believe they can do it in clean conscience or not. Maybe they should look into freedom of religion.

[lazarus]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the rights of churches in the UK and the role of the church of England.

The 2013 Marriage act has the following provisions:

Makes same-sex marriage legal.

Preserves the Canon law of the Church of England which states that marriage is between opposite-sex couples only.

States that the common law duty on members of the clergy to solemnise marriages does not extend to same-sex marriages.

Provides protections for individuals and religious organisations who choose not to "opt in" to solemnise same-sex marriages from any liability including through amending the Equality Act 2010.

religious marriages for opposite-sex couples only in registered buildings;

civil marriages for all couples in a register office;

civil marriages for all couples in approved premises e.g. a hotel;

religious marriages for opposite-sex couples by the Quakers or the Jewish religion;

religious marriages for opposite-sex couples, one of whom is house-bound or detained;

civil marriages for all couples, one of whom is house-bound or detained;

marriages for opposite sex couples in a church or chapel of the Church of England or the Church in Wales.

All churches and clergy in the UK have the freedom to refuse to marry same sex couples. UK citizens have the right to sue whomever the choose.

I have said or implied the following a "million" times before. American history shows that provisions in Constitution can be and have been set aside for particular groups of people. An act of congress, a judgement handed down from SCOTUS, state legislation, can abrogate what freedoms you thought you had. Americans often make the mistake of thinking that the constitution guarantees them a broader range of freedoms than those experienced in other developed nations .The undeniable reality is that it has not.

Don't mean to start a war but just sayin' :)

[bonnie]

This is a rough situation for their church with the church/state situation as pointed out. Here in the US the couples can find churches who would be willing to do the ceremony. However with a state church that is part of their congregation and mission whether they believe they can do it in clean conscience or not. Maybe they should look into freedom of religion.

It isn't about finding a church that will perform a same sex marriage,it is about finding the ones that won't and then making an example out of that church.

That is "fairness and equality". It may well be that there won't be any reason to amend the Constitution,in this day and age a simple "Executive order" may take care of the problem.

To make this work the definition of marriage had to be redefined

to one man,one woman,two men,two women.

[Gregory Matthews]

let us look a bit at the following statement:

Quote:

American history shows that provisions in Constitution can be and have been set aside for particular groups of people. An act of congress, a judgement handed down from SCOTUS, state legislation, can abrogate what freedoms you thought you had. Americans often make the mistake of thinking that the constitution guarantees them a broader range of freedoms than those experienced in other developed nations .The undeniable reality is that it has not.

1) A judgment of the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which is what the Constitution allows it to do. As the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to do so, it is not factually correct to suggest that the Supreme Court sets aside provisions of the Constitution. You an I may not agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. But, that ruling is Constitutional until it is set aside by a later ruling.

2)The Constitution is limited in its scope. It gives certain powers to the individual States. In the exercise of those powers, the acts of State Legislators can not be said to set aside the Constitution. The Constitution still rules but it does not apply to some aspects of what the States do.

3) The Constitution gives certain powers to Congress which lie outside of the Constitution. When Congress acts in those areas, the Constitution does not rule. In those areas, the acts of Congress rule. When Congress acts in those areas, it cannot be said to be setting aside the Constitution.

4) Folks, the Constitution has much less authority than people commonly think. How long has it been since any of you actually read it.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are many places on the Internet where one can read the Federal Constitution. The following is one:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

Let us look at it for a minute:

1) Article 2, section 2, provides that the President is the Commander in chief or the military. The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that members of the military may (?) not have their full Constitutional rights that they would have if they were not members of the military. IOW, they may have some, but not others.

2) Article 2, Section 2 gives the President the authority to make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate. That means that as long that the senate does not object, the President can make a binding treaty that restricts rights that a U.S. citizen would otherwise have.

3) Article 3, Section 2, limits the judicial power of the Federal courts to Constitutional issues. IOW, non-Federal courts rule in issues that do not involve the Constitution.

4) The 10th Amendment gives the individual States powers that are not granted by the Constitution to the Federal government. This, over the years, has been subject to interpretation. But, the effect of this is to limit the authority of the Federal government and to give significant power to the States.

I could go on and say more.

These issues are complex, and I have made some simplistic statements about them. But it is often not accurate to say that the Constitution can be set aside by Congress and the individual states. The Constitution is limited in its authority and it does give the President, Congress and the individual States powers that are often not realized.

In reading the Constitution, one must be aware of the manner in which it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

[lazarus]

1) A judgment of the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which is what the Constitution allows it to do.

Yes. This has allowed the Supreme Court deny certain freedoms that the constitution is supposed to guarantee. My use of the phrase "set aside" gave the wrong impression. I'm not saying provisions are set aside in that they no longer are part of the constitution but that they are simply not applied to certain groups or in certain situations. See Dred Scott for an example.

The constitution is only as good as the willingness of leaders of nation to apply it. King's bad check analogy comes to mind.