Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[KingsGambit]

I also fear outright prohibiting churches from endorsing (apart from tax concerns) gets into the same kind of problem the OP here is concerned about: About governments regulating the speech and activities of churches. (I don't think churches should go around endorsing candidates, but I think they should have the theoretical right to.)

[pancreasman]

Ok, Frankly I'm very ambivalent on the issue. I can remember when certain groups or associations would not permit Jews, women or people of colour as members. Most of us laud Rosa Parks now in standing (sitting) for her dignity. I believe in taking action on civil rights issues.

Here we are with another civil rights issue but this time it involves churches. On the one hand I can accept that some (most?) Christians reject this expansion of civil rights to LGBT people out of principle. On the other I find it hard to differentiate these civil rights claims with those that have gone before. I'm really not sure on what the best way forward is.

[Cow Poke]

I think for mainstream churches with Pastors of integrity, I would have no problem with this. The trouble comes from ill-educated, nutty pastors of small churches. Is there a mechanism in place to deal with them?

This is a complicated issue here, actually, because the black churches have openly endorsed candidates for years, and gotten away with it. It's hard, then, to bring a suit against one of these smaller Churches for doing the same thing. But we're kinda getting off topic here.

[pancreasman]

Not really - it happens all the time. In fact, ever since it was made clear (maybe as long as 20 or 30 years ago) that Churches can speak to issues but not candidates, this is how it's been handled.

And, with the Democrats failing even to allow God in their party platform, and bowing to the GLBTXMPKT crowd, you don't really have to name a candidate - just print a paper with his/her positions in his/her own words.

I think for mainstream churches with Pastors of integrity, I would have no problem with this. The trouble comes from ill-educated, nutty pastors of small churches. Is there a mechanism in place to deal with them?

[Cow Poke]

As a liberal, I would be against such a possibility.

I'm thinking if you fully understand the Pastor Protection Bill (as intended) you would support it. Maybe.

[Yttrium]

My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid? In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.

There will always be people who want to try to make the opposition look bad. I can just imagine a couple intentionally trying to get married at a church that wouldn't allow them to do so, then making a ruckus about it in the media. Then comes the public pressure and the public officials stepping over their bounds to try to correct a perceived case of bigotry.


(Aaand I was way too slow typing up my response...)

[pancreasman]

Not entirely made up on this issue but here is what most of the conservative TWebbers are suggesting may happen:
1. LGBT couple goes to the church and asks for marriage ceremony to be performed.
2. LGBT couple is refused due to the moral standings of the church.
3. LGBT couple brings suit for discrimination against church.

As a liberal, I would be against such a possibility.

[Cow Poke]

Fine in theory, difficult in practice.

Not really - it happens all the time. In fact, ever since it was made clear (maybe as long as 20 or 30 years ago) that Churches can speak to issues but not candidates, this is how it's been handled.

And, with the Democrats failing even to allow God in their party platform, and bowing to the GLBTXMPKT crowd, you don't really have to name a candidate - just print a paper with his/her positions in his/her own words.

[KingsGambit]

Not entirely made up on this issue but here is what most of the conservative TWebbers are suggesting may happen:
1. LGBT couple goes to the church and asks for marriage ceremony to be performed.
2. LGBT couple is refused due to the moral standings of the church.
3. LGBT couple brings suit for discrimination against church.

There is precedent for people on both sides of similar issues trying to provocatively do such things. Conspiracy nut Youtube pastor Josh Feuerstein went to bakeries and tried to order anti gay slogans on cakes.

[Irate Canadian]

My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid? In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.

Not entirely made up on this issue but here is what most of the conservative TWebbers are suggesting may happen:
1. LGBT couple goes to the church and asks for marriage ceremony to be performed.
2. LGBT couple is refused due to the moral standings of the church.
3. LGBT couple brings suit for discrimination against church.

[Cow Poke]

My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid?

That's actually an easy answer. The more militant GLBTGXPTK proponents want TEST cases, because they want the Churches to have to accept their status. I saw some of that at the hearings in Austin last night.

In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.

That's WAY too logical, but that also came up last night - some of the Churches, most notably Presbyterian and UUs, were represented at last night's meeting and very clearly announced they welcome and support same-sex marriages.

Some of the advocates for the Bill used them as an example - "See - if you want a Church wedding, there are plenty of options".

[pancreasman]

OK, so would you be opposed to the "score cards" where candidates are asked what their positions are on certain topics, and their answers are presented on a comparison sheet of sorts?

(Let's assume that their answers are faithfully reproduced on this tally sheet, and no "cherry picking")

Fine in theory, difficult in practice.

[pancreasman]

So in your opinion, it would be ok for a pastor to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, but, not ok to ask his congregation to vote against a bill that would force him to do so if it passed? Is that correct?

Hmm, tricky scenario. I was thinking more of Pastors overtly supporting particular candidates. I'll have to think about what you're suggesting.

My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid? In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.

[Cow Poke]

I don't see a connection between the two issues. Pastors can endorse candidates all they want, as long as they don't accept a tax-exempt status.

OR they can accept a tax exempt status, and preach on ISSUES as long as they don't endorse a particular candidate.

[Cow Poke]

Just butting in with an 'absolutely' providing they dont tell their flock how to vote.

OK, so would you be opposed to the "score cards" where candidates are asked what their positions are on certain topics, and their answers are presented on a comparison sheet of sorts?

(Let's assume that their answers are faithfully reproduced on this tally sheet, and no "cherry picking")