Washington State - Gay Marriage and JW's

by sinis 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sinis

  I wonder how this is going to impact them?? Is public going beyond "membership", or is it a "member"?

  February 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay "marriage" bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.

  Gregoire, a lame-duck Democrat governor who proposed the bill earlier this year, celebrated the end of defining marriage as between a man and a woman as she signed the bill on Monday.

  "I'm proud our same-sex couples will no longer be treated as separate but equal," she said.

  The bill makes Washington the sixth U.S. state to redefine marriage, in addition to the District of Columbia.

  .....The bill text states that religious organizations that provide "accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage" to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination.
• 

  Anony Mous

  Can't wait for the first gay wedding at the Kingdom Hall.
• 

  steve2

  What self-respecting gay couple intent on tying the knot would even want to do so in an environment that despises and declaims against their love? The JWs have no reason to fear a stampede of queers anymore than florists need fear a crush of honey bees lying in wait outside their premise for the poisonous nectar of the alluring Amazonian iris. Dandelions are far preferable.

  Give me a good old registry any day and, if you know what's good for you, keep organized religion far enough away from me to escape my projectile upchuck.
• 

  glenster

  Don't assume all churches are orthodox/conservative on the issue. A growing
  number are liberal about it (including the Presbyterian church I went to a bit
  as a kid).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism_and_homosexuality
• 

  JeffT

  Doesn't smell right to me. I can't find it just now, but the other day I read that the bill does not require a church to allow gay wedding. I would be very surprised if this is the case, as under the old law a church was not required to provide a wedding service to heterosexual couples that did not meet the church's standards. It's also a clear violation of the first amendment.

  A number of groups are gearing up to try to overturn the law, we may see more of this.
• 

  Sic Semper Tyrannis

  I doubt the bill really says that. The state is asking for trouble if they penalize churches for not marrying gay couples. Activists could then purposely go to every church listed in the yellow pages and demand a wedding ceremony while armed with the threat of a lawsuit for discrimination. More likely the bill provides for state recognition of same sex unions and keeps it to that. It's up to the churches to decide who they perform ceremonies for. Since there are now many churches willing to perform such a ceremony, this shouldn't be an issue. If you are gay or lesbian and the church you belong to doesn't want to perform a ceremony for you, then maybe it's time to go to a different church. Opening up religious organizations to discrimination penalties and civil lawsuits over doctrinal questions is simply poor logic.
• 

  james_woods

  I doubt that it really forces churches to accomodate gay marriage as well.

  I doubt that if on the slight chance it really did try to make this a law, it would not stand up to constitutional challenge.
• 

  steve2

  I'm inclined to agree with the posters who question whether the Washington State legislation can be imposed on organized religious groups. In my home country, New Zealand, which is known for its progressively liberal human rights legislation against discrimination based on colour, creed, disability, gender, sexual orientation and so on, organized religion is exempted from specific clauses. For example, when a religious group needs to hire someone for a position within the church, it does not need to interview applicants from other religious groups, but can confine it to members. Similarly, the religious group maintains autonomy over who can "use" its buildings. "Sorry Mary we won't allow you to use our church to marry Gavin. Next." And that's the way it should be. Mary is free to be offended and write letters of protest - but she'sgot no leg to stand on. Indeed, if she's got any sense of dignity and integrity, why would she want to get maried in a church that frowns upon her or her good man or something about the relationship?
• 

  LovelyEunie

  You know since the JW's don't concider themselves as a 'church' anyway, that actually wouldn't apply to them. Oh, the irony...