How the new US gay marriage ruling could cause trouble for the WTS

by sir82 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  Here are a couple of ways that come to mind:

  -- Suppose a married gay couple, or even one of the partners, starts studying the Bible with JWs and decides he wants to baptized? Would the JWs require him to get a divorce? Wouldn't that be incontrovertible evidence that JWs do, indeed, break up families?

  -- Suppose there is a JW with a latent or closeted homosexual inclination meets another JW in a similar situation. Sparks fly, they begin dating (to the JWs, it just looks like 2 guys hanging around together) and then decide they want to marry. Of course no JW elder would agree to perform the ceremony, nor would they allow the Kingdom Hall to be used for the ceremony. Isn't that discrimination? What would the legal consequences be if the JWs refused to sanction the union?

  Of course, no gay person in their right mind would have any desire whatsoever to be a JW, but if there were some gays who wanted to "fake it" and cause trouble for the JWs, it wouldn't be hard to end up with situations like the ones described.

  Any other thoughts on how this new ruling will / may affect JWs?
  
• 

  Clambake

  Being an UBM the WTS has a get out of jail card for the likes of me. It’s that whole “ Spiritual threatening “ crap and they won’t bat an eye about granting my wife a divorce without getting disfellowed. Hell, they would even encourage it if she went to the elders with any martial problems.

  Hell I think they would be setting her up even before the ink was dry.

  Being gay poses no challenges for the WTS. Homosexual unions are not recognized and you would be booted out.
• 

  BluesBrother

  In the U K there are exemptions for objecting churches to perform same sex marriages. The Churches of England and that of Wales , for example.

  However, I am waiting for a mischievous "Gay activist" to study with J W and express a wish to be baptized but be in a same sex marriage.

  Would this not fall foul of the anti discrimination laws when he is refused baptism or the right to "publish"?

  The gov.uk site says that "It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: ....

  • sexual orientation
  • You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:.....as a member or guest of a private club or association"
• 

  Rufus T. Firefly

  This ruling will have no effect on the WTS.

  <<Suppose a married gay couple, or even one of the partners, starts studying the Bible with JWs and decides he wants to baptized? >>

  One has to qualify to be baptized as a JW. Such one as you describe would never be qualified. No legal consequence for the WTS.

  The Bible (and thus the WT) does not condemn homosexuality where there is no homosexual activity. It condemns fornication, regardless of whether the one practicing it is homosexual or heterosexual. Anyone practicing fornication gets disfellowshipped.

  Many JWs are celibate homosexuals, or they marry persons of the opposite sex. Letters from such ones (some even serving as elders or ministerial servants) have been published in the Watchtower and Awake magazines.

  I know of situations where persons of the same sex live together and act just like married couples (for instance, sitting together at every meeting and holding hands during every prayer), and nothing is ever said. If a gay couple wanted to badly enough, it could be done. But, as has been stated already, Why would any gay person in his or her right mind want to be a JW? (Or any straight person, for that matter?)
• 

  maninthemiddle

  i'm so tired of seeing this crap everywhere.

  The law does NOT say that Churches, religions, or clergy has to perform, accept or condone same sex marriage. Only States. You know chruch is still separate from state, right?
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Of course no JW elder would agree to perform the ceremony, nor would they allow the Kingdom Hall to be used for the ceremony. Isn't that discrimination? What would the legal consequences be if the JWs refused to sanction the union?

  That's basically the slippery-slope argument evangelicals of all stripes have been making in response to the ruling.

  In short, the law does not currently require that churches marry gay people no more than it requires that a Catholic Church marry a pair of Muslims.

  But what about that bakery that was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding? If you can force a bakery to bake a cake can't you extend that logic to churches and force pastors to marry gays? Can the government revoke a church's tax-exemption in order to force them to marry gays?

  Well, in a word, "no." At least not yet.

  Seems to me that the underlying paranoia is less about this particular court ruling than it is about secularization trends. It's not difficult to imagine a world where society would no more tolerate a church refusing to marry gays than it would it refusing to marry black people. We don't live in that world and it's possible we never will. Evangelicals do not have full confidence that they'll be able to stem the tide of public opinion, though.
• 

  blondie

  What about not leaving non-jw spouse of the opposite sex when one spouse becoming a jw? Or non-jw spouse wants to practice oral/anal sex?
• 

  Doubting Bro

  The intent wasn't to force various religions to change their practice but rather to provide equal protection under law (spousal rights, children issues, taxation issues). No effect from that standpoint and quite frankly there are a bunch of other fundamentalist religions that have been railing on about the ruling so JWs will continue to be lumped into that camp in the eyes of the public.
• 

  steve2

  No church or religious group has ever been required to marry anyone. Even members of the religious group who in some way do not meet membership scruples can be declined. With the marriage equality bill, nothing changes at all. It would be akin to a man who is not a JW insisting that his JW bride-to-be should be married by an elder in the kingdom hall. No way would an leder in good standing marry them let alone in a kingdom hall.
• 

  done4good

  The first scenario would only exist on paper. There are not many converts at all these days, and doubt many of the gay community would ever convert. I think what is more interesting about that one is what is says about the organization's self-declared "universal" reach by implication...
  

  The second scenario is no different with or without marriage: DF if they have sex.
  

  d4g