Posted on 02/25/2017 2:39:41 PM PST by lowbridge
An LGBT organization in Ohio has announced plans to target churches if they refuse to offer their property to be used in a homosexual wedding. In opposing the Ohio Pastors Protection Act (HB-36), the group Equality Ohio announced that they would target churches, forcing them to rent church facilities to groups which oppose that church's beliefs. This despite the fact that all the Roman Catholic bishops in Ohio support the bill, and Catholics make up approximately 20 percent of the state's population.
When asked "if a church community has a church hall that they rent to couples who want to have that wedding reception in that hall ... should that church hall and church community be forced to rent that to someone who wants to use that building for something that's against that church community's belief system," an Equality Ohio spokeswoman said, "Sure, I would say that if that space is open and generally available to the public for a fee, yes that should be available to everyone."
This statement may seem innocent enough, but to Representative Nino Vitale (R-Urbana), the author of HB-36, it is a declaration of war. "If you have property rights and religious freedom, shouldn't you have religious freedom, at least on your own property?" Vitale asked in an interview with PJ Media.
Specifically, Vitale suggested that the ACLU of Ohio, which he described as "a large cash cow organization that exists to sue people," and which opposed the Ohio Pastors Protection Act last year, would target churches if HB-36 does not pass. "That's what they aim to do," he explained.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
One state which legalized homosexual marriage, New York, made a big deal of how they had a major religious freedom clause in their marriage law, so that religious organizations would not have to perform other types of marriages.
Remember the debate over "Don't ask, don't tell?" That too was a compromise to allow non-flaming homosexuals to hold jobs in the military. Conservatives warned at the time that this would lead to further abuse down the road. All our so-called "moderates" in congress went along with this, and just as the sun comes up in the morning, the next Democrat President went far further than the previous "compromise." ("Sell out" is closer to the truth.)
True, so true.
“Revealing their ultimate goal: destroying the Catholic church.”
Seems to me that they could just sit back and wait a few years, given the pope, the church’s coddling of Illegals and pedophiles, and probably much more.
It gets harder and harder for people on our side to defend them.
I am sick to death of these people and no longer care what happens to any of them.
As i've said so many times about the "cake" issue, "this isn't about cake."
This is about forcing people to defile their houses of worship with an abomination. They will agree to whatever "counseling" crap you throw at them so long as they get to defile your house of worship.
This is about forcing Christians to comply with Homosexual normalization. They will jump through whatever hoops you throw in their way so long as in the end they force Christians to allow their perverted ceremonies in their houses of Worship.
Not just the Catholic church - the Christian church.
We need to go back to homosexual acts being illegal.
This isn’t about weddings yet but it will be, just like we said. It will happen.
Bingo! It is only a matter of time before groups like this sue the Catholic Church to force priests to “marry” homosexuals. Funny thing is that no one would ever think to force a Jewish school to serve pork and shell fish in the cafeteria or force a mosque to admit women to the service.
Jesus warned his disciples, ‘Remember if the world hates you, it hated me first.’
Policy suggestion: Marriage is a institution defined by God and thus an ecclesiastical matter. The church cannot participate in any way in a marriage ceremony unless one of our minister officiates in some capacity. Our ministers cannot officiate a wedding that violates Scripture as we interpret them.
(Thus placing any use of church property solely within the protection of the First Amendment. If some homosexuals want to dispute that in court, the sooner we have that litigation the better.)
It’s about the homosexuals renting reception halls, not forcing churches to perform the wedding. That will come later.
I think this applies more to the use of rental facilities where a reception may be held and which are open for public use for a fee. In my opinion the main defense against this would be whether the space is closely identified with the religious nature of the church. If its main use is in the church’s ministry (for example they hold Bible study classes there) and only rented out on a supplemental basis I think refusing use on the base of religious objections would stand. However if the hall is used strictly as a way to produce income for the church through rentals for all kinds of events the churches very well could be told restrictions based on religious objections are not legit. Totally bogus, I agree but I think that is what would happen.
I wonder if there is a legal basis for marriage in Ohio.
The SCOTUS declared unconstitutional Ohio’s prohibition of same sex marriage, which prohibition is reflected below. The SCOTUS can find legislation unconstitutional, but it can’t create new legislation. The Ohio legislation below has not been replaced.
I wonder if the churches the LGBT organization wants to target have any legal basis for performing a marriage under the laws of Ohio except as a purely religious ceremony for church members.
Ohio Constitution:
XV.11 Marriage Amendment
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Ohio Revised Code:
Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor’s parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:
(1) An adult person;
(2) The department of job and family services or any child welfare organization certified by the department;
(3) A public children services agency.
(B) For the purposes of division (A) of this section, a minor shall not be required to obtain the consent of a parent who resides in a foreign country, has neglected or abandoned the minor for a period of one year or longer immediately preceding the minor’s application for a marriage license, has been adjudged incompetent, is an inmate of a state mental or correctional institution, has been permanently deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction, or has been deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by the appointment of a guardian of the person of the minor by the probate court or by another court of competent jurisdiction.
(C)
(1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.
(2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.
(3) The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be construed to do either of the following:
(a) Prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code;
(b) Affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state.
(4) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.
What about mosques?
You might be right, but if the church leadership has any integrity whatsoever, this gives them a clear opportunity to authentically help sick, narcissistic souls and enroll them into the congregation. It’s actually a scriptural calling to do so. Authenticity beats phoney liberal agendas, daily.
Mosques? Big & ornate. Great venues!
“Revealing their ultimate goal: destroying the Catholic Church.”
______________________________________________________
The corrupt church is doing a good job of destroying themselves, with their embracing of left-wing political causes; open borders; homosexual priests, bishops and cardinals; gun-grabbing BS, etc., plus a pope who is a left wing loon.
Not gonna work with Trump as president.
Given their disdain for the Catholic Church, why on Earth would they want to be “married” in one of them? Why not a non-denominational place, a public park, or any number of for-rent banquet halls? Surely, they’re not trying to create the illusion that their ceremony is somehow sanctioned by the Church? They’re not trying to gain some legitimacy to their union—they really don’t give a damn what the Church has to say, so why do they want this access?
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.