as an exercise - ucc should review it's current policies in line with state laws

[PowerPoof]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

http://www.theamancioproject.org/About_Hate.htm
[web site for those who need a reminder as to why this subject is important]

as per those states that have current same sex legislation - is ucc set up to endorse and perform same sex marriages in those congregations and if not ~ why not... a good indicator would be to identify those congregations not yet ONA

additionally as part of a risk management exercise [litigation] those states that currently have specific anti-glbt discrimination and or hate crimes listed - churches and more importantly individual ministers, should be mindful of their legal obligations and risk to future possible litigation

are they welcoming both to straights and glbt's

are resources equally available

is the church prepared to and set up for marriages to same sex couples for when that state invariably signs up for ssm

at the very lease I'd expect a church's tax free exemptions to be lost if they flaunt anti-discriminaton gay laws

[JonInIowaCity]

Rob: FWIW, I know that my ONA UCC church receives several referrals from other churches -- including other UCC churches -- around this corner of my state from gay and lesbian couples seeking to have church weddings.

Churches have the right to choose who they officiate weddings for.  That was true before marriage equality and it's true now.  I'm not sure what legal risks they incur when they exercise that right.

[PowerPoof]

I'm just thinkin out loud - as to when that great day as all states have ssm legislation and anti-hate legislation [no exemptions for religious groups]


I'd just expect the same considerations as to those of our black brethren - who would resent any church in any state saying - "nope we don't allow marriages here on the count of your skin colour"

that pretty soon - churches that have the gall to state openly that - nope we don't marry queers here, on the count of we don't accept poofs - would be sued to kingdom come... and that any vicar that uttered such bigotry would be de-frocked quicker than you could say 'amen'


just looking at the State of New Jewsey for instance, who's just passed an anti-hate bill of rights act  and I would be suggesting to my ucc church board that we don't openly discriminate against queers from here-on-end and that all clergy we employ be brought up to speed on that - or they won't be working for us any longer... and further to remove any hint of bias I'd be further suggesting that we sign-up for the next round of ONA offiliation to prove just that postion in the face of any possible future litigation

[JonInIowaCity]

You seem to imply that churches violate hate crime laws when they choose to not officiate at gay weddings.  I think that diminishes the actual concept of hate crimes.
 
Like I wrote, churches can choose and should be able to choose whose weddings they officiate at.  Some churches marry anyone.  Some marry only members and/or family of members.  Some won't do interfaith weddings.  And many don't want to marry gay couples.  And frankly, I wouldn't want to be married by a minister who's coerced into wedding me and my husband...

[Denise Goodman]

Robert -- Most state anti-discrimination laws exempt churches.  So a church can choose not to hire a gay man or lesbian.  More significant for getting passage of gay marriage laws is that exemption.  Those laws and those proposed say anyone regardless of sexual orientation may be married by a civil ceremony but it's up to churches whether to perform "weddings"  which are then, in effect, blessings of unions. In the case of marriage, this is a positive exemption because it removes the excuse that churches would be forced to act counter to their beliefs.  Everyone would be treated equally when it comes to civil law and every couple wold be considered married with all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and those that wanted a religious ceremony would find a church that would perform it. Some UCC pastors, in support of gay marriage, have refused the current role as agents of the state and will not "marry" anyone including heterosexual couples, but they will officiate at union blessing ceremonies for all regardless of sexual orientation.

[PowerPoof]

Denise so just curious - that means there are churches out there still in the States, that refuse marriage on the grounds of colour - no we don't marry coloured folk here - this is whites only marriages in this church - it’s on the sign outside, can’t you read boy

and we only do polygamy marriages here - no monogamous marriages here

I somehow suspect that once the general populous get tired of the general hypocrisy at best or worse the downright homophobia - most so-called uprighteous religious folks will be forced to change their church rules - if not for anything else they'll become desolate backwaters 'cause most other churches will eventually sell out for the pink dollar - if nothing else their pecuniary greed alone will override their petty moral standards

[PowerPoof]

joniniowacity... no not per say [ violate hate crimes 'cause they don't officiate gay weddings ] but because of the reasons they don't allow gay marriages - 'cause they believe glbt folk are sinful - and it's that that violates hate crime laws

accordingly - churches that don't allow glbt marriages are doing it because of prejudice and dissipating hate beliefs to maintain those positions of faith that instil such a position

and 'sides quite often - not all members in said congregation get to decide the stated position ~ so where's the democracy and in the end who gets to decide the position of said denomination on glbt ssm - their clergy

that's why the glbt lobby need now to put a light on the vile being taught at some seminaries and if necessary go after those seminaries that persist in such teachings - and trust me babe ~ a few million dollar fines, and you'll be surprised how soon the homophobes will begin to see the light [integrity being what it is, for most of these hypocrites as being only as far as their bank balance].

[JonInIowaCity]

Denise so just curious - that means there are churches out there still in the States, that refuse marriage on the grounds of colour - no we don't marry coloured folk here - this is whites only marriages in this church - it’s on the sign outside, can’t you read boy

and we only do polygamy marriages here - no monogamous marriages here

I somehow suspect that once the general populous get tired of the general hypocrisy at best or worse the downright homophobia - most so-called unrighteous religious folks will be forced to change their church rules - if not for anything else they'll become desolate backwaters 'cause most other churches will eventually sell out for the pink dollar - if nothing else their pecuniary greed alone will override their petty moral standards

I doubt the churches would be that blatant, but churches could ultimately set up policy to wed only people by a certain race or color.

Same with plural marriages, though those would be spiritual weddings only.  Such marriages aren't legal anywhere in the states.

[JonInIowaCity]

Rob: It’s not a hate crime to believe that homosexuality is sinful.  Just like it's not a hate crime to believe that interracial dating is sinful or wrong.  Or Judiasm.  Or whatever. 

I don't think you understand the concept of hate crimes.

[PowerPoof]

I doubt the churches would be that blatant, but churches could ultimately set up policy to wed only people by a certain race or color.

I suspect you'll find any church found doin that would be violating federal statutes regarding 'racial discrimination' and the resident vicar would be facing a year or two in a federal penitentiary

[JonInIowaCity]

How is it legal for the Catholic church to discriminate against hiring female priests?  Is that not a violation of federal antidiscrimination law?  Denise or others: feel free to educate me if I'm incorrect with this.

[PowerPoof]

you're right - not a hate crime to believe it per say... but it is - if it's publically done or a person/s or group disseminate information and or broadcast in a forum or gathering [and under any layperson’s understanding a pulpit in my opinion should met those criteria]

and particularly so if as a consequence actions occur that result in loss of liberty infringement of civil rights and or violence to an individual or fear of violence occurring as a result for said individual

[PowerPoof]

it's a position of faith for micks... and it's backed up by tradition [key] and linked critically to their belief structure - ordination is a rite in that church - employment however isn't - however for example - if they try it on with Catholic organisations that are affiliated with the church but not a church in itself - say Vinnies or a Job club - they'll be hit hard by current laws regarding discrimination against hiring women, ladies who are pregnant, ladies who are black and the rest ~ currently they're getting away with it with gays in schools but prejudice takes a few generations to die and after a few almighty litigation losses in the courts… re: my comments regarding integrity and maybe a new pope or two and whammo - all of a sudden you'll see a new encyclical of infallibility being written –  “the Pope reckons it's ok to be gay”

[PowerPoof]

it would be an interesting test case though regarding ordination of women in an affiliated denomination like ucc where one congregation or district says that no they won't ordain women [whereupon the parent body says ok to ordain women] - I think in that situation I'd be licking my lips if I were, an anti-discrimination specialist litigant/solicitor

I'd give it a go - and probably win

whereby I'd advice my client further to pursue civil damages for personal insult and loss of livelihood and damage to reputation [that's where the big money is] against organisations and individuals

[Denise Goodman]

Robert -- As I wrote before, churches are exempt from anti-discrimination laws.  They are not exempt if they accept federal funds.  So, for example, a Catholic charity that accepts federal funds cannot refuse (where state laws allow) adoption to same-sex parents.  In some cases, these agencies have decided either to stop handling adoptions or stop receiving federal funds.  There may very well be a handful of churches with white nationalist leanings that would not marry a couple of color and a few more that would not perform an interracial marriage.  They have that right and no litigation can force them to do otherwise.  But I suspect they are a tiny, tiny minority.

You wrote something assuming that clergy determine whether a church will allow a gay wedding.  Not in the UCC. Congregations make the decision whether or not to be Open and Affirming.  In most if not all cases, clergy are supportive or, more likely, strong advocates but it is lay people who make the decision.  Clergy who don't approve of gay marriage either would not apply to pastor an ONA church or would not be considered for employment at an ONA church.

As I also wrote before, it is this exemption of churches  from gay marriage laws that makes one of the strongest cases for such laws -- churches cannot argue that they would be forced to do something they believe is wrong.  Instead, equality of marriage is considered a civil issue.  Where gay marriage is now allowed in some states, both heterosexual and homosexual couples can be officially married in civil ceremonies and, as a result, have all the legal benefits of marriage.  Churches have the freedom to decide, then, whether they will allow religious blessings of those unions in their congregations.

This is why some clergy (in states that do not allow gay marriage) now refuse to perform any official marriages, maintaining (correctly, I believe) that to do so makes them an instrument of discrimination because they cannot provide the same service to all couples, regardless of gender mix.  They will bless any union but require heterosexual couples to have a civil ceremony to gain legal marriage rights.