eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit
Scroll down for updates…
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users. Behold the submission:
Coming soon to EHarmony — Adam and Steve.
The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.
EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.
“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.
The company said that Warren was not giving interviews on the settlement. But attorney Theodore Olson, who issued a statement on the company’s behalf, made clear that it did not agree to offer gay matches willingly. “Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business,” Olson said, “we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.”
The settlement, which did not find that EHarmony broke any laws, calls for the company to either offer the gay matches on its current venue or create a new site for them. EHarmony has opted to create a site called Compatiblepartners.net.
Warren had said in past interviews that he didn’t want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony — which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests — because he felt he didn’t know enough about gay relationships.
eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who sought to force the company to hook him up in an adulterous relationship.
Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their business. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.
***
GayPatriot West gives eHarmony’s capitulation thumbs down.
Update 4pm Eastern 11/20. Geez. Now, a California judge has approved a class-action lawsuit by gays against eHarmony. When it rains, it pours:
(onlinedatingmagazine.com – November 20, 2008) A California Superior Court judge has certified a class action lawsuit against eHarmony.com for discrimination against gays and lesbians in California. The news comes one day after eHarmony settled a case in the State of New Jersey where a gay man accused the company of discrimination. In that settlement, eHarmony agreed to open up a service that matches gays and lesbians.
That announcement had no affect in the California case, which is moving forward.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- GayPatriot » eHarmony Forced to Provide Same-sex Dating Services
- Leaning Straight Up
- California prop 8 - Page 2 - ChristiansOnline.CC - A Christian Forum
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » eHarmony Forced to Offer Same-Sex Dating Services
- Prop 8 Goes to Court; Voting, why bother? « Riggword Weblog
- eHarmony Goes Gay
- Radio Vice Online » Tolerant left heads to court - demands private business change
- Gay-rights activists ask court to declare the California constitution unconstitutional « Right Minded Online
- eHarmony Forced To Couple Gays « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
- Right Wing News
- So Wrong I Don’t Know Where to Start » Freedom Folks
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » eHarmony forced to sell toasters
- Tolerant left heads to court - demands private business change | Conservative247
- eHarmony Settles Lawsuit and Now Forced to Cater to Same Sex Couples « Trust, But Verify
- fiery dog » Hypocrisy of Homosexuals
- Webloggin » California: Redefining Democracy?
- Businesses and Civil Rights « lookingforlissa
- “The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob” « Fairfax Family Forum
- Jules Crittenden » Do As We Gay
- same-sex dating services Forced At eHarmony | Citizen-Right
- BizzyBlog » Couldn’t Help But Comment ….. (112008, Morning)
- EHarmony.com bows to al-Gayda « Jane Q. Republican
- But what if he still doesn’t like me? : Brigitte Pellerin Online
- ProWomanProLife » But what if he still doesn’t like me?
- Bent Notes » Blog Archive » A perfect case study in wrong
- The Obligatory E-Harmony Blog Posting…. | Political Byline
- eHarmony, etc. | BitsBlog
- eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services | Sex+Metropolis
- Should eHarmony be forced to offer same-sex dating services? » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- The canary isn’t dead, but he’s singing show tunes « Vox Clamantis in Deserto
- The Colossus of Rhodey
- dustbury.com » The return of “separate but equal”
- Arts & Ammo » eDisHarmony
- Eharmony « Muse Free
- eHarmony forced to offer homosexual dating options | conservativeintelligencer.com
- eHarmony BOGU’ed (Bends over, greases up) « Bear off his nut
- About Contact Archives RSS Columns Photos * About * Contact * Archives * RSS * Columns * Photos Michelle Malkin eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity
- Militant Heterosexuals Sue Gay.com to Force it to Offer Content For Straights (NOT) « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Enough Already | America Needs Me
- Enough Already | America Needs Me
- links for 2008-11-21 | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- Rights, Shmights « The Pugnacious Irishman
- The Mud Pit » Targeting eHarmony
- Spiritual Warfare is Real, but Don’t Worry…Be Happy « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- Finding a Roommate Online: It’s illegal to ask sexual orientation, race, or religion to choose a roommate. (Updated 11/21/08) | Ft. Hard Knox
- The Angry Gay Mobs Are Domestic Terrorists | THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS
- Justice and Freedom? « Doc Cochran’s Weblog
- Michelle Malkin » eHarmony and the tolerance mau-mau-ers
- al-GAYda - eHarmony Settles
- That’s Odd?… Gays Sue eHarmony- Ignore Muslim Singles « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity
- Dating service gets hammered by homosexual activist « Seeing Red AZ
- Schaschlik « abseits vom mainstream - heplev
- It’s Official. We’ve Lost Our Minds | Sick Up And Fed
- eHarmony Forced to List Gays | All American Blogger
- David’s Blog of Common Sense » eHarmony Forced to Set Up Gay and Lesbian Couples
- Obama’s Gun Grabbing Attorney General
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » Podcast: Obama’s Gun Grabbing Attorney General
- Zitate! « abseits vom mainstream - heplev
- The eHarmony lawsuits : barethoughts.com
- The Rainbow Mafia « The Underground Conservative
- Plumb Bob Blog » eHarmony Wimps and Caves
- Gay rights protesters disrupt church services - Page 5
- Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Post-Vacation Catch-up Links
- eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services « Top Daily Digest Reading
- Gays of Intolerance | Times & Seasons
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’
Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
don’t need any help to make you look stupid….not that its very hard
Follow up to 469: …and I’ll vote for it. Because, unlike the loudmouthed, close-minded, vicious, vitriolic, rage-filled anti-traditional marriage mob, I am open-minded and fair.
chapoutier, you’re usually much sharper than this. You must not have slept last night. Or, you really don’t know the definition of spite.
Of course I’d want to win my lawsuit. Regardless, the case law wouldn’t be valuable if I failed to optimally litigate. Frivolous?? HA! Please. Good luck with that.
I love when this is brought up, because then, by you or anyone else using this brand of “logic”, all the Polyamorous people need to be granted their “right” to marry just as many people as they want. Then there are those who commit incest and wish to marry their brother, sister, cousin etc.
Just exactly where do you think that line that defines who is going to have their rights removed from need be drawn anyway?
There is NO WAY, using YOUR LOGIC, that you can even answer this question, because you will be denying people their “rights” under the law.
So…tell me…where is that line drawn, then explain why that group deserves it more than any of the others you deem unworthy.
I am not expecting an answer. this is one of those questions that the supporters of gay marriage generally skip and conviniently ignore or decry as being “That’s not the same thing”.
Hypocrites.
That’s a chilling statement. Historically, the greatest injustices that this country has seen were done in an attempt to “best benefit society”.
So you feel that any law is legal as long as it is deemed to “best benefit society”, regardless of the rights of the individuals such law effects? I say “regardless”, because your definition of the job of the State never mentions the rights of the invididuals of the State
Yes. I’ve noticed. WHENEVER they want to dis something or register their utter contempt for something, they ALWAYS say, “That is SO GAY.”
I know for a fact that they have never, ever heard me say ANYTHING disparaging or hateful about gay people — not in their entire lives. So I presume that they must have somehow learned this from your people. I hope you’ll understand if I don’t offer you my thanks for transforming our culture with your political correctness.
Yes. Thankfully. My kind are going to a place where there is no war, no famine, no disease, no pain or suffering, and no more death. And your kind…?
(*in my best Jed Clampett voice*) Well doggies — now that sure is right nice. Here’s what I carry. (shows Stanford Ph.D.) Not only that, but I have a talking dog. Collie?
My collie says:
Well said and proof that we can agree on the logic of this regardless of political affiliation. We probably don’t agree on much politically, but I value folks like you and chap that can stick to reason rather than the “Conform or die” mantra we seem to be getting from others.
Stan,
Is our equal rights protection being voided if the government requires that all voters must own land?
Still waiting on your response to #461, AND for you to provide an example of a law or right that applies to either straights or gays, but does not apply to the other.
The courts have already said no. What’s your point in bringing up this non sequiter argument?
Conversely, you do agree that by restricting marriage to one man and one woman, we are in fact setting the line. In other words, there is no “natural” marriage, and marriage is a man-made concept that has been set at a particular position, currently one man and one woman in the United States.
mpChops: all voters ought to at least own a pulse. Give ACORN a call on that one.
I wasn’t aware that the land-ownership clause is still in effect in this nation. I believe it’s been replaced with “a physical address.”
Again, thank goodness for ACORN, who are able to provide addresses for those who have none, and pulses for those whose pulses are underrepresented.
This is just wrong. A private company wants to serve a certain type of customer with a particular type of interest. They should not be forced into a business they don’t want to be in. This is wrong. This is clubbing someone into submission. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM. This is not America.
This homosexual person could have started “Gay Harmony”. It’s not like they were prohibited from doing so. I wish this had gone to trial instead, but I realize that’s not a sure thing, either. But freedom of association is under attack here.
Of course there are reasonable limits, but – in the case of marriage – encouraging men and women to join in unions for life, raise children, and support one another financially *is* of best benefit to the state.
It is also the best (for finances and health) for men and women, for the development of children, and to continue a civilization in future generations.
So, in this case, it is of best benefit to society to support and encourage traditional marriage.
Of course, liberal folks have worked to undermine that institution through feminism (”marriage is oppressive”) and easy divorce (”don’t work at your marriage”), and by glorifying the trappings (i.e., big expensive weddings) while ignoring the substance of successful marriages (the biggest component being a strong, committed faith life).
It’s pretty ironic that you, upset with the rights of individuals who voted in favor of Prop. 8, should lecture me on what “best benefits society” and who it will affect.
In my book, overturning Prop. 8 affects the 52% of Californians who voted for the measure
The situation you wrote is this situation that the courts already ruled on is equvilent, in that regard. The argument given was that since anyone could theoretically own land, anyone had the ability to vote.
You argue that since anyone, theoretically, can marry someone of the opposite sex, no one is being treated differently.
why just one man and one woman? why not multiples? why not children? why not relatives?
you’re being very closed-minded and bigoted here.
Sorry, cut it off…
In my book, overturning Prop. 8 affects the 52% of Californians who voted for the measure is denying their rights as participants in the democratic process, is it not?
I already suggested eSodomy upthread. I thought it was kind of catchy.
Still awaiting your proof that there are laws or rights that apply to one group and not the other.
Dance around it all you like, but your argument is worthless. Equal Protection does not apply here at all!
That doesn’t even make sense…but way to ignore the question.
post 405:”They don’t choose their sexuality.”
We control our sexuality. If i had sex at every urge, i would be a rapist. we control our innate urges: it is called self control.
Just checking in to se if eaglehaslanded has provided PROOF that gayness is inborn.
NOPE. I GUESS NOT.
Well back to work
proof boy
proof!!!!!!!!!
So wait….you WANT all sites, including eHarmony to be forced to offer services to gay and straight clientele?
Because that is the only logical conclusion from you bringing suit against a gay matching site.
Whatever, this is getting tiresome.
As to the merits of this case, dumb dumb dumb. I don’t know squat about eHarmony’s methods, but I am willing to take them at their word that it was developed by studying only hetero relationships. Age is a protected class too, but we don’t make pediatricians see elderly patients because that is not their area of expertise.
Please note I am limiting my holding in this case to narrow areas where one can show a compelling interest for limiting ones provision of service to a defined class. This doesn’t apply to Tom’s Hardware Store down the street who just doesn’t like gays.
Don;t hold your breath, FM.
I am still trying to get mpChops to prove something he said.
Being a Liberal means never having to say you’re sorry, or offer any proof no matter how often you are asked.
Chap:
I understand two wrongs don’t make a right, but how is this different from the lawsuits being filed by gays?
I have no idea as to whether or not the person who brought the complaint against eHarmony felt legitimately aggrieved, but in any case see 493 above for my thoughts as to the merits.
Suggested name for the new site:
eHarmingmen
We get the point, Rick Santorum.
Stan, you’re making an intellectually dishonest argument. You’re saying that since a gay couple can have two straight marriages, they are being treated under the eyes of the law. That makes no sense.
I gave you an example of that very logic that the courts struck down. How are the two situations different?
Can anyone here answer my question?
What are the specific distinctions between a CIVIL UNION and a MARRIAGE?
so you agree then…this is another step to anything goes…polygamy, pedophilia, anything.
Don’t hold your breath, fm.
No one, inclduding Bueler, responded to my question which followed a discussion of somatic mutation.
All I heard then – and still hear – are crickets…lots of very loud crickets.
The country was based on the principal of minority rights. Essentially, the majority cannot refuse the rights of the minority.
The law is consistent.
Gay people and straight people have the same right and the same restrictions on who they can and cannot marry.
The law applies to all equally, so your argument fails.
Apologize.
Fair enough.
Now, the fact that eHarmony markets itself as a “Christian” match making website seems all too convenient.
There are several Islamic match making websites that dont provide for same-sex dating arrangements.
Perhaps then, we will then see suits against them too?
I understand you cannot make an assumption of intent here. But logically, this whole thing stinks.
There is a disproportionate amount of Christian and Mormon business’ being harassed, vandalized or financially intimidated as oppose to any other religions. Wouldn’t you agree?
If gays have their own match making services, why would they file such a suit?
We don’t have group rights in this country. We have individual rights.
Gay and straight individuals are treated equally under the law. A gay individual is subject to the same conditions as a straight individual when it comes to marriage — primarily, that (1) the spouse be a member of the opposite sex, (2) the spouse not be a close relative, (3) the spouse be over the age of consent and possessing the mental capacity for such consent, and (4) not be currently married to someone else. (My cousin was engaged to a guy some years back, and then they had to stop the wedding because her prospective husband ran into problems with restriction #4…)
It depends on the state you’re referring to.
But no one here has ever answered that question.
If we decide to allow gay marriage, on the basis that limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is “bigoted” and “discriminatory” and a “violation of rights”, how can we – logically – then turn around and say marriage is defined as any two consenting adults?
If gay marriage proponents are going to argue it’s discriminatory to deny marriage based on sexual preference and orientation, how can you logically argue it’s suddenly not discriminatory to restrict marriage to two consenting adults?
if my sexual preference and orientation tends toward multiple partners, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
If my sexual preference and orientation tends toward non-humans, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
If my sexual preference and orientation tends toward 9-year-olds, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
If my sexual preference and orientation tends toward deceased beings, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
Actions have consequences. Attempting to redefine marriage as an institution between two consenting adults of either or both genders, and claiming that anything less is sexual discrimination, will open the door for any other group – no matter how much of a minority they are – to demand their rights and sexuality be given equal status.
I suppose, ultimately, most of you all will be okay with that. But what about the rest of us?
How about California, for example?
Not to sound evasive on the question, but it depends on the state.
However, in cases where a civil union provides all the same privileges as marriage, it would really only be a matter of nomenclature. I would argue that in those cases, marriage is the spiritual word whereas civil union would be the legal one.
In all, the focus does seem to be more on the word “marriage” than the privileges given by the state. Many here have asked the more vociferous of the anti-8 commenters if they would accept civil unions entitling the same, but I don’t recall seeing a response to that from anyone.
Of course, I’m skipping through batches of flame wars, so I might have missed it.
UGH!!!!!
Of course.
Except, naturally, when the minority isn’t politically correct. In which case, the will of the majority *must* be respected and upheld.
Liberals always love to gloat that religious conservatives will soon be the minority – does that mean we get special protections, too???
Ah, i see. You’re under the misconception that law is legal as long as it is applied consistently. That is incorrect. A law can be considered illegal and unconstitutional if it negatively effects as segment of the population drastically more than the population at large, which is why the landownership law was deemed illegal.
I currently ASSUME that civil unions provide the same privileges as marriages, but I don’t KNOW this. Can ayone speak with authority on this?
Wow. Do you have any idea why this country was founded? It was fundementally founded because the rights of the minority were being abused by the majority. That’s why the oorginal settlers first came to America, and is why the colonist decided to risk their lives in succession.
and it was NOT formed so the rights of the majority could be taken by the minority. which is what the gay rights movement is all about…ending freedom of religion.
CJ,
At one point, there was a 5: the spouse must be a member of the same race. How does the illegality of that requirment differ to the legality of your first requirement, in terms of invidual rights?
RSR: You laugh (at least at your own rapier-like wit), but these are legitimate questions. If we are going to re-define what marriage is – in the name of not “trampling” on people’s rights – then why shouldn’t we also legalize and sanction marriage among 2 men and 1 woman? Or any other combination of multiples out there? Also, why not relatives? Genetically speaking, the odds of producing “defectives” from incestuous relationships are quite small, and in fact in-breeding has been proven in animals to reinforce good traits and eliminate bad traits. And with modern scientific advances, surely the “defectives” can be culled by selective abortion in order not to “burden” anyone.
I can’t however condone allowing children to enter into any type of marriage. They lack the ability to make informed choices that will impact their lives in such a substantial way. That’s why they need parents.
Oops. That’s what marriage is intended to do, isn’t it really? To provide for the procreation of the human species and to care for those children.
I can see a plural marriage meeting these criteria. I can see an incestuous marriage meeting these criteria (at least theoretically).
Homosexual marriage? Not so much.
editorial note: I make the preceeding arguments in an editorial capacity only. I personally do not endorse or condone marriage other than between a single man and a single woman.
eaglehaslanded:
You are the perfect, shining example of “tolerance for thee, but not for me”. Your statements in this thread are contemptable and beyond ludicrous. Your arguments about “our kind” being a dying breed are made from ignorance and most likely have been fostered by your (most likely) long periods of time spent on DU, Kos and the like. Simple research will show that this is still a conservative country and a religious, Christian country – despite what your indoctrination may tell you.
Your behavior on this thread deserves nothing more than the attention parents give a child who sticks their fingers in their ears and says “nya, nya, nya I can’t hear you” and holds their breath until their face turns blue. So now I shall give you that, and I would hope that others here would follow suit.
eaglehaslanded deserves nothing more than to be /ignored.
Marriage liscenses are granted by the State. Religion has nothing to do with this.
Don’t forget bestiality.
Yeah, they decided to do all that and create a Constitution so 232 years later people could define that Constitution as “living” and “breathing” and interpret it any way they damn well please.
The rights of the minority might be protected, but checks and balances and morality were also implicitly written into the Constitution. Now the legislative branch and the judicial branch are practically one in the same, state’s rights to determine things like abortion laws and marriage are usurped by activist judges and federal politicians, and the vote of the people is challenged if it’s unfavorable to a certain class.
My point is this: if people held a vote today in CA and voted to outlaw religion, the same people here complaining about the right to marry being denied would turn around and say that the people have spoken, and religion is banned.
I’ve seen enough – in this thread and elsewhere – to know how the left works.
Religion has everything to do with this. I bet you within the next 5 years, we’ll see a church fined and shut down for refusing to perform a “marriage” ceremony of a same-sex couple.
Oh, wait, a church in NJ was already fined. And the Catholic Church shut down an adoption agency.
So it’s already begun.
That will (indicative used purposely) never happen.
The socialists/existentialists/statists/etc. are cowards;
they fear the Muslims, and know full well that, if they ever gratuitously poked the Muslims in the eye, they would be hunted down and “educated in the error of their ways.”
Besides – see the wonderful book “A Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell for a discussion of “villains” and “mascots” – Christian, and some Jewish, Americans of mainly European heritage, and of some other heritages, are seen by the statists/socialists/existentialists as villains; whereas Muslims, and gays, are among the socialists’/etc. current mascots.
oh please, you know as well as I do that gay marriage will be the end of freedom of religion in this country. and that the gay movement wants this.
already churches are being sued for not allowing gays to marry (NJ)
same with a doctor in CA who didn’t want to inseminate a lesbian…after gay marriage they will be criminals.
Should it be legal for a Church to marry a gay couple?
once you go down the road to perversion…it just gets worse and worse….as we can see from the gays..
To the people who say that government has no place meddling into marriage, then WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RECOGNIZE YOUR MARRIAGE?
Why bother with something if you don’t believe in it’s merit?
Information is out there.
Wikipedia (if you trust it enough to follow the references cited) says the following:
Other states mentioned are:
* Civil Unions in Vermont (2000),
* Domestic Partnerships in California (2000),
* Civil Unions in Connecticut (2005),
* Civil Unions in New Jersey (2007),
* Civil Unions in New Hampshire (2008),
* Domestic Partnerships in Oregon (2008),[21] and
All offering the same rights as marriage.
Yes, Massachusetts is excluded as the list is focused on civil unions and not also the word marriage.
States in the U.S. with domestic partnerships or similar status granting some of the rights of marriage include:
* Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships in Hawaii (1997),
* Domestic Partnerships in Maine (2004),
* Domestic Partnerships in Maryland (2008),
* Domestic Partnerships in New Jersey (2004) (now available only for couples 62 and older), and
* Domestic Partnerships in Washington (2007).
Of course it’s discriminatory to outlaw adult-child sex, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discriminate against them! Your “slippery slope” argument could just as easily be applied when states could outlaw interracial marriage, but that didn’t make it any less compelling a cause. I’m not advocating anything goes, I just want two people who love each other and who aren’t hurting the other partner (as in a man-boy relationship) to be able to enjoy the same benefits conferred by the state to anyone else.
Are you talking about Ocean Grove? Because if so, that is a gross mischaracterization of what happened.
Of course! The freedom to discriminate against others!
Back it up.
Shouldnt it be LAWFUL for a religion to practice their beliefs without fear of reprisals if the act of same sex marriage goes against their beliefs?
Its so funny. Most gays HATE Christians (See the sexual toys on sale at Folsom Street fair…all in shape of holy figures). So how disengenious is all this…..
Im sure there is NOTHING at this point stopping any church from performing same sex marriage. THEY CHOOSE NOT TO. Something that WONT be here very much longer.
I think wackjobs like you drawing breath is a perversion. To each their own.
I would rather have seen eHarmony just shut down and refund any left over fees. Though the AG my sue for that also.
I agree, it should be lawful for a religion to practice their beliefs as the practicing of that belief does not infringe on the rights of others.
So should a church be able to marry a gay couple?
No, it isn’t.
From the New York Times:
That last paragraph is key. This was property owned by a church, used for services.
They denied – as according to their beliefs – a same-sex marriage ceremony take place there. According to the article, the space was:
The state decided it was discriminatory for them to express their beliefs on gay marriage and fined them accordingly.
There isn’t too big a leap from this to, “Gee, we want to get married in the Catholic parish down the street” and some politician saying that since the public subsidizes churches with tax breaks, they can’t discriminate.
I’ve made this comment before here at MM.com when In re Marriage Cases (the CA Supreme Court outrage) was still in effect, but the opportunity keeps presenting itself over and over, and nobody’s proven me wrong yet. So here we go again!
Back it up.
link
If – and ONLY if – that’s their doctrine.
As others have answered, it depends on the state. The bigger problem is the tax code on the federal level, which doesn’t recognize civil unions.
Thousands of couples are married every year outside of the church in civil ceremonies. The church never enters into the picture but they’re still recognized as having been married by the IRS. Re-write the tax code to recognize gay civil unions on a nationwide level and a lot of the controversy over the word “marriage” disappears.
make my day punk.
Dude, you’re a bigot. Just admit it.
I can’t speak “with authority,” but I do not believe that we have yet given in to civil unions in terms of Social Security benefits. I certainly hope not.
A big part of the deal with the government’s relation to the mostly private matter of matrimony is that government has implicitly recognized the social value of marriage and stable homes (child rearing) and given economic support to marriage, essentially transferring wealth from unmarried people to married people. That was certainly the impact of SSN allowing a non-working spouse to receive benefits based on the contributions of a working spouse, even after the working spouse had died. This is less significant in this day of fewer stay-at-home moms but still billions.
Until recent years, corporations also extended this support for marriage in terms of benefits, although I think all of that is now gone. Anyway, corporations should be able to do whatever they want, as much as I deplore their easy cave-ins to the fags.
As a non-married person (divorced), I have always been okay with some subsidy for marriage which ultimately came out of my pocket and everyone else’s. I regarded it as a reasonable sharing in the expense of a new generation, something that we all have an interest in.
But I sure as hell bitterly resent even one cent of my money going to subsidize Adam and Steve’s marriage. (Sure, they can adopt nowadays; but so can single people.)
The other important difference in civil union and marriages is that the government, by sanctioning marriages, is acting in its “expressive role” (a phrase of George Will from another context). It gives an imprimatur of respect to marriages with its legal sanction. The gay marriage lobby demands that the government express through law the equivalence of marriage and fudge-packing. I don’t respect Adam and Steve’s fudge-packing arrangement and bitterly resent my government giving them a seal of approval. (Similar, I bitterly resent government participation in “gay pride” events.)
Adam and Steve can do whatever disgusting deeds they want, and I am more than happy to leave them unmolested. Just do not ask for a subsidy from me or for my government to express the sense of our people that this is a good and worthy arrangement.
That’s not what the articles says. The articles says that the state decided it was discriminatory for them to not allow one group to use the pavilion and another group to use the pavilion.
The fact that they didn’t allow a group to use the pavilion due to their religious belief is a non-factor. The the act that was deemed illegal, not the reason for the act.
Do you feel that a church should have the freedom to marry gay couples?
I KNEW YOU DIDN’T SLEEP LAST NIGHT!
I agree with you. The merits are stupid, but the controversy certainly exists.
And we both know of jurists that value their view of societal merit more than existing legal merit.
Ocean Grove Camp Ministries voluntarily sought a state tax exemption for their campground business that was available on the basis that it made its property available to the general public. The second they decided to do that, they voluntarily subjected themselves to state anti-discrimination laws. Which they violated when they refused to host the commitment ceremony.
No one was asking the church to marry the couple, as you tried to imply. The couple merely wanted to use a space that, by law was supposed to be available to the public.
I’ve said it before, if there was language in such a measure protecting the First Amendment rights of churches, groups, organizations and individuals againsted being coerced, forced, or compelled to participate in or condone such civil unions, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Unfortunately, Mookie, many feel the way eaglehaslanded do: that we who disagree have to be forced into thinking like they do and approving of things we believe morally reprehensible.
Until folks like him are the exception and not the rule, I’m not going to sit on the sidelines and watch my free expression of religion and speech steamrolled.
I agree. Churchs should not be REQUIRED to marry gay couples. However, it’s illegal for a church to marry a gay couple in most States. If you feel this way, how can you support making such a marriage illegal?
And how far a cry is it from saying that my church is a “public venue” and, therefore, must allow gay marriages to take place.
Nice try, but no. The property was owned by a religious organization, not the state.
Bleh. Interesting, but just because someone sues doesn’t mean they’ll win. Thanks for posting.
You’re conflating the Church and the State here. A Church has no obligation ot participate in or condone any marriage(unless it gets public funding, which we’ll leave for another day). However, a private church has no such obligation currently.
Paperwork filed on behalf of a same-sex couple by a church that married them would be rejected, but neither the clergyman nor the couple would go to jail, and they wouldn’t be prohibited from performing a marriage ceremony.
A far far cry. Not even close to what happened with Ocean Grove.
Ocean Grove wanted to have their cake (get the state tax exemption on the basis that they would allow the general public) and eat it too (exclude whatever part of the general public they wished).
didn’t imply that at all….although the next step is easy to see.
whose law? what are the rights of the church? out the window in the face of the gay mafia.
The organization gets public funds. Any organization getting public funds has to follow state or federal laws, especially regarding discrimination. That’s just the way it works. They knew that, but the money was more important than the principals.
thought they were tax exempt because they were a religion??
No, I’m not. The First Amendment says nothing about church and state. What it says – and that’s all that matters, Jefferson’s letters are NOT the foundation of law – is that the state cannot establish a religion a la the Church of England. Period. End of argument.
You’ve totally proved my point: the tax-exempt status all churches and all religious organizations enjoy is, in essence, public funding. Therefore, my assertion that churches will be forced to peform and condone same-sex weddings is perfectly reasonable and wholly accurate.
“Currently”? As in, until we get around to it?
What part of the First Amendment is unclear to you people?
oh yes, and because people get tax breaks, or Social security…and give it to the church, then the church has to follow whatever the government wants…
nice trick!
And – yet again – you prove me right. A church is an organization, therefore, churches that have tax-exempt status will be compelled to do what liberals want them to, or be forced to shut down.
Anyone of you who says otherwise is a liar, or full of sh*t – take your pick – but either way, no one with a brain is going to be convinced you aren’t out to stifle religious freedom.
You said…
Hmmm….if this is not what you meant, so be it.
The New Jesrey law they voluntarily agreed to be subject to.
oh gee I should have added ‘on their property’
are you happy now gay fascist bigot??
That’s a bunch of crap. Almost all churches receive tax exempt status from their state of domicile. While qualification for this status usually includes some sort of ‘public good’ (I’m using very loose terminology here), churches usually are not required to open their facilities or property indiscriminately to the “public.”
So you do not support a Church marrying(which implies the legality of the marriage, and not just the ceremony) a gay couple?
Ultimately, you support freedom of religion as far as the religion follows your beliefs. You do not support a church marrying a gay couple, so you do not support freedom of religion even as it currently exists for most religions in the United States.
Why do you oppose freedom of religion?
so you’re saying churches in general are not tax exempt in NJ? unless they come to some sort of ‘arrangement’ with the mafioso governemnt there??
Yep. I’m bigoted against Bigots.
I agree with Father Corapi , who once suggested the total refutation of tax exempt status he stated that go ahead do it… nothing better than complete freedom …. then let the scum sucking anti Catholics go after us, all shackles would be off and we could fight back.
It is a special real estate tax exemption program that they voluntarily entered into, not your run of the mill income tax exemption that religious organizations have.
I have no idea why the government should be taxing religious groups to begin with, Chappy. The idea of the First Amendment was/is to keep the government’s nose out of the religion bizness.