PA Legislators Want to End Anonymity in Church/State Suits »« Staver Lies About DOMA

Limbaugh: Churches Forced to Perform Same-Sex Weddings!

Rush Limbaugh has joined the chorus of ignorant and dishonest people claiming that if gays are allowed to get married, churches will be forced to perform them. Because liberals are just the kind of people who would do that, of course, so that makes it likely to happen:

If the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriages across America, then churches could be forced to perform homosexual weddings, even if they oppose the idea on religious grounds.

That’s according to radio host Rush Limbaugh, who thinks there’s a good chance of it happening.

“The Catholic Church can be forced to give away abortifacients and birth-control pills. Why can’t the Church be forced to marry gay couples who want the sacrament? Any church,” Limbaugh said on his top-rated program Wednesday afternoon.

“I think it’s a pretty safe bet that that kind of thing will happen. Among militant leftists, attacking organized religion is part of the political agenda, whether gay or not.”

Limbaugh continued: “If you had to roll the dice on it, you say, ‘Yeah that’ll be the next phase.’ When it becomes legal and a church refuses to do it, don’t go some place that will, sue the people that won’t. That’s just a political philosophy of people on the left.”

You want to roll the dice on it, Rush? You want to make a “pretty safe bet”? I’ll make a bet with you on. If churches are forced to perform same-sex weddings in this country, I’ll close up Freethought Blogs and hand over everything I own to you. If they aren’t within, say, 5 or 10 years, you end your radio show and give me everything you own. Deal?

This is just such a ridiculous lie, and it’s the same lie that was told about interracial marriage. Have you ever heard of a single church in this country being forced to perform an interracial marriage? No, despite the fact that racial discrimination is explicitly illegal under federal law. So why doesn’t that happen? Because churches are explicitly exempted, both under statutory law and court precedent.

Comments

  1. flatlander100 says

    Sure. Just like the Catholic church has been forced to grant its members church-sanctioned divorces. Un huh.

  2. says

    Rush should get a sitcom…
     
    Rush’s Mom: “Little Rushy, did you deliberately poison public discourse, courting controversy and dividing brother against brother for fame and fortune again?”
    (Rush bites bottom lip, mugs for camera)
    Rush: “…maybe a widdle…”
    (laugh track, freeze frame, roll credits)

  3. Synfandel says

    The Catholic Church can be forced to give away abortifacients and birth-control pills.

    Can be? I don’t see how.
    Has been? Nope.
    Will be? No reason to think so.

  4. Sastra says

    You know, I wonder: since faith is so dependent on peer-pressure, do religious conservatives think that people within a church who gradually start objecting more and more to discrimination are showing the effects of an Outside Force? The only way churches are going to be “forced” to marry people who are currently considered ungodly is if the majority of theologians, ministers, and members OF that church decide that God doesn’t think the marriage is “ungodly” after all. The revelation is “clarified.” The bigoted minority will then be re-defined out of the mainstream of their church BY their church.

    Maybe they don’t so much fear the law as they fear the changes in their neighbor in the church pew.

  5. RickR says

    The only thing more depressing than this bald-faced lie is how many people, even people not necessarily opposed to marriage equality per se, will believe it. (Which is why Rush trotted it out and forced it to dance once again) It just shows how woefully uneducated huge sectors of the population are on issues of church/ state law and the First Amendment.

    (This was one of the key lies shouted by anti-equality bigots during the run up to prop 8′s passing. That and “ZOMG schools will be forced to teach homosecks!!!11″)

  6. glodson says

    To be fair, they’ve had nothing to oppose gay marriage other than lies and fearmongering. So, this is nothing new. A desperate attempt to fight off equality and fire up the base.

  7. abb3w says

    Just like churches in the Southern Baptist Convention have been forced to allow black and interracial marriages.

    (Does public opprobrium count as “force”?)

  8. dean says

    If the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriages across America, then churches could be forced to perform homosexual weddings, even if they oppose the idea on religious grounds.

    Amazing. Many years ago, when I got married, we had a judge perform the wedding because, being divorced, I could not FORCE the catholic church (my wife’s church) to do the marriage, and we were, at that time, not same sex. (That is still the case, by the way). If they will be able to force churches to do their bidding, then apparently the gayz have gained immense power in the 30 years since my wedding day.

    ZOMG schools will be forced to teach homosecks!!!11

    I lament the fact that my boys, and I assume, most other children, do not leave school with as much information about sex as I (and others) did from my school. By the time I was in tenth grade I’d been lectured on birth control, sexual diseases, consent, “do-s and donts”, as well as long explanations on methodologies and positions.

    Of course I realize now (and did then) that not all schools had a janitor as talkative as ours was, but still…

  9. teele says

    I don’t see the Catholics changing their rules anytime soon (they weathered Martin Luther, and they seem to be willing to lay low until the outrage at their systemic child molestation passes), but the Protestant fundamentalist churches are businesses, and they are competing with catering halls for bookings. I really don’t see too many of them sticking to their morals on this when marriage equality is finally recognized. I also don’t see too many evangelical florists, bridal shops, tuxedo rental shops, wedding planners, or divorce lawyers turning up their noses at the pent up market segment waiting to be exploited. The churches won’t be forced by anyone to perform marriages — they’ll be actively fighting for the opportunity.

  10. says

    Synfandel @ 4

    Can be? I don’t see how.
    Has been? Nope.

    Allow me to translate from wingnutese … forcing all health insurance plans (except those taken out by clergy) to cover contraception (which the insurance companies are happy to do ’cause it’ll save them money) is making the CC “hand out” abortifacients (the morning-after pill and IUDs, for example) and birth-control pills.

    Always remember that the grammer of wingnutese never requires reality.

  11. freemage says

    There’s two variants on this BS that I’ve seen. In their usual disingenuous fashion, the fundies have been frequently intertwining the two. The two claims:

    1: Wedding-related businesses (florists, rental halls, bridal shops, photographers, DJs and wedding planners) who are of an anti-gay faith will be required to perform their functions for gay weddings.

    This is partially true. If the business in question is open to the general public, then there will probably be court rulings following legal gay marriage forcing them to provide their services to all comers. Of course, if they willfully limit themselves to ceremonies performed in their religious houses of worship (so, for instance, ONLY performing services for, say, Catholic couples getting married in an RC church), then I think they’d get a pass. Of course, they probably wouldn’t make as much money that way. My heart breaks for the bigots, here.

    2: Churches and pastors themselves will be required via lawsuit to host/officiate at gay weddings, regardless of their religious preferences.

    There’s usually a claim that this has already happened in other nations that allow gay marriage–and to a limited degree, this is true. Specifically, it’s happened in nations that have an official state church (like Denmark) and those rules have ONLY applied to the state church. Newsflash to the fundies–this is what happens when you get a state church; you end up with a church that takes its orders from the state. (Also, it’s worth noting that in Denmark, while any state church can be used to host SSM, individual pastors can opt out, and the church simply brings in a non-objector to perform the ceremonies.)

  12. cptdoom says

    Just pointing out yet again that Mormon temples are not even legally required to let the non-Mormon wedding guests attend the actual marriage ceremony, never mind actually marry poeple who don’t meet their criteria.

  13. laurentweppe says

    Maybe they don’t so much fear the law as they fear the changes in their neighbor in the church pew.

    Oh, someone gets it: truly this a miracle granted from above.
    Contrary to what many people around here like to claim, bigots are not stupid: they know the sway they hold over their churches is due to a massive heckler’s veto: take away legislations validating their claims and their power to bully the majority of non-bigoted believers into submission evaporates quickly.

  14. paul says

    dean @ 9:
    I lament the fact that my boys, and I assume, most other children, do not leave school with as much information about sex as I (and others) did from my school. By the time I was in tenth grade I’d been lectured on birth control, sexual diseases, consent, “do-s and donts”, as well as long explanations on methodologies and positions.

    Gosh, if only there was some way for a parent to make sure their child learned everything the parent wanted them to know about sex…

  15. mvemjsun says

    You may have the occasional justice of the peace or courthouse worker that is xian and feels they are being persecuted for having to be involved in homosexuals getting married. But tough luck, if they can not keep church and state separate, they should not work for the government.

  16. says

    paul “Gosh, if only there was some way for a parent to make sure their child learned everything the parent wanted them to know about sex…”
    I’m sure my experience can’t be uncommon, but If my parents knew enough to be able to teach me about such things, I would not exist in the first place. At least that’s what my parents told me. I knew something was up when I saw my middle name on my birth certificate: “Oops”.

  17. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    To be fair, some of them might be ignorant OR dishonest people.

    Certainly, though, Rush has never let ignorance or lack of honesty stop him.

  18. hermitboy says

    Now hold on a minute here. What is so outrageous about what Rush is saying? It has already happened. A religious group called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey refused to rent out one of it’s Pavilions to a lesbian couple that wanted to marry there.

    The State ruled that they could be sued by the couple and could not discriminate based on sexual preference in renting out its properties.

  19. Akira MacKenzie says

    hermitboy:

    No, the group lost its tax exempt status, as it should have. You can’t have a space that is “open” to the public except for a certain group of people and not pay taxes on it regardless what you think an invisible man who lives in the sky tells you about sex.

  20. dan4 says

    @”20: “What is so outrageous about what Rush is saying?”

    Well, what Akira Mackenzie @21 said…plus the amusing and ironic fact that Rush is hanging his ” churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples!” hat on the HHS birth control mandate. What makes this “amusing” and “ironic” is the fact that churches are EXEMPT from said mandate.

  21. hermitboy says

    Akira-

    Why can’t they? Whether their beliefs make sense or not, why can’t they use their own private property as they see fit? There is a big difference between public property and private property that is open to the public.

    This is why gay marriage scares religious people. Because suddenly it will come down to a decision of whether they have to act against their conscience, close up shop, or surrender tax exempt status. Many churches give 100% of donations to the poor. Losing tax exempt status will hurt those poor.

    The argument most gay marriage supporters use is “how will my marriage affect you”. Well, this is a good example.

  22. says

    .The argument most gay marriage supporters use is “how will my marriage affect you”. Well, this is a good example.

    No, it isn’t

    … the association has applied for, and received, tax exemptions for its boardwalk, beach and the pavilion under the Green Acres Program, designed to encourage the use of privately owned lands for public recreation and conservation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html

    That was a very specific and narrow tax exemption that had nothing to do with the church’s status as a religious organization. It violated the terms of the tax exemption and, therefore, lost it.

  23. Akira MacKenzie says

    Ah yes! The libertarian invocation of “property rights” and “freedom” as an excuse for society to suffer bigots.

  24. says

    “I lament the fact that my boys, and I assume, most other children, do not leave school with as much information about sex as I (and others) did from my school.”

    If you had loved them enough to send them to a Cath-O-Lick school then they might at least have been made familiar with paedophilia.

    I have felt for most of my life that mawwiage was not a good fit for me (a notion that has been underscored in various lurid colors by my several girlfriends who actually lived with me). I’m happily alone (always alone, usually happy) these days but gettin’ teh GAYengaged, just to fuck with various “PTL” vendors might be worth the doin!

  25. dingojack says

    hermitboy – It’s really not all that difficult.
    If you want to be a discriminatory douchebag, make your venue a private club, slap on some security, have membership forms, joining and ongoing membership fees, allow only membership by nomination of a member (or several members), even ask for referees and/or run credit-checks if you’re so inclined – then go for it. In private.
    If on the other hand your venue has the expectation that the public can enter freely, then sorry dude no can do on the bigotry front. If you’re open to the public, then you don’t get to pick and choose who the public is that walks through your doors.* If your provide a service (or services) for the public, you provide them for all the public*.
    Or at least that’s the basics, as I understand them.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * there are limits, of course, but they are pretty limited in scope

    PS ‘douchebag’ is in the Google spell-check dictionary!

Leave a Reply