If the Prop 8 case goes to the Supreme Court and they recognize homosexual marriages on a federal level?

hmmm.......God vs the gavel. to quote bette davis "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride."

religious freedom is a civil liberty.

gay marriage is trying to establish itself as a civil right.

they are two different realms of freedoms provided in the US.

this COULD effectively pit the system against itself....and bring about an argument of which is more important - civil rights and equality or civil liberties and the right to choose freely. if gay marriage is passed by a legal action demanding that the citizens of the US acknowledge, endorse, sanction, and support that action (which is what prop 8 demands in CA)........there could be grounds to force religions to comply with the law of the land. and as in the case of the most recent overturning of prop 8, it will all depend on the legal presentation of the laws, the judge's interpretation of those presentations and those laws, and how well the judge locks into position his findings. (vaughn is very good @this).

add to all of the legal ramifications the import PC has in today's society and you've got the chance of one heck of a battle on your hands, placing religion in a VERY precarious position of possibly becoming once again under the rule of governmental approval.

At least with the court hearing the oral arguments today, there's hope that : 1. Prop 8 will be overturned 2. They won't nullify those 18,000 SSM that were performed legally before Prop 8 passed But no one really knows, except for the CSSC. That's why so many people, legal experts, etc., are putting their 2 cents in to say how they THINK the court will rule. Personally, I'd love it if they'd overturn Prop 8. If that doesn't happen, at least don't nullify those 18,000 SSMs that were performed pre Prop 8. The LGBT community can always re try with another gay marriage ballot in the future. If the court lets Prop 8 stand AND nullifies those marriages, I will be devastated, to say the least. But, I see the historical significance & will keep our wedding pics, our marriage license, the broom we jumped right after the ceremony into the land of the married & show them to the future generations. I still have 4 nieces & nephews, & my wife & I will still adopt kids. I know by the time these kids are teens/our age, they won't believe that their Aunts & Moms had to go through all this rigamarole to get our marriage recognized by the State & the US Government.

If the US Supreme Court found Prop 8 to be in violation of the US Constitution, this will affect all states, not just California. Such a verdict would require all states to repeal bans against same sex marriage since such a ban is against the US Constitution, the highest law of the land, which supersedes any state law.

Churches are not and will never be forced to perform marriages they do not want to. Right now, churches can refuse to perform marriages for persons outside of the church's faith, persons not in their parish, persons not having completed their course on marriage, etc etc. They can basically give whatever reason they want. If a church refused to marry a white and black person, the reasoning will likely be something other than the color of their skin.

No, churches would not have to perform such marriages, though many would choose to do so. The State cannot force a religious institution to act against it's faith. If there were a KKK Church, they would not have to perform interracial marriages. My wife I had difficulty finding a Rabbi to perform our interfaith marriage (her family Priest had no such issues, but I'm not religious and don't have any relationships with Rabbi's). There's absolutely no way the State could force them to do otherwise.

That's not to say that the State needs to provide any sort of funding, of course. A religious organization, such as the boyscouts (they suddenly "became" a religious organization after decades of being secular so that the State couldn't force them to accept gay scout leaders) cannot use State buildings while refusing to abide by State and Federal legal requirements. That's why the boyscouts were kicked out of their State owned building in New Jersey.

I know the Boyscouts don't perform marriages, but the logic would apply. However, since the State cannot support any religion, there are few examples of religious organizations using State facilities like this, so for the most part, it would have no effect.

NO

Federal law and state law are 2 different things, marriage is regulated by state laws. I.E. back in the 30's and 40's its why people would move to different states to get divorced. The state they moved to had less restricting laws.

Now even if the federal government over-turns prop 8, only in California for gay marriage be ok, as the prop only covers statutes in that state.

On your other question the church being a private religious organization can refuse to marry whomever they want be it black and white, gay or straight...... now if you went to a local judge or magistrate of the peace, ( i.e. a county or state official ) and they denied you, then you could have a case.

Think of it this way - would a Christian church be forced to conduct a Hindu marriage ceremony? No. Because they're not adherents of the religion practised in the church. The same goes for homosexual marriages, it's against the church's beliefs and they can turn the couple away.

A lot of the Prop 8 proponents went round saying that if it passed then people's local churches would be forced to do gay marriage, but it wasn't true and they knew it.

Technically no. But it is indeed the pit against the pendulum so to speak. I think the big issue is the fact that the state (government) issues the marriage license of which it states, you are legally married. The religion preforms the ceremony, but it has no legal basis under the law of the land. However, it is pushing the issue

With Mormons, a Temple ceremony is seen as a legal marriage. So I believe that this is the primary reason why the LDS church is fighting it. It's a matter of the ceremony having been seen as a legal functional marriage. I know in Europe, LDS have to marry in a civil marriage first because Europe doesn't recognize the marriage as being a legal marriage. This means that couples who marry in Europe have to wait a year to be married in the Temple. And I know that we want to marry and be sealed right away, just in case something bad like accident and death occur. In the end, this may end up taking away the legal standing of a Temple marriage being legal in the eyes of the government, since we will refuse to marry SS couples. So in the end this right may end up being taken away from us as well and we may have to marry in a civil marriage and then wait a year to be married in the Temple. This is the main reason why I see the LDS church fighting against Homosexual marriage, aside from all the many moral and religious reason we have as well.

Churches are not required to perform a marriage ceremony to every heterosexual couple that want them to, so why would it be treated differently for homosexual couples? Churches are not the only way to get married. You can also have a civil ceremony if your church does not want to perform the ceremony, or find a different church that will (some are open to homosexuals).

And no, if they refuse to marry a white a black couple, as long as they have a legitimate religious reason (IE: it's part of their religion), they would not be prosecuted. Protested against, very likely, but not prosecuted by the government.

No. The Church is a private entity .The legislation extends only to civil unions. At least this is the way it works in Canada, where gay marriages have been legal for some time.

edit- I understand the passion with which you face this issue. But please believe me when I observe that many of the same theories were expounded in Canada,(particularly at Church) but in the end it all came out in the wash. Much like the Y2K bug none of the fears associated were realized. Hopefully it will be the same in the U.S., and if it isn't, well then Heavenly Father will help all concerned to cope with it.

Churches deny heterosexual white people all the time, if they do not agree with a moral issue. I.E. A friend got pregnant out of wedlock and is now getting married. Her church will not marry her.

Many churches will be glad to marry homosexual couples. There might indeed be an attempt at a law suit, but it would be a mostly losing battle I believe.

There is nothing that says a church must perform an inter-racial marriage now. Just as there is nothing that requires a church to perform ANY marriage.

Any rulings or laws that authorize gay marriage have no effect on churches that choose to not perform the marriages.

The only thing the courts can do is make the state and federal governments recognize and license same sex marriage.