Justice of the peace forced to marry gay couples

"It would be the same thing if a JP didn't believe in interracial marriages or unions between two people with a large age difference or between two people from different backgrounds." That's a whole different ball of wax Annie. There are no religions I know of in which interracial marriages or marriages with substantial age differences are banned. On the other hand EVERY religion I've ever heard of is against gay marriage. It's not like Massachusetts has only one justice of the peace. It's quite simple to refer gay marriages to justices of the peace with whom they would not be violating their religions. Why does the left always try to force religious people to violate the core tenets of their faith?

"There are no religions I know of in which interracial marriages or marriages with substantial age differences are banned." No, perhaps not, but in my lifetime, every objection I've ever heard to interracial relationships has been along the lines of "God never intended for certain people to be with other people, that's why he made white people white, and black people black." You actually hear stuff like that a lot down here in Texas, especially in the smaller towns. Perhaps a better example on Anniepa's part would have been to use two people of another religion getting married. From what I've heard, a catholic marrying a non-catholic is a big deal in catholicism. So if a catholic JOP is opposed to two people marrying because one of them isn't catholic, should they be allowed to refuse to marry the two?

Sorry, Latrivia, I missed your comment when I posted mine. I did not mean to step on your toes.

This is not about gay marriage it is about forcing others to perform their ceremonies. I know the Justice of the Peace is not a religious figure, but if he or she is a christian opposed to gay marriage those rights should respected.

True Tony, I apologize for being off topic in your discussion.

Ted wrote: "No, the way the laws are written now is equality. Any adult male and any adult female can marry as long as they both consent." I know your side of this issue likes to use this argument, but it's incorrect. Heterosexuals get to marry the consenting adult of their choice. It's not equality to only allow homosexuals the right to marry someone they would never choose to marry. It's unequal treatment under the law no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Are you then telling me that the first ammendment does not protect a Justice of the Peace? I seem to have missed the part of the constitution that excluded them. Forcing a justice of the peace to perform a gay marriage would "prohibit the free exercise of religion" if his religion is opposed to gay marriage.

If a couple gets married by a Justice of the Peace it's a CIVIL ceremony, not a religious one. In my opinion the Justice's religious beliefs shouldn't enter into it if something is legal. If he were a member of the clergy, that's a totally different story, again in my opinion. Annie

"He should not hold an office if he allows his religious beliefs to interfere with the performance of his lawfully required duties." Then that, in effect, mean you would ban Muslims, Jews, and Christians from being Justices of the peace. Basically, you would limit that job ONLY to atheists, agnostics, and members of fringe religions which support gay marriage. That my friend is discrimination. You are then violating the 5th and 14th Amendment to the constitution. "If a couple gets married by a Justice of the Peace it's a CIVIL ceremony, not a religious one. In my opinion the Justice's religious beliefs shouldn't enter into it if something is legal." Calling it civil is merely arguing semantics. I might as well redefine the word "is". There are MANY legal things out there that violate one's religion. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you can force someone to violate their religion.