Gay marriage and religious freedom: Why we're concerned

[bodecea]

Just another queer post... Nothing new discussed. Same old song and dance. Queer. Simply queer.

Well.......duh.

 

[konradv]

The Constitution wasn't written to protect the "Rights" of criminals, pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and other perverts.

It was enacted to "Protect" the Rights of NORMAL law abiding citizens from excessive/tyrannical government.

Are you claiming to be normal? I think the jury's still out on that one. You're actually wrong in your initial statement. The Constitution IS written to protect the rights of criminals. Perhaps you don't understand the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment"?

 

[del]

The Constitution wasn't written to protect the "Rights" of criminals, pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and other perverts.

It was enacted to "Protect" the Rights of NORMAL law abiding citizens from excessive/tyrannical government.

and yet it protects you.



go figure

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution wasn't written to protect the "Rights" of criminals, pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and other perverts.

It was enacted to "Protect" the Rights of NORMAL law abiding citizens from excessive/tyrannical government.

Interesting you grouping homosexuals with criminals.


Got news for you...the majority of us are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and are no different than your average American citizen except for one thing...the gender of the person we love.

 

[goldcatt]

The problem with the OP's argument is the failure to understand legal recognition of a marriage for purposes of property law, inheritance, taxes, etc. has nothing to do with religion - and religious marriage without State sanction has nothing to do with the law.

Churches or any other religious institution are and have always been free to restrict their services to those who meet their requirements. Many churches will already not conduct services for couples for a number of reasons - as bodecea pointed out. Same sex marriage will not change that. What it will do, and ALL it will do, is allow same sex couples to receive State sanction of their marriage for legal purposes. Like taxes. And legal next of kin status. And property ownership. And inheritance. see the pattern here?

If you can wrap your brain around the concept of legal marriage being completely different from sacramental marriage, you'll be in a much more rational place where this issue is concerned.

 

[Sunni Man]

Interesting you grouping homosexuals with criminals.

Homosexuality used to be considered a criminal offence here in the U.S.

And still is in many countries of the world.

Hopefully, we will make it illegal again in the future.

 

[AllieBaba]

The problem with the OP's argument is the failure to understand legal recognition of a marriage for purposes of property law, inheritance, taxes, etc. has nothing to do with religion - and religious marriage without State sanction has nothing to do with the law.

Churches or any other religious institution are and have always been free to restrict their services to those who meet their requirements. Many churches will already not conduct services for couples for a number of reasons - as bodecea pointed out. Same sex marriage will not change that. What it will do, and ALL it will do, is allow same sex couples to receive State sanction of their marriage for legal purposes. Like taxes. And legal next of kin status. And property ownership. And inheritance. see the pattern here?

If you can wrap your brain around the concept of legal marriage being completely different from sacramental marriage, you'll be in a much more rational place where this issue is concerned.

I see the pattern. They want the benefits that are provided to hetero couples.

Except they aren't hetero.

Tough.

I'd like to get the same salary as a doctor.

I'm not a doctor.

Too bad for me.

 

[AllieBaba]

If you want to live an alternate life style, then you need to accept that it's alternate. You don't get to change the universe so you can feel like you're mainstream. If you want to be mainstream, then be mainstream. If you want to fight the current, guess what, you're pretty much on your own.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm as mainstream as they get.

 

[konradv]

If you want to live an alternate life style, then you need to accept that it's alternate. You don't get to change the universe so you can feel like you're mainstream. If you want to be mainstream, then be mainstream. If you want to fight the current, guess what, you're pretty much on your own.

Who are you to decide what's alternate and what's mainstream? I couldn't find that anywhere in the Constitution. I thought one of its purposes was to make sure that the non-mainstream didn't get bowled over by the mainstream. How would you like your life examined and have others tell you something you do isn't mainstream?

 

[SGdsn]

You're right about the state forcing churches to marry people against the church's will....look how they are forcing churches to marry interracial couples, interfaith couples, and couples not of their faith. It's pretty horrible.

All this dumbass sarcastic answer proves is you didn't read shit.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If you want to live an alternate life style, then you need to accept that it's alternate. You don't get to change the universe so you can feel like you're mainstream. If you want to be mainstream, then be mainstream. If you want to fight the current, guess what, you're pretty much on your own.

Who are you to decide what's alternate and what's mainstream? I couldn't find that anywhere in the Constitution. I thought one of its purposes was to make sure that the non-mainstream didn't get bowled over by the mainstream. How would you like your life examined and have others tell you something you do isn't mainstream?

Bigotry is not mainstream.

 

[SGdsn]

The problem with the OP's argument is the failure to understand legal recognition of a marriage for purposes of property law, inheritance, taxes, etc. has nothing to do with religion - and religious marriage without State sanction has nothing to do with the law.

Who says you have to have a marriage license in order to own property or bequeath it to someone? We have a common law system where many of these issues might be automatic with a marriage license, but it's not exclusive to one.

Churches or any other religious institution are and have always been free to restrict their services to those who meet their requirements. Many churches will already not conduct services for couples for a number of reasons - as bodecea pointed out. Same sex marriage will not change that. What it will do, and ALL it will do, is allow same sex couples to receive State sanction of their marriage for legal purposes. Like taxes. And legal next of kin status. And property ownership. And inheritance. see the pattern here?

The point you've missed is why people don't buy that. When they view the legal system as corrupt and in the tank for gay marriage, they're not going to take your word for it. Hell, a photographer was sued by a lesbian couple in NM for not wanting to take a picture of their commitment ceremony...and the lesbian couple won! She had to pay them a fine.

If you can wrap your brain around the concept of legal marriage being completely different from sacramental marriage, you'll be in a much more rational place where this issue is concerned.

I understand the different just fine. My point is, you're crazy if you think there aren't some in the gay community who are willing to attack a church for not performing gay marriages. Especially in our overly-litigious society, I wouldn't put anything past them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Constitution wasn't written to protect the "Rights" of criminals, pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and other perverts.

It was enacted to "Protect" the Rights of NORMAL law abiding citizens from excessive/tyrannical government.

Quick question Sunnidiot, is a "normal" law abiding citizen here in America Islamic or Christian?

What kind of job and religion is considered "normal"? Do you fit that profile?

I'm guessing not.


As far as the whole gay marriage thing? Simple to fix.......just place 2 boxes on the marriage license, 1 marked "civil union" and 1 marked "marriage", because both should be equal in the eyes of the state for tax and legal purposes.

If the certificate is signed by a justice of the peace? It's a "civil union".

If the certificate is signed by an ordained preacher? It's a "marriage".

That way, the certification of "marriage" is left in the hands of the church. And yes, there are some churches that will perform marriages for gay couples.

 

[ConHog]

The Constitution wasn't written to protect the "Rights" of criminals, pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and other perverts.

It was enacted to "Protect" the Rights of NORMAL law abiding citizens from excessive/tyrannical government.

Quick question Sunnidiot, is a "normal" law abiding citizen here in America Islamic or Christian?

What kind of job and religion is considered "normal"? Do you fit that profile?

I'm guessing not.


As far as the whole gay marriage thing? Simple to fix.......just place 2 boxes on the marriage license, 1 marked "civil union" and 1 marked "marriage", because both should be equal in the eyes of the state for tax and legal purposes.

If the certificate is signed by a justice of the peace? It's a "civil union".

If the certificate is signed by an ordained preacher? It's a "marriage".

That way, the certification of "marriage" is left in the hands of the church. And yes, there are some churches that will perform marriages for gay couples.

Sunni man is an idiot. If the COTUS isn't designed to protect criminals as well as non criminals, why the 4th Amendment? Why do criminals still have rights once released from prison etc etc?

 

[konradv]

Hell, a photographer was sued by a lesbian couple in NM for not wanting to take a picture of their commitment ceremony...and the lesbian couple won! She had to pay them a fine.

The photographer isn't a religious institution, thus isn't covered under the 1st amendment. That's a civil matter that comes under consumer law. If you have a contract, you can be sued. if you don't fulfill it. If the photographer had asked the question beforehand, they can refuse to take the job. You just can't escape an obligation and leave people in a lurch without paying the price.

 

[Gunny]

Let me explain this for people who think the fear religious people have that their religious freedoms will be infringed upon if gay marriage is legalized.

This fear is common when it comes to states who legalize gay marriage through the courts, like the situation with California and Prop 8. See, religious people don't believe that gay marriage is a right; no, they really don't. They're not just saying that because they're trying to contradict liberals...they honestly disagree with you. So when they see a court "find" (see: invent) the right to gay marriage, they believe that that judge or judges have effectively taken a side on this contentious cultural, political (see: non-judicial) issue, and they don't trust any legislature, governor, or judicial body who would oppose the will of the people to then protect the people's right to religious freedom.

I think that's part of the reason why the Yes on 8 side made people believe that their religious freedom would come under attack if Prop 8 passed. Because the people reasoned, "well shoot, if they're willing to overturn the votes of millions of people who voted for Prop 22, they're probably not that concerned about my religious freedoms, either." The right to vote is just as fundamental a right in a democracy as the supposed right to marry is, and you can't expect people to compromise one for the other.

And then, I'd also say, there's a way for people to get back at a church for not recognizing gay marriages without forcing them to do it: namely, their tax exempt status. See, this is actually contradictory to what they believe, but I think there are some in the gay community spiteful enough to use whatever argument they can get away with. The argument would go like this:

"Churches are religious institutions, and the constitution grants them them free exercise of their faith. But the constitution doesn't mandate that the state affirm that right by granting tax-exempt status on these institutions. There are plenty of stipulations churches must follow in order to maintain their tax-exempt status, and they can't not respect the laws the state duly passes. Since this state recognizes gay marriage, it should be unlawful for any institution that receives subsidies or a tax-exemption to behave in a way that is discriminatory and non-yielding to the laws. As a private entity, the church may exclude or include whomever they wish, but public institutions should not have the luxury to ignore the rights of minorities."

They could very easily make that argument and find people to accept it. Gay rights groups already tried that once when it came to the Boy Scouts not allowing scoutmasters to be gay. The Supreme Court found that the Boy Scouts have a right to associate with whomever they want, but that hasn't stopped them from challenging their tax-exempt status.

The point is, the gay marriage lobby is trying to tie "opposition to gay marriage" with "anti-gay discrimination" (since to them it's the same thing) and deal with it the same way. They want to punish everyone who opposes gay marriage in some way, and it doesn't matter if it's at the expense of people's other rights.

Like I said, they got Prop 22 overturned and that was enacted by the expressed will of the people. They tried to get Prop 8 overturned as a revision and not an amendment (a case you don't even hear about anymore), and then took it to federal court and the governor and AG didn't even defend it.

People see the legal jujitsu being used to legalize gay marriage at all costs. It should be no wonder why they don't trust these same people who are willing to undermine the votes of millions of people to respect their religious liberties.

Let me explain why are wrong without all your smoke and mirrors.

The next step is churches being forced to accept gay marriages and perform them. The slippery slope you seculars and/or lefties deny; yet, seems to be VERY real.

Next, churches will forced to perform gay marriages. Last I checked, Christianity does not accept homosexual behavior and no, you DON'T have a right to violate others' religions.

They can take their little abnormal selves y'all feel so sorry for down to the JP and I could give a fuck.

But anyone with a functioning brain KNOWS this is just the next step.

 

[SGdsn]

Let me explain why are wrong without all your smoke and mirrors.

The next step is churches being forced to accept gay marriages and perform them. The slippery slope you seculars and/or lefties deny; yet, seems to be VERY real.

Next, churches will forced to perform gay marriages. Last I checked, Christianity does not accept homosexual behavior and no, you DON'T have a right to violate others' religions.

They can take their little abnormal selves y'all feel so sorry for down to the JP and I could give a fuck.

But anyone with a functioning brain KNOWS this is just the next step.

Um...what?

 

[goldcatt]

The problem with the OP's argument is the failure to understand legal recognition of a marriage for purposes of property law, inheritance, taxes, etc. has nothing to do with religion - and religious marriage without State sanction has nothing to do with the law.

Who says you have to have a marriage license in order to own property or bequeath it to someone? We have a common law system where many of these issues might be automatic with a marriage license, but it's not exclusive to one.

Churches or any other religious institution are and have always been free to restrict their services to those who meet their requirements. Many churches will already not conduct services for couples for a number of reasons - as bodecea pointed out. Same sex marriage will not change that. What it will do, and ALL it will do, is allow same sex couples to receive State sanction of their marriage for legal purposes. Like taxes. And legal next of kin status. And property ownership. And inheritance. see the pattern here?

The point you've missed is why people don't buy that. When they view the legal system as corrupt and in the tank for gay marriage, they're not going to take your word for it. Hell, a photographer was sued by a lesbian couple in NM for not wanting to take a picture of their commitment ceremony...and the lesbian couple won! She had to pay them a fine.

If you can wrap your brain around the concept of legal marriage being completely different from sacramental marriage, you'll be in a much more rational place where this issue is concerned.

I understand the different just fine. My point is, you're crazy if you think there aren't some in the gay community who are willing to attack a church for not performing gay marriages. Especially in our overly-litigious society, I wouldn't put anything past them.

And yet you dismissed bodecea's very valid point without grasping it.

Loving requires the States to legally sanction interracial marriages. Yet churches are free to deny interracial couples a marriage ceremony. Under the law, race is a suspect class with the highest level of protection. Yet for decades after Loving nobody has sued a church or other religious institution and won over refusing to allow a sacramental marriage for an interracial couple.

Why is this, do you ask? Good question.

Because in matters of conscience involving administering their own sacraments (unless life or public health is involved, such as illegal drug use or animal or human sacrifice) religious institutions are not bound by Loving or any other law requiring State sanction of legal marriage. Unless you honestly believe those evul gays are going to get away with repealing the First Amendment, that's the way it will remain. I am not familiar with the photographer's case, was this a suit for breach of contract, perhaps? A link to the story would be helpful. But in any case, it's a completely different analysis regardless of the exact cause of action.

Why? Another very good question.

Because churches and other religious institutions are protected under freedom of religion. Unless this couple hauled a random photographer off the street and demanded he or she take their photo right this instant, you're looking at a business transaction agreed to in advance that the photographer then reneged on. Which is not covered under the First Amendment.

I realize there's a lot of paranoia out there, but a simple bit of research could alleviate that for you if you'd let it.

Allie at least was up front about her objections - she doesn't want gays to have legal rights. Not a position I agree with, but it's much more rational and cogent than "ZOMG da gaaaaayz are gonna hold our churches hostage!". Never happened before, can't happen this time either.

 

[bodecea]

You're right about the state forcing churches to marry people against the church's will....look how they are forcing churches to marry interracial couples, interfaith couples, and couples not of their faith. It's pretty horrible.

All this dumbass sarcastic answer proves is you didn't read shit.

Shit is not readable.