Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[ChrisL]

Just because there are religious bigots who condemn gays doesn't mean that gays abandon their own personal religious beliefs. Gays are just as religious as straights. Many gays went through a Holy Matrimony ceremony in order to be "married in the eyes of God" long before it was ever recognized by the state as a legal marriage. And yes, there are ministers of religion who married them because they weren't bigots either.

LOL. Disagreement with the left is ALWAYS bigotry. There are gay Christians, some even believe Jesus was gay, but the orthodox view is that it is a sin. Those not willing to marry someone into sin are following their principles. Something you apparently know little about. The bigotry is all yours.

I wouldn't dream of trying to force them to marry homosexuals. However, it doesn't mean I don't wish they couldn't be more open minded. It's a shame that the religious people are so exclusionary towards their fellow human beings, also created by God.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh, my bad. Were you being facetious? I'm not very familiar with a lot of the news on "gay issues." I don't really follow it very closely, as I feel it doesn't really concern me.

No, I'm not being Facetious. In Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruled that the company could follow their religious convictions in regards to providing medical insurance benefits.

That obviously means that businesses have first amendment rights. Can any other conclusion be drawn from that?

Well, I think that's wrong. Businesses should not be able to discriminate IMO. Why would they want to? Stupid business practice if you ask me. A lot of religious people are anal retentive. They really need to get a grip, stop being so judgmental and let GOD worry about who is a sinner.

It's THEIR business. If they want to run it stupidly, what do you care? And more important, what gives the government the right to say otherwise?

A lot of religious people are anal? What about faggots who can't say "oh, you don't want my business, okay I'll go somewhere that does?"

Those people should be taken out back and shot for being selfish pricks. Don't force someone to do something they don't want to do through the courts.

They should be shot?

Absolutely. The world is over populated anyway, let's start thinning the herd. A good place to start is people who believe the government is a hammer to bludgeon people with when they won't do what we want them to.

Oh the irony!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sure, but if what the other poster says is true, then it is more like a business (a wedding chapel) than an actual church that performs sermons, etc. I'm quite sure that one of those marriage chapels does not meet up to the requirements to be considered a "church" and would therefore be a business for the public.

Hobby Lobby made it quite clear that businesses can be be religious. I mean you get that right?

Oh, my bad. Were you being facetious? I'm not very familiar with a lot of the news on "gay issues." I don't really follow it very closely, as I feel it doesn't really concern me.

No, I'm not being Facetious. In Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruled that the company could follow their religious convictions in regards to providing medical insurance benefits.

That obviously means that businesses have first amendment rights. Can any other conclusion be drawn from that?

You are conflating two entirely different concepts. Hobby Lobby objected to paying for medications that they believed caused abortions. Hobby Lobby was not refusing to serve their gay customers.

I'm not conflating anything. Hobby Lobby gave businesses first amendment rights. That can't be denied.

Your failure to comprehend that the narrowly defined SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision did NOT give all corporations 1st Amendment rights is why you have just disqualified yourself from any further meaningful contribution to this thread. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just because there are religious bigots who condemn gays doesn't mean that gays abandon their own personal religious beliefs. Gays are just as religious as straights. Many gays went through a Holy Matrimony ceremony in order to be "married in the eyes of God" long before it was ever recognized by the state as a legal marriage. And yes, there are ministers of religion who married them because they weren't bigots either.

LOL. Disagreement with the left is ALWAYS bigotry. There are gay Christians, some even believe Jesus was gay, but the orthodox view is that it is a sin. Those not willing to marry someone into sin are following their principles. Something you apparently know little about. The bigotry is all yours.

They were running a business marrying people. Your ignorance is palpable.

 

[Esmeralda]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

Yes, there are very religious gay people. I don't know the exact scripture in the Bible that says specifically that being homosexual is a sin. However, lots of scripture is discounted in modern times because it is based on 2,000 year old cultural norms. There are gay people who are religious; there are gay pastors too. And there are plenty of churches who welcome gay parishioners.

There are two types of marriage; one is a civil union, a serious contract between two people within the civil laws of a country. The other is a religious union. Marriage is not a religious issue before God as far as millions upon millions of heterosexuals are concerned.

I imagine gay people who are religious want a religious ceremony. One of the most important reasons for gays to want equal rights as far as marriage is for their union to be recognized by the State so they have the same legal rights as other married people. It has to with finances, health, children, etc. I imagine the divorce rate among homosexuals will be no different than it is for heterosexuals. I know gay couples who have been together longer than many heterosexual couples I know.

 

[martybegan]

By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.

Hard;y surprising that someone with a gun fetish like yours would equate a simple permit to a marriage contract.

A right, is a right, is a right.

And I don't even own a gun, what I own is a dedication to the constitution as written, and a desire to see my fellow citizens allowed what it protects for them.

So are you admitting that you just lied about having a gun permit?

i used "my" instead of "a".

If you search back in my posts on guns I have repeatedly stated I do not own a firearm. A typo is not a lie.

This is the first and only time you have posted that to my knowledge.

What is a lie on your part is your "dedication to the constitution as written". Where have you advocated that slavery should still be in force, blacks should still be counted as 3/5 ths of a person in the census and only white men allowed to vote?

Amendments ARE the constitution as written, it is the proper method for changing the document. and anything added via amendment is part of the document. you are confusing "as written" with "original intent"

I suggest a civics class for you, you need a refresher.

 

[JoeB131]

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

Isn't that like saying "Coloreds should be happy with their own drinking fountains?"

Nope. If you are giving out this thing called marriage with a bunch of legal goodies that go with it, it should be available to all citizens, not just the ones that kiss the ass of an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hard;y surprising that someone with a gun fetish like yours would equate a simple permit to a marriage contract.

A right, is a right, is a right.

And I don't even own a gun, what I own is a dedication to the constitution as written, and a desire to see my fellow citizens allowed what it protects for them.

So are you admitting that you just lied about having a gun permit?

i used "my" instead of "a".

If you search back in my posts on guns I have repeatedly stated I do not own a firearm. A typo is not a lie.

This is the first and only time you have posted that to my knowledge.

What is a lie on your part is your "dedication to the constitution as written". Where have you advocated that slavery should still be in force, blacks should still be counted as 3/5 ths of a person in the census and only white men allowed to vote?

Amendments ARE the constitution as written, it is the proper method for changing the document. and anything added via amendment is part of the document. you are confusing "as written" with "original intent"

I suggest a civics class for you, you need a refresher.

Ironic!

Where in the Constitution "as written" does it stipulate that there should be no background checks for gun ownership? Where does it stipulate that gays should be denied their equality under the law? Where is it "written" that you must have a state issued ID in order to vote?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As was posted earlier the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce and stipulate that everyone must be treated equally by corporations.

If they deal in interstate commerce, you keep forgetting that part.

Are you saying that someone going to Las Vegas to get married would not be legally married in their home state? Marriages are recognized across state lines. This business is engaging in the issuance of state marriage contracts.

By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.

Hard;y surprising that someone with a gun fetish like yours would equate a simple permit to a marriage contract.

A right, is a right, is a right.

And I don't even own a gun, what I own is a dedication to the constitution as written, and a desire to see my fellow citizens allowed what it protects for them.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution – you owe your dedication to that jurisprudence, whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not.

And it's that case law and the courts which protect your fellow citizens from government overreach, when government seeks to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, when government seeks to deny women their right to privacy, and when government seeks to interfere with citizens' right to vote.

Moreover, although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

This, then, is the nature, essence, and process of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law. Government enacts laws at the behest of the people perceived to be necessary and proper, with the understanding that it's incumbent upon government to enact measures in good faith that comport with the Constitution and its case law, thus acknowledging and respecting the rights of the people; and when government acts in bad faith, enacting measures perceived by the people to be repugnant to the Constitution, the people are at liberty to seek to change the law, and when the political process is exhausted they are likewise at liberty file suit in Federal court to seek relief, given the political process has failed to restore their civil liberties.

Government will always seek more power, as is its nature, always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit; it is the role and responsibility of the people and their courts, therefore, to defend that edifice, armed with the Constitution's case law to safeguard their civil liberties.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No churches should not be forced to do that which is against their beliefs, however it's very sad that they cannot accept everybody and feel the need to be exclusive, instead of letting God worry about who will or who will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

it wasn't a church, it's a for profit wedding chapel called the hitching post.

Does an Army Chaplain have to preach about how abortion is great is the Army orders him to?

Does a hospital chaplain have to preach about the wonderfulness of abortion if he works full time in a hospital?

Religion stays with pastors no matter where they practice it.

Sure, but if what the other poster says is true, then it is more like a business (a wedding chapel) than an actual church that performs sermons, etc. I'm quite sure that one of those marriage chapels does not meet up to the requirements to be considered a "church" and would therefore be a business for the public.

Scientology is a church which sells it services like a business sells knick-knacks, yet Scientologists believe that they are part of a religion.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Just because there are religious bigots who condemn gays doesn't mean that gays abandon their own personal religious beliefs. Gays are just as religious as straights. Many gays went through a Holy Matrimony ceremony in order to be "married in the eyes of God" long before it was ever recognized by the state as a legal marriage. And yes, there are ministers of religion who married them because they weren't bigots either.

LOL. Disagreement with the left is ALWAYS bigotry. There are gay Christians, some even believe Jesus was gay, but the orthodox view is that it is a sin. Those not willing to marry someone into sin are following their principles. Something you apparently know little about. The bigotry is all yours.

They were running a business marrying people. Your ignorance is palpable.

woah woah woah. Did you just say that the Hobby Lobby ruling gave special rights to SOME businesses? That sir would be unconstitutional

 

[Seawytch]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.

Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.

 

[pinqy]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.

Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.

Yeah, that argument didn't work when it was used in defense of anti-miscegenation laws…that a ban on mixed race marriage didn't stop anyone from getting married. It's not any more valid in this case.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.

Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.

Yeah, that argument didn't work when it was used in defense of anti-miscegenation laws…that a ban on mixed race marriage didn't stop anyone from getting married. It's not any more valid in this case.

Loving vs. Virginia dealt with the state choosing one of two equally valid forms of marriage - exogenous and endogenous - out-group marriage and in-group marriage. Throughout human history various cultures, tribes and clans have practiced one or the other form of marriage. Virginia declared that ONLY in-group marriage was permissible. The State had no business in picking one form of marriage from two equally valid models.

Homosexual "marriage" has NO RELATION to interracial marriage.

 

[pinqy]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.

Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.

Yeah, that argument didn't work when it was used in defense of anti-miscegenation laws…that a ban on mixed race marriage didn't stop anyone from getting married. It's not any more valid in this case.

Loving vs. Virginia dealt with the state choosing one of two equally valid forms of marriage - exogenous and endogenous - out-group marriage and in-group marriage. Throughout human history various cultures, tribes and clans have practiced one or the other form of marriage. Virginia declared that ONLY in-group marriage was permissible. The State had no business in picking one form of marriage from two equally valid models.

Except it was the Commonwealth's argument was that there were NOT two equally valid forms. That mixing the races went against God's Design. That seems awfully familiar.

And did you think I wouldn't notice that you weren't actually addressing what I was saying?
The claim that homosexuals face no barriers to marriage because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex is identical to the argument that anti-miscegenation laws were no barrier to marriage because people could marry in their own race.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Except it was the Commonwealth's argument was that there were NOT two equally valid forms. That mixing the races went against God's Design. That seems awfully familiar.

Bullpucky. There were plenty of interracial marriages in American history:

Pocahontas was a Virginia Indian . . . In April 1614, she married tobacco planter John Rolfe, and in January 1615, bore him a son, Thomas Rolfe. Pocahontas's marriage to Rolfe was the first recorded interracial marriage in North American history.​

The State picked one of two forms of marriage, in-group, and outlawed out-group marriages. That was a clear overstep of the principle that the State governs society rather than creating society.

The claim that homosexuals face no barriers to marriage because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex is identical to the argument that anti-miscegenation laws were no barrier to marriage because people could marry in their own race.

No matter how much you shuck and jive you won't be able to make a facile argument into one of substance. There have ALWAYS been two forms of marriage - in-group and out-group in history. Some cultures favor only in-group marriages, Jews for instance, or Arabs who favor cousin marriage. Other groups favor out-group marriage - the Catholic Church was instrumental in forbidding cousin marriage out to the 6th degree. Many primitive tribes would not permit women to marry within the tribe, the women would have to leave the tribe to find a mate.

Men "marrying" other men has never been a practice. That's not marriage. It's insulting to call the practice marriage.

Rock Hudson was free to marry and his homosexual status didn't deny him that ability.

If it makes you feel any better, I too am oppressed. I can't "marry" my mother nor my daughters. When are you going to fix that "injustice?"

 

[Esmeralda]

Except it was the Commonwealth's argument was that there were NOT two equally valid forms. That mixing the races went against God's Design. That seems awfully familiar.

Bullpucky. There were plenty of interracial marriages in American history:

Pocahontas was a Virginia Indian . . . In April 1614, she married tobacco planter John Rolfe, and in January 1615, bore him a son, Thomas Rolfe. Pocahontas's marriage to Rolfe was the first recorded interracial marriage in North American history.​

The State picked one of two forms of marriage, in-group, and outlawed out-group marriages. That was a clear overstep of the principle that the State governs society rather than creating society.

The claim that homosexuals face no barriers to marriage because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex is identical to the argument that anti-miscegenation laws were no barrier to marriage because people could marry in their own race.

No matter how much you shuck and jive you won't be able to make a facile argument into one of substance. There have ALWAYS been two forms of marriage - in-group and out-group in history. Some cultures favor only in-group marriages, Jews for instance, or Arabs who favor cousin marriage. Other groups favor out-group marriage - the Catholic Church was instrumental in forbidding cousin marriage out to the 6th degree. Many primitive tribes would not permit women to marry within the tribe, the women would have to leave the tribe to find a mate.

Men "marrying" other men has never been a practice. That's not marriage. It's insulting to call the practice marriage.

Rock Hudson was free to marry and his homosexual status didn't deny him that ability.

If it makes you feel any better, I too am oppressed. I can't "marry" my mother nor my daughters. When are you going to fix that "injustice?"

Basically, you are obviously only worried about men marrying men, not women marrying women. Your homophobia is showing, LOL. It's the typical syndrome of men who are so insecure about their manhood, they go ape over the idea of men being attracted to men. Are you afraid some gay man might come on to you? Are you surpressing your own homosexual tendancies? Are you afraid it might rub off onto you? LMAO

 

[martybegan]

A right, is a right, is a right.

And I don't even own a gun, what I own is a dedication to the constitution as written, and a desire to see my fellow citizens allowed what it protects for them.

So are you admitting that you just lied about having a gun permit?

i used "my" instead of "a".

If you search back in my posts on guns I have repeatedly stated I do not own a firearm. A typo is not a lie.

This is the first and only time you have posted that to my knowledge.

What is a lie on your part is your "dedication to the constitution as written". Where have you advocated that slavery should still be in force, blacks should still be counted as 3/5 ths of a person in the census and only white men allowed to vote?

Amendments ARE the constitution as written, it is the proper method for changing the document. and anything added via amendment is part of the document. you are confusing "as written" with "original intent"

I suggest a civics class for you, you need a refresher.

Ironic!

Where in the Constitution "as written" does it stipulate that there should be no background checks for gun ownership? Where does it stipulate that gays should be denied their equality under the law? Where is it "written" that you must have a state issued ID in order to vote?

As long as a background check doesn't infringe on someone wanting to buy a firearm, it is not an issue. We have plenty of background checks already that the NRA is just fine with.

Where does it say that marriage licenses have to be granted to everyone, regardless of restrictions listed by the state legislatures?

The constitution allows States to determine voter eligibility, restricted by the amendments that pertain to voting rights.

Civics lesson given, you can thank me later.