NY Gay Marriage Baggage

Isn't the current fight now over the exemptions for religous organizations? Basically allowing churches/synogouges/mosques/temples to deny performing the ceremony, or recognizing the civil marriage as valid? It probably includes exemptions for religously affiliated organziations such as Knights of Columbus.

You get to pass Go and collect $200. I am amazed!!! :)

I almost lost hope! :):):)
 
Listen I have shown you in the Bible where God does not endorse homosexualtiy. I do not advocate violence toward homosexuals nor do I hate them. But they can not say that the bible supports their lifestyle. It does not. So yes I have proven the bible takes a dim view toward homosexuals. That was no great stretch to do anyway. Everyone knows what the bible says about it. Its been reapeated many times over.

Your mad because you cant take the bible and prove me wrong. I am sorry but the bible does not support the current feel good everybody is okay mood. If you are gay and you do not repent you will go to hell. Its that simple. I do not want anyone to go to hell but I will not let anyone say that the bible supports their lifestyle when it plainly does not.

when i say the bible supports gays, i'll let you know, otay?

the bible was written by men and is every bit as much an expression of god's will as this month's copy of mechanix illustrated.

if it brings you comfort, good on you.

I see where our disconnect is. I see the bible as the Word of God. Not just a book and not concieved by man. If you look at the bible that way then yes you will not ever understand what I am trying to tell you. Thats okay. I will pray for you.

thanks
 
Isn't the current fight now over the exemptions for religous organizations?

No.

Basically allowing churches/synogouges/mosques/temples to deny performing the ceremony, or recognizing the civil marriage as valid? It probably includes exemptions for religously affiliated organziations such as Knights of Columbus.


It's already in the law that has been proposed.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
20 PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE
21 EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS
22 LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER
23 LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
24 EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
25 IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
26 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO
27 THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.​


Bills


>>>>

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.
 
Isn't the current fight now over the exemptions for religous organizations?

No.

Basically allowing churches/synogouges/mosques/temples to deny performing the ceremony, or recognizing the civil marriage as valid? It probably includes exemptions for religously affiliated organziations such as Knights of Columbus.


It's already in the law that has been proposed.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
20 PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE
21 EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS
22 LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER
23 LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
24 EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
25 IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
26 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO
27 THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.​


Bills


>>>>

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.


The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>
 
No.




It's already in the law that has been proposed.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
20 PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE
21 EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS
22 LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER
23 LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
24 EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
25 IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
26 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO
27 THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.​


Bills


>>>>

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.


The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>


There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.
 
Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.


The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>


There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.

Is there a link for this? This would be different than the law in question as it was a private citizen denying a service, not an organization.
 
The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>


There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.

Is there a link for this? This would be different than the law in question as it was a private citizen denying a service, not an organization.

http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/04/christian-photographer-accused-of-discriminating-against-lesbian-couple/

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf
 
Last edited:
Again somebody who does not read their bible.

St.John 1:1 In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

All I am doing is proving the the bible does not endorse gay marriage. I do not claim to be God. When you make statments like that it make you look ignorant.

all you're doing is flapping your gums; you've proven nothing


Listen I have shown you in the Bible where God does not endorse homosexualtiy. I do not advocate violence toward homosexuals nor do I hate them. But they can not say that the bible supports their lifestyle. It does not. So yes I have proven the bible takes a dim view toward homosexuals. That was no great stretch to do anyway. Everyone knows what the bible says about it. Its been reapeated many times over.

Your mad because you cant take the bible and prove me wrong. I am sorry but the bible does not support the current feel good everybody is okay mood. If you are gay and you do not repent you will go to hell. Its that simple. I do not want anyone to go to hell but I will not let anyone say that the bible supports their lifestyle when it plainly does not.

Okay......here ya go, Bible verses are also provided.........


David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

It's from a scholar site called Sacred Texts Archive. Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

As far as gays getting married? Well, the short answer to that is that marriage liscences could have 2 boxes, one for civil ceremonies (a la JP), and one for marriages. The only person that could sign the certificate as a marriage would be only an ordained minister.

However.......civil union or marriage, it all should carry the same legal rights, benefits and tax rates.

But, if you are gay and can find a church to marry you? Go for it.
 
But, if you are gay and can find a church to marry you? Go for it.

Can't you queers just go to Hedonism II, or Martha's Vinyard, or some other Island of Depravity to pretend to be normal?

Actually, I believe the places you are referring to are Fire Island in NY, and Provincetown in MA.

Besides.......Hedonism II and Martha's Vineyard are both heterosexual places. I've been to one.
 
There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.

Is there a link for this? This would be different than the law in question as it was a private citizen denying a service, not an organization.

http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/04/christian-photographer-accused-of-discriminating-against-lesbian-couple/

Thanks for the link. "Human Rights Commissions" make me very very nervous. This stuff should be handled by a regular court if you think you have a case, or a criminal court if it is determined to be a crime.

Do you really want to force a person to take pictures at your wedding if they don't want to?
 
But, if you are gay and can find a church to marry you? Go for it.

Can't you queers just go to Hedonism II, or Martha's Vinyard, or some other Island of Depravity to pretend to be normal?

Actually, I believe the places you are referring to are Fire Island in NY, and Provincetown in MA.

Besides.......Hedonism II and Martha's Vineyard are both heterosexual places. I've been to one.

I confess to not being very ashamed about my ignorance of Where Queers Gravitate.

My point is, if Harry Chested and Brucey Lovelace want to play house a bugger themselves into oblivion, then why not begin their own goddamn church, where all queers could get married?
 
There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.

Is there a link for this? This would be different than the law in question as it was a private citizen denying a service, not an organization.

http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/04/christian-photographer-accused-of-discriminating-against-lesbian-couple/

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

From the legal pleading:

"Ms. Willock was shocked, angered and saddened to receive Ms. Elaine Huguenin's
response. Ms. Willock was also fearful, because she considered the opposition to same-sex to be
so blatant. Ms. Willock thought that Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response was an expression of
hatred at what Ms. Willock had hoped to be a happy occasion. [Testimony of Willock]"

Are you fucking kidding me?
 
Can't you queers just go to Hedonism II, or Martha's Vinyard, or some other Island of Depravity to pretend to be normal?

Actually, I believe the places you are referring to are Fire Island in NY, and Provincetown in MA.

Besides.......Hedonism II and Martha's Vineyard are both heterosexual places. I've been to one.

I confess to not being very ashamed about my ignorance of Where Queers Gravitate.

My point is, if Harry Chested and Brucey Lovelace want to play house a bugger themselves into oblivion, then why not begin their own goddamn church, where all queers could get married?

I was taken up to Provincetown by a girlfriend I had in RI. Nice place actually........good food, good people, and lemmie tell ya........wanna know what it feels like to be publicly gay? Go to Provincetown with a girlfriend or wife, and walk down the street holding hands. It's pretty much the same reaction that straights have when they see a gay couple walking down the street.

As far as needing to start their own church? Well........again..........there are solutions for that from churches ALREADY FORMED IN THE US!

Some of 'em even have gay preachers.
 
Gays forming 'their own' church does nothing to secure the rights they seek.

But then again I've grown accustomed to Samson's neverending supply of ignorant ass commentary.
 
No, those rights (legal, taxes, etc) are given by the Federal Government. Personally? I think same sex unions via JP (minister if you can get it), should be given the same rights and privledges as those of traditional marriage.

I don't care if they get a sanctioned union or not, they should have the same legal rights as hetero couples.

And........if you're against gay marriage, don't marry someone who is gay. Nobody is "forcing" you into anything.
 
Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.


The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>


There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.



1. The posting in #48 which the posting of the law was in answer to was religious organizations, a for profit photography business is not a "religious organization" form under Chapter 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.


2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.


3. The law in New Mexico (28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice) States:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; "​
New Mexico Compilation Commission - Search Statutes, Rules and Decisions



>>>>
 
The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>


There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.



1. The posting in #48 which the posting of the law was in answer to was religious organizations, a for profit photography business is not a "religious organization" form under Chapter 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.


2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.


3. The law in New Mexico (28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice) States:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; "​
New Mexico Compilation Commission - Search Statutes, Rules and Decisions



>>>>

Are all businesses "public accomodations"? To me this is desgined to prevent places like hotels, resturants, transportation, etc from discriminating.

Why would you even want a person who doesnt believe in same sex marriage photographing your wedding?

Human Rights commissions are fucking stupid. Either make it illegal via regular due process or leave it alone.
 

Forum List

Back
Top