Gay Marriage is GO...

[Maktub]

Hasn't this been driven into the ground yet? One word: consent. A robot, dog, cat, child, toaster oven cannot legally consent to marriage. Problem solved.

For the record, I think polygamy should be legal, as long as those involved are of age and consenting adults. Why not?

The consent argument against "marrying my dog" is ridiculous. Did your dog consent to it's current living situation? For the record, you shouldn't be allowed to marry your dog. Let's draw the line at the human level and leave it at that.

 

[Jamezz]

Because the policy addresses marital rights. Nothing else is directly affected.

If you're only arguing that this moves us closer to wider non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation (which still vary state to state) that will eventually lead to a situation similar to race-based discrimination in college admissions, I'd guess you're probably right.

Do you think universities should retain their tax exempt status - which effectively grants them free access to public resources and services - while discriminating based on race?

This also had me mind-boggled when I learned about it. Such nonsense, we want equal rights for everyone as individuals, not as a collective, no matter what the color of your skin or your status is. Any kind of benefit provided to anyone based on these factors sets the ground to the group of people on the other side of the spectrum feeling uncomfortable.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out how the 14th Amendment is good reasoning for having approved of this ruling.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

The consent argument against "marrying my dog" is ridiculous. Did your dog consent to it's current living situation? For the record, you shouldn't be allowed to marry your dog. Let's draw the line at the human level and leave it at that.

That is basically the same line he's talking about with consent, fyi.

 

[DutchJazzer]

you are more a troll than anything. i remember when we actually had some decent conversations in between the racism and bigotry. man i miss those days.

no i am just stating that i disagree with mariage being man man or woman woman. but that is these days biggoted so i wear it proudly.
and i am trying to get it back to those days if the vote goes for me staying. but now it seems like it is not.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Because the policy addresses marital rights. Nothing else is directly affected.

If you're only arguing that this moves us closer to wider non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation (which still vary state to state) that will eventually lead to a situation similar to race-based discrimination in college admissions, I'd guess you're probably right.

Do you think universities should retain their tax exempt status - which effectively grants them free access to public resources and services - while discriminating based on race?

Is there a difference in your mind between a university that has tax exempt status v. a university that receives government funding from tax monies? Is it possible there are different levels of rules that apply between the two?

A tax exempt university is different than a tax funded university imo.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This also had me mind-boggled when I learned about it. Such nonsense, we want equal rights for everyone as individuals, not as a collective, no matter what the color of your skin or your status is. Any kind of benefit provided to anyone based on these factors sets the ground to the group of people on the other side of the spectrum feeling uncomfortable.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out how the 14th Amendment is good reasoning for having approved of this ruling.

exactly most people seem to have problem with the 14th amendment part.

 

[Jamezz]

This might be the next thing we see happening here:

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

 

[BabyPeterzz]

This might be the next thing we see happening here:

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

Do some research on those dudes. They have a reality tv show and look to cause trouble. Anyway....

I think a suit like this would be a great way to put the issue at ease and show how powerful the 1st Amendment is. Plus, States could stop wasting their time with these religious liberty bills and move on to stuff that isn't already law.

 

[Jamezz]

Do some research on those dudes. They have a reality tv show and look to cause trouble. Anyway....

I think a suit like this would be a great way to put the issue at ease and show how powerful the 1st Amendment is. Plus, States could stop wasting their time with these religious liberty bills and move on to stuff that isn't already law.

An easy solution to this would be leaving it to every church to decide whether if they want to hold same sex marriages or not, and go find one that does. But suing a church for not wanting to do this is like me suing a bar for not letting me smoke inside. You get the drill...

 

[Stoked]

An easy solution to this would be leaving it to every church to decide whether if they want to hold same sex marriages or not, and go find one that does. But suing a church for not wanting to do this is like me suing a bar for not letting me smoke inside. You get the drill...

That is how it is now. Like, right now. It isn't a problem unless a court orders a church to do so against their will and I doubt that will happen.

 

[Jamezz]

That is how it is now. Like, right now. It isn't a problem unless a court orders a church to do so against their will and I doubt that will happen.

Cool, then I guess we're good on that end.

 

[♪alt13]

And that was one of the silly arguments against marriage equality. Some people (and I've spoken to plenty) actually believed that churches in states where gay marriage was already legalized were being forced to perform same sex marriages lol.... not true at all.

Then there were the people claiming that eventually it would lead to religions being forced to perform same sex marriages. And that, my friends, is a textbook example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.

It really is. And at that point, if it ever came to that, I'd actually be against it. As someone that has the power to sign marriage certificates and perform ceremonies(which isn't much power at all), if I had a problem with someone's relationship I would refuse to do the ceremony. Anyone who tries to write a law telling me I have to is going to have to fine me.

But you also have to wonder why would a gay couple want to be married in, say, an LDS temple? a place where their union clearly not wanted or respected? No law is going to change that. No amount of armed men coming into a temple and demanding a gay sealing take place is going to change their attitude about it.

There is a difference between not serving an individual and not serving a group of individuals. In the same way that there is a difference between not promoting a woman and not promoting women.

I actually think that sooner or later this will lead to the loss of tax exempt status for churches that refuse to marry gay people.

The thing is churches really should embrace dropping the 501 c3 designation. When Americans were first considering dropping church sponsorship(Churches paid for by the state) many were worried that it would irreparably harm both churches ability to continue its activities and religious participation in America. They were wrong. Following the end of church sponsorship America went through "the Great Awakening". Religion reached a level of activity and participation in America not seen since the puritans landed.
Dropping 501c3 status would give the churches much more leeway(for better or for worse)with which to operate. An example is how 501c3 status ties the hands of an organizations political spending.

I don't see how this changes anything I just said. Perhaps you needed "for any reason" in there, but the concept remains the same; If I feel like the marriage of X and X is bad for the institute of marriage, or makes a mockery of it, I shouldn't sign the marriage license. I'm not paid by the state. I'm a private entity that makes no money, and therefore can not be taxed.

If any two self aware individuals of legal age want to get married, they should. But as a non-taxed private entity, I maintain my right to chose not to be a part of a wedding if I'm against the union for any reason. Christian churches currently still have that right, and so do I. If at a later date that changes, that's fine. But let's cross that bridge when we get there.

If at a later date it changes than Christians concerns were valid, not "a textbook example of a slippery slope logical fallacy."

Did I misinterpret your post?

Also, you and a church are two entirely different entities.

 

[gandalfe]

Do some research on those dudes. They have a reality tv show and look to cause trouble. Anyway....

Also, let's be clear: This is happening in ENGLAND, with the Church of ENGLAND, where it is the official state religion.

 

[Harambe]

If at a later date it changes than Christians concerns were valid, not "a textbook example of a slippery slope logical fallacy."

Did I misinterpret your post?

Also, you and a church are two entirely different entities.

A person is a person. A person is influenced by religion, but the bottle neck is at the person level. Sure the church can decide if you can use the actual church building if they get wind of it before hand, but signing that note is on the officiators level. You did less misinterpreting, and more misunderstanding where the responsibility of signing a wedding license lies.

A church can later confound the officiating individual's responsibility by revoking their good standing if they preform a non-approved union, but that's after the fact. Anything signed before good standing was revoked will stand in a court of law, else there would be a lot of annulled marriages from Bishops that were excommunicated. Believe me when I say it's not complicated to get another officiating organization to issue you a new one.

Try to grasp the concept I'm throwing out here, because I don't hear anyone mentioning it at all. The officiator, whether that be priest, bishop, father, reverend, captain, judge, or whatever else has rights too. A judge, far less so given that his/her entire salary is Tax dollars.

We can play slippery slope, and it's probably valid. But let's call a spade a spade. If you get free money from the government, you are subsidized. Given that marriage IS a legal union, and your religion offers marriage, you could argue that signing a marriage document is a "contracted" arrangement, therefore the government is paying you to preform. If you don't preform your obligations, the government is paying you to discriminate. Therefore, to get the government OUT of discriminating based on sexual orientation, no more free money.

This is all the more reason to move religions OUT of the marriage business, and give them sealings, or something of the sort. Either that, or make marriage and weddings not a legal union...

 

[♪alt13]

A person is a person. A person is influenced by religion, but the bottle neck is at the person level. Sure the church can decide if you can use the actual church building if they get wind of it before hand, but signing that note is on the officiators level. You did less misinterpreting, and more misunderstanding where the responsibility of signing a wedding license lies.

A church can later confound the officiating individual's responsibility by revoking their good standing if they preform a non-approved union, but that's after the fact. Anything signed before good standing was revoked will stand in a court of law, else there would be a lot of annulled marriages from Bishops that were excommunicated. Believe me when I say it's not complicated to get another officiating organization to issue you a new one.

Try to grasp the concept I'm throwing out here, because I don't hear anyone mentioning it at all. The officiator, whether that be priest, bishop, father, reverend, captain, judge, or whatever else has rights too. A judge, far less so given that his/her entire salary is Tax dollars.

We can play slippery slope, and it's probably valid. But let's call a spade a spade. If you get free money from the government, you are subsidized. Given that marriage IS a legal union, and your religion offers marriage, you could argue that signing a marriage document is a "contracted" arrangement, therefore the government is paying you to preform. If you don't preform your obligations, the government is paying you to discriminate. Therefore, to get the government OUT of discriminating based on sexual orientation, no more free money.

This is all the more reason to move religions OUT of the marriage business, and give them sealings, or something of the sort. Either that, or make marriage and weddings not a legal union...

No one thinks that a marriage or a wedding is just a license. Not performing a wedding ceremony(license or not) for Gay people is contrary to public policy and discriminatory, by definition. For a truly private institution or individual there is likely no legal recourse. Haters gunna hate. IF, on the other hand, you are a non profit than your policies must be nondiscriminatory falling in line with public policy and the constitution.

From the Supreme Court Hearing on Gay Marriage

-During oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration, said,”You know, **I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is –it is going to be an issue.”-

No, the government cannot force churches to perform ceremonies but it can revoke tax exempt status if they don't. In the Bob Jones case they are discussing above the University lost its tax exempt status not for refusing to sign a marriage license, not even for refusing to perform the ceremony but for not admitting people who where in a mixed race marriage.

If a tax exempt org discriminates against people in a legal union they could lose their exempt status even if they had nothing to do with the ceremony or signing the license. So taking the signing of marriage licenses out of the hands of clergy or whatever does not resolve the issue. The IRS will have to act. Which eventually they will. Then it will have to go before the court and I would think that there is a fair probability that they will uphold revoking that tax exempt status.

 

[bigb]

Other than a bunch of rotten-hearted, unintelligent people getting upset and a bunch of other people being very happy to be treated as human beings? Not much.

So are you one of those demanding love, understanding, etc but not giving it? You know, out there yelling, cursing, spitting at tjose opposed to it? Cuz that's kind of the vibe you give off here.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This might be the next thing we see happening here:

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

they are such self absorbed assholes

 

[DutchJazzer]

A person is a person. A person is influenced by religion, but the bottle neck is at the person level. Sure the church can decide if you can use the actual church building if they get wind of it before hand, but signing that note is on the officiators level. You did less misinterpreting, and more misunderstanding where the responsibility of signing a wedding license lies.

A church can later confound the officiating individual's responsibility by revoking their good standing if they preform a non-approved union, but that's after the fact. Anything signed before good standing was revoked will stand in a court of law, else there would be a lot of annulled marriages from Bishops that were excommunicated. Believe me when I say it's not complicated to get another officiating organization to issue you a new one.

Try to grasp the concept I'm throwing out here, because I don't hear anyone mentioning it at all. The officiator, whether that be priest, bishop, father, reverend, captain, judge, or whatever else has rights too. A judge, far less so given that his/her entire salary is Tax dollars.

We can play slippery slope, and it's probably valid. But let's call a spade a spade. If you get free money from the government, you are subsidized. Given that marriage IS a legal union, and your religion offers marriage, you could argue that signing a marriage document is a "contracted" arrangement, therefore the government is paying you to preform. If you don't preform your obligations, the government is paying you to discriminate. Therefore, to get the government OUT of discriminating based on sexual orientation, no more free money.

This is all the more reason to move goverments OUT of the marriage business, and give them cohabitation rights, or something of the sort.

fixed

 

[JimLes]

To interrupt a little, why is it so important for religious organizations to be able to discriminate? Why does it seem like being able to hate on gay people is one of the tenets of so many denominations.

There has been hoopla here in Canada over a Christian university being able to give out law degrees, and it has to do with the university is question banning gay sex. And I'm sitting here wonder where the hell in the Bible did gay sex get singled out as the single worst sin you can do, meriting expulsion for students. And I tried to google whether the university has expelled people in the past for violating the 10 commandments or committing a deadly sin. You know, kids going home during a break and getting into mad fights with their parents over switching from Business to Poli Sci and getting expelled or someone eating 4 medium pepperoni pizzas at Pizza Hut's all-you-can-eat lunch buffet and getting kicked out of school. Couldn't find anything.

So, why then is homosexuality so much worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, gluttony, or greed? Why do mission statements of these school single out homosexuality instead of saying "We are against all sinful behaviour, as per our holy text?" Why is it so important to them to constantly single out and rebuke gay people?

 

[DutchJazzer]

To interrupt a little, why is it so important for religious organizations to be able to discriminate? Why does it seem like being able to hate on gay people is one of the tenets of so many denominations.

There has been hoopla here in Canada over a Christian university being able to give out law degrees, and it has to do with the university is question banning gay sex. And I'm sitting here wonder where the hell in the Bible did gay sex get singled out as the single worst sin you can do, meriting expulsion for students. And I tried to google whether the university has expelled people in the past for violating the 10 commandments or committing a deadly sin. You know, kids going home during a break and getting into mad fights with their parents over switching from Business to Poli Sci and getting expelled or someone eating 4 medium pepperoni pizzas at Pizza Hut's all-you-can-eat lunch buffet and getting kicked out of school. Couldn't find anything.

So, why then is homosexuality so much worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, gluttony, or greed? Why do mission statements of these school single out homosexuality instead of saying "We are against all sinful behaviour, as per our holy text?" Why is it so important to them to constantly single out and rebuke gay people?

this is not about discrimination against gay people.
but when a church marries gay people they are complicit in the sin.
its not like the chruch is telling you to have a fight with your parents.
so a church or religion university should not ban homosexuals as they do not do to liars, adulterers en other sinners.
but they should ban gay marriage by approving of it they are complicit in the act. now they dont want that