Same Sex Marriage Bans

[mrba]

chm2023 said:
Saw Jon Stewart the other evening, very smart, very funny show. He does a bit on same sex marriage, ending with "what these folks who oppose gay marriage being legalized don't seem to understand is, if it does become a law, that won't mean everyone has to do it." There was a poll in the paper some weeks ago that made the point the the acceptance of gay marriage is very strongly correlated with age. Younger people having no problem with it, older people having problems. This would appear to be one of those things that time will fix.

I think there are a lot of un represented young people that do have a problem with gay marrage. I liked that story just because it highlights the legal mess gay marrage would cause. It isn't so cut and dry.

[Darris Chambless]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/

There's only one way to get this Robert. Sorry big guy but here's your evidence (emphasis on any )

Take care and try to keep up ;)

Darris C.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/

There's only one way to get this Robert. Sorry big guy but here's your evidence (emphasis on any )

Take care and try to keep up ;)

Darris C.

I'm amazed that you can read that document and come to the conclusion that there's anything there that speaks in any way, shape or form to what churches have to do.

You must be thinking that if gays obtain "the right to marry", that this would require churches to marry them.

That's simply not the case. The "right to marry" would mean churches could marry them (as they presently cannot), but fortunately, the government has no authority to command churches to do so.

This is an controversy about what the law recognizes. The fact that the law recognizes divorce doesn't force the Catholic Church to do so.

[chm2023]

I apologize for getting in the middle of this fray, but to me the CNN thing is saying that Mass. will (perhaps) legalize gay marriage--this is not the same thing as saying churches have to marry gay people. E.g., for years the RC church would not marry divorced people or going further back, Catholics to non-Catholics. The state recognized such unions as legal but certainly did not force the church to perform these ceremonies.

Am I missing something???

[Darris Chambless]

Surely Robert and chm,

Your memory retention is better than that? I would hope so. If not then to answer your question I will refer you back to the entire thread.

"I'm amazed that you can read that document and come to the conclusion that there's anything there that speaks in any way, shape or form to what churches have to do."

And Robert, I'm not amazed that you can't ;) But to paraphrase the answer you seek Civil Unions are legislative in nature and "marriage" is a religious institution. How do you figure they would go about making "marriage" between same sex couples "legal" (since the high courts have written opinion rejecting civil unions) without legally treading on the church? They even make reference to "Seperate but equal" as never being the case and not working (discrimination sound familiar?) so constitutionally speaking they are saying "equal across the board."

So I'll pose this question to you: Where, in this document can you find where it DOESN'T imply this???

Here's the part in case you missed it:

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

Maybe I'm just as stupid as you tell everyone I am but that seems pretty cut and dry. Tell me if I'm wrong here but that looks to me like it says the justices voted FOR gay marriage and are claiming that "civil unions" are "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples." And it would appear that they are wanten for that "equality" under constitutional law. Am I wrong?

Gay rights groups want everyone to accept them as a "married couple" and will settle for nothing less. So how did I come to the conclusion I did? Gee! I just don't know.

chm,

"E.g., for years the RC church would not marry divorced people or going further back, Catholics to non-Catholics."

Um, unless you get an anullment most RC churches still won't marry divorced people and in order to get married in the RC church (at least around here) a non-Catholic and their fiance` must attend "Engaged Encounter" or get counceling from a Catholic counselor for 10 days before they will allow it. How do I know this you ask? Why, because I was married in the Catholic Church to a lovely Catholic girl and I was Baptist at the time.

"The state recognized such unions as legal but certainly did not force the church to perform these ceremonies."

Yup, but other churches recognized the marriage but not the Catholic chuch until they started to follow suit. Strangely in this situation the majority of churches are vehemently opposed to this and are lobbying against it. Not so with the RC church situation of the past the Pope simply said No and it was for the RC church. Big difference.

Take care,

Darris C.

[chm2023]

You stated that the gov't would "force churches to recognize these unions as a marriage" re the gay marriage, Mass situation thing and then presented a link to a CNN article as proof.

Are you with me so far?

NO IT WON'T. If the good people of Mass goes forward exactly as the gay community wants them to, the Catholic church will not recognize, nor perform these marriages.

You seem to have a ridulously hard time keeping the notion of the civil and the religious separate!!

[shanbaum]

Darris, you are making a fundamental mistake: you believe that all "marriages" are religious, and a non-religious wedding (as performed by a Justice of the Peace) is a "civil union."

That's just not correct. If you don't believe me, ask any lawyer.

Vermont used the term "civil union" to describe what looks and acts exactly like a marriage, but comprises two persons of the same sex. They did that to try to appease opponents of "gay marriage".

When a same-sex couple has a wedding in any ceremony - civil or religious - in Vermont, they get a "civil union", not a "marriage".

When a traditional couple has a wedding in any ceremony - civil or religious - in any of the 50 states, they get a "marriage," not a "civil union."

The issue in Massachusetts is that the Mass Supreme Court has ruled that that distinction - labelling the same-sex union one thing, and the traditional union another, deprives the former of their rights under the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

That is, that tiff is literally all about the vocabulary.

[keithbenjamin]

Robert,

There are many "rights" that are enforced by the law. Look at smoking bans, the disabilities act, etc., etc. It's not much of a stretch at all to forsee a time where, gays would want to be married by a particular church, but wouldn't be allowed ...it would be seen as discriminatory, there would be a lawsuit, and we'd end up with some liberal judge legislating from the bench. It's that whole slippery slope thing. As I pointed out ealier, other countries that have gone down this path have ended up with bible preaching as hate crime.

BTW, this is not a question of equal rights, it's a question of special rights. A man has the right to marry a woman, period. Consequently, it would be a special right to give a man the right to marry a man, or five women, or a boy, or a dog, or himself. The "equal protection under the law" argument does not apply. Just because I have a predisposition toward men, doesn't give me the right to marry a man, just as a predisposition toward multiple women doesn't give me the right to be a polygamist.

-KB

[mrba]

I love it... But he'll never agree Kieth.

Ok here comes the twisting of a straight forward concept!

[Darris Chambless]

chm2023 said:
You stated that the gov't would "force churches to recognize these unions as a marriage" re the gay marriage, Mass situation thing and then presented a link to a CNN article as proof.

Are you with me so far?

NO IT WON'T. If the good people of Mass goes forward exactly as the gay community wants them to, the Catholic church will not recognize, nor perform these marriages.

You seem to have a ridulously hard time keeping the notion of the civil and the religious separate!!

I'm with ya doll! After all I wrote it. :D

If government gets involved with anything involving personal preferences of any kind, rights will be infringed upon, law suits will ensue and YES IT WILL! I never said that churches would not refuse to perform the ceremonies, I said that at their refusal they could be sued for discriminatory practices if legislated (and legislation is government if you recall).

"You seem to have a ridulously hard time keeping the notion of the civil and the religious separate!!"

Really?!!! WOW! So do the courts.

"Darris, you are making a fundamental mistake: you believe that all "marriages" are religious, and a non-religious wedding (as performed by a Justice of the Peace) is a "civil union."

While I agree that the tiff is all about the vocabulary, did you ever wonder why? Why would anyone have such a hissy over the vocabulary? Seems silly doesn't it? To want the word "married" or "marriage" put into the statute. In law words mean a lot and the right words mean what you want it to in a court of law. That, my friend, is the reason why the legal eagles and gay rights groups want it included in the wording or don't want it included. It is very important to them. VERY important to them. They want that word and if they get it their agenda is then in place.

Every legal piece of paper has to contain "specific wording" for it to be legally binding or it's nothing more than toilet paper. Ask your lawyer friends about that, I already did.

Take care,

Darris C.

[keithbenjamin]

To quote Rush Limbaugh <ooh, I can hear the hisses>, "Words mean things."

or Bill Clinton, "depends on what the word 'is' means."

-KB

[mrba]

No even better

BC ..." That depends on what the meaning of is is"...

[keithbenjamin]

There you go. I was close.

[chm2023]

Call me when the government forces churches to recognize gay unions as marriages. I bet you have issues with fluoridation...oh our precious bodily fluids.......

[mrba]

chm,

what you don't realize is that freedom to practice religion entails exclusive agreements between people that are mutually agreed upon. If that exclusive group doesn't want to marry gays within their own community then that is what they have chosen for themselves. By forcing them to change their practice using the law, you are infringing on their right to practice religious values that are now illegal.

I suppose most reasonable people believe that as long as a group isn't hurting anyone, let them do their thing in peace and leave them alone. Why can't gays get civil unions in civil cremonies or churches that approve the practice? Why force gay marraige on everybody? Do you think that will be conducive to harmonius agreement on the topic?

I suppose Canada is a sad example. It is illegal to disparage homosexuality from the pulpit among like minded people, in the name of preventing hate. I propose that this policy promotes hate. No one wants what they don't agree with to be forced down their throats.

Gays may argue the same point from their side that they are forced to live "unmarried". So now we are back to an issue of word meaning. A legal issue perhaps the law is ill equipt to handle.

I have yet to hear an answer as to how animal love, pedophelia, multiple marraige partners, will not be protected under the law by the same argument gay advocates are using to be "married".

"Gay Advocates" is actually a silly idea. I know gays that have no desire to be married to their common law partners. But I suppose the media doesn't want you to hear that. If Rosie O'Donnel wants it all Gays Must want it!

[chm2023]

MRBA: don't respond to me on anything. Thanks.

[Darris Chambless]

chm2023 said:
Call me when the government forces churches to recognize gay unions as marriages. I bet you have issues with fluoridation...oh our precious bodily fluids.......

chm,

Government will pass a law to include "marriage" as part of the language in said law. Then when all is said and done those churches that will not perform or recognize same sex "marriage" will fall into the catagory of being discriminatory in their practices and perhaps being "hateful" toward same sex couples. Once this happens churches will end up in court for discrimination against same sex couples. Tell me honestly that if the law is past and includes this language that NO ONE is going to go after churches that refuse to recognize same sex "marriages" or perform the ceremonies.The groups and activists trying to get this law past are the same groups lying in wait for it to pass so they can do just that. There's a lot of money to be made in it (at least at first) and people are already ready to jump on the bandwagon and give it a shot.

Although this may sound like a slight toward you but it isn't; go talk to some lawyers and research some of the legalities of things you would think to be completely ludicrous to prosecute. It will scare you I can assure you. When judges can write law from the bench anything is possible and that's scary. Intrestingly enough after reading about high crimes, misdemeanors and the legality of such (After reading one of Ann's books) it was amazing at the actions that fell into those categories. Basically, activist judges SHOULD be removed from office for their actions from the bench as of late and it is the duty of the citizens of a representative Republic to remove them (but no one has even said a word about it.) They have stepped into an unconstitutional venue to promote and advance an agenda that is not majority supported. In otherwords they are operating as untouchable and one to nine people are deciding for this nation. That's wrong, unconstitutional and excessively dangerous AND it opens the door for erasing those lines set by the constitution seperating church and state (which is a limit on government, not on religion or churches)

Steve even said long ago (sometime around the 2000 election cycle and the Florida fiasco) if the Supreme Court say it then it makes it so, when I mentioned the unconstitutionality of writing law from the bench. While that is true by todays standards it is nonetheless unconstitutional and dangerous for this country. We have turned complete control over to a handful of people and they can decide anything they want at any time almost without challenge and we must abide because it's automatically the law of the land. And since these judges have all but disregarded the entire constitution in their judgements as of late why would anyone think that they would have any worry about treading on church and state issues?

Oh well, it's time for us Conservatives to start working toward having these folks removed from the bench under constitutional law.

Take care,

Darris C.

PS, chm

"MRBA: don't respond to me on anything. Thanks."

What's that all about? mrba made some very good points and wasn't being combative or even harsh about it...or is that the problem?

[chm2023]

I think your prediction is wrong. We'll see. As for the other, there comes a point where it's just tiresome and nonsensical ranting. In "real life" I avoid this sort of discourse, why should I not on-line?

Have a nice Easter, I am off to take my Mom south for a while. (Here's one of those things that drive me crazy: my mother uses a cane and when traveling, a wheelchair. Why does she insists on talking to me when I am pushing her in her wheelchair in the airport, and then irritated when I can't hear her? I have threatened to beat her with her cane, but to no avail. I am going to be a real pain in the butt when I get her age!!!)

[mrba]

chm2023 said:
MRBA: don't respond to me on anything. Thanks.

I apologize for anything I said that offended. I thought my post had more questions in it than answers.

Unfortuneatly I cannot honor your request, although I will contain myself until absolutely nessecary. Your posts beg a response sometimes, as I'm sure you feel likewise for mine.

regards,
;)

[Darris Chambless]

"As for the other, there comes a point where it's just tiresome and nonsensical ranting. In "real life" I avoid this sort of discourse, why should I not on-line?"

Ummm...because you normally don't avoid it, at least around here anyway. :D

Anyway, you enjoy your Easter as well and be kind to mama. She loves you.

Take care,

Darris C.

[Aeonspheres]

No, I am not advocating a constitutional ban on divorce. It's just that the gay community has shown time and again that they are not up to stable relationships.

As if the hetero community prove themselves up to the plate with the divorce rate skyrocketing! more than 50% !!! :finger:

[QDO1]

we covered this in the other thread

we live in a democracy

Regarding my faith:
I am free to be a hindu, athiest, christian or worshiper of pink faries

Regarding your faith:
You am free to be a hindu, athiest, christian or worshiper of pink faries

to make these two statments sit well with each other, democracies have a bit built in which makes it wrong in principle for one faiths values and belief sets to have precidence over another. based on this - a hindu has no rights to tell a christian what they ought to do on fridays, any more than a christian has the right to tell the athiest what to do on sundays

Fortunatally most of the time there is a lot of common ground between groups, and we all co-exist in a friendly way

In a democracy all the other 'isims are generally dealt with in the same way - a black mans vote is equal to a white mans, a gay persons dolar/pound's worth of tax is equal to the straight man's. Generally in western democracies, sexisim, racisim, agisim and genderism are not permitted. This is because the basic tennent of democracy is that we are all equal regardles of who we are or what we want to be

It would be as wrong to foist gay marriage onto a chuch that dissagrees with it, as it would be for the chuch to declare that gay marriage is agains its rules, so the rest of society should swing in behind its opinion

marriage precedes the church, it doesnt have an exclusivity on the process of marriage. marriage is a state arangment. if you are a hindu, you can go get a hindu ceromony afterwards, if you are a tree hugger, you can go to the forrest afterwards, if you are a christian, you can go to chuch, if you are a athiest, you can go enjoy yourself quicker, and miss the ceremony out