Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Immanuel]

You said Marriage EQUALITY...I am a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. You are nothing but a Segregationist....just like the Segregationists of old....to sit there and expect us to believe your CRAP about not hating us when we have done NOTHING to you yet you want the STATE to without equal rights from us....sorry, but I'm not the idiot you want me to be.

BTW...there has been an effort to start a Proposition here in CA to get the word "Marriage" removed from all legal documentation and make all civil marriages into civil unions....guess who, when faced with something like that REALLY happening, have started SQUAWKING? You guessed it, the churches.

A segregationist? Now that is a damned lie.

I have stated repeated for years, that I believe the government should license all "marriages" both gay and straight as civil unions and you know full well that is the case.

Makes you the liar here.

What equal rites have I denied to you? None! Not a damned one!

Immie

This very post of yours PROVES that you are a Segregationist. I don't lie...you do...and badly too.

Seems to me that I have people backing me up that I have stated for a very long time that I support civil unions.

Seems to me that you are the proven liar here, not me.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

Immie, a photography studio is not a church, temple or mosque. You fret for naught.

 

[Immanuel]

Well now...that is simply a lie...and we all know what the 10 commandments say about that.

It seem to me that you are the liar in this case.

How many dozens of times have you jumped all over me when I have suggested the idea of civil unions?

Are you claiming that I am wrong when I state that it seems you believe that every church must submit? You have attacked me personally for stating that I believe churches should be free to choose whether or not to marry homosexual couples. I do not see how I can be wrong in that case.

Immie

You have accused me of this: " It seems she believes that every church must submit to accepting gay marriage" ...now PROVE that I have ever said that or tender me your abject apology.

Why should I apologize?

Your the one that will not accept the compromise of Civil Unions. That being the case, it appears to me that you have every intention of forcing churches to comply with your desires. I can't understand any other reason you would be so abjectly hateful of Christians that are willing to compromise.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Immie, that is never going to happen. Stop worrying about false fears....gay marriage will not detract from any preacher's or religion's right to refuse to marry two homosexuals.

And thankfully, many faiths already do stand ready, willing and able to perform such marriages for those who want a religious service.

The problem is that this battle is not just about gay marriage, it is about making homosexuality into a protected class and once that step is taken the next step to be taken will be to require all churches to marry homosexuals because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

That is why I find it so important to take the civil practice out of the realm of religion. It is not that I have a problem with homosexuals receiving all the benefits of marriage nor do I have a problem with any church that desires to marry GLBT couples. But that is up to the church, not SCOTUS.

If you don't think this can happen, then you may not have heard about this case:

Christian Photographer Refused Gay Wedding, Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer :: Truth, Tech, Testimony, and Art

In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.

What I want to ask Bodecca, is why is she so opposed to all civil weddings being "civil unions" rather than marriages? What is wrong with getting the State out of religious affairs?

Immie

The state has been in the marriage licensing business. It's not going to change. Domestic partnerships are not the same thing as marriage.

What's wrong with letting gay people civilly marry?

 

[Immanuel]

DiveCon, "marriage" affects more than just family law and its statutes and cases. It affects property law, inheritance law, etc. There is a strong preference in the law to interpret a statutory change as having some sort of effect....the consequences of the "name change" proposed by Immie are impossible to predict.

And for what, exactly? So we can deny to gays the right to refer to their relationships as "marriages"?

Bologna, how are they impossible to predict? Every thing is the same as it is today except that in order to have the legal benefits of being a family, a couple pays for the contract of a civil union rather than paying for a "marriage license".

A couple need not even get married in a church today. They only need to get the marriage license. A ceremony is only required by the lady. Ask us guys, and most of us would be more than happy to skip the ceremony and start the honeymoon.

Once you have the marriage license, that is all that is required. Some people want the ceremony to be blessed by the church. That is all a wedding is... a blessing by the church. It is not required.

What needs to be done in this situation is that the benefits of a marriage certificate needs to be extended by the state to all couples gay or straight. Unfortunately those benefits are not equally extended and that is why something needs to be changed.

Still it has nothing to do with the church, yet, there will soon be cases filled against churches that will not marry gay couples and eventually the church is going to lose on grounds that they are discriminating against a protected class.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

It seem to me that you are the liar in this case.

How many dozens of times have you jumped all over me when I have suggested the idea of civil unions?

Are you claiming that I am wrong when I state that it seems you believe that every church must submit? You have attacked me personally for stating that I believe churches should be free to choose whether or not to marry homosexual couples. I do not see how I can be wrong in that case.

Immie

You have accused me of this: " It seems she believes that every church must submit to accepting gay marriage" ...now PROVE that I have ever said that or tender me your abject apology.

Why should I apologize?

Your the one that will not accept the compromise of Civil Unions. That being the case, it appears to me that you have every intention of forcing churches to comply with your desires. I can't understand any other reason you would be so abjectly hateful of Christians that are willing to compromise.

Immie

That's pure bowlshit but lucky for you there is no shortage of spoons.

(Legalizing same sex marriage would not force any church to marry gays)

 

[Valerie]

Immie, that is never going to happen. Stop worrying about false fears....gay marriage will not detract from any preacher's or religion's right to refuse to marry two homosexuals.

And thankfully, many faiths already do stand ready, willing and able to perform such marriages for those who want a religious service.

The problem is that this battle is not just about gay marriage, it is about making homosexuality into a protected class and once that step is taken the next step to be taken will be to require all churches to marry homosexuals because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

That is why I find it so important to take the civil practice out of the realm of religion. It is not that I have a problem with homosexuals receiving all the benefits of marriage nor do I have a problem with any church that desires to marry GLBT couples. But that is up to the church, not SCOTUS.

If you don't think this can happen, then you may not have heard about this case:

Christian Photographer Refused Gay Wedding, Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer :: Truth, Tech, Testimony, and Art

In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.

What I want to ask Bodecca, is why is she so opposed to all civil weddings being "civil unions" rather than marriages? What is wrong with getting the State out of religious affairs?

Immie

The state has been in the marriage licensing business. It's not going to change. Domestic partnerships are not the same thing as marriage.

What's wrong with letting gay people civilly marry?

Immie has said a thousand times he has no issue with allowing gays to have Civil Unions.

What's wrong with having separate but equal titles of Civil Marriage and Civil Union ?


Since there would be no other separation other than the terminology toward equal treatment WHY do you insist on considering it "segregation"?

 

[Immanuel]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

Simple... the Separation of Church and State remains in tack.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

Simple... the Separation of Church and State remains intact.

Immie

Yes, and I'm not sure why she thinks it would take a thousands of statutes.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I don't see the upside, DiveCon. Why enact thousand of new statutes just to substitute "civil union" for "marriage"? If the two terms will be synonymous, what benefit would accrue?

Simple... the Separation of Church and State remains in tack.

Immie

What is your objection to marriage equality?

 

[CurveLight]

Immie, that is never going to happen. Stop worrying about false fears....gay marriage will not detract from any preacher's or religion's right to refuse to marry two homosexuals.

And thankfully, many faiths already do stand ready, willing and able to perform such marriages for those who want a religious service.

The problem is that this battle is not just about gay marriage, it is about making homosexuality into a protected class and once that step is taken the next step to be taken will be to require all churches to marry homosexuals because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

That is why I find it so important to take the civil practice out of the realm of religion. It is not that I have a problem with homosexuals receiving all the benefits of marriage nor do I have a problem with any church that desires to marry GLBT couples. But that is up to the church, not SCOTUS.

If you don't think this can happen, then you may not have heard about this case:

Christian Photographer Refused Gay Wedding, Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer :: Truth, Tech, Testimony, and Art

In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.

What I want to ask Bodecca, is why is she so opposed to all civil weddings being "civil unions" rather than marriages? What is wrong with getting the State out of religious affairs?

Immie

Holy hot water horseflakes! When I made the post challenging anyone to come up with a case forcing a church to marry gays I thought of this Elane case and that someone would try to use it. I quickly dismissed my suspicion on the basis people are smart enough to know a photography business is not a church. I was obviously giving too much credit.

Furthermore, marriage is not a "religious" ceremony and that is why the State recognizes marriages performed outside of churches and in totally secular arenas.

The protected class here is heterosexuals who enjoy a ton of rights declined to gays because of crotch watchers like you. Demanding equal rights is never an agenda of seeking special protection. It is about ending special protection.

 

[Immanuel]

That's not true.

I think you are wrong. It will come down to a "discrimination" issue. Once the SCOTUS gets the case, any church that refuses to do so will be sued for discrimination and the costs of defense will become astronomical.

Immie

No, that would also be unconstitutional.


Curvelight is correct that this notion of gays wanting to force themselves upon religious institutions is a propaganda myth.

Wrong... just ask the owner of Elaine Photography.

Here is an example that has already happened against an organization owned by a church. It is already happening and it will continue to happen and become more prevalent if gay "marriage" is adopted as opposed to taking the government out of the marriage business.

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union."

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain."

Immie

 

[Valerie]

Immie, that is never going to happen. Stop worrying about false fears....gay marriage will not detract from any preacher's or religion's right to refuse to marry two homosexuals.

And thankfully, many faiths already do stand ready, willing and able to perform such marriages for those who want a religious service.

The problem is that this battle is not just about gay marriage, it is about making homosexuality into a protected class and once that step is taken the next step to be taken will be to require all churches to marry homosexuals because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

That is why I find it so important to take the civil practice out of the realm of religion. It is not that I have a problem with homosexuals receiving all the benefits of marriage nor do I have a problem with any church that desires to marry GLBT couples. But that is up to the church, not SCOTUS.

If you don't think this can happen, then you may not have heard about this case:

Christian Photographer Refused Gay Wedding, Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer :: Truth, Tech, Testimony, and Art

In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.

What I want to ask Bodecca, is why is she so opposed to all civil weddings being "civil unions" rather than marriages? What is wrong with getting the State out of religious affairs?

Immie

Holy hot water horseflakes! When I made the post challenging anyone to come up with a case forcing a church to marry gays I thought of this Elane case and that someone would try to use it. I quickly dismissed my suspicion on the basis people are smart enough to know a photography business is not a church. I was obviously giving too much credit.

Furthermore, marriage is not a "religious" ceremony and that is why the State recognizes marriages performed outside of churches and in totally secular arenas.

The protected class here is heterosexuals who enjoy a ton of rights declined to gays because of crotch watchers like you. Demanding equal rights is never an agenda of seeking special protection. It is about ending special protection.

I found a case earlier, when I looked this morning...In New Jersey a Methodist campground which also received public funds, I think. A lesbian couple wanted to get married there and ended up taking them to court. It was the only one I could find.

I understand his concern and it looks like Sky wants to confirm his fears by insisting on that sort of equality. Still, the constitutional protection of the separation of Church and State is there and ultimately will be upheld if challenged.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I think you are wrong. It will come down to a "discrimination" issue. Once the SCOTUS gets the case, any church that refuses to do so will be sued for discrimination and the costs of defense will become astronomical.

Immie

No, that would also be unconstitutional.


Curvelight is correct that this notion of gays wanting to force themselves upon religious institutions is a propaganda myth.

Wrong... just ask the owner of Elaine Photography.

Here is an example that has already happened against an organization owned by a church. It is already happening and it will continue to happen and become more prevalent if gay "marriage" is adopted as opposed to taking the government out of the marriage business.

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union."

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain."

Immie

What is your objection to civil marriage equality?

 

[Immanuel]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

Provided in my last post.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

I think you are wrong. It will come down to a "discrimination" issue. Once the SCOTUS gets the case, any church that refuses to do so will be sued for discrimination and the costs of defense will become astronomical.

Immie

No, that would also be unconstitutional.


Curvelight is correct that this notion of gays wanting to force themselves upon religious institutions is a propaganda myth.

Wrong... just ask the owner of Elaine Photography.

Here is an example that has already happened against an organization owned by a church. It is already happening and it will continue to happen and become more prevalent if gay "marriage" is adopted as opposed to taking the government out of the marriage business.

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union."

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain."

Immie

And did they get it?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I would like Immie (or anyone tossing that soundbite around) to show 2 or 3 examples of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone for any reason. I don't think they can and I am beginning to think people like Immie are against gay marriage but wish to present an argument not inherently tied to bigotry. Immie will prove his motive when he presents cases where churches were forced to marry thus supporting his reason for being against gay marriage.

Once it is established churches would not be forced to marry gays the Immie crowd will have to reconcile their hollow justification.

Provided in my last post.

Immie

For the third time, what is your objection to civil marriage equality?

 

[Immanuel]

But, Obama agrees with the "Civil Union outcome as 'separate but equal'"

Do you consider him conservative or not?

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married in a church. I wish my church would be more welcoming. I respect the UCC for having reached out to homosexuals in order to share the gospel with them. I think some branches of the Episcopalian Church maybe even the Presbyterian Church has a branch that has opened its doors to the homosexual community as well.

My church is not perfect. There are a couple of areas I would like to see changed and this happens to be one of them.

That being said, I believe that our government is corrupt including the SCOTUS and that when the government tears down that wall of Separation there will be lawsuits filed by people that hate the church that will eventually force all churches to comply. Would ending the discrimination be a bad thing? Yes, if it is done by force by the government because the next thing the government will want to do is to tell us all what church we have to attend.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

He was actually quoting me there, and I certainly was not referring to you. As I said, I remember all the old threads and who said what to whom. You have been consistently kind to gays seeking marriage equality via Civil Unions and your only concerned has been with protecting the separation of Church and State. I don't blame you for being concerned there and I don't think it makes you a "segregationalist" at all.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married in a church. I wish my church would be more welcoming. I respect the UCC for having reached out to homosexuals in order to share the gospel with them. I think some branches of the Episcopalian Church maybe even the Presbyterian Church has a branch that has opened its doors to the homosexual community as well.

My church is not perfect. There are a couple of areas I would like to see changed and this happens to be one of them.

That being said, I believe that our government is corrupt including the SCOTUS and that when the government tears down that wall of Separation there will be lawsuits filed by people that hate the church that will eventually force all churches to comply. Would ending the discrimination be a bad thing? Yes, if it is done by force by the government because the next thing the government will want to do is to tell us all what church we have to attend.

Immie

I don't care if I marry in a church. What is your objection to civil marriage equality?