Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Sky Dancer]

so your hang up is in the name of the legal contract?

I want to know what the hang up is for someone else. Why not let gays and lesbians call their unions marriage?

It's what it is.

I am legally married and I want to stay that way.

I don't want a domestic partnership.

So call it whatever you want.


The State has it's own legal terminology, so what?

Domestic partnership and marriage are two different legal categories. They are not equal.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with it, but if it is called marriage, then activists will demand that all churches provide the ceremony for them just as they did to Elaine Photography and the NJ Church.

That is why, I would rather see the term changed to "civil union" for all couples not just homosexual couples. More and more churches are opening their doors to homosexuals and despite the efforts of the Religious Right, I would expect that will continue to happen, but if "marriage" is the term used in the future it will open the doors for discrimination lawsuits nation wide and that will hurt the church.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

I want to know what the hang up is for someone else. Why not let gays and lesbians call their unions marriage?

It's what it is.

I am legally married and I want to stay that way.

I don't want a domestic partnership.

So call it whatever you want.


The State has it's own legal terminology, so what?

Domestic partnership and marriage are two different legal categories. They are not equal.

there would be no legal "marriage" with the plan we are supporting
NONE

and if you want to have a "Marriage" ceremony to celebrate, the state has NOTHING to do with it

 

[Immanuel]

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)

You and I happen to disagree on that. I hope you are right... but I doubt it.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

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



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?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with it, but if it is called marriage, then activists will demand that all churches provide the ceremony for them just as they did to Elaine Photography and the NJ Church.

That is why, I would rather see the term changed to "civil union" for all couples not just homosexual couples. More and more churches are opening their doors to homosexuals and despite the efforts of the Religious Right, I would expect that will continue to happen, but if "marriage" is the term used in the future it will open the doors for discrimination lawsuits nation wide and that will hurt the church.

Immie

I am married and I want to stay that way. I don't want the name changed.

We are talking about civil marriage licensing. That has NOTHING to do with churches.

No one cares about the churches cereomonies. They can keep them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So call it whatever you want.


The State has it's own legal terminology, so what?

Domestic partnership and marriage are two different legal categories. They are not equal.

there would be no legal "marriage" with the plan we are supporting
NONE

and if you want to have a "Marriage" ceremony to celebrate, the state has NOTHING to do with it

Right. You folks are so biased that rather than let gay people civilly marry you'd rather NO ONE legally marry. Legal marriage is necessary to protect property rights.

 

[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

What is your objection to marriage equality?

I have none.

Bod has told me in another thread that she and her wife (I am pretty sure that was the term she used) were married in the church. I think it is wonderful that her marriage was blessed by the church. I do not begrudge her that wonderful feeling.

However, I think that she and CL are wrong. I do think that when this line is crossed, there will be lawsuits against the churches that will not marry GLBT couples. Maybe the church will win those lawsuits based upon the separation of church and state, but I do not believe that they will continue to prevail as I believe the government is corrupt. Throw enough lawsuits their way and eventually the church is going to lose.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Domestic partnership and marriage are two different legal categories. They are not equal.

there would be no legal "marriage" with the plan we are supporting
NONE

and if you want to have a "Marriage" ceremony to celebrate, the state has NOTHING to do with it

Right. You folks are so biased that rather than let gay people civilly marry you'd rather NO ONE legally marry. Legal marriage is necessary to protect property rights.

thanks for proving that it is a LIE what the gay community has been cliaming that they just want equal treatment under the law

 

[Sky Dancer]

there would be no legal "marriage" with the plan we are supporting
NONE

and if you want to have a "Marriage" ceremony to celebrate, the state has NOTHING to do with it

Right. You folks are so biased that rather than let gay people civilly marry you'd rather NO ONE legally marry. Legal marriage is necessary to protect property rights.

thanks for proving that it is a LIE what the gay community has been cliaming that they just want equal treatment under the law

What is youir problem? We want to legally marry. Period. You would rather marriage not be legal.

I disagree.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Um, would you like to read the post I was replying to?

For the record, I had not even read your "challenge". The post I replying to was Madeline's. Your "challenge" came later.

This post was not in answer to your "challenge".

Immie

 

[Valerie]

there would be no legal "marriage" with the plan we are supporting
NONE

and if you want to have a "Marriage" ceremony to celebrate, the state has NOTHING to do with it

Right. You folks are so biased that rather than let gay people civilly marry you'd rather NO ONE legally marry. Legal marriage is necessary to protect property rights.

thanks for proving that it is a LIE what the gay community has been cliaming that they just want equal treatment under the law

Sky doesn't represent the gay community.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Right. You folks are so biased that rather than let gay people civilly marry you'd rather NO ONE legally marry. Legal marriage is necessary to protect property rights.

thanks for proving that it is a LIE what the gay community has been cliaming that they just want equal treatment under the law

Sky doesn't represent the gay community.

Wow. That's a relief.

 

[Valerie]

Right. You folks are so biased that rather than let gay people civilly marry you'd rather NO ONE legally marry. Legal marriage is necessary to protect property rights.

thanks for proving that it is a LIE what the gay community has been cliaming that they just want equal treatment under the law

What is youir problem? We want to legally marry. Period. You would rather marriage not be legal.

I disagree.

You're being totally disingenuous here. Why ?

 

[Immanuel]

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?

For the record, both you and CL need to realize that I went back and read the posts that I had missed the last couple of days. I am just now catching up to the quoted post and I have now answered your question in two prior posts.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

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

Immie

What is your objection to marriage equality?

I have none.

Bod has told me in another thread that she and her wife (I am pretty sure that was the term she used) were married in the church. I think it is wonderful that her marriage was blessed by the church. I do not begrudge her that wonderful feeling.

However, I think that she and CL are wrong. I do think that when this line is crossed, there will be lawsuits against the churches that will not marry GLBT couples. Maybe the church will win those lawsuits based upon the separation of church and state, but I do not believe that they will continue to prevail as I believe the government is corrupt. Throw enough lawsuits their way and eventually the church is going to lose.

Immie

My wife and I are legally married in the state of California. We were married by a Buddhist Lama with our entire community present.

The Buddhist monastery has in no way been injured due to our marriage. It's been strengthened.

 

[Immanuel]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

I am not saying any of that and since it seems like I am the only one currently posting in this thread on the "other side", I feel like I'm the one being "attacked" here.

I hate the fact that the church discriminates against the homosexual community. I do not at all believe that Christ would behave in the manner that the "Religious Right" behaves in this regard. It sickens me to no end.

On the other hand, I fear what will happen when the state tears down the wall of separation. I may be wrong, maybe like CL and Bod nothing will happen, but I believe that there are activists out there that will sue churches in order to force them to marry homosexual couples. Not ALL homosexuals will support such suits, but there are activists out there and when "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land it will be inevitable that the church will be forced to comply.

Immie

They can certainly try but it is also unconstitutional.

Nothing is unconstitutional when politicians put their mind to it. Take the USA Patriot Act and Obama's Health Insurance Reform as examples.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

thanks for proving that it is a LIE what the gay community has been cliaming that they just want equal treatment under the law

What is youir problem? We want to legally marry. Period. You would rather marriage not be legal.

I disagree.

You're being totally disingenuous here. Why ?

divecon wants the government out of the marriage licensing business. I don't.

How is it I'm being disingenuous?

 

[Valerie]

What is youir problem? We want to legally marry. Period. You would rather marriage not be legal.

I disagree.

You're being totally disingenuous here. Why ?

divecon wants the government out of the marriage licensing business. I don't.

How is it I'm being disingenuous?

It's not as if he is against equality for gays is all I'm saying.

 

[Immanuel]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

I am not saying any of that and since it seems like I am the only one currently posting in this thread on the "other side", I feel like I'm the one being "attacked" here.

I hate the fact that the church discriminates against the homosexual community. I do not at all believe that Christ would behave in the manner that the "Religious Right" behaves in this regard. It sickens me to no end.

On the other hand, I fear what will happen when the state tears down the wall of separation. I may be wrong, maybe like CL and Bod nothing will happen, but I believe that there are activists out there that will sue churches in order to force them to marry homosexual couples. Not ALL homosexuals will support such suits, but there are activists out there and when "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land it will be inevitable that the church will be forced to comply.

Immie

What is so hard to understand about civil marriage being different from church weddings?

Gays and lesbians want the civil right to be legally married. Period

The Churches can do whatever they want.

Marriage equality does not tear down the wall of separation from church and state.

It will eventually. Politicians are just waiting for the opportunity.

What is your opposition to getting the state out of the marriage business all together? The state should not be licensing the Religious Blessings of a couple. It never should have to begin with.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

You're being totally disingenuous here. Why ?

divecon wants the government out of the marriage licensing business. I don't.

How is it I'm being disingenuous?

It's not as if he is against equality for gays is all I'm saying.

Where would atheist marry if only churches were in the business?