Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[DiveCon]

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.

which wouldnt change 1 iota
what part of this are you not getting?

 

[DiveCon]

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?

omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they would get the civil union contract and then they could hold ANY TYPE OF CELEBRATION THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE

 

[Sky Dancer]

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

Atheist marry too. They could care less about religous blessings.

There are over a thousand federal and state rights and priveleges that go along with legal marriage.

I want those just like every other married person.

 

[Immanuel]

HE DOESNT HAVE ONE
he has stated that over and over

You speak for Immie now?

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

She pm'd me. She thought I was ignoring her. I was not. I simply was answering posts from when I last participated in the thread and she was asking while I was reading old posts.

For the record, I have not been ignoring anyone, I am simply 40+ posts behind and no one wants me to catch up!

Immie

 

[Kat]

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?

omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they would get the civil union contract and then they could hold ANY TYPE OF CELEBRATION THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE

say whut? I didn't hear you..

 

[Immanuel]

I guess I can't see how that changes things any, DiveCon. I'm all for separation of church and state, but what advantage is there is forcing people who want religious ceremonies to repeat their vows at the courthouse?

You would not have to repeat any vows at the courthouse. In fact, the court house would not have to do ceremonies at all. Heck, you would not even have to go to the courthouse. It would be a contract that could be signed in a law office or signed and witnessed by two friends just like every other contract.

The ceremony would only apply to those who sought to have their union blessed by the church.

Immie

You don't take vows at the courthouse. You fill out a piece of paper and pay a fee.

Exactly, I said that earlier, so why do you oppose getting the state out of the business of religious blessings?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

You speak for Immie now?

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

I have now answered that.

Have you answered my question about what is wrong with calling it a civil union?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

I have now answered that.

Have you answered my question about what is wrong with calling it a civil union?

Immie

What I have is a marriage. It's not a civil union. We are family.

 

[Immanuel]

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

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.

I am perfectly okay with you calling it a marriage among your social network. I don't have any problems with that at all.

My concern (not shared by everyone) is that if the legal term is marriage then activists will attempt to force churches to marry them because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

You would not have to repeat any vows at the courthouse. In fact, the court house would not have to do ceremonies at all. Heck, you would not even have to go to the courthouse. It would be a contract that could be signed in a law office or signed and witnessed by two friends just like every other contract.

The ceremony would only apply to those who sought to have their union blessed by the church.

Immie

You don't take vows at the courthouse. You fill out a piece of paper and pay a fee.

Exactly, I said that earlier, so why do you oppose getting the state out of the business of religious blessings?

Immie

It was never in the business of religous blessings in the first place. It's in the business of civil marriage licensing.

 

[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.

I am perfectly okay with you calling it a marriage among your social network. I don't have any problems with that at all.

My concern (not shared by everyone) is that if the legal term is marriage then activists will attempt to force churches to marry them because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

Immie

Your concern is a paranoia. There is no evidence the churches would be sued. Civil marriage equality eliminates that concern.

 

[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.

That's not true. DiveCon had that idea as a possible solution toward equality. The rest of us have also been supporting equality via civil marriage with a small (m).

 

[Immanuel]

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.

And that is why for the legal benefits a couple (gay or straight) would need to go through a civil union contract.

Everyone is treated equally, but it helps to keep the state and the activists out of the religious blessing that is marriage.

Immie

 

[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.

And that is why for the legal benefits a couple (gay or straight) would need to go through a civil union contract.

Everyone is treated equally, but it helps to keep the state and the activists out of the religious blessing that is marriage.

Immie

Hello?

There is civil marriage and religious marriage. People who marry in the Church have both.

 

[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.

That's not true. DiveCon had that idea as a possible solution toward equality. The rest of us have also been supporting equality via civil marriage with a small (m).

What's with the small m? What does that mean?

Equality is gays and lesbians being able to legally marry just like hets do.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You are absolutely wrong. Activists do care.

You would stay married, because, if I am not mistaken you told us that you were married in a Buddhist Ceremony. None of that would change. What the civil union laws would do would be to keep the activists like the couple that filed suit against the NJ Church from filing lawsuits against churches nationwide.

When Marriage becomes only a religious right activists will not have any grounds to stand on in a lawsuit. If "gay marriage" becomes the legal definition, then activists will have legal grounds to challenge the religious institutions that will not "marry" them as they have the "legal right" to be married and the church is interfering with that right.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

You are absolutely wrong. Activists do care.

You would stay married, because, if I am not mistaken you told us that you were married in a Buddhist Ceremony. None of that would change. What the civil union laws would do would be to keep the activists like the couple that filed suit against the NJ Church from filing lawsuits against churches nationwide.

When Marriage becomes only a religious right activists will not have any grounds to stand on in a lawsuit. If "gay marriage" becomes the legal definition, then activists will have legal grounds to challenge the religious institutions that will not "marry" them as they have the "legal right" to be married and the church is interfering with that right.

Immie

If you let gays and lesbians get marriage licenses you wont' have a problem. Churches can continue to discriminate with their 'blessings' all they want.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

And as I have said hundreds of times before, if your church or religious institution is willing to marry you then I am all for it.

What I do not want to do is open the door for the activists that will take advantage of the term marriage and insist that churches marry homosexual couples. If a church is willing to do so, then more power to it, but I will be against any forced compliance.

Immie

 

[Samson]

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.

And as I have said hundreds of times before, if your church or religious institution is willing to marry you then I am all for it.

What I do not want to do is open the door for the activists that will take advantage of the term marriage and insist that churches marry homosexual couples. If a church is willing to do so, then more power to it, but I will be against any forced compliance.

Immie

I don't think you need to worry.

There are churches that will not marry heterosexual couples, and they continue to marry whomever qualifies withing their religion without legal ramification.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

And as I have said hundreds of times before, if your church or religious institution is willing to marry you then I am all for it.

What I do not want to do is open the door for the activists that will take advantage of the term marriage and insist that churches marry homosexual couples. If a church is willing to do so, then more power to it, but I will be against any forced compliance.

Immie

That won't happen. There are two stages in marrying. For people who want ceremonies they get the ceremony AFTER the license. So in fact, it is the STATE that is marrying them.


I am an activist. I am the activist monster you fear. I am telling you I could care less about what the Churches do.

Gay and lesbians will shop around. Believe me no one wants to break down a churches door. We want a license.