Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 who you fear.
I am telling you I could care less about what the Churches do.
Hello. Some people don't even marry in a church. All they do is go and grab a license.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 who you fear.
I am telling you I could care less about what the Churches do.
Then why do you keep saying Immie is against equality when his only concern is keeping Church and State separate ?
Atheist marry too. They could care less about religous blessings.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
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.
Atheist marry too. They could care less about religous blessings.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
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.
Exactly!!
And I want you to have those privileges too. If I didn't, I'd tell the homosexual community to get lost and I would not offer a compromise. I would support DOMA and Prop 8. But the fact is that the government should not be involved in this issue at all.
When I first started thinking about this issue, I was completely against the entire idea of gay marriage. To me it was nothing but gays seeking extra rights. Then I had a conversation with someone very much like Bod and I realized that she was right, the homosexual community was excluded from many privileges of marriage and that despite my religious convictions, it was not right that the government play favorites.
It was after that that I began to think that civil unions were the fairest way to handle this issue. If a gay couple gets married in a church, then I am in full support of that couple and the institution that married them. What I am not in support of is the activists using the term "marriage" to insist that all churches provide their facilities for their weddings.
I understand that CL and Bod are good hearted people and believe that would not happen, but I do not trust activists whether they are from the Religious Right or the homosexual community. I am confident that homosexual activists will seek to force their agenda on religious institutions and win when it get to SCOTUS.
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.
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.
So getting the state's blessing by paying for them to say you are married will solve everything ?
Hello. Some people don't even marry in a church. All they do is go and grab a license.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 who you fear.
I am telling you I could care less about what the Churches do.
Then why do you keep saying Immie is against equality when his only concern is keeping Church and State separate ?
The state is in the licensing business, not in the religious blessings business. Separation of church and state already exists.
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.
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.
And what does that matter?
When this issue is settled, if the term settled on is "gay marriage", then the first church that denies a homosexual couple its facilities will be sued for denying them couple its "constitutional rights".
If the term is civil union, there will not be a "constitutional right" to be married. Marriage will be a religious rite and churches that believe homosexuality is a sin will have legal grounds to stand on when it comes to saying, no.
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.
So getting the state's blessing by paying for them to say you are married will solve everything ?
Getting a license is what its all about. It's for legal rights and priveleges, not 'blessings'. Gay and lesbians get plenty of blessings, it's the civil rights we want.
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.
So getting the state's blessing by paying for them to say you are married will solve everything ?
Getting a license is what its all about. It's for legal rights and priveleges, not 'blessings'. Gay and lesbians get plenty of blessings, it's the civil rights we want.
Then get them on your own without resorting to cheap hetero practices to get them.
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.
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.
And what does that matter?
When this issue is settled, if the term settled on is "gay marriage", then the first church that denies a homosexual couple its facilities will be sued for denying them couple its "constitutional rights".
If the term is civil union, there will not be a "constitutional right" to be married. Marriage will be a religious rite and churches that believe homosexuality is a sin will have legal grounds to stand on when it comes to saying, no.
Immie
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.
No evidence?
Are you serious? Did you miss this link?
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
That right there is proof that you are wrong.
Immie
It was never in the business of religous blessings in the first place. It's in the business of civil marriage licensing.
And what does that matter?
When this issue is settled, if the term settled on is "gay marriage", then the first church that denies a homosexual couple its facilities will be sued for denying them couple its "constitutional rights".
If the term is civil union, there will not be a "constitutional right" to be married. Marriage will be a religious rite and churches that believe homosexuality is a sin will have legal grounds to stand on when it comes to saying, no.
Immie
Dear Immie: It is absurd to conclude, when TODAY a church denies HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES their facilities, and is not sued, that a church will be sued TOMORROW for denying HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES their facilities.
Getting a license is what its all about. It's for legal rights and priveleges, not 'blessings'. Gay and lesbians get plenty of blessings, it's the civil rights we want.
Then get them on your own without resorting to cheap hetero practices to get them.
You must be divorced.
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.
And no one would be stopping anyone from having both. What this would stop is the activists using the language of the law to force compliance upon churches that do not succumb to gay activists.
Immie
