Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Immanuel]

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.

Bologna. The suit against the NJ church proves you wrong.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

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's not like it's prevalent though...

The 1st Amendment would ultimately hold up.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

Bologna. The suit against the NJ church proves you wrong.

Immie

NJ doesn't get gay people marry.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

New Jersey allowed gay marriage and an activist couple went after a church that refused to allow them to get married on their grounds and you want to say it won't happen?

Are you nuts?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Then get them on your own without resorting to cheap hetero practices to get them.

You must be divorced.

Can't figure out a way to get those rights other than by resorting to stealing the centuries old hetero practice of marriage ?

Yup that's right. It makes a big difference for medical care.

 

[Valerie]

I am confident that homosexual activists will seek to force their agenda on religious institutions and win when it get to SCOTUS.

Immie

Based on what though ?

 

[Samson]

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

Not really proof: Anyone can file a civil rights complaint about practically anything. This complaint was filed in 2007, but there's nothing to make me believe it ever resulted in anything.

By the way Immie, I'm considering filing a complaint against you for being hard-headed.

 

[dilloduck]

You must be divorced.

Can't figure out a way to get those rights other than by resorting to stealing the centuries old hetero practice of marriage ?

Yup that's right. It makes a big difference for medical care.

not in Texas

 

[Valerie]

I am an activist. I am the activist monster you fear.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

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

I am an activist. Are you afraid of me?

We are all activists for something or we would not be here.

You are not an activists that hates religious institutions and it does not appear that you or Bod would seek to force your desires on a religious institution that refused to marry you, but there are others out there that do not see things like you do. Some people hate the church for the years of opposition to the gay community. Some gay people think the church hates them and will attempt to punish the church.

You may be an activist. You are not that kind of an activist.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Can't figure out a way to get those rights other than by resorting to stealing the centuries old hetero practice of marriage ?

Yup that's right. It makes a big difference for medical care.

not in Texas

That's the problem. We have worry about what state we're in all the time.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

New Jersey allowed gay marriage and an activist couple went after a church that refused to allow them to get married on their grounds and you want to say it won't happen?

Are you nuts?

Immie

We'd have to check the dates on that. If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Hello.

It's not about the church ceremonies. It's about the legal status.

HELLLLOOOOOO!

To you it is about the legal status.

I think I remember earlier in the thread you stated you did not speak for the entire community.

HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOO! Anyone home?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

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

Hello.

It's not about the church ceremonies. It's about the legal status.

HELLLLOOOOOO!

To you it is about the legal status.

I think I remember earlier in the thread you stated you did not speak for the entire community.

HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOO! Anyone home?

Immie

Then stop making me responsible for some stupid couple in NJ. I hope they lose their lawsuit.

 

[Samson]

You must be divorced.

Can't figure out a way to get those rights other than by resorting to stealing the centuries old hetero practice of marriage ?

Yup that's right. It makes a big difference for medical care.

At one time, this was my major arguement against gay marriage, but with the passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Marriage, in any form making a seems to be a mute regarding medical care .

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Dear Samson, I disagree.

There has been a long standing fued between the gay community and conservative churches. It will not end the day "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land. Gay Marriage will be a baby step in the fight. It will not be the end of the war that activists are waging against conservatives and conservative churches.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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

Yes, I missed that link.

I'm not them.

And I am not worried about you.

You have never indicated that you hate the church or conservatives.

You are not them, which is why we get along.

Immie

 

[Samson]

Hello.

It's not about the church ceremonies. It's about the legal status.

HELLLLOOOOOO!

To you it is about the legal status.

I think I remember earlier in the thread you stated you did not speak for the entire community.

HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOO! Anyone home?

Immie

Then stop making me responsible for some stupid couple in NJ. I hope they lose their lawsuit.

ITS NOT A LAWSUIT: ITS A FILED COMPLAINT!!!!!

FOR CHRISTSSAKES!!!

People file complaints about ALL SORTS OF STUPID SHIT!!

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Dear Samson, I disagree.

There has been a long standing fued between the gay community and conservative churches. It will not end the day "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land. Gay Marriage will be a baby step in the fight. It will not be the end of the war that activists are waging against conservatives and conservative churches.

Immie

agreed--it's like the Israeli Arab conflict of the matimonial world.

 

[Immanuel]

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

I am so frustrated. If that couple were able to legally marry they wouldn't have sued the damn church.

Bologna.

They were allowed to be married in NJ although I think they called it civil unions at the time.

The lawsuit was filed because the church would not allow them to use their facilities to get "married".

Immie