Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Madeline]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

Pretty sure Bodecea is a gay woman.

But but but...he said he was a bear...and that Gadawg was appealing.....are you sure?

 

[Madeline]

Well, boedicca and I have very different POVs on things and insulted each other, to be fair. Just got to where all we ever had to say were insults, so I iggied her.

Bodecea seems to me like a fair person, Againshelia. Mebbe we should each try giving the other's iggied person a second look?

I will if you will.

Okay, deal. Lemme know how it goes...and I appreciate that you are taking a second look on my say-so, as I am on yours.

 

[CurveLight]

You're a bigot Immie.

Whoa! That's not true...Read the thread.

I'm familiar with it which is why I weighed the evidence before making the charge.

 

[Madeline]

Well, I disagree with your reading, CurveLight. But only Immie knows his own heart.

 

[Valerie]

You're a bigot Immie.

Whoa! That's not true...Read the thread.

I'm familiar with it which is why I weighed the evidence before making the charge.

Really?

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 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.

 

[CurveLight]

I don't think it's fair to label Immie a bigot. I think his POV is based on faulty reasoning, but his motives are not hateful. He seems like a genuinely nice person to me.

I've followed the dialogue and what I've concluded is Immie is a bigot on the grounds he does not want gays to have the title "Marriage" because he sees that as wrong. He has not been able to support his accusation that gays want gay marriage just so they can sue churches to force them to marry gays and he can't even admit he failed to support it. He cited two cases and neither were churches and neither showed where a church was forced to marry anyone. I agree he is generally a nice guy but that doesn't mean he isn't a bigot. They don't all go around screaming like fucking dickidiots.

 

[CurveLight]

Whoa! That's not true...Read the thread.

I'm familiar with it which is why I weighed the evidence before making the charge.

Really?

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 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 guess you missed the posts where he said he does not want gays to have gay marriage because then they can force churches to marry them.

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

Nope

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

Pretty sure Bodecea is a gay woman.

But but but...he said he was a bear...and that Gadawg was appealing.....are you sure?

I said, if I were straight...but I'm not. So, he'd be a great friend to have.

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

I like boedicca...Boedecea is rude, insulting and well, word's I'd rather not say.

Good gods, there's a third one of us?

 

[Valerie]

Why don't religious people fighting tooth and nail to let gay couples call marriage "marriage" because of its so-called religious roots....why aren't they fighting tooth and nail against Atheists who call it "marriage"?


Can someone answer that one for me? I thought it was a faith owned word.

that's where you're fucked up---"marriage" has crept into secular life after centuries. You're taking on way more than the religious people when you try to change a word

I am very, very glad to see someone admit that the term "marriage" is NOT faith based. Thank you. That's what we've been saying all along. It's secular.

Whatever it's basis, Marriage has a new legal definition since DOMA passed in 96.



I understand what you're saying but why insist on that word at this point ?

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.


Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Valerie]

I'm familiar with it which is why I weighed the evidence before making the charge.

Really?

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 guess you missed the posts where he said he does not want gays to have gay marriage because then they can force churches to marry them.

Yeah, why don't you link that right here then..

 

[DiveCon]

that's where you're fucked up---"marriage" has crept into secular life after centuries. You're taking on way more than the religious people when you try to change a word

I am very, very glad to see someone admit that the term "marriage" is NOT faith based. Thank you. That's what we've been saying all along. It's secular.

Whatever it's basis, Marriage has a new legal definition since DOMA passed in 96.



I understand what you're saying but why insist on that word at this point ?

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.


Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

isnt there a proposed amendment to the constitution that was also called DOMA?

 

[Valerie]

I am very, very glad to see someone admit that the term "marriage" is NOT faith based. Thank you. That's what we've been saying all along. It's secular.

Whatever it's basis, Marriage has a new legal definition since DOMA passed in 96.



I understand what you're saying but why insist on that word at this point ?

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.


Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

isnt there a proposed amendment to the constitution that was also called DOMA?

DOMA does not ban same-sex marriages in itself. Neither does it require any state to ban them. DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The act also specifically denies federal benefits to same-sex couples. The act states that any federal law that applies to married couples does not apply to same-sex couple: statutory and administrative use of terms such as "marriage" and "spouse" under federal law only apply to heterosexual couples. In addition to the federal law, many states passed their own defense of marriage laws.


The Call for a Constitutional Amendment

In February 2004, President George W. Bush called for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The president said that DOMA was vulnerable to attack under the Full Faith and Credit clause, a sentiment echoed by numerous commentators. He stated only way to ensure that DOMA would not be struck down by "activist courts" is through an amendment that would" fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." Proposed amendments have been introduced in Congress, but no vote has yet taken place.

Bush threw his support behind a federal marriage amendment after events in Massachusetts and San Francisco. In late 2003 and early 2004, officials in both places seemingly authorized same-sex marriages.

The Defense of Marriage Act and the Call for a Constitutional Amendment - Divorce & Family Law Center

Full Faith and Credit Clause, the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.[2] At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision,[3] although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted differently.[4]

28 U.S.C. § 1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses and extradition in crimes.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>

 

[DiveCon]

Whatever it's basis, Marriage has a new legal definition since DOMA passed in 96.



I understand what you're saying but why insist on that word at this point ?

isnt there a proposed amendment to the constitution that was also called DOMA?

DOMA does not ban same-sex marriages in itself. Neither does it require any state to ban them. DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The act also specifically denies federal benefits to same-sex couples. The act states that any federal law that applies to married couples does not apply to same-sex couple: statutory and administrative use of terms such as "marriage" and "spouse" under federal law only apply to heterosexual couples. In addition to the federal law, many states passed their own defense of marriage laws.


The Call for a Constitutional Amendment

In February 2004, President George W. Bush called for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The president said that DOMA was vulnerable to attack under the Full Faith and Credit clause, a sentiment echoed by numerous commentators. He stated only way to ensure that DOMA would not be struck down by "activist courts" is through an amendment that would" fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." Proposed amendments have been introduced in Congress, but no vote has yet taken place.

Bush threw his support behind a federal marriage amendment after events in Massachusetts and San Francisco. In late 2003 and early 2004, officials in both places seemingly authorized same-sex marriages.

The Defense of Marriage Act and the Call for a Constitutional Amendment - Divorce & Family Law Center

Full Faith and Credit Clause, the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.[2] At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision,[3] although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted differently.[4]

28 U.S.C. § 1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses and extradition in crimes.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>

ah ok
then it is the same thing
and i'm against it
the constitution is a document that limits GOVERNMENT
not the people
i dont want that to change

 

[CurveLight]

Whoa! That's not true...Read the thread.

I'm familiar with it which is why I weighed the evidence before making the charge.

Really?

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 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.

Really?

I guess you missed the posts where he said he does not want gays to have gay marriage because then they can force churches to marry them.

Yeah, why don't you link that right here then..

My link is in the garage getting fixed. (You can't seriously have missed those posts)

 

[THE LIGHT]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

Pretty sure Bodecea is a gay woman.

Isn't that saying the same thing?

 

[Valerie]

I'm familiar with it which is why I weighed the evidence before making the charge.

Really?

I guess you missed the posts where he said he does not want gays to have gay marriage because then they can force churches to marry them.

Yeah, why don't you link that right here then..

My link is in the garage getting fixed. (You can't seriously have missed those posts)

No, I'm totally cereal.




Post the evidence of your accusations toward Immie.

 

[Valerie]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

Pretty sure Bodecea is a gay woman.

Isn't that saying the same thing?

Oh aren't you illuminating .

 

[THE LIGHT]

Bodecea, the man...not boedicca, the whiny bitchy woman. (I'm pretty sure bodecea is a guy, anyway.)

As is anyone who doesn't agree with you.