Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Seawytch]

The Sad Story of the Dolores Street Baptist Church - This is where the couple married.

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

1969
Metropolitan Community Church

"The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), also known as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), is an international Protestant Christian denomination. There are 222 member congregations in 37 countries, and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families and communities.[1]"

Metropolitan Community Church - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Gays and Lesbian's have been getting religiously married in every state in the Union for a long, long time.


>>>>

OK, you found ONE. Wow.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, you found ONE. Wow.

I provided you another. At the time my friends got married at the Dolores Street Baptist Church, they looked in a directory that had quite a few gay friendly denominations willing to perform ceremonies for gay couples. There was even a Jewish Synagogue among them. I ended up attending a candlelight service there a couple of years later. Again, this was in the mid-late 80s.

You realize it is 2014, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

Incorrect.


Semantics are irrelevant – there is only the contract law that is marriage which is written by the states and administered by state courts. Both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contract law that is marriage, regardless who performs the wedding ceremony.


Again, no one is seeking to compel religious entities to accommodate same-sex couples, where such entities are at liberty to perceive marriage in a religious context however they please.


But outside of the church, synagogue, or mosque, the marriage contract that was entered into by the opposite-sex couple – in the eyes of the state, general public, and the law – is the same as that of a same-sex couple.


That you and others perceive same-sex couples as 'deviant' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, there is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law, as to seek to do so pursues no proper legislative end – and consequently this is why we've seen over 20 state and Federal courts invalidate measures designed to violate the equal protection rights of gay Americans.

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

That's fine...and that was tried in several states within the last 10 years but it was the Religious Right that shoot such things down. Besides, many religions already marry gay couples. We were married via religious service long before we were legally married.

That doesn't make it right. You have an illness, your genes are screwed up. Its not your fault. Society understands that.

That doesn't make what right?

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

Incorrect.


Semantics are irrelevant – there is only the contract law that is marriage which is written by the states and administered by state courts. Both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contract law that is marriage, regardless who performs the wedding ceremony.


Again, no one is seeking to compel religious entities to accommodate same-sex couples, where such entities are at liberty to perceive marriage in a religious context however they please.


But outside of the church, synagogue, or mosque, the marriage contract that was entered into by the opposite-sex couple – in the eyes of the state, general public, and the law – is the same as that of a same-sex couple.


That you and others perceive same-sex couples as 'deviant' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, there is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law, as to seek to do so pursues no proper legislative end – and consequently this is why we've seen over 20 state and Federal courts invalidate measures designed to violate the equal protection rights of gay Americans.

which mosque has performed a gay marriage ceremony?

I understand what you and wytchey are saying, I just disagree based on my personal and religious beliefs. Tell me, am I allowed to think for myself in the USA? or must I believe what the government mandates?

you silly fucks have no idea where this shit is going to take this country.

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

Incorrect.


Semantics are irrelevant – there is only the contract law that is marriage which is written by the states and administered by state courts. Both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contract law that is marriage, regardless who performs the wedding ceremony.


Again, no one is seeking to compel religious entities to accommodate same-sex couples, where such entities are at liberty to perceive marriage in a religious context however they please.


But outside of the church, synagogue, or mosque, the marriage contract that was entered into by the opposite-sex couple – in the eyes of the state, general public, and the law – is the same as that of a same-sex couple.


That you and others perceive same-sex couples as 'deviant' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, there is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law, as to seek to do so pursues no proper legislative end – and consequently this is why we've seen over 20 state and Federal courts invalidate measures designed to violate the equal protection rights of gay Americans.

what I said about the gay agenda is 100% correct. government mandated societal acceptance. Thought control. Big Brother. Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

That's fine...and that was tried in several states within the last 10 years but it was the Religious Right that shoot such things down. Besides, many religions already marry gay couples. We were married via religious service long before we were legally married.

That doesn't make it right. You have an illness, your genes are screwed up. Its not your fault. Society understands that.

That doesn't make what right?

Gay "marriage"

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

Incorrect.


Semantics are irrelevant – there is only the contract law that is marriage which is written by the states and administered by state courts. Both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contract law that is marriage, regardless who performs the wedding ceremony.


Again, no one is seeking to compel religious entities to accommodate same-sex couples, where such entities are at liberty to perceive marriage in a religious context however they please.


But outside of the church, synagogue, or mosque, the marriage contract that was entered into by the opposite-sex couple – in the eyes of the state, general public, and the law – is the same as that of a same-sex couple.


That you and others perceive same-sex couples as 'deviant' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, there is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law, as to seek to do so pursues no proper legislative end – and consequently this is why we've seen over 20 state and Federal courts invalidate measures designed to violate the equal protection rights of gay Americans.

which mosque has performed a gay marriage ceremony?

I understand what you and wytchey are saying, I just disagree based on my personal and religious beliefs. Tell me, am I allowed to think for myself in the USA? or must I believe what the government mandates?

you silly fucks have no idea where this shit is going to take this country.

Legalized gay marriage in one state or another has been around for at least a decade....Church sanctioned gay marriages have been around longer than that. If this was going to "take our country" somewhere....why aren't we there yet?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

1969
Metropolitan Community Church

"The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), also known as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), is an international Protestant Christian denomination. There are 222 member congregations in 37 countries, and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families and communities.[1]"

Metropolitan Community Church - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Gays and Lesbian's have been getting religiously married in every state in the Union for a long, long time.


>>>>

OK, you found ONE. Wow.

Sucks when someone can back up what they say doesn't it?


Now there are thousands of Churches across this great national that preform same-sex weddings.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

That's fine...and that was tried in several states within the last 10 years but it was the Religious Right that shoot such things down. Besides, many religions already marry gay couples. We were married via religious service long before we were legally married.

That doesn't make it right. You have an illness, your genes are screwed up. Its not your fault. Society understands that.

That doesn't make what right?

Gay "marriage"

Says who?

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

The voters of the great state of California voted down gay marriage twice. Does the will of the people matter any more in this country? Or are we all slaves to the government who tells us what to think, how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what temp to set your thermostats at, and where to educate our kids?

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS.

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

The voters of the great state of California voted down gay marriage twice. Does the will of the people matter any more in this country? Or are we all slaves to the government who tells us what to think, how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what temp to set your thermostats at, and where to educate our kids?

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS.

And the voters of many great states in the South voted down interracial marriage for a long time too. Doesn't make that right.

Would you accept it if the voters of a state voted to make gun ownership illegal?

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

That's fine...and that was tried in several states within the last 10 years but it was the Religious Right that shoot such things down. Besides, many religions already marry gay couples. We were married via religious service long before we were legally married.

That doesn't make it right. You have an illness, your genes are screwed up. Its not your fault. Society understands that.

That doesn't make what right?

Gay "marriage"

Says who?

a vast majority of the inhabitants of planet earth.

 

[JoeB131]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

Why is it you wingnuts scream about "American exceptionalism" when liberals point out other countries have gun control, socialized medicine, or have ended capital punishment, but you want to cite "the majority of the people of the world" when rationalizing your homophobia?

Gays are going to get married. Deal with it.

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

The voters of the great state of California voted down gay marriage twice. Does the will of the people matter any more in this country? Or are we all slaves to the government who tells us what to think, how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what temp to set your thermostats at, and where to educate our kids?

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS.

How Ironic....when you support withholding equal rights from a section of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of America.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

The voters of the great state of California voted down gay marriage twice. Does the will of the people matter any more in this country? Or are we all slaves to the government who tells us what to think, how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what temp to set your thermostats at, and where to educate our kids?

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS.

The voters of California did not vote down Churches being able to perform weddings for same-sex couples. Their vote had no impact on that.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

The voters of the great state of California voted down gay marriage twice. Does the will of the people matter any more in this country? Or are we all slaves to the government who tells us what to think, how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what temp to set your thermostats at, and where to educate our kids?

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS.

And the voters of many great states in the South voted down interracial marriage for a long time too. Doesn't make that right.

Would you accept it if the voters of a state voted to make gun ownership illegal?

It makes it right for those states. No, that would be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

But if you are interested in the results of such a gun law, look at chicago where they have the most strict gun laws in the country---------and thousands of gun murders every year.

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

Was married by a church in 1990....the state of CA didn't make marriage legal until 2008....then took it away for awhile...now it's legal again.

The voters of the great state of California voted down gay marriage twice. Does the will of the people matter any more in this country? Or are we all slaves to the government who tells us what to think, how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what temp to set your thermostats at, and where to educate our kids?

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS.

And the voters of many great states in the South voted down interracial marriage for a long time too. Doesn't make that right.

Would you accept it if the voters of a state voted to make gun ownership illegal?

It makes it right for those states. No, that would be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

But if you are interested in the results of such a gun law, look at chicago where they have the most strict gun laws in the country---------and thousands of gun murders every year.

Exactly....the majority cannot vote away established rights.