Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[Jarlaxle]

By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.

And it SHOULD..I truly wish I had the time and funds to take this to the Supreme Court.

Contact the NRA- it does have the time and funds.

I don't have any bone in that dog fight- but if you think you should be able to- the NRA would not hesitate to go to court over that issue- IF they thought they could win.

I don't have the time. I just can't take the time off work it would take to pursue the case in court (which could and probably would take YEARS...realistically, someone would have to be independently wealthy or retired to do this). If the justices actually FOLLOW the Constitution, it would be an open and shut case.

 

[Syriusly]

Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.

That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.

This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.

Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.

Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.

But they were not able to marry who they wanted to marry.

Just as the Lovings were allowed to marry anyone they wanted- so long as Mr. Loving married a white woman and Mrs. Loving married a black man. It was only illegal for them to marry the one they were in love with.

Just so with homosexuals who want to marry the one that they are in love with.

And in 30 states now, they can do so.

And that is a wonderful thing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

It is quite simple...I applaud when they FOLLOW the Constitution, I do not when they ignore it. Yes, it really IS that simnple.

 

[Syriusly]

By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.

And it SHOULD..I truly wish I had the time and funds to take this to the Supreme Court.

Contact the NRA- it does have the time and funds.

I don't have any bone in that dog fight- but if you think you should be able to- the NRA would not hesitate to go to court over that issue- IF they thought they could win.

I don't have the time. I can't take the time off work it would take to pursue the case in court (which could and probably would take YEARS). If the justices actually FOLLOW the Constitution, it would be an open and shut case.

Then contact the NRA and ask them to pursue the case- I mean thats what I would do if I thought this was such an important, and such an open and shut case.

 

[Andylusion]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Because the Courts have been using the Constitution as toilet paper for a very long time.

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

I don't care what the court say either. Not on this issue. If the court ruled that guns were illegal I would surrender mine. Not without huge anger, but I would do it. I'm not going to jail over a gun law.

But this..... totally different in my book. Not even in the same category.

G-d's law is above human law. Nothing in the Bible about "thou shalt own a firearm." But there is something about homosexuality being a sin, we are to have nothing to do with.

And therefore, I don't give a crap what the court says. Not doing it. Do you understand? We are not going to do it. You won't make us either. You can jail us, but we're not going to do gay marriage. You can slander us, but we're not doing gay marriage. You can even kill us, and we are still not going to do gay marriage.

Not up for debate, or discussion, or anything. We are NOT going to do Gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote too, eh?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you actually READ AND UNDERSTAND the post you quoted, Syriusly?

I thought not.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

It is quite simple...I applaud when they FOLLOW the Constitution, I do not when they ignore it. Yes, it really IS that simnple.

It is exactly what I expect- you believe that they follow the Constitution when you agree with them- and you believe that they don't when you don't agree with them.

Because of course- you have a far deeper and better knowledge of the Constitution and the law than those Supreme Court justices.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't care what the court say either. Not on this issue. If the court ruled that guns were illegal I would surrender mine. Not without huge anger, but I would do it. I'm not going to jail over a gun law.

But this..... totally different in my book. Not even in the same category.

G-d's law is above human law. Nothing in the Bible about "thou shalt own a firearm." But there is something about homosexuality being a sin, we are to have nothing to do with.

And therefore, I don't give a crap what the court says. Not doing it. Do you understand? We are not going to do it. You won't make us either. You can jail us, but we're not going to do gay marriage. You can slander us, but we're not doing gay marriage. You can even kill us, and we are still not going to do gay marriage.

Not up for debate, or discussion, or anything. We are NOT going to do Gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote too, eh?

Don't worry...most of you will be dead, buried, and forgotten in 25 years.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

It is quite simple...I applaud when they FOLLOW the Constitution, I do not when they ignore it. Yes, it really IS that simnple.

It is exactly what I expect- you believe that they follow the Constitution when you agree with them- and you believe that they don't when you don't agree with them.

Because of course- you have a far deeper and better knowledge of the Constitution and the law than those Supreme Court justices.

Stop being stupid. They ignore it when it suits their ideology...we BOTH know this, please don't insult your own intelligence by denying it.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't care what the court say either. Not on this issue. If the court ruled that guns were illegal I would surrender mine. Not without huge anger, but I would do it. I'm not going to jail over a gun law.

But this..... totally different in my book. Not even in the same category.

G-d's law is above human law. Nothing in the Bible about "thou shalt own a firearm." But there is something about homosexuality being a sin, we are to have nothing to do with.

And therefore, I don't give a crap what the court says. Not doing it. Do you understand? We are not going to do it. You won't make us either. You can jail us, but we're not going to do gay marriage. You can slander us, but we're not doing gay marriage. You can even kill us, and we are still not going to do gay marriage.

Not up for debate, or discussion, or anything. We are NOT going to do Gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote too, eh?

Don't worry...most of you will be dead, buried, and forgotten in 25 years.

I sure hope so. But, regardless, I'll fight this fight till I die. No question about it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't care what the court say either. Not on this issue. If the court ruled that guns were illegal I would surrender mine. Not without huge anger, but I would do it. I'm not going to jail over a gun law.

But this..... totally different in my book. Not even in the same category.

G-d's law is above human law. Nothing in the Bible about "thou shalt own a firearm." But there is something about homosexuality being a sin, we are to have nothing to do with.

And therefore, I don't give a crap what the court says. Not doing it. Do you understand? We are not going to do it. You won't make us either. You can jail us, but we're not going to do gay marriage. You can slander us, but we're not doing gay marriage. You can even kill us, and we are still not going to do gay marriage.

Not up for debate, or discussion, or anything. We are NOT going to do Gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote too, eh?

Don't worry...most of you will be dead, buried, and forgotten in 25 years.

I sure hope so. But, regardless, I'll fight this fight till I die. No question about it.

Sooner the better, then.

 

[Syriusly]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Because the Courts have been using the Constitution as toilet paper for a very long time.

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

I don't care what the court say either. Not on this issue. If the court ruled that guns were illegal I would surrender mine. Not without huge anger, but I would do it. I'm not going to jail over a gun law.

But this..... totally different in my book. Not even in the same category.

G-d's law is above human law. Nothing in the Bible about "thou shalt own a firearm." But there is something about homosexuality being a sin, we are to have nothing to do with.

And therefore, I don't give a crap what the court says. Not doing it. Do you understand? We are not going to do it. You won't make us either. You can jail us, but we're not going to do gay marriage. You can slander us, but we're not doing gay marriage. You can even kill us, and we are still not going to do gay marriage.

Not up for debate, or discussion, or anything. We are NOT going to do Gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote too, eh?

Good for you.

I want you to know- I will never force you to "gay marry"- I will never force you to marry anyone you don't want to marry.

On a more serious note- no one is going to force you to marry anyone if you are a minister marrying in a church.
If you are a business in most states, you can discriminate against homosexuals to your Christian hearts content.
But if you run a business in states where the law says that you can't discriminate against people for sexual orientation, then it is as illegal to refuse to serve homosexuals as it is to refuse to do business with Jews or Blacks.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you actually READ AND UNDERSTAND the post you quoted, Syriusly?

I thought not.

Since you didn't quote me- I have no idea which post you are confused by.

 

[Jarlaxle]

684.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem the States have- and the problem with your claim- is that neither the States or yourself have articulated what those beneficial 'effects for all of society' are that occurs when men and women marry- that do not occur when two men or two women marry.

I can't help what the states do, or don't do, but I have articulated these issues in other threads and I'm not interested is expending the effort to educate you.

I will though point to one part of the rationale. Men and women have different natures and when society brings them together they each work to modify the other. We see this domestic effect very strongly with young men. They're wilder when single and more domesticated after being married. Two women together or two men together exacerbates separatism - no gaps are being closed.

Marriage as an institution preceded the modern state and marriage was found to be the most successful social practice at producing stable environments within which to raise children. Old people getting married didn't produce the effect but the practice added reinforcement to a societal norm and so was tolerated. Homosexuals don't produce any such effect.

The nature of marriage has changed with the introduction of birth control. Marriage was predominantly focused on creating families but now it's been refocused onto celebrating the love of two people for each other. State benefits which attached to marriage actually furthered a state interest, stable families and raising children. There is no state interest in two people celebrating their love for each other. This applies to both heterosexual and homosexual pairings. There's no justification to granting benefits to Paul and Suzie because they love each other and there's no justification in granting benefits to Bruce and Stan because they love each other. Society only benefits when Paul and Suzie have kids, and in return for them granting society a benefit, society returns the favor and grants them benefits. This works fine when almost all marriage used to produce kids. It doesn't work so well anymore.

Other than just preventing homosexuals from marrying.

This is the problem with ignorant liberals - because they don't understand the full scope of the issue nor their opponent's positions, they ascribe bad motives and then pat themselves on the back for being enlightened thinkers.

 

[Syriusly]

This is the problem with ignorant liberals - because they don't understand the full scope of the issue nor their opponent's positions, they ascribe bad motives and then pat themselves on the back for being enlightened thinkers.

This is the pattern of ignorant conservatives- they make unsubstantiated claims and attacks on minorities- and ascribe bad motives on them and then pat themselives on the back for being enlightened thinkers and just can't handle it when someone turns around their words back on them.

 

[Rikurzhen]

But marriage is something that the state rewards because when men and women marry it produces beneficial effects for all of society. That's not the case with homosexuals. So in order to avoid a.) fighting to protect society and b.) not insulting homosexuals, your proposal concedes that society should flush a valuable institution down the toilet and harm us all.

It is customary to read a quoted post before replying to it. Not mandatory, you understand, but customary.

I'll take a second swing at your comment.

It strikes me as odd to propose that the State should retreat from sanctioning marriage because it's too burdensome a task to defend the utility of marriage against the homosexual/liberal hordes. To retreat back to Civil Union for everyone and marriage only by Church seems to me to be the coward's way out of this mess. It's a symbolic move. All the benefits of marriage would simply transfer to civil unions, would they not? Or do I have it wrong? The benefit of marriage under this new order would simply be a Church granted sanction. This would preclude non-religious couples from getting married but all they would lose is a church blessing their marriage.

If I'm misinterpreting please feel free to clarify your position.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This is the problem with ignorant liberals - because they don't understand the full scope of the issue nor their opponent's positions, they ascribe bad motives and then pat themselves on the back for being enlightened thinkers.

This is the pattern of ignorant conservatives- they make unsubstantiated claims and attacks on minorities- and ascribe bad motives on them and then pat themselives on the back for being enlightened thinkers and just can't handle it when someone turns around their words back on them.

I expected no better from you. Thanks for reinforcing my perception that discussing anything with you is a waste of my time. Even Billy000 and rdean bring more to a discussion than you.

 

[Andylusion]

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Because the Courts have been using the Constitution as toilet paper for a very long time.

Conservatives say that when the Court makes decisions it doesn't agree with.

Yet applauds the same Courts when they rule against gun laws.

Ironic eh?

Me- I think Court has the right to rule on both issues.

I don't care what the court say either. Not on this issue. If the court ruled that guns were illegal I would surrender mine. Not without huge anger, but I would do it. I'm not going to jail over a gun law.

But this..... totally different in my book. Not even in the same category.

G-d's law is above human law. Nothing in the Bible about "thou shalt own a firearm." But there is something about homosexuality being a sin, we are to have nothing to do with.

And therefore, I don't give a crap what the court says. Not doing it. Do you understand? We are not going to do it. You won't make us either. You can jail us, but we're not going to do gay marriage. You can slander us, but we're not doing gay marriage. You can even kill us, and we are still not going to do gay marriage.

Not up for debate, or discussion, or anything. We are NOT going to do Gay marriage. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote too, eh?

Good for you.

I want you to know- I will never force you to "gay marry"- I will never force you to marry anyone you don't want to marry.

On a more serious note- no one is going to force you to marry anyone if you are a minister marrying in a church.
If you are a business in most states, you can discriminate against homosexuals to your Christian hearts content.
But if you run a business in states where the law says that you can't discriminate against people for sexual orientation, then it is as illegal to refuse to serve homosexuals as it is to refuse to do business with Jews or Blacks.

Don't care. We're not going to marry gays. Period. No matter what the state says, or doesn't say. Illegal or not, we're not going to do it. Too bad.

 

[Syriusly]

The nature of marriage has changed with the introduction of birth control. Marriage was predominantly focused on creating families but now it's been refocused onto celebrating the love of two people for each other. State benefits which attached to marriage actually furthered a state interest, stable families and raising children. There is no state interest in two people celebrating their love for each other. This applies to both heterosexual and homosexual pairings. There's no justification to granting benefits to Paul and Suzie because they love each other and there's no justification in granting benefits to Bruce and Stan because they love each other. Society only benefits when Paul and Suzie have kids, and in return for them granting society a benefit, society returns the favor and grants them benefits. This works fine when almost all marriage used to produce kids. It doesn't work so well anymore..

The nature of marriage has changed- but fundamentally for most of the last 100 years marriage in the United States has been by mutual consent by two persons who wanted a life together. Did some of them get married to have children? More than likely- but my parents didn't. They got married with the intention of spending their lives together- and children happened- and they loved that.

But their marriage would have been just as genuine whether there were children or not.

The benefits the state provides to marriage couples exists to strengthen the life long commitment between the couple- because a couple committed to each other is less likely to be a burden on society- because married couples commit to each other to take care of each other- forever.

For example- the benefit that Windsor sued for- the inheritance exemption for married couples. This provides no direct benefit to children- no added benefit to couples with children- it benefits primarily couples who are older and past their child bearing years- it primarily benefits the surviving partner- and makes sense as marriage being a life time commitment between a couple.

The problem your argument has is that marriage law does nothing to encourage either having children- or staying together to raise children. Divorce could be illegal. States could attempt to legally require parents to marry. States could even provide benefits to married couples to encourage them to procreate- but the State doesn't.

As has been pointed out- States even allow couples to marry that have to prove that they cannot bear children. States could instead forbid those couples to marry- but instead they cut out a special provision allowing them to marry- but only if they cannot have children.

This is why the procreation argument fails in court. The States are after the fact trying to make the case that marriage is about children- but State law makes no link between procreation and marriage. States only argue that in order to prevent same gender couples from marrying.

Marriage is a right- that is well established. States can deny marriage- but they have to be able to show a real state interest in denying marriage to mixed race couples, fathers who are behind in child support, prisoners behind bars- and yes same gender couples.

So far in all of these cases- states have not been able to show a vital state interest that preventing same gender couples from marrying accomplishes.