Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[bendog]

Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a fundamental right.

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.

Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.

I don't think that's true. Honestly, even 8 years ago, I think a majority thought that while civil unions might be ok, equal protection didn't require not allowing states to deny GLBT marriages on the same grounds as straights. It took me awhile to get there too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.

No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.

Incorrect.

The right of interracial couples to marry and same-sex couples to marry is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts exactly as marriage laws are currently written, and states are prohibited from denying either to access marriage law accordingly.

Indeed, Loving is cited by Federal courts when invalidating state measures intended to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples concerning marriage.

In addition, whether one is homosexual as a consequence of birth or choice is Constitutionally irrelevant, as gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[bendog]

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.

No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.

Incorrect.

The right of interracial couples to marry and same-sex couples to marry is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts exactly as marriage laws are currently written, and states are prohibited from denying either to access marriage law accordingly.

Indeed, Loving is cited by Federal courts when invalidating state measures intended to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples concerning marriage.

In addition, whether one is homosexual as a consequence of birth or choice is Constitutionally irrelevant, as gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

One ofJUSTICE SCALIA: I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? Sometimes after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial Federal question? When did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When – may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's an easy question, I think, for that one. At the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That's absolutely true. But don't give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? ...

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that –

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

A 5th Amendment 'right' to same-sex marriage?

Have a nice weekend

 

[GISMYS]

THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

 

[RKMBrown]

OK, playing dumb I see. Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:

"If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"

Better? Now answer.

Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?

My point is well taken. Of the hundreds who voted on this poll...[one of the largest turnouts at USMB & therefore a topic strongly important to many] ..85% do not believe gay marriage is important to them enough that people who dont like it should have to participate in it. So at the best outlook it could be deduced that of gay marriage supporters..85% of them only have very tepid [and I would even say transitory] support for it.

So for dem strategists, what that means in real votes is that for every state where gay marriage is forced on the voters [yea! victory!...?] by a single person or small panel of people....add to that a Harvey Milk style October surprise.... & you have a real democrat crisis on your hands...

Gays..with the help from "some republicans"... have shoved the democratic party [& all our good/productive/sane platforms..like heathcare & green energy] straight into political checkmate.

You are a dumb ass retard lying POS troll.

 

[RKMBrown]

THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

You are the worst kind of TROLL. One that promotes his his vile hate as religion.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.

No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.

Incorrect.

The right of interracial couples to marry and same-sex couples to marry is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts exactly as marriage laws are currently written, and states are prohibited from denying either to access marriage law accordingly.

Indeed, Loving is cited by Federal courts when invalidating state measures intended to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples concerning marriage.

In addition, whether one is homosexual as a consequence of birth or choice is Constitutionally irrelevant as gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:

When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Looks like you agree, that homosexuality is a choice, as does SCOTUS.

 

[GISMYS]

THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

You are the worst kind of TROLL. One that promotes his his vile hate as religion.

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! Sooooooo True!!!HUH??

 

[RKMBrown]

THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

You are the worst kind of TROLL. One that promotes his his vile hate as religion.

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! Sooooooo True!!!HUH??

Put your stones down ya heathen.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a fundamental right.

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.

Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.

When the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, violate my faith.... they're wrong. Period. Don't care what you think. Why are we here? To make it clear that all that crap you just spewed isn't going to change us.

"Well you're a troll!"

Still don't care. I'm going to live by my Biblical views whether you think I'm a troll, a 'tedious dullard' or anything else. And you are not going to stop me.

Your opinion of me, will never change what I believe or practice. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Seawytch]

In other words you have no argument left. We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.







Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."







If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing. Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to. Being a waste, is really sad. You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic. I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.

Truth make you uncomfortable? Don't like being akin to racists of yore? Oh well...

I don't care either way. At this point, what I do care about is you wasting my time with your pathetically empty and useless posts. You are hereby muted forever. You can waste other people's time from here on.

I don't care if you're a bigot either. Glad we can agree on that!

 

[Seawytch]

Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.

Yes, gays have always had that. Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply. Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.



The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power. Government divides people and then pits them against each other. Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.

Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.

The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.

 

[Seawytch]

We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.







That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.







However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.

Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a fundamental right.

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

In this country it is.

 

[Seawytch]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.



No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.

No actually I never said being gay is like being black. What I have said is that the discrimination is the same. It is.

You could choose to suck a cock, like it AND kiss the dude after? I couldn't.

 

[Silhouette]

Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.

Yes, gays have always had that. Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply. Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.



The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power. Government divides people and then pits them against each other. Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.

Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.

The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.

The word "marriage" has always been about men & women & their children. With emphasis not in that order. What you are trying to do is redefine the word completely. And that is unacceptable to society. Blacks marrying whites did not defile the meaning of the word marriage being about a man, a woman and their child[ren]. Races have intermarried since the dawn of time. Your definition though does defile that thousands of years old term. Your sexual arrangment is functionally disqualified.

Blind people cannot drive. Gay people cannot be man and wife together. They can be something else, just not married. And that is mostly for the sake of children.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Only if they engage in political discourse from the pulpit. Then they should lose their tax exempt status and comply with the law as any other business must.

 

[Andylusion]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Only if they engage in political discourse from the pulpit. Then they should lose their tax exempt status and comply with the law as any other business must.

I've always found this claim to be dubious. Religion at it's very core, is a system of beliefs about your entire world view.

How do you discuss your entire world view, which as a preacher of any kind must do, do you avoid anything to do with politics, which also is directly connected to how you view the world?

 

[kaz]

What question. You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals. Or did I misunderstand.

You don't have a right to a contract. You can get a contract if 2 or more people agree to one and it meets government contractual regulations and you follow government processes.

It's no different than marriage, which is why it was begging the question. You assumed the truth of your own position and repeated the assertion.

Not at all. I have a right to enter into a contract with any agreeable person, and the state may not interfere by treating me unequally to anyone else. We're merely back to the your premise that the state may treat GLBT's differently. You are wrong.

1) Actually, there are all sorts of regulations for contracts and what can be put in them and what is enforcable and how they are enforcd. You have no idea what you are talking about. As career management and management consulting and now a business owner, I've been involved in and have negotiated many contracts. You are just pulling it out of your ass.

2) Government marriage isn't a contract, it's a government program. The one thing you accurately pointed out is they are agreed to between two people. Government is defined by government, involves government power and can be changed by government at any time in any way at it's whim.

3) Gays aren't treated any differently than straights are with government marriage. They can "marry" exactly the same people straights can and straights cannot marry anyone they can't. Being gay has zero impact on who one can get a government marriage with. And none of you saying yes it does have been able to produce a single example otherwise.

 

[kaz]

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.

Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.

What a fucking moron you are. Learn to read shit for brains. What is wrong with you? Seriously, you are just butt stupid.

 

[kaz]

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.

Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.

I don't think that's true. Honestly, even 8 years ago, I think a majority thought that while civil unions might be ok, equal protection didn't require not allowing states to deny GLBT marriages on the same grounds as straights. It took me awhile to get there too.

I appreciate you're trying to be civil here, but you are fundamentally wrong regarding my views and argument.

1) I have no issue with someone being gay. I do not think it's wrong in any way. I have no problem with gays committing to each other in an actual marriage. I am only discussing government marriage here.

2) I oppose all government marriage, not just gay government marriage.

3) If we have it, it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. The Constitution doesn't address it. If the law said that gays cannot enter into a man/woman government marriage or straights can enter into a single sex government marriage then the 14th would apply. Since gays can marry the exact same people as straights, the 14th doesn't apply. So you want it, do it the right way. Take it to the legislature, not self appointed dictators in robes.