Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.

Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.

Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.

So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.

-Geaux

Nice graph.

But since you didn't label it- is that approval of football or Christmas?

Now here is a relevant Gallup poll

 

[Seawytch]

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.

Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.

Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.

So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.

-Geaux

Your chart has nothing to do with the topic. Mine had to do with America's view of interracial marriage in 1967 when the SCOTUS Ruled on Loving. Should interracial marriage have waited until 1990?

 

[bendog]

Seawytch, I found this study to be interesting. The links take you there. I'm not sure what the causes of poverty exactly are. I won't take issue with the conclusions, though. Not trying to hijack the thread ... though that might be a blessing of sorts.

Poor Gays - Talk Poverty

 

[Silhouette]

Now here is a relevant Gallup poll

Was that poll taken at a blue light district? Were the responses strong, medium or weak? Look at the poll above. People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever. Their response was not weak. It was "Hell No".

 

[Syriusly]

Now here is a relevant Gallup poll

Was that poll taken at a blue light district? Were the responses strong, medium or weak? Look at the poll above. People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever. Their response was not weak. It was "Hell No".

Well since it is a Gallup Poll- one of the top 5 polling firms in the country- you can look up their polling techniques- it is a real poll- not your pretend poll

 

[Syriusly]

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.

Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.

Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.

So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.

-Geaux

Your chart has nothing to do with the topic. Mine had to do with America's view of interracial marriage in 1967 when the SCOTUS Ruled on Loving. Should interracial marriage have waited until 1990?

Interesting isn't it?

Support for mixed race marriage didn't equal the current support for same gender marriage until about 1996- 30 years after the courts legalized it- and only 18 years ago.

 

[Skylar]

Was that poll taken at a blue light district? Were the responses strong, medium or weak? Look at the poll above. People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever. Their response was not weak. It was "Hell No".

A USMB poll that never asks if same sex marraiges should be recognized by the law as valid.

Where the Gallup poll asks exactly that.

Laughing....do you honestly think we're not going to check the USMB poll? Did you really think you could get that by us?

 

[beagle9]

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.

Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.

Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.

Interracial marriage, and this alleged gay marriage stuff is not the same thing at all. One is recognized as Holy in the eyes of God, and the other is not.

 

[mdk]

Now here is a relevant Gallup poll

Was that poll taken at a blue light district? Were the responses strong, medium or weak? Look at the poll above. People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever. Their response was not weak. It was "Hell No".

Good grief, you're still peddling that this poll means 80% don't support gay marriage!? You willingly ignore the slew of polls that specifically ask the question because it disproves your notion. All that matters is your rabid anti-gay crusade, facts be damned. Thus far, you have offered a USMB poll, lines at a fast food joint, "likes"
on a Facebook page, and, a speech by a former NOM director as your proof. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support marriage equality.

I can't stop you from being willfully obtuse though.

 

[MaryL]

,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they know it. Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on gays and their lawyers, they know this. They ALL had straight parents.

 

[Skylar]

,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they know it. Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on gays and their lawyers, they know this. They ALL had straight parents.

If marriage is all about producing kids....then why does not 1 state require children or the ability to have them for a marriage to be valid.

Rather huge loophole, dontcha think?

 

[Kosh]

,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they know it. Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on gays and their lawyers, they know this. They ALL had straight parents.

If marriage is all about producing kids....then why does not 1 state require children or the ability to have them for a marriage to be valid.

Rather huge loophole, dontcha think?

Why get a piece of paper on it with word "Marriage"?

All those "rights" you say you don't have from not being "Married" can be done through legal means.

So once again this is about punishing the church and no other reason.

Still waiting for all these links (just one) from all the gays that have been put In jail for being "illegally married".

 

[mdk]

I am still waiting for all these links of churches being forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes.

 

[Syriusly]

,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they know it. Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on gays and their lawyers, they know this. They ALL had straight parents.

Wow.....so much bizarre and wierd logic there.

As a heterosexual, I can say I too like to satiate my sexual desires.

And for years I did so without producing any babies.

Unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals only have kids because they actively desire to have children- gays don't have kids by mistake- yet that seems to offend you.

As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years, I can say that your claim that marriage is only about producing children and protecting them is just mindless ignorance.

We have a child- but we didn't get married to have a child- and whether we had a child nor not- like George and Martha Washington- our marriage would still be just as valuable.

Shame on the mindless homophobes who would prefer that the children of homosexuals not have parents than to allow homosexuals the same right and joy of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

Shame on you.

 

[Syriusly]

,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they know it. Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on gays and their lawyers, they know this. They ALL had straight parents.

If marriage is all about producing kids....then why does not 1 state require children or the ability to have them for a marriage to be valid.

Rather huge loophole, dontcha think?

Why get a piece of paper on it with word "Marriage"?
.

Because unless you get that piece of paper you are not legally married.

My wife and I have one. Why do you object to two people of the same gender having one?

 

[Syriusly]

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.

Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.

Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.

Interracial marriage, and this alleged gay marriage stuff is not the same thing at all. One is recognized as Holy in the eyes of God, and the other is not.

You don't quite get this do you?

There are people- perhaps you- who say that the issue of marriage is something 'the people' should decide- not courts.

Well when it came to inter-racial marriage, the courts decided about 30 years before the 'people' decided that inter-racial couples had the legal right to marry.

I really don't care what you think God recognizes as holy, but I will point out- there were preachers in the 1960's who preached that inter-racial marriage was against Gods will.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All those "rights" you say you don't have from not being "Married" can be done through legal means.

The wording of this leads to two possible interpretation. So first interpretation is in regard to SSCM in general.

In every State SSCM has been achieved through legal means: legislatures passing the laws, the laws passing at the ballot box, or the law being ruled unconstitutional in the court. No State has SSCM through "illegal" means.

All those "rights" you say you don't have from not being "Married" can be done through legal means.

The second interpretation is that all things that can be done through Civil Marriage can be done through other equally recognized means and for the same cost of a $50 Civil Marriage license, that is a false statement.

1. A power of attorney does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. Only Civil Marriage does that. Other avenues would cost significantly more.

2. There is no other means to allow for exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

3. There is no other means to provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. There is no other means to provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Neither a contract or a power of attorney convayes parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

6. A power of attorney does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. A contract or a power of attorney does not waive the tax penalty for employer liability for employer provided health insurance for a non-Civil Marriage spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples were charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not and such tax still applies to Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships.)

8. A contract or power of attorney does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. A contract or power of attorney does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and just to make it an even 10...

10. No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no command sponsorship for overseas assignments, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear. There is no other way to replicate this benefit.​

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.

Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.

Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.

Interracial marriage, and this alleged gay marriage stuff is not the same thing at all. One is recognized as Holy in the eyes of God, and the other is not.

Ah, but the racist bigots thought they were being godly too, just like the anti gay bigots.

"The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion." Virginia Supreme Court

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.”- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

 

[Skylar]

Ah, but the racist bigots thought they were being godly too, just like the anti gay bigots.

"The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion." Virginia Supreme Court

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.”- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.

 

[beagle9]

Wasn't it a fact that Mohammad Ali sited his religion when he was slated to go to Vietnam, and that the feds backed off on him because of this religion issue in which he had claimed ? Now if the feds will step back and give him a break over his religious beliefs, and not force him to go to war like any other during that time period, then how is it that they expect that a Christian cake baker should be punished for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and this as based upon his religion also ? It was all because of his religion that wouldn't allow him too do it, but the government threatened and shut down the cake baker didn't they ???? Yep it is just like Mohammad's religion, and how it wouldn't allow him to do something either when being forced to, but the cake maker somehow is held to a different standard now, but go figure.

Now why has this changed over the years now ? How is it that religious people are losing their religious freedom in this nation, and also their freedom of expression in all of this mess that we are seeing being shoved or forced down peoples throats today, and worse by the federal government in support of such things today ???????

How come the feds have become these special groups hit men in this nation, and this instead of staying out of such things all together ? It is simply a breach or violation of the separation of church and state in this nation big time now I think, where as Obama's feds are trashing the government for special interest groups and their constant whining, and that is a sin and a shame (IMHO), but hey it's par for the course these days don't cha think ?.