Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

They already existed eh ? We merely founded the nation with everything already in place or intact, and so all we had to do was just recognize this eh, and then implement it all ? Are you smoking something like crack maybe ?

The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.

And in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want to them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.

And if we find as a majority that there is a very good reason, and that also there is a very compelling state interest on some matters in which we might find just as important to either be held back or even reveresed, then how do we go about challenging those who might want to take away our rights, and for whom might want to squash our freedoms without us having an equal avenue to travel down in order to do so ?

Show me the very good reason and compelling state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.....and we can discuss it. The problem you face, that all opponents of gay marriage face....is that neither exists.

Just like anyone else or any other group has, we should also hold the same right to challenge something as any other, but the left is trying to convince us that only their ideas or rights matter, and that ours doesn't. One group doesn't have the right to have access to challenging things, and another group doesn't, but that is what is trying to be suggested in all of this, and it's not working because it's just wrong.

Legally speaking, not all ideas are equal. The reasoning offered by opponents of same sex marriage isn't particularly compelling, as it has no rational or logical basis. Its religious in origins. And the era where we punished gays because of Leviticus is long, long over. We try as much as possible to base our rulings on reason, not religion.

If you want religion as the basis of your laws, try Vatican City or Tehran. They'll both accommodate you.

No, that isn't what I'm after or advocating at all, but rather just to protect the majority who has agreed that somethings are just decent and good, and that they should not be infringed upon by another just because the other all of a sudden says so or wants it to be so even if what they want is wrong in the eyes of the majority on some issues, but not on all issues.

You want a special exemption from public accommodation laws because you object to gays.

No. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

What if your so called right is something that is just now being interpreted as a right by you and a few more, but it hasn't met the standard yet of being a so called right that is recognized by the majority of the citizens or by the nation as a whole yet ? Does your so called right nix others rights in the nation, I mean if this is what it does when you exorcize it ?

The right to marriage isn't 'so called'. Its quite real. The question now being addressed by the judiciary is does that right extend to same sex couples. And most indications point to yes. With the USSC overturning DOMA's Federal prohibitions against same sex marriage and preserving every single ruling that overturns State prohibitions against same sex marriage.

Without exception.

Just using it as an example in the thread, where as there are somethings that are not won, nor should they have been won out by a minority over a majority in some cases and/or situations.

Its an example of how your argument doesn't work. As the persecutions you've described doesn't exist.

You haven't made much headway with the 'eternal Christian victim' argument. You may want to reconsider your position

 

[beagle9]

We shall see. The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..

the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.

So the judiciary and the supreme court operates under whose authority and direction then ? I mean they have to answer to someone right, so who is it ?

 

[Skylar]

We shall see. The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..

the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.

So the judiciary and the supreme court operates under whose authority and direction then ? I mean they have to answer to someone right, so who is it ?

Sy's not strictly speaking, accurate. Congress can vote to limit the scope of the cases that the USSC can rule over. And the legislative branch does have impeachment powers over the judiciary.

But he's right on the idea that congress isn't impeaching anyone over gay marriage. Its a spectacularly stupid move, as they can't remove anyone from office without a 2/3 vote in the Senate (which they don't have). And it would highlight the GOP being on the wrong side of an issue the public supports by wide margins: 12 to 19 points.

Silo is just doing his 'the universe must conform to my every belief!!' schtick, where he insists that the future will be whatever he wishes it to be. His record of accuracy is worse than guessing. As neither the universe nor the folks in it give a shit what Silo thinks.

 

[Syriusly]

We shall see. The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..

the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.

So the judiciary and the supreme court operates under whose authority and direction then ? I mean they have to answer to someone right, so who is it ?

Do you not know how our system of government works?

We have three co-equal branches of government:
The Executive- that would be the President and all of the Departments that administer the laws.
The Legislative- that would be Congress- the House and the Senate- that make the law.
The Judiciary- that is topped by the Supreme Court- which has ultimate authority over the decisions made by lower courts- the Appellate Courts and Federal Courts.

The Supreme Court 'answers' to no one- other than Congress can impeach a Justice- technically for breaking the law- though again there is no one who could tell Congress that they did impeachment illegally- so Congress could impeach Justice Kagan for the crime of being Jewish if Congress wanted to.

Congress even seen as trying to tell the Supreme Court what it should do would be seen as incredibly unconstitutional- and would likely go down in infamy along with Roosevelt's effort to pack the court.

 

[beagle9]

The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.

And so in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.

If a right is to be considered a right at all, you know as in something new that would fall up under the definition of a what a right is or as it would somehow be added to or is applied properly in the name of what is to be deemed as a right in the eyes of the nation, then it must be recognized by the court, the state, the feds or the nation as a whole in that sense. Now how do we get there from here, where all of a sudden someone decides that something to them should be a right or is a right when others or many figure it doesn't pass the test or it would abuse others if it is allowed to become a right and then to be exercised as such ? I mean someone has to be the decider of that process or to finally allow that suggestion to be considered as such right ? Then it would be inducted as such into the system, but you suggest that it is a hands off process that just appears to work out of no where, and without any opposition at all to it or no debate to be allowed in it either ?

 

[Syriusly]

The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.

And so in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.

If a right is to be considered a right at all, you know as in something new that would fall up under the definition of a what a right is or as it would somehow be added to or is applied properly in the name of what is to be deemed as a right in the eyes of the nation, then it must be recognized by the court, the state, the feds or the nation as a whole in that sense. Now how do we get there from here, where all of a sudden someone decides that something to them should be a right or is a right when others or many figure it doesn't pass the test or it would abuse others if it is allowed to become a right and then to be exercised as such ? I mean someone has to be the decider of that process or to finally allow that suggestion to be considered as such right ? Then it would be inducted as such into the system, but you suggest that it is a hands off process that just appears to work out of no where, and without any opposition at all to it or no debate to be allowed in it either ?

i will let you tackle this one Skylar.

I can't figure out what his point is.

More paragraph breaks, fewer run on sentences would probably help.

But maybe not.

 

[Skylar]

The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.

And so in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.

If a right is to be considered a right at all, you know as in something new that would fall up under the definition of a what a right is or as it would somehow be added to or is applied properly in the name of what is to be deemed as a right in the eyes of the nation, then it must be recognized by the court, the state, the feds or the nation as a whole in that sense.

It has to be recognized as a right in order to be protected, yes. And the method most common on that front is judicial review. Its their duty to adjudicate cases of constitutional significance and interpret the constitution.

On the State level, extending rights can be done by a vote. But not taking rights away.

 

[TooTall]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?

 

[Skylar]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?

Whatever church Judge Leon Bazile was attending, perhaps?

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he 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 for the races to mix.

Leon Bazile ruling on Richard and Mildred Loving

Using God as justification for some pretty awful shit has a long pedigree.

 

[beagle9]

Many feel that health care should be a right or should become a right, and then you have others who see that differently, so the debate and issue rages on. Now the gay's want no debate at all on their issue or it is that they want no opposition to their wanting to get married as a man and a woman always has traditionally in the nation, but that isn't happening where as they just get a pass without debate. People look at everything involved in what a right might mean completely if it is passed or allowed to be called a right under a new directive or law that would recognize such as a right, and then protect that right afterwards.

Some seek to subvert the process by any means possible, and they will seek to attach their issue to other issues just to give themselves hope that they can get it all done in this way also. The best thing for everybody, is to put sex back into the bedrooms, and to get it the hec out of the public square because it is to much of a divisive thing when worn on someones sleeve for all to grapple with or to deal with out in the public square.

 

[TooTall]

it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....

Even more disturbing are a number of responses.

Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?

The Islam Mosque will marry gays and cut their heads off immediately following the service.

 

[Skylar]

Many feel that health care should be a right or should become a right, and then you have others who see that differently, so the debate and issue rages on, but the gay's want no debate at all on their issue or it is that they want no opposition to their wanting to get married as a man and a woman always has traditionally in the nation, but that isn't happening where as they just get a pass without debate, because people look at everything involved in what a right might mean completely if it is passed or allowed to be called a right under a new directive or law that would recognize such a right, and then protect that right.

Epic. Run-on. Sentence.

Rights can't be taken away by a vote.

Some seek to subvert the process by any means possible, and they will seek to attach their issue to other issues just to give themselves hope that they can get it all done in this way also. The best thing for everybody, is to put sex back into the bedrooms, and to get it the hec out of the public square because it is to much of a divisive thing when worn on someones sleeve for all to grapple with or to deal with out in the public square.

I've been to the Folsom Street Leather fair. And even there, sex wasn't in the street.

I've been to gay weddings. They didn't fuck in front of the congregation after saying 'I Do'. Or in the street for that matter.

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

 

[Skylar]

it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....

Even more disturbing are a number of responses.

Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?

The Islam Mosque will marry gays and cut their heads off immediately following the service.

Not the one down the street.

 

[beagle9]

Sex education should be taken out of the public schools just as well, because who in the world ever thought that a school should teach children about sex instead of the children's parents in this nation ? Now look at what goes on in the public schools, where as people are just about idiots for allowing their kids to be taught by the state anymore. The state has betrayed the trust of the parents who sent their kids to be taught subjects like Math, English, Spelling, Social studies, Science and etc. and the state has betrayed them by teaching the kids things in which should have never become subjects in a public school. Teaching about the anatomy is one thing, and doing it in a very scientific way, but going beyond that should have been totally unacceptable to the parents is my opinion, and it still should be now.

 

[beagle9]

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

Did you mean out of the bedroom no more than straights do ? Um, I haven't seen a straight sex pride parade out in the public streets yet, have you ?

Enjoyed by everyone else, and what might everyone else enjoy that they don't enjoy ? I thought that civil unions were OK with the gay's, and that this took care of a lot of the legal issues in which they were being denied in life ?

 

[Silhouette]

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.

2. "Everyone else" do not enjoy the privelege of marriage. Monosexuals (single people, particulary with kids) do not. Polygamists do not. Incestuous pairs do not. Minors do not. Gays do not.

3. The only interest states have in marriage is to incentivize the best formative environment for kids. That is one with both complimentary genders that a child might find his own missing. Gay marriage guarantees the state that any children in the home will be missing one of the complimentary gender role models 100% of the time. This can be devastating to a child's self esteem if their gender is the one missing from "parents". And it can be dysfunctional if the represented gender is the same as the childs since that child will be growing up with no clue how to relate to the missing gender.

States don't incentivize this or diluting parenthood by too many wives/offspring (polygamy) nor the lack of two people (monosexual) nor people too young to parent kids (minors themselves), nor couples who can be predicted to produce birth defects in natural children (incest).

Don't feel especially singled out. The states deny the PRIVELEGE of marriage to many walks of lifestyles. Yours is but one of several that do not qualify. And for a very good reason as it turns out: the formative years of children..

 

[Syriusly]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?

Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.

I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.

That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.

No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.
..

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- often

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

Did you mean out of the bedroom no more than straights do ? Um, I haven't seen a straight sex pride parade out in the public streets yet, have you ?

Enjoyed by everyone else, and what might everyone else enjoy that they don't enjoy ? I thought that civil unions were OK with the gay's, and that this took care of a lot of the legal issues in which they were being denied in life ?

I have been to numerous Gay Pride Parades- never ever heard of a Gay Sex Parade.

I live in San Francisco- and I have seen couples have sex in public exactly two times- both times heterosexual.

We live in a society flooded with images of heterosexual sexuality- what you object to is the relatively few images of homosexual relationships portrayed in the same manner.

Civil Unions were never a perfect answer- since the Federal Government refused to recognize them. Then states got worried and started passing laws ensuring that they would not have to recognize same sex unions in other states. I used to think that civil unions were a reasonable compromise- but then I saw how the bigots fought civil unions too.

So now I agree with the gay community- they deserve the same marriage my wife and I enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....

Even more disturbing are a number of responses.

Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?

The Islam Mosque will marry gays and cut their heads off immediately following the service.

And so many bigots would be thrilled by htat.