Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Andylusion]

The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s
guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535 (1973). In determining
whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an
un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​

#1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution). Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.

#2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law. That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority". The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them. The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.

#3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class". Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class." Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.

#4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws. As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false. The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans. That case is also sited in the paragraph above. ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")




How will the SCOTUS rule next year? I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.



>>>>

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

Being equal means that everyone is under the same laws.

They *ARE* under the same laws.

They want to change the law to fit their personal views. That's where I tend to have a problem.

When I run around saying this is the new color RED when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection! This is my version of red! You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"

I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.

Equally, when you run around saying there is not equality under the law, when you follow the exact same laws everyone else does.... you are not being oppressed.... you are being an idiot.

In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.

Can you prove that? Er... no?

Say that you, or whoever, is the homo, and I'm me.
Tell me...

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

Can *I* marry a member of the same sex, like you or the homo can not?

Nope... I can't either.

So we are both treated equally under the law.

There is nothing that I can do, that you can not, under the law.

So don't tell me, homos are not treated equally. They are. That's the problem. They want special treatment. They want to redefine a fundamental institution of civilized society.

They want to normalize what is sick and disgusting, and causes health problems, and suicide.

They want to force others to accept whatever they 'make up' is marriage.

Well... you might get some politicians to do that... but you'll never get us to do it.

******* wanted special rights also.
That was the argument we heard in the 50s and 60s.

"They can marry their own now and interracial marriage is giving the ******* special rights"

Give it up.

The difference is, there was actually inequality under the law, and quite frankly, you are insulting every single black person in this country with your comparison. Trying to compare living as a complete slave, to people who want to impose a personal preference on society?

You need to give it up. You are an insult to everything the anti-slavery movement fought, and died for. Stop being such a disgusting and dishonest person. No wonder you are so full of bitterness and hate. Being so unrespectible has consequences in life.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

We are talking about Civil Marriage....

So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?


Go...

When I run around saying this is the new color RED when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection! This is my version of red! You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"

I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.

I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.

In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.

Can you prove that? Er... no?

Actually yes.

On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents: John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha. John and Cathy are being treated differently.

Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



>>>>

 

[Mathbud1]

I would say it was very unusual.


We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.


Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal. At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out. If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.



I agree. You should be able to not perform services at your discretion. I used a Taylor Swift example earlier. Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.

If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform? I don't think so.

Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.

You honor your agreement as a professional.

We don't disagree in principle, I think. If you sign a contract you obviously have to uphold the contract unless the other party is willing to let you back out. I just don't see a signed contract being all that normal for religious marriage ceremonies. Again, maybe they are, but not around here.

If you don't sign a contract, even paying a fee isn't binding. Without a contract the fee can simply be returned and you would not really have any recourse to force the other party to render you services.

There's a big difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage.

The discussion gets garbled when you try to mix the two together.

There is no legal justification for denying marriage equality.

Churches have the right, however, to define their sacrament of marriage as THEY choose.

You may be missing part of the conversation between candy corn and myself. I'm not talking about the contract between the two members of a marriage couple.

 

[Silhouette]

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.

As you know and have been constantly reminded, race does not equal sexual behaviors. Behaviors are regulated by the majority. Race is not. There's the snag. Stop trying to insert a false premise into the gay marriage debate.

 

[Andylusion]

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

We are talking about Civil Marriage....

So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?


Go...

When I run around saying this is the new color RED when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection! This is my version of red! You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"

I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.

I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.

In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.

Can you prove that? Er... no?

Actually yes.

On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents: John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha. John and Cathy are being treated differently.

Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



>>>>

That was a totally stupid post. You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.

Moving on.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

Then the Gov't. and others need to stop forcing their agenda on religious institutions.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Absolutely not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.

As you know and have been constantly reminded, race does not equal sexual behaviors. Behaviors are regulated by the majority. Race is not. There's the snag. Stop trying to insert a false premise into the gay marriage debate.

I didn't insert behaviors into the discussion the SCOTUS did. They have ruled multiple times in favor of homosexuals (and other "behavior") deserving (and other "behavior") the same protections as all citizens even their behavior is outside what some might find acceptable.

1. Lawrence v. Texas made regulation of private sexual "behavior", the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional.

2. Colorado tried to exclude homosexuals from government protections based on behavior, that resulted in Romer v. Evans and the SCOTUS ruling that it was unconstitutional.

3. In Loving v. Virginia colored could marry and whites could marry, the SCOTUS though ruled that barring the behavior of colored marrying whites was unconstitutional.

4. The SCOTUS also rejected the Federal governemnt trying to reject legal Civil Marriage as a "behavior" failed in Windsor.



The "behavior" argument does note have a very good history with the SCOTUS.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

We are talking about Civil Marriage....

So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?


Go...








I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.





Actually yes.

On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents: John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha. John and Cathy are being treated differently.

Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



>>>>

That was a totally stupid post. You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.

Moving on.

Sure I did, you just don't like the example.

You desire to ignore it doesn't discount the validity of the counter-example.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.

As you know and have been constantly reminded, race does not equal sexual behaviors. Behaviors are regulated by the majority. Race is not. There's the snag. Stop trying to insert a false premise into the gay marriage debate.

I didn't insert behaviors into the discussion the SCOTUS did. They have ruled multiple times in favor of homosexuals (and other "behavior") deserving (and other "behavior") the same protections as all citizens even their behavior is outside what some might find acceptable.

1. Lawrence v. Texas made regulation of private sexual "behavior", the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional.

2. Colorado tried to exclude homosexuals from government protections based on behavior, that resulted in Romer v. Evans and the SCOTUS ruling that it was unconstitutional.

3. In Loving v. Virginia colored could marry and whites could marry, the SCOTUS though ruled that barring the behavior of colored marrying whites was unconstitutional.

4. The SCOTUS also rejected the Federal governemnt trying to reject legal Civil Marriage as a "behavior" failed in Windsor.



The "behavior" argument does note have a very good history with the SCOTUS.



>>>>

Perhaps the behavior of exposing children purposefully as a matter of pride to lewd sexual acts in the gay parades in anytown USA might gain a foothold then with SCOTUS: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[Crystalclear]

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?

Religious people can be very hypocrite

 

[BillyP]

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?

Absolutely not.

Everyone should follow the laws of the land. Don't like them? Then get out. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes either.

 

[Seawytch]

It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that. You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not. They usually are, and that suits them fine. Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.

You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you? You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures: smear and move on. No thought required.

It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.

It's just a matter of time...

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“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

 

[Seawytch]

I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

We are talking about Civil Marriage....

So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?


Go...








I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.





Actually yes.

On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents: John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha. John and Cathy are being treated differently.

Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes. So we are both treated equally.

The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



>>>>

That was a totally stupid post. You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.

Moving on.

That post was spot on...which is why you attempted to deflect it...poorly.

 

[Andylusion]

We are talking about Civil Marriage....

So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?


Go...








I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.





Actually yes.

On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents: John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha. John and Cathy are being treated differently.

Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.





The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia. Coloreds could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law. They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



>>>>

That was a totally stupid post. You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.

Moving on.

That post was spot on...which is why you attempted to deflect it...poorly.

No... That was retarded. If someone else wants to waste their time arguing idiocy, that's their choice. For me, you have to have something at least at the high school level of intelligence, before I'll bother with it.

 

[bripat9643]

It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.

It's just a matter of time...

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“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

The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass. Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?

Think before you respond.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass. Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?

Think before you respond.

One, you don't think rationally.

Two, you have repetitively stated you don't support the law of the land.

 

[dblack]

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“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

The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass. Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?

Think before you respond.

That should definitely change.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Thread is temporarily closed for moderation.
Will re-open soon..

FlaCalTenn

 

[Seawytch]

No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.

"Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry."

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

“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

The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass. Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?

Think before you respond.

That has nothing to do with what I stated or responded to.