Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Unkotare]

No one in government is stopping the Catholic Church....

Yes, they did. Catholic Charities stopped their very successful work on adoption services when Massachusetts passed a law requiring ANY organization that provided such services to make them available to gay couples as well.

And they claimed they were 'forced' to stop their work - they were not. They chose to stop their work because they were so hateful of homosexuals.

That is untrue on several levels. Why don't you stick to telling us how it goes in Australia?

 

[JoeB131]

They were initially the only people. Everyone else is descended from them.
And even they shared the same DNA, Eve coming from Adam's rib. But given how Adam was created it isnt a problem.

By insisting everyone is descendant from one set of parents, you are saying Adam and Eve's sons and daughters populated the world strictly through incestuous relationships.

Ridiculous fairy-tale. Genetically impossible.

It's Biblically impossible. The Bible is quite clear that Cain left the Garden and married. He didn' t marry his sister so we know there were other people in the world.

Actually, the Bible doesn't say where Mrs. Cain came from. But it does say this in Genesis Chapter 5.

5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

Okay, so it doesn't clearly say that there was a bunch of incest going on. It just sort of implies it.

But here's the key thing. You have the Flood. Only 8 people survive. Noah, his three sons and their wives. Assuming Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after that, the only people that the grandchildren of NOah had to have sex with were their own cousins.

(They were better off than most of the animals, who were all descended from a single pair of mating parents.)

 

[The Rabbi]

They were initially the only people. Everyone else is descended from them.
And even they shared the same DNA, Eve coming from Adam's rib. But given how Adam was created it isnt a problem.

By insisting everyone is descendant from one set of parents, you are saying Adam and Eve's sons and daughters populated the world strictly through incestuous relationships.

Ridiculous fairy-tale. Genetically impossible.

It's Biblically impossible. The Bible is quite clear that Cain left the Garden and married. He didn' t marry his sister so we know there were other people in the world.

How do you know he didnt marry his sister?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, they did. Catholic Charities stopped their very successful work on adoption services when Massachusetts passed a law requiring ANY organization that provided such services to make them available to gay couples as well.

And they claimed they were 'forced' to stop their work - they were not. They chose to stop their work because they were so hateful of homosexuals.

That is untrue on several levels. Why don't you stick to telling us how it goes in Australia?

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?

For nearly two decades, Catholic Charities arranged adoptions to families who would provide safe, loving homes for the children we worked with, many of whom were from difficult backgrounds and harder to place.

We placed kids according to their needs and to make sure that they would find a loving and stable adoptive home. The kids always came first.

Most of these children, as a matter of fact, were adopted by straight couples, but during 15 years, about 13 were placed in the stable, secure and loving homes of same-sex couples.

Then in 2005, tragically, and out of the blue, the Vatican told our agency to cease using the single criteria of “best interest of the children.”

They ordered us to stop facilitating adoptions to households headed by gay men and lesbians.

I objected.

First and foremost, the Church hierarchy was telling us to ignore the best interests of the children we were trying to place. But just as important, the bishops were telling us to ignore decades-old anti-discrimination laws.

Catholic Charities had signed a contract with the state and accepted taxpayer money to provide adoption services for hard to place children. Some of these kids were older, had behavioral issues or chronic medical conditions.

When organizations accept taxpayer dollars, they have to follow anti-discrimination laws that are in place to make sure everyone is treated equally. If we excluded qualified families simply because they were gay or lesbian, we would violate those laws.

When taxpayers are footing the bill, you can’t discriminate against people. It is part of the contract to do the work.

The decision had nothing to do with marriage, and the conflict would likely have occurred regardless of whether same-sex couples could legally marry.

The board reacted strongly to the Vatican’s order, voting 42-0 against excluding gay and lesbian families from adoption services. From the board’s point of view, the decision was wrong for children and a violation of longstanding law.

When the hierarchy persisted in its demand, the organization had little choice but to end adoption services. They had made the decision to put other interests ahead of what was best for the children we served.​

Peter Meade: Truth about adoptions has been distorted, twisted

 

[OODA_Loop]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

 

[JoeB131]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

But not for long.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

But not for long.

SCOTUS just affirmed it Constitutional. Sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

But not for long.

SCOTUS just affirmed it Constitutional. Sorry.

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

Only a matter of time before the husk of DOMA dies. Or someone successfully appeals your state's ruling against someone who has standing.

The court just said that we are passing on ruling this time, BUT if you make us rule, we'll probably find marriage is a federal right.

You guys need to be very nervous if this is actually important to you.

Of course, it begs the question- WHY is this important to you?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

But not for long.

SCOTUS just affirmed it Constitutional. Sorry.

They did no such thing. Read Scalia's dissent. He mapped out the future of marriage equality.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But not for long.

SCOTUS just affirmed it Constitutional. Sorry.

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

Of course, it begs the question- WHY is this important to you?

Sure they did.


On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

 

[AVG-JOE]

Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

IMHO, no.

But I believe that bikers should be able to smoke in biker bars, ass-u-me-ing of course that it's o.k. with the bar owner.

 

[Seawytch]

SCOTUS just affirmed it Constitutional. Sorry.

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

Of course, it begs the question- WHY is this important to you?

Sure they did.


On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

 

[AVG-JOE]

But not for long.

SCOTUS just affirmed it Constitutional. Sorry.

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

Only a matter of time before the husk of DOMA dies. Or someone successfully appeals your state's ruling against someone who has standing.

The court just said that we are passing on ruling this time, BUT if you make us rule, we'll probably find marriage is a federal right.

You guys need to be very nervous if this is actually important to you.

Of course, it begs the question- WHY is this important to you?

It's important to me... The fairness factor.

I applaud the court for leaving the recognition decisions to the states and finding that if just one state approves of gay marriage, the federal government MUST treat those folks as married.

 

[OODA_Loop]

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

Of course, it begs the question- WHY is this important to you?

Sure they did.


On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

The question is its w/in a state's authority to define marriage is settled.

 

[Seawytch]

Come on conservatives, stop wasting time with repealing the ACA, get to repealing Public Accommodation laws. It seems to be a popular proposition...here.

 

[Seawytch]

Sure they did.


On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

The question is its w/in a state's authority to define marriage is settled.

And again, the constitutionality of state anti gay marriage laws has not been ruled upon. Yes, a state may define laws...if the don't violate the constitution. Whether they violate the Constitution has not been decided by the SCOTUS yet.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Come on conservatives, stop wasting time with repealing the ACA, get to repealing Public Accommodation laws. It seems to be a popular proposition...here.

So you're done with the affirmation of the states right to decide ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

The question is its w/in a state's authority to define marriage is settled.

And again, the constitutionality of state anti gay marriage laws has not been ruled upon. Yes, a state may define laws...if the don't violate the constitution. Whether they violate the Constitution has not been decided by the SCOTUS yet.

Again the majority affirmed the states right to decide.

They gonna come nack next year and undo what they ruled on ?

Don't think so.

 

[AVG-JOE]

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

Of course, it begs the question- WHY is this important to you?

Sure they did.


On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

The court may have learned a lesson from Roe V Wade about making sweeping social decisions for the entire country at once.

Guidance for the federal government to simply butt-out of the social issues and let the states decide is a long time coming.

 

[Seawytch]

The question is its w/in a state's authority to define marriage is settled.

And again, the constitutionality of state anti gay marriage laws has not been ruled upon. Yes, a state may define laws...if the don't violate the constitution. Whether they violate the Constitution has not been decided by the SCOTUS yet.

Again the majority affirmed the states right to decide.

They gonna come nack next year and undo what they ruled on ?

Don't think so.

You are mistaken. Whether anti gay marriage laws violate the US Constitution has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS. A state law cannot violate the Constitution. Seriously, look it up.