Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[Seawytch]

Well, I remember about ten years ago asking the question of whether two men in tuxes with one throwing a bouquet wouldn't make a bit of a mockery of the wedding ceremony, and the religious overtones, and I was told "that would never happen. No bishop would allow a priest to do that." Well...... LOL

It's only a word, and we quibbled over whether women should be able to omit the promise to "love honor and obey," to only love and honor. LOL

The ceremony doesn't include the throwing of the flowers.

The religious nature of marriage is between the couple and God. Everything else is for show and more about tradition and culture than the religious aspect.

Don't even tell that the wedding bouquet is based on pagan rituals.

Well, the wedding reception was on parish grounds, so the bouquet toss was on church property, but of course that'll NEVER happen with gays or lesbians. Look bottom line, nobody is forcing any church to do any marriage, but some churches are changing longstanding traditions that some will see a making a mockery of marriage.

But no one should be denied equal protection of the law.

There is also no law which requires anyone to go to a particular church or stay there. If people don't like a change there are many other options for them.

And there's no law that requires one to let activist assholes run them out of a church.

No law preventing "activists"* from pressuring churches.

* the congregation consisting of gay people's family members.

 

[Valerie]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

Yes. And changing a word does not change that situation.

homosexual couples have always existed and the religious zealots can't ever change that 'situation'.

 

[bodecea]

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of previously divorced people?
Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of atheists?
Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of inter-racial couples?

 

[bodecea]

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

A bakery is not a church. A bakery in a state with PA laws must follow the law.

 

[Valerie]

churches will not be legally forced...




The court’s ruling makes clear that clergy and religious organizations are not obliged to perform same-sex marriages, but some groups have expressed concerns about their tax-exempt status.


...in the past two decades, several other religious groups have moved to allow same-sex couples to marry within their traditions. This includes the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ.


And the list is growing: Clergy from the Episcopal Church will be able to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies after the church’s General Convention approved a new definition of marriage this week. Another mainline Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), voted to formally sanction same-sex marriage earlier this year.

Where Christian churches other religions stand on gay marriage Pew Research Center

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of previously divorced people?
Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of atheists?
Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of inter-racial couples?

they are not forced and they are also able to deny. Although I cant see reason to deny divorced or inter-racial. And what atheists would want their wedding ruined with a religious ceremony, seriously.

If you are going to try to compare, could you at least try to make it an equal situation.

 

[bodecea]

Would you settle for it?

I don't give a poo what government call my marriage. My marriage is between me and my wife, not the federal or state government.

So you never got a marriage license. Hope you have your assets protected in case one of you dies suddenly or walks away.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

A bakery is not a church. A bakery in a state with PA laws must follow the law.

and a business has a right to exclude for various reasons. A Christian based bakery has legal foundation to deny being involved in a gay wedding.
Just like Wal Mart has a right not to sell a confederate flag.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

Yes. And changing a word does not change that situation.

homosexual couples have always existed and the religious zealots can't ever change that 'situation'.

religion has aways existed and homosexual couples cant change that.

 

[bodecea]

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of previously divorced people?
Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of atheists?
Just like churches are forced to perform the weddings of inter-racial couples?

they are not forced and they are also able to deny. Although I cant see reason to deny divorced or inter-racial. And what atheists would want their wedding ruined with a religious ceremony, seriously.

If you are going to try to compare, could you at least try to make it an equal situation.

Ah...so now you change the goal posts. The situations ARE equal in that the CHURCH has the right to refuse to perform marriages for ANYONE they don't wish to.

If you can't see a reason to deny divorced remarriages, you must not know the Catholic Church. They do it all the time.

 

[bodecea]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

Yes. And changing a word does not change that situation.

homosexual couples have always existed and the religious zealots can't ever change that 'situation'.

religion has aways existed and homosexual couples cant change that.

Always?

 

[Seawytch]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

Yes. And changing a word does not change that situation.

homosexual couples have always existed and the religious zealots can't ever change that 'situation'.

religion has aways existed and homosexual couples cant change that.

Gay couples have always existed and no religion has ever changed that. (Not for lack of trying)

 

[Syriusly]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

Yes. And changing a word does not change that situation.

homosexual couples have always existed and the religious zealots can't ever change that 'situation'.

religion has aways existed and homosexual couples cant change that.

Well okay then- homosexual couples want to get married- not end religion.

 

[Syriusly]

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

A bakery is not a church. A bakery in a state with PA laws must follow the law.

and a business has a right to exclude for various reasons. A Christian based bakery has legal foundation to deny being involved in a gay wedding.
Just like Wal Mart has a right not to sell a confederate flag.

A Business does not get a special exclusion from the law if the owners are Christian.

 

[PratchettFan]

Or, better yet, just treat everyone the same way under the same law. Even less complicated.

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

A bakery is not a church. A bakery in a state with PA laws must follow the law.

and a business has a right to exclude for various reasons. A Christian based bakery has legal foundation to deny being involved in a gay wedding.
Just like Wal Mart has a right not to sell a confederate flag.

Not necessarily. It depends upon the state and the protected classes.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

yeah, Yeah, that is how all you whiny fucks want to paint it.

No one said Gay's were second class citizens, that is a lie you propagate to make those opposed look hateful and petty.

What the other half of the nation is telling you folks is you can have what ever relationships you want but in our current society marriage is an institution reserved for one man / one woman unions.

This are the types of unions God and Nature intended, those bonds between 2 biological units that can result the production of new life. Thus insuring a continue lineage for the 2 units.

You speak of zealots, when your actions and manners fit the sheer definition.

Why is it, instead of discussing the issue you are sure to shoot some nasty response which will include some vile and disgusting reference to me or my attitudes.

Our society is repulsed and disgusted by your folks perceived society, we are all sane and reasonable.

History is on our side, there is not currently now nor has there ever been a prosperous / functioning faggot nation.

You folks turn your societies vile and disgusting and eventually the sane folks will get enough and once again your civilization will be put back into the closet.

 

[Syriusly]

...the excuse of religious zealots who'd like to ignore the 14th and treat gays as second class. ^

You folks turn your societies vile and disgusting and eventually the sane folks will get enough and once again your civilization will be put back into the closet.

And there we have it- the true agenda of the bigots- pining away for the good old days when 'real men' could gather 4 or 5 of their bravest friends and go find some gay man by himself to bravely beat up- so he knows his place.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

not really, to be same means that churches could be forced to perform the wedding.

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

A bakery is not a church. A bakery in a state with PA laws must follow the law.

and a business has a right to exclude for various reasons. A Christian based bakery has legal foundation to deny being involved in a gay wedding.
Just like Wal Mart has a right not to sell a confederate flag.

Not necessarily. It depends upon the state and the protected classes.

yeah that is where I wanted to enter the conversation.

I can see a motel room / medicine / food and I am sure a few more items that would be considered necessary to continue a comfortable life.

I don't see that cakes fall into that train of thought, any one who forces a baker to bake or any one to serve another against the servers personal feelings is wrong.

You can make people do things through laws, but you can't make them like it.

While this SCOTUS see's things that way, it doesn't make it majority popular and is certainly reversable.

I compare you folks to all those old temperance bitch's who danced and celebrated when temperance became law.

That was that America, the America that was right around the corner sure shit all over that law and the temperance movement.

When I read all the spilled milk post by the fag crowd seeking acceptance and waving their legal victories around, I can't help but picture all those fucking Teetotalers and their disappointment when it all came crashing down.

That crash is coming, will the voices of the gays be as loud as those of the temperance movement??

 

[Valerie]

religion has always existed and homosexual couples cant change that.

after eons of living in the closet and silently accepting second class status out of fear, homosexual couples simply petitioned their state governments for equal treatment under the law..they weren't asking for anything religious from the state.

nonetheless, religious zealots have been freaking out for decades, thus putting the gay "issue" on the nightly news for their children to be horrified over - or not, gasp! - and now the legal path has finally been reconciled regarding gay couples...


imo Jesus would humbly approve.

"render to Caesar that which is Caesar's"

"what you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me"

"do unto others..." etcetera

 

[Syriusly]

Who was forcing churches to perform weddings before there was legal gay marriage?

Who was forcing a bakery to bake wedding cakes before gay marriage.

A bakery is not a church. A bakery in a state with PA laws must follow the law.

and a business has a right to exclude for various reasons. A Christian based bakery has legal foundation to deny being involved in a gay wedding.
Just like Wal Mart has a right not to sell a confederate flag.

Not necessarily. It depends upon the state and the protected classes.

I compare you folks to all those old temperance bitch's who danced and celebrated when temperance became law.

I compare you folks to all those segregation bitches who fought so hard to keep the blacks from being treated equally.

I compare you folks to all those anti-women bitches who wanted to deny women the vote.

You are the haters.