kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 13:43:49 GMT -5
I guess we'll see. Lets reconvene in 50 years and see how things stand. Considering abortion has been a contentious issue for almost 40 years, I'm a bit skeptical. It may not take fifty years for the rewrite to occur. It may take as little as ten or twenty, especially if they see some sort of opportunity to get ahead of others and attempt to redeem their rottenness. A lot of the support for getting antiretroviral treatments available in Africa came from churchy folks who had been on the wrong side of history a decade before. I don't think that they did this just to inflict their special brand of impracticality regarding condoms and sex work on others. A guilty conscience was also driving them. Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . .
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 13:48:56 GMT -5
People said that interracial marriage would lead to the erosion of religious liberty (there were lots of Bible quotes about the races not mixing and stuff) and people would be able to have multiple wives and marry their cars.
I don't see any of that happening (if you have please provide examples) in 2015. I doubt it's going to happen b/c gay people are now allowed to marry.
Eventually like inter-racial marriage, with the exception of a few hold outs, we'll be wondering why gay people were ever denied the right to marry.
Churches have their own protections and rights. They don't have to marry ANYONE they do not wish to be it gay or straight. I doubt they will be suddenly forced to perform gay marriages.
People keep saying that, but what evidence do you have? The judges in this country clearly have an agenda to promote same sex marriage, regardless of what the law says. All I can say is I have no confidence in the justice system to "draw the line" when it comes to religious liberty. The rule in favor of the "gay activists" time and time again.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 13:53:58 GMT -5
It may not take fifty years for the rewrite to occur. It may take as little as ten or twenty, especially if they see some sort of opportunity to get ahead of others and attempt to redeem their rottenness. A lot of the support for getting antiretroviral treatments available in Africa came from churchy folks who had been on the wrong side of history a decade before. I don't think that they did this just to inflict their special brand of impracticality regarding condoms and sex work on others. A guilty conscience was also driving them. Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 14:03:57 GMT -5
How long has same-sex marriage been legal in various states? Have any lawsuits been brought by gay couples against churches or clergy for refusing to marry them? I honestly don't recall any, and if there were any, I would hope that the courts ruled in favor of the church.
And if ruling in favor of "gay activism" means that someone else's religious values don't get to dictate what other people can legally do in their own lives, then I count that as a win across the board.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,497
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 26, 2015 14:06:58 GMT -5
Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful. Where has it been said and confirmed that a court of law has decided a church must perform a same sex marriage in their church sanctuary? In what state and what court room was that decision decided.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 26, 2015 14:09:12 GMT -5
People said that interracial marriage would lead to the erosion of religious liberty (there were lots of Bible quotes about the races not mixing and stuff) and people would be able to have multiple wives and marry their cars.
I don't see any of that happening (if you have please provide examples) in 2015. I doubt it's going to happen b/c gay people are now allowed to marry.
Eventually like inter-racial marriage, with the exception of a few hold outs, we'll be wondering why gay people were ever denied the right to marry.
Churches have their own protections and rights. They don't have to marry ANYONE they do not wish to be it gay or straight. I doubt they will be suddenly forced to perform gay marriages.
People keep saying that, but what evidence do you have? The judges in this country clearly have an agenda to promote same sex marriage, regardless of what the law says. All I can say is I have no confidence in the justice system to "draw the line" when it comes to religious liberty. The rule in favor of the "gay activists" time and time again. The judges do not have a gay rights agenda. The judges have an agenda to promote equal rights and individual freedom. Religious freedom is also protected, so I can say with 100% confidence that the judges will never rule that a religious official is required to officiate at a gay wedding, or that churches are required to admit gay members, or allowed gay clergy members. Only the churches can decide if they want to allow that. Freedom - it's a wonderful thing, whether it's religious freedom or individual freedom.
|
|
garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by garion2003 on Jun 26, 2015 14:13:06 GMT -5
That's too bad. Now we'll see the slow but sure erosion of religious liberty. Actually I thought this was a great step toward religious freedom.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 14:15:45 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 26, 2015 14:17:51 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. I think I read somewhere that support for same sex marriage in the US is around 70% in favor.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 14:19:55 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. I could really care less if people support same-sex marriage on a personal level. I care if it is legal or not. Support it, don't support it, makes no difference to me. The idea that a group of people is expected to sit back, and politely wait for public opinion to swing their way, while they are being denied rights with no real legal basis besides a bunch of other people think its "wrong" is ridiculous.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,889
|
Post by haapai on Jun 26, 2015 14:20:05 GMT -5
Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful. Anyone who believes that any church or clergy-person can be forced to conduct same-sex marriages has an extraordinarily weak understanding of the constitution and history. They need to get out of their bubbles. Having said that, I will admit that conflicts will arise. There are probably far fewer such conflicts than opportunistic scare-mongers are predicting, but there will be some. A lot of these conflicts can be avoided by brushing up on the separation of church and state and jumping through the appropriate hoops. A church-affiliated university that receives public funds may have to eliminate married housing entirely or transfer the housing in question to the church who then offers that housing to only the "right sort" of married couples. I'm sure that this is irritating to those who have have had to consider this run-around before and bewildering to those with little appreciation of the separation of church and state but it usually can be done.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 14:21:23 GMT -5
It may not take fifty years for the rewrite to occur. It may take as little as ten or twenty, especially if they see some sort of opportunity to get ahead of others and attempt to redeem their rottenness. A lot of the support for getting antiretroviral treatments available in Africa came from churchy folks who had been on the wrong side of history a decade before. I don't think that they did this just to inflict their special brand of impracticality regarding condoms and sex work on others. A guilty conscience was also driving them. Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Wait....what? You have universal healthcare?
HOW LONG HAVE I BEEN ALSEEP?
-Rip Van Weltschmerz
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,497
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 26, 2015 14:22:04 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. Should the states have been allowed to keep their anti-miscegenation laws? States Rights after all.
|
|
garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by garion2003 on Jun 26, 2015 14:25:23 GMT -5
People said that interracial marriage would lead to the erosion of religious liberty (there were lots of Bible quotes about the races not mixing and stuff) and people would be able to have multiple wives and marry their cars.
I don't see any of that happening (if you have please provide examples) in 2015. I doubt it's going to happen b/c gay people are now allowed to marry.
Eventually like inter-racial marriage, with the exception of a few hold outs, we'll be wondering why gay people were ever denied the right to marry.
Churches have their own protections and rights. They don't have to marry ANYONE they do not wish to be it gay or straight. I doubt they will be suddenly forced to perform gay marriages.
People keep saying that, but what evidence do you have? The judges in this country clearly have an agenda to promote same sex marriage, regardless of what the law says. All I can say is I have no confidence in the justice system to "draw the line" when it comes to religious liberty. The rule in favor of the "gay activists" time and time again.
Maybe they have an agenda to ensure all citizens receive the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. That sort of would seem like...their job.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 14:25:58 GMT -5
Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Wait....what? You have universal healthcare?
HOW LONG HAVE I BEEN ALSEEP?
-Rip Van Weltschmerz
Well - our version of it, anyway . It's getting closer all the time. All in all, it HAS been a good week for Civil Rights in America - positive rulings on housing, healthcare and the civil benefits and protections afforded by a marriage license.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,737
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Jun 26, 2015 14:28:00 GMT -5
Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful. My sister couldn't find a Catholic church in her area to baptize my niece because both parents aren't of the same faith (though she did find one in my area that baptized my nephew). I would have been turned away if I tried to get married in a church since i am atheist. I really don't see the right of refusal being lost, considering churches have always had the right of refusing straight couples.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 14:29:28 GMT -5
Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful. My sister couldn't find a Catholic church in her area to baptize my niece because both parents aren't of the same faith (though she did find one in my area that baptized my nephew). I would have been turned away if I tried to get married in a church since i am atheist. I really don't see the right of refusal being lost, considering churches have always had the right of refusing straight couples. x 100,000,000.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 14:29:31 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. How so? Most folks already support it.
We made it the law of the land many years ago, and the citizens just shrugged and said "Sure, why not?" It didn't damage support in any way, shape or form. Support grew.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 13:01:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 14:29:51 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. I could really care less if people support same-sex marriage on a personal level. I care if it is legal or not. Support it, don't support it, makes no difference to me. The idea that a group of people is expected to sit back, and politely wait for public opinion to swing their way, while they are being denied rights with no real legal basis besides a bunch of other people think its "wrong" is ridiculous. Gun owners across this country know exactly what your talking about.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 14:33:07 GMT -5
Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful. My sister couldn't find a Catholic church in her area to baptize my niece because both parents aren't of the same faith (though she did find one in my area that baptized my nephew). I would have been turned away if I tried to get married in a church since i am atheist. I really don't see the right of refusal being lost, considering churches have always had the right of refusing straight couples. My church refused to marry me because I was marrying a nice Jewish boy. Churches can refuse, and always have. It didn't occur to me to file a lawsuit. That would be stupid...and I'd lose.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 26, 2015 14:35:42 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. How so? Most folks already support it.
We made it the law of the land many years ago, and the citizens just shrugged and said "Sure, why not?" It didn't damage support in any way, shape or form. Support grew.
I think most who don't support it feel that way because of their religious beliefs, which are unlikely to change. I can't imagine there are that many who are on the fence and will be swayed against it because they feel the SCOTUS is overstepping. And anyway, I don't really care who personally "supports" the idea of gay marriage, as long as the government does.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 14:40:41 GMT -5
This was not a ruling that said Churches Must Marry Anyone Who Shows Up At Their Doorsteps.
This is a ruling that said Under the Law, Gay Couples May Not Be Denied Equal Access To the Benefits of a Marriage License.
Churches have ALWAYS turned away straight couples with marriage licenses if they didn't approve of the beliefs or actions of those couples. Lots and lots (and lots and lots) of folks in this country have taken out civil marriage license and gotten married in a civil arena without giving a flying leap to what any church thinks. And that will continue to happen - now it will simply happen for more citizens .
SCOTUS cannot (under the Constitution) force churches to distribute their rituals and sacraments to non-believers. To do so would be a violation of the separation of Church and State. It is disingenuous to try and postulate otherwise.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 14:41:21 GMT -5
How so? Most folks already support it.
We made it the law of the land many years ago, and the citizens just shrugged and said "Sure, why not?" It didn't damage support in any way, shape or form. Support grew.
I think most who don't support it feel that way because of their religious beliefs, which are unlikely to change. I can't imagine there are that many who are on the fence and will be swayed against it because they feel the SCOTUS is overstepping. And anyway, I don't really care who personally "supports" the idea of gay marriage, as long as the government does. Well, nobody is going to force Mr. Evangelical to marry Mr.Catholic, so who cares? They can froth at the mouth all they want. They have no right to impose their values on anyone else.
|
|
garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by garion2003 on Jun 26, 2015 14:41:43 GMT -5
My sister couldn't find a Catholic church in her area to baptize my niece because both parents aren't of the same faith (though she did find one in my area that baptized my nephew). I would have been turned away if I tried to get married in a church since i am atheist. I really don't see the right of refusal being lost, considering churches have always had the right of refusing straight couples. My church refused to marry me because I was marrying a nice Jewish boy. Churches can refuse, and always have. It didn't occur to me to file a lawsuit. That would be stupid...and I'd lose. And it's not like there aren't ANY churches doing it. I'm sure someone who wanted their ceremony blessed in a church could find a venue. It may not be their home denomination, but that's a different issue.
The thing is, you don't need a church to get married. It is entirely unnecessary. Sure, it's great for those that want it. But in my mind, and I'm speaking as a churchgoer, churches need to get over themselves.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 14:42:13 GMT -5
My sister couldn't find a Catholic church in her area to baptize my niece because both parents aren't of the same faith (though she did find one in my area that baptized my nephew). I would have been turned away if I tried to get married in a church since i am atheist. I really don't see the right of refusal being lost, considering churches have always had the right of refusing straight couples. My church refused to marry me because I was marrying a nice Jewish boy. Churches can refuse, and always have. It didn't occur to me to file a lawsuit. That would be stupid...and I'd lose. Me too! They said it would never last.
We are about to reach our 32nd wedding anniversary . . . and the minister who refused to marry us because it is God's law that you cannot be "unequally yoked" and "marriage is forever in God's eyes" is now . . . . wait for it . . . . .
DIVORCED.
|
|
garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by garion2003 on Jun 26, 2015 14:44:03 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. I think I read somewhere that support for same sex marriage in the US is around 70% in favor. And I bet the percentage is even higher if you looked at just people under, say, 60 (or 50, whatever).
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 14:44:50 GMT -5
My church refused to marry me because I was marrying a nice Jewish boy. Churches can refuse, and always have. It didn't occur to me to file a lawsuit. That would be stupid...and I'd lose. And it's not like there aren't ANY churches doing it. I'm sure someone who wanted their ceremony blessed in a church could find a venue. It may not be their home denomination, but that's a different issue.
The thing is, you don't need a church to get married. It is entirely unnecessary. Sure, it's great for those that want it. But in my mind, and I'm speaking as a churchgoer, churches need to get over themselves.
Well, we got a Unitarian minister to do the honours. Didn't matter to me. A wedding officiated by Elvis would have been acceptable.
|
|
garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by garion2003 on Jun 26, 2015 14:51:32 GMT -5
My church refused to marry me because I was marrying a nice Jewish boy. Churches can refuse, and always have. It didn't occur to me to file a lawsuit. That would be stupid...and I'd lose. Me too! They said it would never last.
We are about to reach our 32nd wedding anniversary . . . and the minister who refused to marry us because it is God's law that you cannot be "unequally yoked" and "marriage is forever in God's eyes" is now . . . . wait for it . . . . .
DIVORCED.
Not to derail the topic, but Jesus' teaching is pretty clear on divorce. I don't see any groups of Christians trying to pass laws to make divorce illegal in this country. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
There's a thinker.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 14:52:42 GMT -5
liberals love the 14th amendment. conservatives hate it.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 14:57:42 GMT -5
liberals love the 14th amendment. conservatives hate it. I think this may be exactly at the heart of a lot of the arguments. Some folks *love* to argue State's Rights and conveniently forget about the 14th Amendment.
|
|