Eloping to California

[ashw_justin]

If I were black I sure as hell wouldn't be demanding to be let into KKK meetings.

 

 

 

Not necessarily because I would be afraid of what would happen (although mistrust is natural and often healthy), but because these would be the most disgusting people on the earth to me, and their palace of intolerance would be a hostile, despicable place. I guess this might explain why I might want to get get them humiliated and shut down. But should I have the right (and the legal empowerment) to do that just because their club scorns me?

 

More importantly, there would be nothing that a KKK meeting could offer me. What can the church give that same-sex couples can't have? Do we really need to turn all churches into essentially government-controlled community centers?

[Fairweather]

Many churches still refuse to marry previously divorced couples, or couples of a different faith. Again; churches enjoy special constitutional protections--including many that the vast majority of Americans would find objectionable. Are libs ready to take on the Catholic Church with this debate, or just the born-again denominations?

Edited June 17, 2008 by Fairweather

[Raindawg]

OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future?

 

11th Commandement:

Hey Moses: Thou shalt suck me.

 

Hey Cap'n Tolerance. You won't want go down to California....a whole bunch of JEWS live there!

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future?

 

11th Commandement:

Hey Moses: Thou shalt suck me.

 

Hey Cap'n Tolerance. You won't want go down to California....a whole bunch of JEWS live there!

 

I'd come up with a better comeback, but I've got to run...to have dinner with a bunch of Jews.

 

 

[ericb]

OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future?

 

The groundswell to legalize gay marriage has resulted in a number of court cases pitting religious organizations against gays; often regarding the use of their public facilities. So far, religion has been losing case after case.

 

I applaud this. The establishment clause of the constitution was never meant to give religion cart blanche to descriminate or violate basic civil liberties. Believers may dissapprove of gays all they want for (ostensibly) religious reasons (fabricated bullshit, if you know your bible), but when this translates into public action in the form of discrimination, these churches are now breaking the law.

 

The days when society accepted religion as an excuse to abuse children, practice racial and sexual descrimination, and violate the equal protection clause are now, thankfully, numbered.

 

If your religious doctrine violates the basic civil liberties of others, either work to change your doctrine, or move it on down the road. There are plenty of countries where that kind of discimination is still OK. This one is no longer one of them.

 

I think you are missing the point Tvash. The "groundswell" to legalize gay marriage??? What is this groundswell you speak of??? Every time the issue has been put to a vote - "marriage" that is - the vote has been against gay marriage. So the groundswell you speak of is not popular opinion, it would seem. This is not an issue of the people vs. "the church", this is the courts declaring that californias law which reflected the will of the people - as indicated by popular vote, is unconstitutional.

[tvashtarkatena]

Many churches still refuse to marry previously divorced couples, or couples of a different faith. Again; churches enjoy special constitutional protections--including many that the vast majority of Americans would find objectionable. Are libs ready to take on the Catholic Church with this debate, or just the born-again denominations?

 

Most of the litigation in question was filed by congregation members, not outsiders. They were gay, but whether or not they would 'libs' was not mentioned in any of the accounts I read.

 

There are no churches today that (openly) disciminate based on race. That is a much more accurate comparitive measure to the issue at hand than divorce status or other exclusions.

 

KKK meetings are private affairs, not open to the public. Entirely different animal.

[Fairweather]

If he tortures the constitution long enough, it will tell him what he wants to hear.

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future?

 

The groundswell to legalize gay marriage has resulted in a number of court cases pitting religious organizations against gays; often regarding the use of their public facilities. So far, religion has been losing case after case.

 

I applaud this. The establishment clause of the constitution was never meant to give religion cart blanche to descriminate or violate basic civil liberties. Believers may dissapprove of gays all they want for (ostensibly) religious reasons (fabricated bullshit, if you know your bible), but when this translates into public action in the form of discrimination, these churches are now breaking the law.

 

The days when society accepted religion as an excuse to abuse children, practice racial and sexual descrimination, and violate the equal protection clause are now, thankfully, numbered.

 

If your religious doctrine violates the basic civil liberties of others, either work to change your doctrine, or move it on down the road. There are plenty of countries where that kind of discimination is still OK. This one is no longer one of them.

 

I think you are missing the point Tvash. The "groundswell" to legalize gay marriage??? What is this groundswell you speak of??? Every time the issue has been put to a vote - "marriage" that is - the vote has been against gay marriage. So the groundswell you speak of is not popular opinion, it would seem. This is not an issue of the people vs. "the church", this is the courts declaring that californias law which reflected the will of the people - as indicated by popular vote, is unconstitutional.

 

California, our most populous state, passing legislation like this (in addition to other states) constitutes a groundswell by any measure.

 

If you'll carefully read my posts, you'll realize that I refered to recent court cases, not the California law, when framing the religious issue. You've cited an argument I never made.

[tvashtarkatena]

If he tortures the constitution long enough, it will tell him what he wants to hear.

 

And then again there are all those recent court decisions, but let's not let real events get in the way of opinion....

[Fairweather]

California, our most populous state, passing legislation like this (in addition to other states) constitutes a groundswell by any measure.

 

If you'll carefully read my posts, you'll realize that I refered to recent court cases, not the California law, when framing the religious issue. You've cited an argument I never made.

 

Huh? The people of CA passed an initiative against allowing gay marriage. The CA supreme court threw it out. Judicial activism, IMHO. I would like to see the issue stand on its own merit.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Fairweather

[ericb]

California, our most populous state, passing legislation like this (in addition to other states) constitutes a groundswell by any measure.

 

If you'll carefully read my posts, you'll realize that I refered to recent court cases, not the California law, when framing the religious issue. You've cited an argument I never made.

 

Huh? The people of CA passed an initiative against allowing gay marriage. The CA supreme court threw it out. Judicial activism, IMHO. I would like to see the issue stand on its own merit.

 

And I'd like to quit tagging this as religious intolerance. In this case, the beliefs of the church seem to reflect the mainstream view as indicated by every single popular vote on the subject.

[ashw_justin]

KKK meetings are private affairs, not open to the public. Entirely different animal.

Is anything stopping intolerant churches from declaring themselves not-open-to-the-public? Honestly I'm not comfortable with this gray area between religious and public. Something must give. What is a church? Is it a private, exclusive religious place of worship? Or is it a public community center? It seems the problem is that we want it to be both.

[Fairweather]

Probably their 501©3 status.

 

[ashw_justin]

Oh alright then, marry gays or relinquish your 501©3 status.

[Bug]

I think the supreme court will strike down forcing churches to marry gays but I do think they will uphold the right of gays to marry.

As for me, 2. Love your brother as you would love yourself.

 

You Christian bashers are going to have fun with that one.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think the supreme court will strike down forcing churches to marry gays but I do think they will uphold the right of gays to marry.

As for me, 2. Love your brother as you would love yourself.

 

You Christian bashers are going to have fun with that one.

 

Hey, you changed your avatar!

[Fairweather]

Oh alright then, marry gays or relinquish your 501©3 status.

 

So you think government-approved churches are the way to go, eh? Kinda like...China?

[Hugh Conway]

If he tortures the constitution long enough, it will tell him what he wants to hear.

 

Yup

 

[STP]

California, our most populous state, passing legislation like this (in addition to other states) constitutes a groundswell by any measure.

 

If you'll carefully read my posts, you'll realize that I refered to recent court cases, not the California law, when framing the religious issue. You've cited an argument I never made.

 

Huh? The people of CA passed an initiative against allowing gay marriage. The CA supreme court threw it out. Judicial activism, IMHO. I would like to see the issue stand on its own merit.

 

Put this way, it does seem like a cultural struggle, the people vs. the select few. This presumes that the justices always know what is best for society.

 

The governor of New York and other governors have passed Executive Orders allowing domestic partnership benefits. The whole point of Executive Orders is to circumvent the democratic process by legislating by fiat. Where's the 'will of the people'?

 

If the people aren't ready for it, then I don't believe in forcing communities to accept these standards, regardless of what someone outside of that community thinks. Seems like it goes both ways when government (executive or otherwise) forces the people to conform to its idea of how society should be.

[Hugh Conway]

Next they'll be allowing the niggers to vote. And then attend the same schools as good white children! Niggers! With little white girls!

[Fairweather]

Next they'll be allowing the niggers to vote. And then attend the same schools as good white children! Niggers! With little white girls!

 

Seek help, asshole.

[Fairweather]

[STP]

The question isn't whether the change is the right one or not. The question is how to institute change.

[ashw_justin]

Oh alright then, marry gays or relinquish your 501©3 status.

So you think government-approved churches are the way to go, eh? Kinda like...China?

No, on the contrary, I am suggesting that if there is a civil option by which a church can preserve its own religious freedom, then this might be a good option. Any special consideration in the eyes of the government, such as tax benefits or faith-based initiatives, makes a religious organization specially subject to government scrutiny and potential control. It seems like a church that were really serious about protecting its beliefs would be looking for a way to avoid having to become thus dependent, and hence vulnerable to being considered a public institution.

 

On the other hand, if some other religious organization doesn't have a problem saying some magic words and declaring a male or female couple 'married,' I don't see why the government should have a problem with this, or deny any rights normally granted to married couples.

[Hugh Conway]

Next they'll be allowing the gays to vote. And then attend the same schools as good white children! Gays! With little white girls!

 

Seek help, asshole.

 

Maybe we'll let them marry too....