Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
tvashtarkatena

Eloping to California

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh alright then, marry gays or relinquish your 501©3 status. :grlaf:

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :lmao:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh alright then, marry gays or relinquish your 501©3 status. :grlaf:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×