BREAKING: New York Legalizes Same Sex Marriage

[dbackjon]

Did I miss something? Will churches now be forced to marry gays?

I kind of agree with Ron Paul's take in that government should be out of the marriage business, but since it is not, and there remains legal and financial issues associated with marriage than gays and churches should both be free to do what they want - regardless of your fears.

Will churches "now" be forced to marry homosexuals? I don't know. But if not I think they will be. I think it is inevitable. I think it is inevitable that some pair of homosexuals will approach a Christian minister and ask to be married. Then when the Christian minister refuses they will sue to force him to do it. The idea will be that if he is authorized to issue a civil marriage license he must be willing to issue such a license to homosexuals. If there is some law "protecting" the minister the Constitutionality of that law will be challenged. Eventually ministers and churches who consider homosexuality immoral will be forced to either marry them or stop issuing civil licenses.

It is very reasonable to think that when one contemplates how things have worked in this country over the last century or so.

No, it is very UNREASONABLE and stupid to think so. Churches are not required to marry couples that do not meet the churches requirements NOW. I can't walk into a Mormon or Catholic church with a woman and demand to be married. 1st Amendment protects the churches.

Nothing will change in this regard.

To claim otherwise is simple fear-mongering.

[kalm]

Will churches "now" be forced to marry homosexuals? I don't know. But if not I think they will be. I think it is inevitable. I think it is inevitable that some pair of homosexuals will approach a Christian minister and ask to be married. Then when the Christian minister refuses they will sue to force him to do it. The idea will be that if he is authorized to issue a civil marriage license he must be willing to issue such a license to homosexuals. If there is some law "protecting" the minister the Constitutionality of that law will be challenged. Eventually ministers and churches who consider homosexuality immoral will be forced to either marry them or stop issuing civil licenses.

It is very reasonable to think that when one contemplates how things have worked in this country over the last century or so.

No, it is very UNREASONABLE and stupid to think so. Churches are not required to marry couples that do not meet the churches requirements NOW. I can't walk into a Mormon or Catholic church with a woman and demand to be married. 1st Amendment protects the churches.

Nothing will change in this regard.

To claim otherwise is simple fear-mongering.

Right. Which also makes it a right of churches issue. As a pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I want my church able to marry whoever it pleases.

[grizzaholic]

Right. Which also makes it a right of churches issue. As a pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I want my church able to marry whoever it pleases.

I am a member of The Church of Polson Griz. Good church.

[kalm]

Right. Which also makes it a right of churches issue. As a pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I want my church able to marry whoever it pleases.

I am a member of The Church of Polson Griz. Good church.

Ah yes. Isn't that the one where the high priests sport closely shorn facial hair, believe Sirloin is the finest cut of beef, and forbid the wearing of shorts or the use of foul language?

[grizzaholic]

I am a member of The Church of Polson Griz. Good church.

Ah yes. Isn't that the one where the high priests sport closely shorn facial hair, believe Sirloin is the finest cut of beef, and forbid the wearing of shorts or the use of foul language?

One in the same.

[JohnStOnge]

No, it is very UNREASONABLE and stupid to think so. Churches are not required to marry couples that do not meet the churches requirements NOW. I can't walk into a Mormon or Catholic church with a woman and demand to be married. 1st Amendment protects the churches.

Nothing will change in this regard.

To claim otherwise is simple fear-mongering.

I can't believe you really think that. Churches issue civil marriage licenses. A scenario in which someone says that anyone who issues civil licenses must not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" is very plausible.

Look, there was a time when people would've said the idea that we'd ever have homosexuals considered as "married" was ridiculous. It's a slow, evolving degradation.

[dbackjon]

No, it is very UNREASONABLE and stupid to think so. Churches are not required to marry couples that do not meet the churches requirements NOW. I can't walk into a Mormon or Catholic church with a woman and demand to be married. 1st Amendment protects the churches.

Nothing will change in this regard.

To claim otherwise is simple fear-mongering.

I can't believe you really think that. Churches issue civil marriage licenses. A scenario in which someone says that anyone who issues civil licenses must not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" is very plausible.

Look, there was a time when people would've said the idea that we'd ever have homosexuals considered as "married" was ridiculous. It's a slow, evolving degradation.

Churches don't issue civil marriage licences. Only the state/county does that. Any marriage that a church performs is not a valid marriage in the eyes of the state without a STATE licence.


And gays were married millenia ago - not a new idea.

[JoltinJoe]

As a pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ...

[Ivytalk]

Given the full faith and credit clause, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's just a matter of time before all 50 states stop the legislative brouhahas and allow gay marriage.

The issue will continue to divide the churches, particularly the mainline Protestant denominations that have been fighting over the issue for 20 years. The problem is that most clergy are more "progressive" than their congregations. Several dioceses have left the Episcopal Church over the issue, although the national church has won the inevitable fights over who owns the buildings. It may be one reason why the fastest growing Protestant denominations are more fundamentalist.

[dbackjon]

Given the full faith and credit clause, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's just a matter of time before all 50 states stop the legislative brouhahas and allow gay marriage.

The issue will continue to divide the churches, particularly the mainline Protestant denominations that have been fighting over the issue for 20 years. The problem is that most clergy are more "progressive" than their congregations. Several dioceses have left the Episcopal Church over the issue, although the national church has won the inevitable fights over who owns the buildings. It may be one reason why the fastest growing Protestant denominations are more fundamentalist.

And this is nothing new when it comes to civil rights.

[ASUMountaineer]

Can someone say thought police? That's what I see coming, a government, who will arrest you for thinking a certain way.

Talk about an assinine leap of illogic. How do you get that? If you don't want gay marriage, don't get one. As it stands, YOU are the one trying to dictate to the rest of us how to live. Gay marriage doesn't change a thing for straights. Your bigoted opposition to equality for all Americans does effect me.


Either you are for equality for all Americans, or you are a **** bigot. But that is your right. No one is going to arrest you for being a bigot. KKK is alive and well, they are bigots, and their bigoted hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, just like your bigotry is protected.

True equality would be the government not dictating at all who can and cannot married. Instead, even with legalizing gay marriage, the government is still the deciding factor. Gay marriage (or any marriage) isn't an inalienable right, it's now a granted privilege.

[Ivytalk]

Given the full faith and credit clause, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's just a matter of time before all 50 states stop the legislative brouhahas and allow gay marriage.

The issue will continue to divide the churches, particularly the mainline Protestant denominations that have been fighting over the issue for 20 years. The problem is that most clergy are more "progressive" than their congregations. Several dioceses have left the Episcopal Church over the issue, although the national church has won the inevitable fights over who owns the buildings. It may be one reason why the fastest growing Protestant denominations are more fundamentalist.

And this is nothing new when it comes to civil rights.

It's not the same in the churches, Jon. I remember when i was a kid, "black power" types came to a number of churches in our area and, in the process of arguing for civil rights for blacks, behaved pretty poorly. One guy actually threw Communion wafers around. Yet people didn't defect from the churches en masse over the Voting Rights Act -- or even over integrating particular congregations -- like they still do in some denominations over the gay marriage issue. The fact is that people are still more likely to perceive racial discrimination or sex discrimination as inherently wrong than discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Even the SCOTUS has yet to recognize gays as members of the most "protected class" of citizens. To be sure, the opinion polls have shifted in recent years on the issue of gay marriage, but I think a number of people will tell a pollster they favor it when they really don't.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

And this is nothing new when it comes to civil rights.

It's not the same in the churches, Jon. I remember when i was a kid, "black power" types came to a number of churches in our area and, in the process of arguing for civil rights for blacks, behaved pretty poorly. One guy actually threw Communion wafers around. Yet people didn't defect from the churches en masse over the Voting Rights Act -- or even over integrating particular congregations -- like they still do in some denominations over the gay marriage issue. The fact is that people are still more likely to perceive racial discrimination or sex discrimination as inherently wrong than discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Even the SCOTUS has yet to recognize gays as members of the most "protected class" of citizens. To be sure, the opinion polls have shifted in recent years on the issue of gay marriage, but I think a number of people will tell a pollster they favor it when they really don't.

True - people lie to pollsters all the time... if the number of people who said they watch PBS actually did it would be a ratings juggernaut.

the rest of this comment was removed because i didn't fully read your posts IT... full-faith and credit was exactly what I was bringing up, only to realize you had in a previous post... carry on...

[kalm]

As a pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ...

Humorless freedom of religion hating zealot!

[JoltinJoe]

Humorless freedom of religion hating zealot!

Nah, just never heard that line used by anyone worth having a conversation with ... figured you were better than that.

You know, I understand atheism. But what I don't understand is why atheists so frequently go for the cheap reply of ridiculing people of faith. There is a lot of serious philosophy out there, written by some of the most brilliant people who ever lived, contending that there is a God. Either deal with it or don't deal with it. But ridiculing it only makes you look like you're cornered, without a reply.

Geez, even Stephen Hawking, when critiqued by those schooled in metaphysics, could only reply that these very serious people believe in a fairy tale. He sounded foolish when he said that, like he had no grasp of what people of faith actually believe, or the grounds on which these philosophers were criticizing his outlook.

When you call the concept of God a "fairy tale," or call God "Santa Claus in the sky," or compare God to the Easter Bunny, or invent the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a so-called parody, you're exposing a lack of understanding and grasp of the issue, and inventing a straw man to attack.

Sorry for the humorless response ...

[kalm]

Humorless freedom of religion hating zealot!

Nah, just never heard that line used by anyone worth having a conversation with ... figured you were better than that.

You know, I understand atheism. But what I don't understand is why atheists so frequently go for the cheap reply of ridiculing people of faith. There is a lot of serious philosophy out there, written by some of the most brilliant people who ever lived, contending that there is a God. Either deal with it or don't deal with it. But ridiculing it only makes you look like you're cornered, without a reply.

Geez, even Stephen Hawking, when critiqued by those schooled in metaphysics, could only reply that these very serious people believe in a fairy tale. He sounded foolish when he said that, like he had no grasp of what people of faith actually believe, or the grounds on which these philosophers were criticizing his outlook.

When you call the concept of God a "fairy tale," or call God "Santa Claus in the sky," or compare God to the Easter Bunny, or invent the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a so-called parody, you're exposing a lack of understanding and grasp of the issue, and inventing a straw man to attack.

Sorry for the humorless response ...

No, seriously for a second Joe, we're not in church, God doesn't care. In fact, I'm guessing he created sarcasm, humor, and parody. Lighten up!

[JohnStOnge]

Churches don't issue civil marriage licences. Only the state/county does that. Any marriage that a church performs is not a valid marriage in the eyes of the state without a STATE licence.


And gays were married millenia ago - not a new idea.

Well, if you turn out to be right about the civil license issue that would be better. But it may mean I'm not legally married since the only marriage license my wife and I ever got was issued to us by the Church at which we got married. I suppose that administratively it may have been "issued" by the State. My wife did say that when my daughter got married she had to send something off. That seems consistent with the description for Louisiana at http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/un ... ndex.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

In any case, when you look at that web page it's apparent that churches are vested with civil "authority" pertaining to marriage in a number of States. Whether they technically issue the license in a particular state or not they are authorized to perform a marriage recognized by the State. The opens the potential for asserting that if they are going to be so recognized and/or have such civil authority they cannot discriminate against homosexuals.

As for your statement about homosexuals being married millenia ago. The last time I saw that assertion it dealt with Greek culture and I looked into it and determined to my own satisfaction that it was a questionable assertion. I find that there is an awful lot of statement of historical things about homosexuality asserted as fact nowdays that is not really fact but someone's interpretation. Like Alexander the Great or Leonardo DiVinci being homosexuals. People state those things as though they are known fact and so far as I 've been able to tell so far they are not.

But I am always willing to look at what you have to reference and if you actually have something that clearly and undoubtably establishes the idea the there were true homosexual marriages milliinea ago I will accept that. Same with the idea that Alexander the Great and Leonardo Divinci were homosexuals.

To me there's a movement to try to "claim" people and things as homosexual. Part of the overall propaganda campaign.

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, even the fact that everybody on this board except me uses "gay" rather than "homosexual" is an illustration of how successful the propaganda and thought control campaign has been. It is not an accident. There was at some point a conscious decision on the part of those participating in the effort to "normalize" homosexuality to push for using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual" because, if I remember correctly, public opinion research indicated that asking people about the condition and using the term "homosexual" resulted in less favorable responses than using the term "gay" did. I once read an American Psychological Association thing on that...where they decided to tell people who submit papers for publication that they should use "gay" instead of "homosexual" and the reason for it (which had nothing to do with science but instead reflected egalitarian philosophy).

Unfortunately I can't find it in my current bookmarks so you'll just have to take my word for it for now.

Anyway, that's what bothers me more than anything else. If people will buy what they've bought with respect to this homosexual movement thing they will buy anything. It's an illustration of how you can get people to believe up is down and black is white if you're persistent enough and get them to think they're showing how smart they are by believing it.

[JohnStOnge]

Well Dback, you don't have to look the homosexual marriage in history thing up. If someone from the religous right says he thinks it happened, there is no point in going farther:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't look at the Bible as a literal history. But I do think it's related to historical reality in many ways and if there are old Jewish texts lambasting the Cannanites for having men marry men and women marry women I figure the odds are that it is true.

Not that important anyway. It's still sick. Sick things have happened throughout human history.

As an aside, though, note that even THAT author uses the term "gay" rather than "homosexual."

[89Hen]

I... never wrote... term paper in high school.

Glad you fessed up. Feel better?

[BDKJMU]

Given the full faith and credit clause, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's just a matter of time before all 50 states stop the legislative brouhahas and allow gay marriage.

The issue will continue to divide the churches, particularly the mainline Protestant denominations that have been fighting over the issue for 20 years. The problem is that most clergy are more "progressive" than their congregations. Several dioceses have left the Episcopal Church over the issue, although the national church has won the inevitable fights over who owns the buildings. It may be one reason why the fastest growing Protestant denominations are more fundamentalist.

There are numerous examples of where licenses issued in one state aren't recognized by other states. Concealed carry is one example. If the FFCC was applied to force say Virginia to accept a gay marriage license from NY, wouldn't under that same principle NY be forced to accept a concealed carry license from VA?