Winston-Salem church to stop weddings until gay marriage allowed
Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High PointThe Triad Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether a person agrees with same sex marriage or not, no one's religious beliefs should be forced upon anyone. That would seem to make banning same sex marriage unconstitutional because the objection to it is base on religious beliefs. I'm not sure why that argument hasn't been used a great deal in the courts. There are a lot of people out there who don't approve of gay marriage but believe if two people love each other, they should have that right.
SCOTUS will give their ruling on Prop 8 and DOMA in June. IMO their ruling will be similar to Mexico Supreme Court they rule it unconstitutional a month or two ago.
If that is the case I dont know how it works amending state laws or if this church is referring only to this state or nation.
gsoboi, you are absolutely right. In the legal context, you might call it personal or perceived discrimination. I think that Prop 8 and DOMA in June will be struck down, and the court will reason that it is because of Due Process and equal protection under the law, and establish personhood in the context of equal protection. I think that the arguments likely will flow similar to the arguments made during the Brown vs. Board of Education in that a) the exclusion of same-sex couples from being able to marry directly implies second-class citizenship. The plaintiff who will come before the court Edith Windsor (United States vs. Windsor), is arguing that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Then states will just have to do what they do...
Whether a person agrees with same sex marriage or not, no one's religious beliefs should be forced upon anyone. That would seem to make banning same sex marriage unconstitutional because the objection to it is base on religious beliefs. I'm not sure why that argument hasn't been used a great deal in the courts. There are a lot of people out there who don't approve of gay marriage but believe if two people love each other, they should have that right.
It all comes down to government tax breaks and social security. The whole point of the marriage law was to encourage population growth. Obviously, we no longer need such encouragement, lol. The Marriage law, honestly, is something that should have expired once the growth in population had reached acceptable levels. And to be honest, it should have never been a law in the first place. Because, laws like this encourage more separation between those who are liberal minded and those who are conservative. As well, more separation between those who are religious and those who are not. It also encourages more reliance on the government, while allowing the government to continue raising our taxes to support these laws and programs.
It all should be our personal responsibility to prepare for the future and understand how to invest our money to fund our own retirements, how we take care of our children, as well as decide who should have access to our benefits if we pass and how we fund our healthcare. People's religious beliefs should have nothing to do with any of this stuff. However, the problem is, people of faith live their lives based on their faith. Meaning, everything they do in life is based on their religious beliefs. To tell people not to live their lives like that is very controlling and absolutely wrong.
Because the government puts its nose in places where it really doesn't belong, it forces situations like this where many of faith is placed in a situation where they must decide to live by their religious beliefs and make a decision based on them, or go against those beliefs. If the former, then they are viewed upon as bigots and hate mongers. If the latter, then they are backsliders and sinners. So, Hell on Earth or Hell for eternity? Hhhmmmmm...... and all the while, either way, there is still other segments of the population that is being legally discriminated against for not falling into the straight and married or gay and wanting to marry categories. But, most people don't want to get that far into it because it isn't nearly as interesting as blaming the Christians, lol!
Look, here's my punchline, long-winded point. I don't care if you are sexually attracted to your own gender. The point is, I think it's pretty stupid that the government holds all of our tax dollars for ransom and tells us we can only get those dollars back on certain conditions. You have to be married for this or you have to have children. Screw that! If most of these government programs didn't exist, then there would be no need for that money to be taken out of our paychecks, thus, we would have those tax breaks and nobody would have to vote on banning gay marriage and deciding to not marry anybody.
Justice Scalia has stated that the Prop 8 ruling will probably only apply to the California statute. And while a repeal of DOMA would be a step in the right direction, it would not be the same as full marriage equality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyKayak
More than 200 people gathered at the Green Street United Methodist Church supporting gay marriage on Sunday morning.
Wish I could be there. Could be enough to get me to go to a service when I'm in Winston-Salem over the summer, if it's not packed wall to wall already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.