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.
That was not what they voted on. They voted against marriage being solely defined as between one man and one woman. The word "discrimination" was not on the ballot. Once again, you choose to insert your all too convenient phrasing to make those of us who disagree on this issue look like the monsters you're consistently portraying us as. And how can you be ignorant enough to believe this landmark event has no influence on other states? Michigan has already moved to bring this issue to the voters within the next 2 to 3 years on the heels of Minnesota's action. I have little doubt that gay marriage will be legal here by 2016, and Minnesota has largely paved the way for that.
Also, don't pompously sit there and tell me this doesn't affect my relationships. We don't believe in homosexuality, and now we're going to eventually have to explain why two women or two men are allowed to get married to our young kids. That affects us all. I don't want my 15 month old son growing up thinking it's just as acceptable for him to marry a man as it would be for him to fall in love with and marry a woman. That violates everything I've believed my entire life, and now I'm supposed to just sit back and accept it without voicing an honest opinion? Don't think so. I'm not ignorant as to the future of this issue, either. I know gay marriage is going to be passed in many more places within the next 10 to 20 years. That doesn't mean I have to believe in or endorse it, though.........and I won't........ever. My lifelong beliefs and values are not a "chip" on any particular shoulder. They are who I am, and like I said, that was never a problem to anyone until this "stamp out religion, tradition, and conservatism because now anything goes" wave started crashing down on society within the past 5 to 10 years.
BTW, and just for the record, I love the state of Minnesota.....have thought about moving there several times, and am still considering it. I think it's a beautiful, fascinating place. I obviously don't support gay marriage, but that would never keep me from living there.
I don't consider my view pompous, but instead reassuring that you are entitled to your view and same sex marriage should not affect you. Your children will either be attracted to the opposite sex or same sex. The odds are about 90-93% that they will be attracted to the opposite sex and you will not have to worry about the issue. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and Minnesotans and their elected representatives are entitled to theirs.
That was not what they voted on. They voted against marriage being solely defined as between one man and one woman. The word "discrimination" was not on the ballot. Once again, you choose to insert your all too convenient phrasing to make those of us who disagree on this issue look like the monsters you're consistently portraying us as. And how can you be ignorant enough to believe this landmark event has no influence on other states? Michigan has already moved to bring this issue to the voters within the next 2 to 3 years on the heels of Minnesota's action. I have little doubt that gay marriage will be legal here by 2016, and Minnesota has largely paved the way for that.
Also, don't pompously sit there and tell me this doesn't affect my relationships. We don't believe in homosexuality, and now we're going to eventually have to explain why two women or two men are allowed to get married to our young kids. That affects us all. I don't want my 15 month old son growing up thinking it's just as acceptable for him to marry a man as it would be for him to fall in love with and marry a woman. That violates everything I've believed my entire life, and now I'm supposed to just sit back and accept it without voicing an honest opinion? Don't think so. I'm not ignorant as to the future of this issue, either. I know gay marriage is going to be passed in many more places within the next 10 to 20 years. That doesn't mean I have to believe in or endorse it, though.........and I won't........ever. My lifelong beliefs and values are not a "chip" on any particular shoulder. They are who I am, and like I said, that was never a problem to anyone until this "stamp out religion, tradition, and conservatism because now anything goes" wave started crashing down on society within the past 5 to 10 years.
BTW, and just for the record, I love the state of Minnesota.....have thought about moving there several times, and am still considering it. I think it's a beautiful, fascinating place. I obviously don't support gay marriage, but that would never keep me from living there.
I and many others are glad to hear about your love for the state of Minnesota. You would be surprised at the number of Minnesota churches (granted more in the TC metro than elsewhere) and those of other same sex marriage states that will be conducting same sex marriages.
As for the "stamping" out of traditional religion, it was an inside job by hypocrites like Jimmy Swaggart who strongly condemned others while crying and asking for immediate forgiveness for himself, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Baker, the Westboro Baptist zealots and most of all the priests that were child molesters (sick IMO) andthen protected by the Catholic Church. The truth may hurt some, but those are the facts. I am a tolerant Christian. I believe there are good religious people and they are now finally gaining influence (new Pope is an example even though I am not Catholic). There were no cynical outside evil forces stamping out religion. Imagine whatever you want.
I would worry more about whether your 15 month old grows to be a kind, responsible, considerate and law abiding human being rather than the sex of the person he may eventually meet or marry. That is just my two cents.
I and many others are glad to hear about your love for the state of Minnesota. You would be surprised at the number of Minnesota churches (granted more in the TC metro than elsewhere) and those of other same sex marriage states that will be conducting same sex marriages.
As for the "stamping" out of traditional religion, it was an inside job by hypocrites like Jimmy Swaggart who strongly condemned others while crying and asking for immediate forgiveness for himself, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Baker, the Westboro Baptist zealots and most of all the priests that were child molesters (sick IMO) andthen protected by the Catholic Church. The truth may hurt some, but those are the facts. I am a tolerant Christian. I believe there are good religious people and they are now finally gaining influence (new Pope is an example even though I am not Catholic). There were no cynical outside evil forces stamping out religion. Imagine whatever you want.
I would worry more about whether your 15 month old grows to be a kind, responsible, considerate and law abiding human being rather than the sex of the person he may eventually meet or marry. That is just my two cents.
We agree to disagree.
I won't be surprised by anything. Gay marriage is legal in Minnesota now, so of course gay people are going to get married there. I don't support it, but I accept it because it's the law.
It should also come as no surprise to anyone familiar with scripture that God's people are under constant attack from the devil. Of course, when this happens, you will have a certain faction waiting in the wings to pounce and cry "hypocrite" in order to justify either their own backsliding or altogether disbelief and apathy. Think about it: If you are Satan, who are your priority - the folks already living outside of God's will, or those taking up the Cross? As Christians, we are constantly in the spotlight because apathetic/backsliding Christians and non believers are just waiting for us to fall so that they can strip us to the bone in the public eye. Those who do this seem to find some sort of vindication or absolution as a result, even though the people they are criticizing - like Jimmy Swaggart- often get right back up and continue to do God's work at an even higher level on the heels of being forgiven their sins, which, incidentally, is the true Christian thing to do in such a case.
As for my son, I agree with your last statement. We have been blessed to have him, and he has been blessed to have been born into a Godly household. We will raise him by God's instruction and wisdom, and then the day will come for him to make the choices we have all had to make in life.
Agree to disagree. Indeed we do, and I have no problem with that whatsoever.
That's the remarkable part. The 2% making a claim need to convince enough of the 98% to agree, using only rational persuasion. And that is exactly what has happened.
Similar to blacks making up only 10% of the population, and hoping the 90% ignore race in order to elect a black president.
I am a fervent Capitalist and politically diametrically opposed to everything Obama stands for. I did not want him to be elected as I felt, and feel, that his politics are bad for my country. Yet when he was elected I was proud of my country. No other country would do what we did, elect a member of a 10% minority to lead all of us. A lot of Irrationalism and Emotionalism has to be overcome for that to be possible. Pretty amazing. I hate his politics, but that is an incredible achievement for a society. Where else does that happen?
Because in this country the principle of individual rights is so strong that the 2% has a chance to convince the 98% to do something different. And the 10% has a chance to convince the 90% to elect someone different.
This is one of the best posts ever on city-data. Kudos!
So if this gets passed can church's with strong marriage = one man-one women beliefs decline to marry a gay/lesbian couple?
The law as I understand it does not require any churches to marry gay/lesbian couples. It simply allows gays/lesbians to marry at churches willing to do so or at their local city justice of the peace. Having said that, there are many MN churches that are willing to do so. As to your previous comment about WI liberals, I guess they just reside in Madison these days. They still don't have gay marriage in WI. It would be very embarrassing IMO for them not to have it before Utah, but that could very well be the reality.
The law as I understand it does not require any churches to marry gay/lesbian couples. It simply allows gays/lesbians to marry at churches willing to do so or at their local city justice of the peace. Having said that, there are many MN churches that are willing to do so. As to your previous comment about WI liberals, I guess they just reside in Madison these days. They still don't have gay marriage in WI. It would be very embarrassing IMO for them not to have it before Utah, but that could very well be the reality.
Churches and same-sex marriage:
Churches are not required to perform any particular sort of marriage. This is nothing new - Catholic churches are free to decline to marry non-Catholics; synagogues are free to decline to conduct interfaith marriages; churches are free to refuse to perform interracial marriages (though if it becomes widely known, the ferocious outcry is usually enough to convince them otherwise). This isn't an issue of individual state laws but of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, though politicians often write such an exemption into laws allowing for same-sex marriage, either through ignorance or so they can grandstand and claimed to have 'protected' churches. Businesses? That's a different story. If a church wants to operate a business, they have no one to blame but themselves when that business is required to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow.
Wisconsin and Utah:
I wouldn't say Wisconsin has anything to feel embarrassed about regarding Utah - Utah has done nothing; what has transpired there was an action by a federal judge. But aside from Utah, it would appear that Wisconsin is probably one of the most liberal states where same-sex marriage is not yet allowed. In general, it is slipping behind the curve.
The law as I understand it does not require any churches to marry gay/lesbian couples. It simply allows gays/lesbians to marry at churches willing to do so or at their local city justice of the peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Churches and same-sex marriage: Churches are not required to perform any particular sort of marriage. This is nothing new - Catholic churches are free to decline to marry non-Catholics; synagogues are free to decline to conduct interfaith marriages; churches are free to refuse to perform interracial marriages (though if it becomes widely known, the ferocious outcry is usually enough to convince them otherwise). This isn't an issue of individual state laws but of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, though politicians often write such an exemption into laws allowing for same-sex marriage, either through ignorance or so they can grandstand and claimed to have 'protected' churches.
So much for the reassurance that the state would not interfere with religious marriages.
"Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
"The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
"On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding."
So much for the reassurance that the state would not interfere with religious marriages.
"Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
"The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
"On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding."
The state cannot compel churches to perform marriages. However, businesses must comply with non-discrimination laws.
Hitching Post Wedding Chapel of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, is not a church. They are a commercial business. They have to comply with commercial law. They don't get a free pass to discriminate in commercial activity by using religion as an excuse. Churches in Idaho (and every other U.S. jurisdiction) are still free to discriminate in the practice of their religion.
The Knapps, in the execution of their commercial activity, no more deserve to be exempted from performing same-sex marriages than a hotel or restaurant (or, to use a somewhat relevant local example, a taxi driver) which claims a religious excuse for discrimination against people of a certain race, or a certain gender, or a certain religion should be exempted from accommodating or serving, for example, blacks or women or Christians.
You quoted my post, which pertained entirely to churches, not to businesses. Either you do not understand the difference, or you are intentionally being misleading. I care not which is the case, but either way you're flat-out wrong to associate my spot-on accurate post about the rights of churches with a case involving commercial discrimination.
So much for the reassurance that the state would not interfere with religious marriages.
"Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
"The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
"On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding."
The business in question is not affiliated with a church. This couple operates a for-profit wedding chapel business. "The Hitching Post" is no different than the ubiquitous wedding chapels one finds in Las Vegas. For purposes of complying with Idaho's anti-discrimination laws, the city has properly determined that this business meets the definition of a public accommodation.
If The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (an actual church in which these two were ordained) was told to comply or face penalties, that would be a legitimate constitutional concern. As it stands, this couple is no different than the bakeries, florists, and photographers who feel that their personal religious beliefs trump the civil rights of others. Again, don't offer a service to the general public if you want to be able to discriminate against particular demographic groups.
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.
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.
The polls and statistics would seem to support me though.
