Freedom to Marry can be rejoiced in Alaska (Houston, Fox: homes, law)

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

It has been getting that way in recent years, mostly in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks. Not so much in the rural areas.

Ray, I don't think you've ever been to my part of the state. It's changed a lot.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Ray, I don't think you've ever been to my part of the state. It's changed a lot.

No, I haven't. I have been in Sitka, Juneau, and Kodiak, but not for extended periods. I should have said, in the rural areas of the interior. As for Fairbanks, I have noticed a lot of changes in recent years.

[Crossfire600]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

That's because a majority of Alaskans voted for the definition of marriage. Alaskans are mostly independent and conservative in many issues. That said, most Alaskans are transplants from other States, and a majority of these don't like having people from other states coming up here to make changes that in turn will transform Alaska into the messes they have left behind.

Or bringing the mess they created with them.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by richelles

You need to learn to read more widely. Democrats are responsible for things like medicare, social security, civil rights, universal suffrage, and many other decent things. Republicans are against each of the above which puts them at odds with the beliefs of most decent Americans.

On civil rights the democrats are at odds with the majority of Americans. Their party platform includes infringing on the second amendment rights of americans (AWB, etc.). So your partisan post fails.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

On civil rights the democrats are at odds with the majority of Americans. Their party platform includes infringing on the second amendment rights of americans (AWB, etc.). So your partisan post fails.

I am a democrat and also own a gun. But the freedom to marry is not the same as gun rights, marriage is a civil right and is being denied specifically to gays, not to straights, Jews, Christians or any other demographic. Guns and the 2nd amendment are issues that have people in contention on both sides, it is not just a democratic or republican issue. Bans on same sex marriage affect only gays, not every demographic.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

I am a democrat and also own a gun. But the freedom to marry is not the same as gun rights, marriage is a civil right and is being denied specifically to gays, not to straights, Jews, Christians or any other demographic. Guns and the 2nd amendment are issues that have people in contention on both sides, it is not just a democratic or republican issue. Bans on same sex marriage affect only gays, not every demographic.

The second amendment is a civil rights issue. And only one party has infringing on it as part of its official platform.

Of course the real point was that the post I responded to was simply wrong.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

I am a democrat and also own a gun. But the freedom to marry is not the same as gun rights, marriage is a civil right and is being denied specifically to gays, not to straights, Jews, Christians or any other demographic. Guns and the 2nd amendment are issues that have people in contention on both sides, it is not just a democratic or republican issue. Bans on same sex marriage affect only gays, not every demographic.

It's not as simple as that. Because of religion, the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and that's why the people have voted for the definition of marriage. By striking down the definition of marriage by the courts, it may become illegal for churches to deny "marrying" same-sex couples. While this may take time to happen, it will.

Another example:

The City of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court. “The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/10/christ...-turn-sermons/

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

It's not as simple as that. Because of religion, the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and that's why the people have voted for the definition of marriage. By striking down the definition of marriage by the courts, it may become illegal for churches to deny "marrying" same-sex couples. While this may take time to happen, it will.

Another example:

Christian persecution in the US: Openly gay Houston mayor demands pastors turn over sermons - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

The definition of marriage in Alaska now includes woman and woman and man on man. It doesn't mater how your religion defines marriage, your religion has no right to make laws.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by okie1962

The definition of marriage in Alaska now includes woman and woman and man on man. It doesn't mater how your religion defines marriage, your religion has no right to make laws.

Likewise the homosexuals have zero business trying to force their beliefs on others, but that has been happening. For example:
Vt. government ends religious persecution of family business, admits Wildflower Inn acted in good faith - Alliance Defending Freedom

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by okie1962

The definition of marriage in Alaska now includes woman and woman and man on man. It doesn't mater how your religion defines marriage, your religion has no right to make laws.

Religion has never made laws; people do. In the case of the "definition of marriage," Alaskans, not the religions, decided that such is what they wanted, so they voted for it.