Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,865 posts, read 24,449,915 times
Reputation: 8672

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Since the word 'marriage' won't be removed from the legal definition during the lifetime of anyone old enough to read and write on this forum, the real choices don't include your option. The only way for gay couples to have the same rights and obligations as hetero couples is via the Supreme Court.
Thats true, but its the argument used by the anti gay marriage crowd. "We don't want to force our church to marry gays".

It really has nothing to do with legal marriage already. Without a marriage license, its not a legal union if you just go to the church.

The issue in the states is should a marriage license be given to homosexual couples. Since, in this instance, marriage is being taken as a civil contract, and is not religious marriage, then the argument of "My church would be forced" is really a moot and ineffective argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2012, 02:27 PM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,998,574 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
The ink would not be dry on the bill allowing equal civil union/marriage and some gay couple would be suing the Catholic Church.

That is a guarantee.
The ink has long since dried on the bills allowing same-sex marriages in various states. Would you be so kind as to point out those lawsuits that you claim were filed before the aforementioned inks dried?

Well?

Churches are free to marry who they want. Some churches will not perform certain interfaith marriages. Some synagogues, too. Churches are free to decline to perform interracial marriages. Because despite the fact that marriage is a constitutional right, churches are not obligated to provide people with that right.

This is why the Catholic Church is not forced to perform same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, or Washington, DC.-- all places where same-sex marriage is legal.

Your claim is simply bogus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,187 posts, read 997,765 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
The ink has long since dried on the bills allowing same-sex marriages in various states. Would you be so kind as to point out those lawsuits that you claim were filed before the aforementioned inks dried?
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

This is the kind of thing that proves my point. I don't think it'll stop even if we get the government out of the marriage business. These lawsuits aren't right. this organization should have the right to say their religious beliefs compell them to not allow same sex marriages to take place on their property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 05:06 PM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,998,574 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71 View Post
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

This is the kind of thing that proves my point. I don't think it'll stop even if we get the government out of the marriage business. These lawsuits aren't right. this organization should have the right to say their religious beliefs compell them to not allow same sex marriages to take place on their property.
Your link -- not the first time I've seen it posted by someone claiming that a church was being forced to perform a marriage.

The problem, for you, is that it is not about a church being forced to perform a marriage.

First, this is about a civil union, not a marriage. And this case does not stand on the fact that civil unions are legal in New Jersey. Do you think that this orginazation would not have reacted similarly to an attempt to book a non-binding same-sex 'commitment ceremony' if civil unions were not legal in New Jersey? Of course they would have. And, again, that would have run afoul of New Jersey laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in a real estate business transaction (which is what constitutes a property rental).

Second, the couple in question was not asking a church to perform the ceremony but simply to provide equal access to a pavilion to celebrate their civil union.

Third, the association in question was not forced to allow the ceremony to take place -- they simply had their tax-exempt status revoked because New Jersey has laws saying that you lose your tax-exempt status if you discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in business transactions, which has nothing to do with whether those being discriminated against are in a civil union.

Fourth, this is a business issue -- the association in question was renting the pavilion to the public for various uses. There are laws against discriminating in business. And those laws in New Jersey existed before civil unions were legal.

I would suggest you read the attachment in the article, in which the New Jersey Attorney General specifically points out which laws were broken. That civil unions are legal in New Jersey is not an element of the legal issue here.
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/pavilion.pdf

This couple was not demanding to join this organization. This couple was not demanding that the organization marry them. This couple was not demanding that the organization perform the civil union. What they wanted was for this organization to provide the same access to them thay they provided to other non-members of the public. The organization refused, and lost their tax exempt status as a result. If the organization wishes to get their tax exempt status back, they can get out of the real estate business or treat patrons equally regardless of sexual orientation.

Once again, I ask -- where is a lawsuit against the Catholic Church (or any church) in one of the seven U.S. jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are legal demanding that the church in question perform a same-sex marriage?

An aside -- it wouldn't surprise me terribly if you could find such a suit, for people sue over all manner of things. But what you won't find is a successful such suit which rules against the defendants (ie, the church in question).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 07:55 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,908,928 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
A Catholic Church is going to refuse to marry gay couples. We both know that.

The Catholic Church has deep pockets and any lawsuit against them is going to be for big money and big attention.

I believe that the law is going to have to be specific that guarantees a church's right to refuse to marry them.
Why?? Most of their "Fathers" are as gay as a queen and they would marry the Alter Boy if they could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,985,008 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71 View Post
This is for both sides of the issue... if the government completely got out of the business of marraige and all anyone could get was a civil contract, and if that civil contract covered any two consenting adults, including same sex couples. BUT you couldn't get "married" by the government. To be "married, you'd have to go to a church that would sanction your marriage, but it wouldn't be a legally binding institution, it'd be strictly spiritual. Which would mean that if you were a same sex couple and you wanted the label "married" you'd have to find a church that accepted that... BUT that label wouldn't give you legal anything. To get all the legal benefits of what we call marraige today, you'd have to have a civil union which would just be a contract.

Would either side be ok with this?

My boyfriend and I have been discussing this, because we both believe that the government should NOT be in the marriage business. My thought is that neither side would be ok with this separation though because there are already several states that allow for "civil unions" that give same sex (and opposite sex) couples all the same legal rights as a married couple, but most gay rights activists aren't happy with the civil union route.

So I was wondering what you all thought of this idea? Could both sides agree to something like this?
Marriage is the way to go, you overlook the benefits of marrige, such as making legal choices and do not forget SS benefits and the such. Nope, this is not a religious State, and marriage by the Secular State should be just as legal and open to all the benefits hetrosexual couple enjoy. If you dont want to marry someone of the same sex, then don't but it is none of your business if someone else does. I always find it interesting that for years straights said that gays did not have real relationships because they weren't married and hence not commited couples, but when gay and lesbian Americans asked for the same rights that all other Americans enjoy those same people say H*ll No. I am a married straight male Christian and it always amazes me when others say allowing gays to marry would somehow deminish their own Marriage. Hog Wash, I know it would have apsolutely no affect what so ever on mine and if it would affect yours you have bigger issues to deal with than if a gay or lesbian couple wants to make a commitment and get married.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 01:06 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,807,875 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe View Post
Why?? Most of their "Fathers" are as gay as a queen and they would marry the Alter Boy if they could.
Nah, most child molesting priests are straight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 02:15 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,418,776 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
I argued this point in another thread (civil unions having the same benefits as "marriage"). The gay marriage supporters weren't happy with me.

I would be all for civil unions happening for everyone both straight and gay while marriage is preserved for those who want their union sanctioned by God.

Sadly, I don't even think some gays will want to go for this. For some, there seems to be a hang-up with wanting to say "I'm/we're married".
Why would anyone have a problem with this? Both gay and straight people can get a civil union, and both gay and straight religious people can get married in whatever church will marry them. That's equality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,985,008 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Why would anyone have a problem with this? Both gay and straight people can get a civil union, and both gay and straight religious people can get married in whatever church will marry them. That's equality.
No it is not married under the law included SS Benefits, Health Insurance Benefits and others. Nope they are NOT the same in the eyes of the Law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,218,668 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
They would say "I'm married" anyway. Nobody is going to say, "We're civilly unionized".

I still don't understand why you all think the Church owns the word marriage. Never has, never will. Protestants opposed the Church being associated with marriage, which is why the Puritans brought Common Law marriage to the US.
See what I mean? There's this preoccupation with being able to say "married". As I've said before, I don't think it's about equal rights at this point. Forget the rights, can we also say "married" just like folks who have church weddings? It's ridiculous. Most gays on this forum mock God and religion, so why would you even want to be "married" in a church?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top