the government giving you a piece of paper certifying that you are now legally recognized as a couple has nothing to do with religion.

10/11/2014 6:27:56 PM

Quote :

"How do Republicans not get that the same sex marriage battle is a loser for them? In 10 or 15 years, it will be a political deal breaker in the majority of congressional districts."

Why would Republican politicians care about that? If you're an influential enough Republican that you're helping design the party platform or get amendments passed, then in 10 or 15 years you'll be dead, or at least retired. Politicians, specifically the current batch of myopic Republicans, aren't running to win in 2024.

This is why so much of the party won't stop bashing gays and abortion. Our generation is overwhelmingly in favor of both of these things, but our generation won't really matter in elections until the Boomers start dying in droves.

Same thing with immigrants. If Republicans wanted the GOP to be a viable political party in 20-30 years they'd drop their rhetoric on that subject so fast you'd think it was ebola-infected plutonium.

10/14/2014 5:23:14 AM

Quote :

"marriage != religious institution."

riiiiiiiiiight. keep telling yourself that.

10/14/2014 10:42:02 PM

so all of the non-religious wedding ceremonies I've attended over the past 4 years didn't count?

10/14/2014 11:59:29 PM

I've officiated 2 weDdings in a non religious capacity the past few months, and attended others. Marriage is definitely and conclusively not a religious institution in modern day America.

10/15/2014 12:10:53 AM

Quote :

"riiiiiiiiiight. keep telling yourself that."

the government giving you a piece of paper certifying that you are now legally recognized as a couple has nothing to do with religion.

10/15/2014 8:53:18 AM

^You're wrong.

Marriage is a religious institution in America. And, marriage isn't a religious institution in America. It's a very personal decision made by two people, and those two people determine if it is a religious institution or not.

10/15/2014 8:54:49 AM

10/15/2014 9:10:53 AM

^^ this issue is not about the Christian religious sacrament of marriage (or any other religion), the constitutional issue and reason why same sex marriage must be allowed is only about legal marriages as recognized by the state. The state does not care what kind of vows or sacraments you share in front of god as part of your religion, or how your religion handles marriage, the state only cares about the secular, legal marriages. It's true that marriage is two different things, a religious sacrament (to some) and a legal agreement, and those two things happen separately (a religious ceremony, and a secular marriage certificate with the register of deeds), but this debate is only about the secular marriage that happens with the register of deeds. no one cares about religion, if you want your minister or pastor to only perform the religious sacrament for people of opposite sex that's between the church congregation and leadership and no one else.

as soon as you realize this there is no defense for banning same-sex marriages, the debate is only about this secular arrangement and there is no secular reason to deny a right to some people that is given to others

[Edited on October 15, 2014 at 9:31 AM. Reason : it's really very simple]

10/15/2014 9:30:01 AM

I've never argued against gay marriage. I don't really care - I think they should get the same legal benefits. Especially when it comes to EOL issues.

This is for a different thread, but I have always only argued against the persecution of those who let their opinions be known on the issue.

10/15/2014 10:27:54 AM

persecuting people who persecute people?

10/15/2014 10:33:07 AM

those poor souls who happen to dislike others simply for wanting equal rights

10/15/2014 10:35:09 AM

pointing out that someone's views are hateful, dated, and not based on any logical or secular reasoning is not persecution

10/15/2014 10:35:22 AM

Boycotting a business of someone who holds those views, even though they don't let those views influence hiring and business practices, is.

And just because someone holds the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman doesn't mean they are actively persecuting anyone.

10/15/2014 12:34:33 PM

So if you refused to shop at a local grocery store that was managed by an outspoken satanist who regularly and openly contributed money to try to pass satanic legislation, you would be persecuting the satanist?


And just because someone holds the opinion that a bigot is a bigot doesn't mean they are actively persecuting anyone.

[Edited on October 15, 2014 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2014 12:43:34 PM

TIL that boycotting a company is persecution, and you shouldn't boycott a company because of religious beliefs (no matter how hateful) even though we live in a time when companies are allowed exemptions to healthcare requirements because of the company's closely held religious beliefs

If a personal opinion is kept personal, no one is going to boycott a company. If someone at a company makes their hateful beliefs public, then some people are well within their rights to not support that person by not patronizing their business. That's not persecution.

And you are right that someone simply holding some religious belief (if that's all they are doing) that marriage should only be between a man and woman is not persecuting someone. This doesn't mean though that their personally held opinion is right, or that it is somehow exempt from criticism. But those hypothetical people aren't the issue, those people wouldn't cause demonstrations, boycotts, or civil rights court cases. It becomes an issue when those people try to force their personal beliefs, personal religious beliefs, on others for no secular reason.

If you don't participate in doing that, if you don't support Amendment 1 in any ways, then that's great for you but it still doesn't mean that someone can't criticize your hateful and dated personal opinion. And if someone does that, they are not persecuting you.

10/15/2014 1:08:32 PM

Declining to spend money is the only true American sin.

10/15/2014 1:10:03 PM

the dick is a binding contract no matter where you stick it

10/15/2014 1:25:50 PM

So which of you agree with recent denials of issuing marriage certificates by government employees due to their person religious beliefs?

10/15/2014 10:27:08 PM

Not I. You don't get to express your religious beliefs as an actor of the gov't in an official gov't capacity, unless it's an actual part of your job (chaplain in the military, for instance). It's that fucking simple. if you don't like it, go find another job.

[Edited on October 15, 2014 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2014 11:21:51 PM

aaaaaaaaaand a town in Idaho has essentially said that it will fine and/or throw the owners of a wedding chapel in jail if they refuse to perform same sex unions, regardless of their religious beliefs as ordained ministers. Because seriously, who really gives a fuck about the 1st Amendment, right?

[Edited on October 20, 2014 at 11:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2014 11:48:33 PM

Yup, that might happen. It certainly shouldn't, but it might and then it will get overturned on appeal. Sometimes that's the awful way that our system works.

10/21/2014 12:02:35 AM

^^ it's not really a wedding chapel. No churches, under that city's ordinance, are going to be forced to do a gay marriage.

This is little bit of a gray area though:

Quote :

"Indeed, the Hitching Post is a for-profit business, but with help from ADF, the Knapps have been gearing up for this challenge for some time by redefining their business in more religious terms. In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month, which was authorized by Michael S. Oswald, an ADF attorney"

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/20/3581733/idaho-marriage-chapel-adf/

Looks like these people went looking for trouble. If they're a public for profit business, it seems they should be subject to the same regulations any business would have, regardless of their personal beliefs. We don't really let businesses discriminate on race or gender and other classes, it makes sense gays should have the same protections.

If they want to discriminate against gays, they should not be a public, for-profit business.

10/21/2014 12:27:29 AM

When are all these social problems gonna start that the republicans said we would get if the gays could marry?

When are the social problems from legal marijuana going to ruin Colorado and Washington State?

When will the alcohol in beer cap being raised ruin North Carolina?

10/21/2014 1:01:32 AM

I saw where several magistrates in the state have resigned due to religious conflicts, as they were told there would be penalties, some even criminal, if they refused to marry a gay couple.

10/21/2014 9:20:34 AM

And the problem is?

If a magistrate refuses to serve [insert name of group here] when it is their legal duty to do so, then that magistrate should be removed from office.

this religious rights bullshit is going too far. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE AND BELIEVE, NOT YOUR RIGHT TO ENFORCE ON OTHERS.

christian reasoning sounds a lot like islamic extremist reasoning

[Edited on October 21, 2014 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

10/21/2014 9:22:26 AM

I'm not sure what criminal offense that would be, but they could certainly be fired and might invite a lawsuit. If they don't want to uphold the requirements of their office, they of course should be fired.

That doesn't really have much to do with the case in Idaho. In that case, a town in Idaho passed an ordinance that prevents discrimination based on sexual preference and a for-profit company was told that they will face a penalty if they break that ordinance and discriminate based on sexual preference. That's fine with me, the simplest way to handle things is to just add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes to the civil rights act, the civil rights act already describes what places are exempt and has been refined and clarified through numerous court cases.

10/21/2014 9:32:06 AM

I wasn't saying there was or wasn't a problem with what was going on with the magistrates. You sign up for a job, you have a job to do. It is pretty simple.

I heard today where some house Republicans are crafting a bill that will allow magistrates to decline marrying gay folk.

10/21/2014 7:08:11 PM

You guys realize that Hitching Post story is complicated fabricated by the ADF right? There have been zero complaints against the chapel.

"We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind," said city spokesman Keith Erickson.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/how_many_lies_is_the_religious_right_willing_to_tell_in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

10/21/2014 7:09:28 PM

Quote :

"this religious rights bullshit is going too far. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE AND BELIEVE, NOT YOUR RIGHT TO ENFORCE ON OTHERS."

So what would you call forcing someone to preside over your ceremony who has a religious objection to your union?

10/21/2014 10:23:16 PM

You mean forcing an agent of the state to execute a legal document, of which it is their job to do? I would call it that.

[Edited on October 21, 2014 at 10:41 PM. Reason : that]

10/21/2014 10:40:26 PM

Quote :

"Boycotting a business of someone who holds those views, even though they don't let those views influence hiring and business practices, is. And just because someone holds the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman doesn't mean they are actively persecuting anyone."

What's funny about this is that many of the groups crying about persecution were more than happy to boycott businesses they saw as "gay-friendly" 8-10 years ago. They still try to launch boycotts, but no one gives a fuck what they think anymore.

Quote :

"This is why so much of the party won't stop bashing gays and abortion. Our generation is overwhelmingly in favor of both of these things, but our generation won't really matter in elections until the Boomers start dying in droves. "

I know that's true for gays, but is it true for abortion? Also, we already outnumber baby boomers, but since young people don't vote things haven't changed much.

10/22/2014 12:14:57 AM

Yes it's true about abortion, just look at all of the BS personhood legislation and abortion restrictions that keeps getting passed

10/22/2014 6:32:37 AM

Quote :

"I know that's true for gays, but is it true for abortion?"

I don't know any research on it and was just speaking from personal experience. I know very few people in my age cohort want to ban abortions. Or, perhaps better put, I know very few who actively want to ban them. There's probably a decent number who would be happy to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but none who I think would cast their vote based on that desire.

No doubt these people exist in our generation, and no doubt I would select against socializing with anybody who had a bug up their ass about abortion, but my impression is that to most young people abortion is a minor issue, and among those to whom it is important, the majority are in favor.

10/22/2014 10:15:36 AM

http://www.wral.com/berger-backs-religious-exemptions-on-marriage/14101415/

10/22/2014 10:21:21 AM

Quote :

"So what would you call forcing someone to preside over your ceremony who has a religious objection to your union?"

The only instance in which a person's religious beliefs should trump another person's legal rights is within the confines of a religious institution/ceremony/etc or a reasonable extension there of. A government agency is not a religious agency. A company is not a religious institution. A church or a reasonable extension of the church is a religious institution. Hypocritical as it may be for a religious institution to choose between which types of sinners it wants to marry, I do believe the church reserves the right to determine whom it will marry (sort of). In full disclosure, I'm nearing the fence on this issue, as any religion can distort its views in order to deny services to any group of people it pleases. Religion doesn't make discrimination right. According to the bible, everyone is a sinner and unworthy. Yet, churches marry these people every day. They marry atheists, sort of-religious people, cross-denominations (which in some circles is a big no no), even people of different religions, adulterers, gluttons, parent haters, neighbor haters, murderers, thieves, and those who covet. Unless I've completely misunderstood, it is the church's job to love, to cherish, and to be inclusive. To welcome sinners and invite them into the church family. Not to judge. Not to discriminate. I'm nearing the point where I care less and less about someone's religious views and how they apply in society. Your hypocrisy shouldn't be protected by the government.

10/22/2014 11:07:34 AM

STOP PERSECUTING THEM!

10/22/2014 11:30:47 AM

^^ That's all fine and dandy, but up and until you see churches presiding over murders, rapes, thefts, gluttony, etc, and giving their blessings to them, then you don't really have a point. The issue a church would have with joining a homosexual couple would be that they are giving a blessing to the sin itself, while marrying an axe-murderer would not be giving a blessing to the murder itself. So, there really is no hypocrisy in saying "we'll marry a sinner" but refusing to perform a same-sex ceremony.

And, by the way, I was not aware that anyone had a legal right to the services provided by any other person. That's news to me, and it's probably why this country is so fucked as it is. Oh, and by the way, marriage is a religious institution, so you lose on that one, too. Good day, sir

10/27/2014 1:03:16 AM

all things aside, i find it extremely confusing that any couple would want to be married by someone who doesn't want to do it, especially from a moral/belief standpoint... and the idea of forcing them to do it just seems bonkers to me.

aren't there enough online-ordained schmucks out there to go around anyway?

Quote :

"I was not aware that anyone had a legal right to the services provided by any other person."

eh? you can't deny services based on a number of things (always some exceptions of course): race, sex, religion, etc. services provided by a religious institution are a slightly different animal, but that area is usually pretty grey.

[Edited on October 27, 2014 at 2:47 AM. Reason : ]

10/27/2014 2:40:22 AM

Quote :

"Oh, and by the way, marriage is a religious institution, so you lose on that one, too. Good day, sir "

Marriage is a religious institution like breathing inside a church is a religious right.

10/27/2014 10:55:36 AM

Quote :

" I was not aware that anyone had a legal right to the services provided by any other person. That's news to me, and it's probably why this country is so fucked as it is. Oh, and by the way, marriage is a religious institution, so you lose on that one, too. Good day, sir"

1) there is that right in most places (a few exceptions, a for-profit chapel isn't one), laws were even passed to explicitly extend that right to some protected classes and have stood up to a few decades of court decisions, so why is it so hard for you to comprehend extending that explicit protected class status to another discriminated-against class?

2) the religious sacrament of marriage is a religious institution, legal marriage with a magistrate and register of deeds is not. no one cares what people want to do inside their church, the marriage with the magistrate is what this discussion is about

[Edited on October 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

10/27/2014 10:59:46 AM

What part of going to a government building, interacting with a government employee, and receiving a "governmental" piece of paper stating the government's recognition of your union is religious?

10/27/2014 11:53:37 AM

You can't reason with that guy, he's insufferable

10/27/2014 12:06:08 PM

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/

More proof that this isn't about tolerance: it's about pushing your beliefs onto other people.

Quote :

"What part of going to a government building, interacting with a government employee, and receiving a "governmental" piece of paper stating the government's recognition of your union is religious?"

A church is a gov't building? Damn, guess I missed that part of civics class.

[Edited on November 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM. Reason : ]

11/11/2014 10:28:03 AM

A church, or any extension there of, is not necessary to obtain a marriage license. You do realize that, right?

[Edited on November 11, 2014 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

11/11/2014 10:43:57 AM

And a gov't license is not necessary in order to get married. Methinks you don't know what a marriage is at this point, brah.

11/11/2014 10:59:08 AM

"open to the public, unless you're gay" is against the law and they should be fined.

11/11/2014 11:08:18 AM

Quote :

"More proof that this isn't about tolerance: it's about pushing your beliefs onto other people."

If the story read:

couple fined for refusing to host [black or mexican or italian or secular] wedding on their farm, would you have an issue with it?

11/11/2014 11:13:11 AM

Actually, from a legal standpoint, no. I don't think anyone should be forced to provide service to someone if they don't want to. Would I think they were dickbags? Absolutely.

But the dickbags in this case are the ones who call up a place, looking for a fight, while secretly recording the conversation, just so they can claim their poor, precious feelings were hurt.

11/11/2014 11:21:34 AM

So when you open up shop, where are you hanging your no blacks sign?

I mean, I agree with the idea, but in reality it doesn't work. That's why we have laws against it. We've already tried that little experiment... it didn't go so well.

[Edited on November 11, 2014 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2014 12:13:54 PM