Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

x-post

God, I hate that idiot.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

i'd rather not be KILLED

The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)

Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!

But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).

It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.

Ridiculous.

I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.

You don't know this because you are a moron.

X-posts I don't want to force churches to hold gay services - none the less many would and want to, and saying that what happens in a Church is between a man and a woman and what happens outside is a civil union doesn;t help gay Christians.

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:59 PM

No, because Chris Ciccone can explain it better.

lol good luck with this guys:

http://freakoutnation.com/2015/09/more-derp-oathkeepers-on-their-way-to-protect-kim-davis-from-further-arrests/

Kim Davis basically now attempting to vanish in a puff of smoke after realizing a week later she didn't actually win. lol

She staunchly asserted that marriage licenses not signed off by her personally are invalid, but if someone wanted to test that assertion in court, who would have standing to challenge the validity of the licenses?

Jesus

her and her lawyers assert that. the judge in question and attorney general have politely said that claim is horseshit.

but essentially what it boils down is, her deputies are now issuing marriage certificates and they don't have her name on it. Isn't that what she wanted? Naw, she wanted no licenses going out at all, and just used the whole "oh my dear personal freedoms" as the excuse.

lol

is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.

Harris Wofford, eh?

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.

still taking applications btw

tough call, i don't get screeners anymore...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to step into a case over a Texas high court ruling that says gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GsyAoWXScA

Four months without dick -- well.

i'd need to see a financial portfolio

dark times