Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

x-post

(haha nabisco to thread)

Does that help the debate at all?

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

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

Collect them all!

only God makes laws, iirc

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-fourth-husband-says-clerk-wont-resign-tell-judge-bunning-hes-a-butt/

planned to stay “as long as it takes” until a law was passed that gave county clerks like her the option not to issue marriage licenses

She has obviously not paid attention to how long it takes to pass a law, even under the best circumstances.

that law has no hope of passage or being upheld, it's so sad how people can't follow basic legal logic

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

maybe she's hoping Nino will dress as the Dark Nought and spring her.

https://twitter.com/kimdavis917/status/640312688539623424

is this real

certainly looks real. no hint of irony.

that Twitter account has to be fake

yeah it's fake, go ahead and look up the bible verses she mentions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/08/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-released-from-jail/

Bunning handled this p cleverly imo - basically demoted her

I'm curious what kinda tone the rally will take; will they soldier on blindly as persecution or do this as victory? Or both?

how dare the court prevent Kim Davis from not doing her job

queers are gettin married in the county, can't see how they can spin that as a victory

CNN is/watch broadcasting this shit live

Is/was, rather

Not a victory for them but they are spinning it that way.

Her original goal was not to let marriage certificates leave her office because she had to rubber stamp them, which she viewed as participation. So her clerks couldn't either...RFRA case law shit all over that.

Now they have changed it to a rubber stamp that doesn't bear her name or post, just the office, and many of the ones signed when she was in jail had her place left blank.

and she and her lawyer are saying these are null and void without her stamp of approval. It has fuck all to do with her personal beliefs - she just wants to stop anybody gay from getting married in her building.

problem is it's not "her" building

It's GOD'S!

lol

so there's bumpkins with leaky brains actually protesting outside the Judge's house, asking the sheriff to take him to jail.

this would be the conservative Judge who likely doesn't agree with the SCOTUS ruling himself but understands how the law works.

Madonna's brother has opinions:

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," Christopher Ciccone, who is gay, wrote in a Facebook post. "The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

the right to inform her deputies to put themselves at legal risk and not issue marriage licenses

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

― Οὖτις, Friday, September 4, 2015 3:07 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is... complicated? there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs." not to mention people working in a fundamentally unjust or murderous system, like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

it's not davis's unwillingness to "do her job" that makes her wrong IMO, it's the nature of what she will and won't do. the biggest problem is simply that she cites her religious beliefs, nothing more or less, in rationalizing her unwillingness to perform her duties. that makes her stance conflict with what judges have, for a long time now, considered a basic principle of the rule of law.

but in any case this is all a sideshow. the more compelling fact, IMO, is how many state, county, and other officials--who may disagree with the supreme court ruling and/or may hold deep-seated prejudices against gays and lesbians--are going along with the ruling. they amount to a consensus, which the media focus on davis obscures. so really, we should be celebrating. (though i admit it's somehow both angering and deeply satisfying to contemplate the awesome ignorance of davis and those who have rallied to her.)

there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs."

I don't see how this is relevant or analogous, really

like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

Similarly these were regimes/instances of the gov't acting in an explicitly illegal manner, the rule of law had gone out the window (again, not the case here, much as Davis' supporters would suggest otherwise. There has been no coup, no agency acting beyond its legal bounds)

and I didn't say it was her unwillingness to do her job that makes her wrong, it's her insistence that it is simultaneously her right to HAVE that job AND not do it.

but the Nuremberg Laws were, ah, the law!

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

since the fucks at the supreme court gave these morons an inch with the hobby lobby decision

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

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