I have gradually gotten to that point. If it gets struck down that states can ban gay marriage or its upheld and left to the states ( I see it as a 10th amendment issue) just get it to the supreme court already so it quits being a wedge issue.
- Status
I have gradually gotten to that point. If it gets struck down that states can ban gay marriage or its upheld and left to the states ( I see it as a 10th amendment issue) just get it to the supreme court already so it quits being a wedge issue.
Don't give them any ideas. They will
Is a mud shark like a jungle bunny bunny?
you two are not alone. I would totally accept this had the voters or legislature of the state approved it though.
I don't much care for same-sex cohabitation, inter or rather inner-personal relationships, civil unions, cross dressing, what ever other adult, deviant activities in which one chooses to engage.
However I find it a bit alarming that the advocates of such, while embracing the ideas of individual liberties, would endeavor to re-define a religious rite for the church. Which is of course where the concept of marriage originated.
It seems, from what I've read, that this whole push is not about equality or fair treatment under the law, which has been readily available in many jurisdictions for many years, it's rather about using government to literally force people and organizations to violate their teachings and beliefs.
Not to mention, if it is a freedom issue, when do we talk about freedom of religion? These types of issues, I believe, are really wedges in the culture wars designed to fracture long standing institutions and families. So, can a gay couple now force a religious institution to perform a same sex marriage? Should they be able to? Do they become a protected minority, based on sexual preferences?
We've seen in Colorado, a baker, some one who does specialized service work for individuals, not a mass marketeer, being told he had to bake a cake for a gay couple, which happened to go strongly against his religious beliefs, he was ordered to conform by the court. He closed his business. Who won? Is it important?
The same thing has been done to photographers, haven't heard of any florists, go figure? I guess if the point is equal protection that's a different issue, in my mind, than re-definition. In practical reality, I think it's dictating to, or really forcing government into the realm of the religious. Can this be the right thing to do?
However I find it a bit alarming that the advocates of such, while embracing the ideas of individual liberties, would endeavor to re-define a religious rite for the church. Which is of course where the concept of marriage originated.
It seems, from what I've read, that this whole push is not about equality or fair treatment under the law, which has been readily available in many jurisdictions for many years, it's rather about using government to literally force people and organizations to violate their teachings and beliefs.
Not to mention, if it is a freedom issue, when do we talk about freedom of religion? These types of issues, I believe, are really wedges in the culture wars designed to fracture long standing institutions and families. So, can a gay couple now force a religious institution to perform a same sex marriage? Should they be able to? Do they become a protected minority, based on sexual preferences?
We've seen in Colorado, a baker, some one who does specialized service work for individuals, not a mass marketeer, being told he had to bake a cake for a gay couple, which happened to go strongly against his religious beliefs, he was ordered to conform by the court. He closed his business. Who won? Is it important?
The same thing has been done to photographers, haven't heard of any florists, go figure? I guess if the point is equal protection that's a different issue, in my mind, than re-definition. In practical reality, I think it's dictating to, or really forcing government into the realm of the religious. Can this be the right thing to do?
Yeh. It can happen. Don't think it can't. She is grown and gone and it's out of my hands. I am not going to let this bother me, because there is not a thing I can do about it. Things change. I would rather her be gay than this, though.
As a group you are right...I'm talking about individuals who posture themselves as anti big government conservatives or libertarians who turn out to be complete hypocrites on this issue. They are out there (some are right here in this thread).
So you're saying marriage has always been a government-controlled religious thing, and as such the government should enforce your particular view of marriage as it applies in your religion?
- Status
Similar threads
