The Marriage Equality Juggernaut just keeps rolling on

It will be challenged and funded by Bloomberg or Soros all the way to the Supreme Court. All you need is for one of the conservatives to retire or have an "accident" for it to become law. If the next President is a liberal it will become law.

 

Oh yes, this fight is just getting started . I think we should have passed a law in the house and senate long ago that defined both same sex and opposite sex unions. In effect separating church and state again to be clear. Civil unions for same sex performed by justice of the peace and marriage for traditional by church or justice. It was not done so the court has re defined marriage. Now in order to protect the church we have to exclude them from this ruling.

 

But we are not living in the UK so it doesn't apply. I'm not trying to be rude here but alarmist tactics don't work in an disagreement. Looking to he UK for evidence of possible futures in the USA is a scare tactic and I don't buy it.

Unless something has changed (brokers point about admiralty law aside) we are still pretending to operate under the Constitution of the USA not the Magna Carta

@Kingfish that was my point more than a month ago when I was condemned for saying the state was already in all marriages with licensing

 

Just pointing out the agenda. It will happen here and sooner than you think. Why do you think Texas moved so quickly to protect churches from this?

 

whittl(e)ings: Chicken Little Tory MP's, Anglican Bishops & Gay Marriages in Church?

Some folk may try it on...but they will fail. Churches and clerics in the USA are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Churches are under no legal obligation to perform marriage /wedding ceremonies for anyone...not even parishioners in good standing with their Church...if the parish priest/pastor really wants to be a d!ck about it. Forcing an Imam to perform a wedding between an muslim woman and an atheist....forget about it. A Jehovas Witness wanting to wed an LDS member....sheesh....that couple is like to be shunned by both churches.

 

The Governor of Texas shares my concern. You fail to realize the difference now. IT IS NOW A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. To deny anyone now is discrimination.

 

@BTPost

I stand corrected with regards to my comments concerning the LDS church. I befriended a transgender fellow, and he invited me to one of his (youth) ward games nights. I was treated cordially, if with some curiosity, he was treated with dignity and respect. The point I was trying to make, was that there are Christian sects that at the very least actively discourage inter-faith marriage, or make it such that marriage will only be acceptable if one part of the couple converts to the other's faith confession. Marrying out of one's faith confession can lead to fraught family relationships where the dissenting couple choose to marry contrary to their church's doctrines and congregational community norms. In my own lifetime I have witnessed such intolerance shown to some couples

No couple can legally compel a cleric to solemnise a marriage that the church does not approve of, nor any marriage ceremony the cleric declines to be a celebrant of.

 

Ohio Judge Refuses To Marry Same-Sex Couple

 

Now if this Judge is ordered to perform the marriage then we have lost religious freedom.

 

That piticular marriage is already a fact. Married by another judge.

 

That's not the point. The answer from the Ohio supreme court is the point. Will that court order this judge to perform the next one? Or can he opt out. If he can opt out? cool then this new law doesn't effect a persons religious choices. I don't care if some guy wants to marry his dog. I really dont. I want to make sure that pastors and ministers are not liable for discrimination suits by refusing.

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings | Fox News

 

It's a for profit corporation not a religious organization. They will have to comply or close business. It's not pretty but it is the law of the land.

The difference between this company and the Oregon cake shop is the Idaho law on non discrimination and no sign saying... we retain the right to refuse service to anyone

 

The sky is not falling, Kingfish.....

The Knapps sued The city of Coeur d’Alene; The Federal Judge dismissed most of the suit, Majority of Hitching Post Lawsuit Challenging Coeur d'Alene Nondiscrimination Ordinance Dismissed , however the city of Coeur d’Alene settled with the Knapps to the amount of $1,000.1 as damages compensation for the brief period that The Hitching Post was closed to gay marriage business. It should be noted that the City of Coeur d’Alenehad not actually enforced the non discrimination ordinance against the Knapps...the lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge, which was thrown out, for lack of the Knapp's standing in the matter. Google Scholar

The Hitching Post has since restructured itself from a for-profit commercial enterprise, offering public accomodations, to a 'religious corporation', and enjoys a religious exemption from performing marriage ceremonies to anyone that is contrary to the religious corporation's religious beliefs.

The Knapps are free to conduct or not conduct marriage services for anyone they choose, in accordance with the Knapp's bigoted, intolerant, deeply held religious beliefs.....it sounds like a splendid outcome does it not, Kingfish?

Hitching Post lawsuit settled by city of Coeur d’Alene

 

Maybe , if it sets precedent. Just the fact that a Minister can be sued at all for refusing to marry a same sex couple is outrageous. If Government is allowed to redefine the meaning of the word marriage then anything is possible after.

 

Digging up the dead horse to beat it again this morning?

 

That's not hair, that's fungus .

 

1. I reiterate: the Knapps had not been prosecuted for conducting their enterprise in a discriminatory way. They always had the option of hiding their business bigotry behind a wall of Constitutionally protected religious exemption....

2. Their is no reason why one particular Christian view on how marriage ought be defined, should be privileged over all others. There are many Christian sects, and not all of them are bitterly opposed to non heterosexual couples being married, nor indeed opposed to conducting such ceremonies.

Christians don't own the copyright on the term and cultural practice, commonly referred to as marriage. The concept of marriage has changed over the eons to the extent that polygamous marriage is no longer sanctioned in Christian majority countries, even though polygamous marriages were de rigeur at the time when Biblical verses bashing 'sodomites' were first scribed.

The facts are that language is not a static, unchanging human cultural construct; and that usages will change over time to mean, sometimes, quite different things to what was originally meant when the words that describe particular objects or concepts were first coined.

Emphasis mine.

3. Perhaps it may be more a case of 'differently used' (words), changing as a consequence of the language's development and evolution over time. The fact that the Websters dictionary has had a number of different editions, and numerous revisions and updates, is indicative that word meanings change, new meanings are given to old words, and that new words are coined to describe new or changed concepts (such as cis-gender and trans-gender for instance).

I guess Mindgrinder et al can be thanked for that....the virtually annual harrumphing directed at some gay pride parade / mardi gras or other, had me searching for the last gay pride harumphin' thread, and I rediscovered this moral panic thread. Lawsuits take a while to meander their way through the courts, and this thread's contributors perhaps hadn't been apprised of the outcome of the Knapp V city of Coeur d’Alene lawsuit. The reactions thus far perhaps are indicative that the level of original moral panic dudgeon was unjustified.