Marriage Amendments....

[Phatscotty]

... The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already....

... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

... The Constitution became irrelevant to what happens in the U.S. quite some time ago, Metsfan".

... Where you been?

...

You may well be correct, to a degree, but how does that explain a certain Phat poster appealing to the Constitution when it suits his purpose , yet ignoring it when it doesn't. Would you agree that such behaviour is the mark of a hypocrite ?

if any part of this has to do with the constitution, it's our first amendment freedom of religion. Sorry but I gave up being lectured by foreigners about my country a long time ago

[Phatscotty]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

[Frigidus]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

You want him to explain how two people getting married in a way some religions don't approve of is a violation of the first amendment? How about you tell us how it does? That would be a fascinating read.

[Phatscotty]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

You want him to explain how two people getting married in a way some religions don't approve of is a violation of the first amendment? How about you tell us how it does? That would be a fascinating read.

The government is trying to impose it's will on religion. That is not in dispute. Is it? I don't want to hear your reasons WHY it's okay for the government to impose it's will, I want a statement whether you recognize the imposing or not.

[Symmetry]

Scotty, are you saying that marriage should be amended to ban religions from officiating over same sex marriages? That the US constitution needs to be changed?

[Metsfanmax]

I don't give a crap what gay people do or if they get married or not, so you are flat out wrong. I just happen to think giving the government the power to sue religious institutions for not handling their work the way government says they have to is the worst way to deal with this issue.

That's an issue that's not relevant to the current discussion. A properly written law would not require a church to marry two people it did not want to marry. These people could be married by any duly appointed civil official, receive the same rights and recognition as everyone else, and everyone should be happy. Churches would not have to recognize gay marriage if they did not want to, but legally, gay people would receive identical treatment (and this is what they want. Some want even more to be accepted by their church, but that's an internal issue that you all have to settle by yourselves).

As a result, respecting the Fourteenth Amendment does not require violating the First.

[Symmetry]

I don't give a crap what gay people do or if they get married or not, so you are flat out wrong. I just happen to think giving the government the power to sue religious institutions for not handling their work the way government says they have to is the worst way to deal with this issue.

That's an issue that's not relevant to the current discussion. A properly written law would not require a church to marry two people it did not want to marry. These people could be married by any duly appointed civil official, receive the same rights and recognition as everyone else, and everyone should be happy. Churches would not have to recognize gay marriage if they did not want to, but legally, gay people would receive identical treatment (and this is what they want. Some want even more to be accepted by their church, but that's an internal issue that you all have to settle by yourselves).

As a result, respecting the Fourteenth Amendment does not require violating the First.

Well put, and it's worth remembering that some churches would actually like to perform gay marriages. I get that Scotty wants to portray this as a religious freedom issue, but given that he's advocating stopping religions from performing the ceremony legally, and that nobody is forcing any church that opposes it to do so, he seems a tad hypocritical.

If anything, religious freedom is a reason for legal recognition of gay marriage.

[crispybits]

So PS would you agree that if there was a religion that, for instance, involved cruelty to animals or carrying concealed weapons or using banned narcotics that that religion should be allowed to do that, and get a free pass around the laws around those things because of their religious status?

Edit - or indeed given the post above if there was a church that wanted to perform same sex marriages shouldn't they have the religious freedom for that too? Nice post there Symmetry

[Phatscotty]

Hey gang, in closing....

It would help your cause if a single one of the states peoples voted to redefine marriage. It didn't happen, not once. The scoreboard says 33-0, and we are gonna be 34. Yall might be right that one side is flat out wrong in their understanding and interpretations, and you should consider that it's you that is wrong and needs to check your premise or otherwise finally accept your bubble version of what America is....just isn't.

After all, it's 33-0

you can beat up on me all you want, and blame me for everything. I understand human nature, especially those dominated by their emotions. Just sayin, time for a reality check

America has made it's mind up, resoundingly. Marriage is between one man and one woman. and if you can't see this is just another government take over, then you aren't really paying attention anyways

[Metsfanmax]

Hey gang, in closing....

It would help your cause if a single one of the states peoples voted to redefine marriage. It didn't happen, not once. The scoreboard says 33-0, and we are gonna be 34. Yall might be right that one side is flat out wrong in their understanding and interpretations, and you should consider that it's you that is wrong and needs to check your premise or otherwise finally accept your bubble version of what America is....just isn't.

After all, it's 33-0

So just to be clear on what you are saying, there are two possible conclusions here:

1) If enough people vote to redefine marriage, that makes it constitutional
2) If enough people vote to redefine marriage, it doesn't matter whether it's constitutional

Can you clarify which one you are going for? They're both arguments that I feel do not stand up to reasoning, but at least it'll make the discussion clearer to know what you're advocating.

[kentington]

Hey gang, in closing....

It would help your cause if a single one of the states peoples voted to redefine marriage. It didn't happen, not once. The scoreboard says 33-0, and we are gonna be 34. Yall might be right that one side is flat out wrong in their understanding and interpretations, and you should consider that it's you that is wrong and needs to check your premise or otherwise finally accept your bubble version of what America is....just isn't.

After all, it's 33-0

you can beat up on me all you want, and blame me for everything. I understand human nature, especially those dominated by their emotions. Just sayin, time for a reality check

America has made it's mind up, resoundingly. Marriage is between one man and one woman. and if you can't see this is just another government take over, then you aren't really paying attention anyways

They aren't saying that America really deep down inside wants Homosexual marriage to be legalized. They aren't saying that the votes are frauds or anything. They are saying that they believe America got it wrong. That no matter how many votes are given for either side, one side is right according to the constitution and the other side is wrong.
They are saying that the constitutionality of legalizing Homosexual marriage is independent of what America wants or what the voters vote.

[Phatscotty]

So PS would you agree that if there was a religion that, for instance, involved cruelty to animals or carrying concealed weapons or using banned narcotics that that religion should be allowed to do that, and get a free pass around the laws around those things because of their religious status?

Edit - or indeed given the post above if there was a church that wanted to perform same sex marriages shouldn't they have the religious freedom for that too? Nice post there Symmetry

Why are you asking me question which repeat my points? Hope you understand why I said my piece and am closing it up....

the answer is yes. There are churches that perform same sex marriages, and I encourage gay people who want to get married to seek them out. It's a church issue all the way. So, do you accept my point and that I stand by my first amendment issue, even when it comes to churches that want to marry gays

[Metsfanmax]

There are churches that perform same sex marriages, and I encourage gay people who want to get married to seek them out.

Legally they cannot do that now. So your generous offer doesn't help anyone much. All we want to do is make it so that those people who want to marry gay people, can do so. We are not out to require any church that doesn't want to, to officiate over gay marriage. For example, the Marriage Equality Act in my home state of New York has a specific clause that exempts churches from officiating over these ceremonies, which demonstrates that we are indeed sensitive to First Amendment issues. So I don't think this argument has a leg to stand on.

[crispybits]

So PS would you agree that if there was a religion that, for instance, involved cruelty to animals or carrying concealed weapons or using banned narcotics that that religion should be allowed to do that, and get a free pass around the laws around those things because of their religious status?

Edit - or indeed given the post above if there was a church that wanted to perform same sex marriages shouldn't they have the religious freedom for that too? Nice post there Symmetry

Why are you asking me question which repeat my points? Hope you understand why I said my piece and am closing it up....

the answer is yes. There are churches that perform same sex marriages, and I encourage gay people who want to get married to seek them out. It's a church issue all the way. So, do you accept my point and that I stand by my first amendment issue, even when it comes to churches that want to marry gays

Nope just checking I understood.

You want the first amendment to stand, except when people vote against it when the first amendment should be ignored because "the people" have decided that not all religions should be free (as Metsfan has already said)

Also, you never replied when I asked if the millions of church going heterosexual married couples would be willing to give up all the breaks (not just fiscal, but also legal breaks) given to married couples if the government really did gtfo of marriage as you suggest.

[thegreekdog]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

[Phatscotty]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

I can't point them to you, they have not happened yet, but please join me in a simple thought excersize

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

[Phatscotty]

So PS would you agree that if there was a religion that, for instance, involved cruelty to animals or carrying concealed weapons or using banned narcotics that that religion should be allowed to do that, and get a free pass around the laws around those things because of their religious status?

Edit - or indeed given the post above if there was a church that wanted to perform same sex marriages shouldn't they have the religious freedom for that too? Nice post there Symmetry

Why are you asking me question which repeat my points? Hope you understand why I said my piece and am closing it up....

the answer is yes. There are churches that perform same sex marriages, and I encourage gay people who want to get married to seek them out. It's a church issue all the way. So, do you accept my point and that I stand by my first amendment issue, even when it comes to churches that want to marry gays

Nope just checking I understood.

You want the first amendment to stand, except when people vote against it when the first amendment should be ignored because "the people" have decided that not all religions should be free (as Metsfan has already said)

Also, you never replied when I asked if the millions of church going heterosexual married couples would be willing to give up all the breaks (not just fiscal, but also legal breaks) given to married couples if the government really did gtfo of marriage as you suggest.

I didn't answer because it's my opinion that all tax loopholes and breaks and whatever Greek makes sure to point out they are, should be closed. So your millions of church going heterosexual married couples would be right smack in the middle of it.

I don't know what you mean by "people voting against the first amendment" except for the people who are trying to enable to government (knowingly or not) of taking over the institution of marriage, based solely on the benefits it has promised married people in the past.

[Metsfanmax]

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

They go get married by someone else.

Seriously, religious discrimination against gay people is no longer a headline.

[thegreekdog]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

I can't point them to you, they have not happened yet, but please join me in a simple thought excersize

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

Nothing. Perhaps a law suit in which the gay couple loses.

Let me give you another hypothetical example. A religious institution does not permit women to become priests. A woman walks into the church and asks to be ordained. She is politely turned down. They have never had female priests and they never will.

/thread.

[Phatscotty]

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

I can't point them to you, they have not happened yet, but please join me in a simple thought excersize

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

Nothing. Perhaps a law suit in which the gay couple loses.

Let me give you another hypothetical example. A religious institution does not permit women to become priests. A woman walks into the church and asks to be ordained. She is politely turned down. They have never had female priests and they never will.

/thread.

Sounds a lot like the complete opposite of what happened in Massachusetts with the Catholic orphanages as soon as gay marriage was passed (not by the people, by the legislature)....

Why would the gay couple lose?

Your example would be perfect, if the people had just passed an amendment saying that a woman cannot be refused any job that is offered to a man.

[BigBallinStalin]

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

I can't point them to you, they have not happened yet, but please join me in a simple thought excersize

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

Nothing. Perhaps a law suit in which the gay couple loses.

Let me give you another hypothetical example. A religious institution does not permit women to become priests. A woman walks into the church and asks to be ordained. She is politely turned down. They have never had female priests and they never will.

/thread.

Phatscotty: -1,000,000
TGD: +1,000,000


TGD WINS!!!

[Phatscotty]

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

I can't point them to you, they have not happened yet, but please join me in a simple thought excersize

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

Nothing. Perhaps a law suit in which the gay couple loses.

Let me give you another hypothetical example. A religious institution does not permit women to become priests. A woman walks into the church and asks to be ordained. She is politely turned down. They have never had female priests and they never will.

/thread.

Sounds a lot like the complete opposite of what happened in Massachusetts with the Catholic orphanages as soon as gay marriage was passed (not by the people, by the legislature)....

Why would the gay couple lose?

Your example would be perfect, if the people had just passed an amendment saying that a woman cannot be refused any job that is offered to a man.

ugh, you guys are too much sometime

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds a lot like the complete opposite of what happened in Massachusetts with the Catholic orphanages as soon as gay marriage was passed (not by the people, by the legislature)....

Why would the gay couple lose?

Your example would be perfect, if the people had just passed an amendment saying that a woman cannot be refused any job that is offered to a man.

And the Catholic Churches would be overrun by female priests!

The Catholic Churches would be ruined because the women would be flooding through the church doors and taking all the priest-jobs!!!

(1) Wait, would this happen?
(2) Or is this my imagination going wild?

(PS is #2), in more ways than one. :p

[Phatscotty]

Anyone here familiar with the Arizona photographer case, who is being sued for refusing to be hired by a gay couple for their wedding album?

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.

and guess who is run out of town, right or wrong?

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthe ... 3K2G5VQN1F

I hope my information can help paint the picture and notice the trends I have seen.

[thegreekdog]

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

I can't point them to you, they have not happened yet, but please join me in a simple thought excersize

okay then, let's turn the reality machine on. Let's say gay marriage passes in my state. Tomorrow, 2 homosexuals enter religious organization XYZ and say they want to get married. The religious organization says no, and that they have never married homosexuals, and they never will.

What's the next actions in this sequence of a sincerely realistic scenario?

Nothing. Perhaps a law suit in which the gay couple loses.

Let me give you another hypothetical example. A religious institution does not permit women to become priests. A woman walks into the church and asks to be ordained. She is politely turned down. They have never had female priests and they never will.

/thread.

Sounds a lot like the complete opposite of what happened in Massachusetts with the Catholic orphanages as soon as gay marriage was passed (not by the people, by the legislature)....

Why would the gay couple lose?

Your example would be perfect, if the people had just passed an amendment saying that a woman cannot be refused any job that is offered to a man.

Unfortunately, running an orphanage and marrying a couple are not the same. Adoption is not a religious institution. Marriage is. Try again.