New York looks to be the next . . .

[voluptuary_manque]

state to legalize gay marriage.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I don't know. One can hope, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[lovecraft68]

Really blows my mind what why this is such a big deal. I mean I can understand if a church wants to ban it because many religions believe homosexuality is a sin. They alsohave the right to do as they wish.

However a state does not have the right to discriminate nor does the government have the right to tell you who the hell you can love.

On another note "Gay rights" has sure come a long way. My daughter got her prom pictures back yesterday and there were at least a half a dozen gay couples. Back in the 80's when I was in high school two boys wanted to attend the prom in Cumberland high and they had to have the police there.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Really blows my mind what why this is such a big deal. I mean I can understand if a church wants to ban it because many religions believe homosexuality is a sin. They alsohave the right to do as they wish.

However a state does not have the right to discriminate nor does the government have the right to tell you who the hell you can love.

On another note "Gay rights" has sure come a long way. My daughter got her prom pictures back yesterday and there were at least a half a dozen gay couples. Back in the 80's when I was in high school two boys wanted to attend the prom in Cumberland high and they had to have the police there.

Youre full of shit again. States and the Federal Government make the rules consistent with the Federal and State constitutions. New York allows alcohol consumption at 18, Florida doesnt. Michigan emancipates teens earlier than Florida. California pays tuition for illegals, Florida doesnt.

They have different rules cuz people like you have no fucking boundaries to contain behavior. On the street you scare animals and children. So the states gotta make special rules just for you and other gays.

 

[lovecraft68]

Youre full of shit again. States and the Federal Government make the rules consistent with the Federal and State constitutions. New York allows alcohol consumption at 18, Florida doesnt. Michigan emancipates teens earlier than Florida. California pays tuition for illegals, Florida doesnt.

They have different rules cuz people like you have no fucking boundaries to contain behavior. On the street you scare animals and children. So the states gotta make special rules just for you and other gays.

The problem here JBJ is you are afraid of anything different from yourself a true sign of ignorance. I am not gay-although I won't lose sleep if you think I am- but I have no issue with anyone who is.

Do I think it's a little odd? Yes. Does the thought of two guys fucking make me shudder? damn straight. Do I have the right to tell them they cannot? Hell no.

Unless someone tries to shove it down my throat I have no issue with anyone's lifestyle or beliefs. That's why I refuse to put your dumb ass on ignore. I will more than tolerate your given right to continuously make an ass out of yourself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LOVE BOAT

Every society decides what goes and what doesnt. Fads come and go. A century ago it was legal to marry female children of 10-11. There were no sexual abuse laws. If the girl said YES she was good to go. The navy was full of pre-teen boys, 'powder monkeys.'

 

[trysail]

One potential problem is the Constitutional separation of church and state and the potential for conflict between government and religious organizations.


Will government have the right to order an Orthodox rabbi to perform same-sex marriages?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The next BIG expensive scandal to come along is gonna be gay adoptions. Twenty years from now these kids are gonna sue the asses off states who placed them with fags.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

One potential problem is the Constitutional separation of church and state and the potential for conflict between government and religious organizations.


Will government have the right to order an Orthodox rabbi to perform same-sex marriages?

Require? Of course not. Allow? That's what the issue is. Why? Because it is no more appropriate for that rabbi to force his beliefs on some Unitarian than it is for the government to force the rabbi to do something he absolutely doesn't believe in. Now stop this nonsense.

 

[3113]

state to legalize gay marriage.

About friggin' time. This is the state where the Stonewall uprising happened, where the first gay pride parade happened. I know there's more to New York than New York City, but come on! Why the lag?

 

[trysail]

Require? Of course not. Allow? That's what the issue is. Why? Because it is no more appropriate for that rabbi to force his beliefs on some Unitarian than it is for the government to force the rabbi to do something he absolutely doesn't believe in. Now stop this nonsense.

VM, you will undoubtedly observe that I ( intentionally ) used a question mark. What happens if a same-sex couple asks to be married by the Church of Latter Day Saints ( or the Romans ) and are refused?

 

[TheeGoatPig]

VM, you will undoubtedly observe that I ( intentionally ) used a question mark. What happens if a same-sex couple asks to be married by the Church of Latter Day Saints ( or the Romans ) and are refused?

What happens when a Jewish couple wants to be married by a priest and is refused? They go somewhere else.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There is no where in the U.S. where gay marriage is legal that a church that does not approve of it is required to perform the rite. Can't. Why? Marriage is, by law as every established religion well knows, a civil contract. All a church does is recognize and bless the contract. I know, the RCC claims that it is a Sacrament. That is not scriptural and it is not law. The legislatures and the courts are only changing the law. They know that they have no jurisdiction over rites and blessings. I think you know this, too. So why bother to bring up a moot point?

 

[trysail]

There is no where in the U.S. where gay marriage is legal that a church that does not approve of it is required to perform the rite. Can't. Why? Marriage is, by law as every established religion well knows, a civil contract. All a church does is recognize and bless the contract. I know, the RCC claims that it is a Sacrament. That is not scriptural and it is not law. The legislatures and the courts are only changing the law. They know that they have no jurisdiction over rites and blessings. I think you know this, too. So why bother to bring up a moot point?

The answer to your question is very simple. I wanted to hear a response. Someone I was around o'er the weekend asked the question. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking or worrying about the issue. I don't intend to unless someone comes up with a good reason to worry about it. What— if any— are the unintended consequences? Are there things that haven't been considered?


A word— be careful not to attack people who are open-minded or undecided; you may be surprised at how easy it is to unintentionally polarize them.

 

[3113]

There is no where in the U.S. where gay marriage is legal that a church that does not approve of it is required to perform the rite. Can't. Why? Marriage is, by law as every established religion well knows, a civil contract. All a church does is recognize and bless the contract. I know, the RCC claims that it is a Sacrament. That is not scriptural and it is not law. The legislatures and the courts are only changing the law. They know that they have no jurisdiction over rites and blessings. I think you know this, too. So why bother to bring up a moot point?

People are always making this kind of stupid mistake--and they just don't get it. I can legally marry people--but no one can force me to marry them...unless I've created a business, open to the public, of marrying people or I work for the city or the state. In that case, I can't deny anyone. I'm being paid by the city to provide everyone with my services. Even if it goes against my religion, I can't refuse someone on the basis of religion, sex, race if the city or state is paying me to do this for everyone.

With me so far?

Same thing if I set up a public business. I can't open a restaurant and say, "We serve whites only." I've opened the business to everyone, I have to serve everyone. If a priest says, "Open for business. Pay two dollars and you're married!" then the priest has lost the right to say, "Except if you're gay." Likewise, if a Church rents out it's rooms or garden area for events, it can't say, "You can rent it, except if you're an Atheist."

This is why a church can't rent out some pretty garden area they own to the public, then refuse to allow a lesbian wedding on it. If it's for rent to the public, it's for rent to the pubic, and so long as that public does nothing illegal in the garden, they can have whatever kind of party they want.

But the lesbian couple can't walk into the church and insist that the priest marry them. The church is not in the "business" of marry people, and the church is not run by the city or state. They can be exclusive it they want. They could refuse to marry a non-Christian couple, or an interracial couple. Pretty straight forward.

 

[Stella_Omega]

VM, you will undoubtedly observe that I ( intentionally ) used a question mark. What happens if a same-sex couple asks to be married by the Church of Latter Day Saints ( or the Romans ) and are refused?

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

They go to a different church, duh. Possibly with a lot of screaming and yelling, but they cannot force a church to marry them if that church doesn't believe in gay marriage. Or they go to the justice of the peace.
Thousands and thousands of straight marriages are performed outside of churches, for instance catholics who have been divorced.

In fact, several churches have been performing gay wedding ceremonies, in order that couples can be wed in the Eyes of The Lord, even though they can't be married in any legal sense. And this is the kind of thing religions can do.

The problem is that the churches that don't believe in gay marriages have been forcing the entire country to not perform gay marraiges.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A word— be careful not to attack people who are open-minded or undecided; you may be surprised at how easy it is to unintentionally polarize them.


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

Oooh booo hooo someone was mean to me and now I hate all those gay people! They don't deserve equal rights after all. They are so RUDE.

Classic.

 

[TE999]

Looks as if Prop 8 has been overturned in California. Details to follow.

 

[3113]

Oooh booo hooo someone was mean to me

I'm appalled to hear that someone was rude to Tysail. I can understand how such treatment would scar him for life and make him close his heart to gay equality. I don't know why some gay men get this strange idea that all straight white men are the enemy

Two gay men with with developmental and intellectual disabilities were kicked out of a swimming area at The Pavilion, a government recreational facility in Hazard, Kentucky. The men were clients of Mending Hearts, Inc. which provides support for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, according to the Kentucky Equality Federation.

The KEF says that the official that kicked the men out cited The Bible as the reason:

"The Pavilion staff immediately entered the pool area and asked my clients and their staff to leave the Pavilion," stated Shirlyn Perkins, Executive Director of [Mending Hearts]. "My staff asked The Pavilion staff why they were being asked to leave, and they were informed that 'gay people' weren't allowed to swim there. My staff told this man that what he was trying to do was discrimination. The man stated that what he was doing was in the Bible and he could do it. My staff continued to argue with this man, but was ultimately forced to leave. My clients, whom already feel ridiculed and different, left the city owned facility crying and embarrassed for trying to participate in 'normal' activities that everyday 'normal' people do."

 

[3113]

Looks as if Prop 8 has been overturned in California. Details to follow.

Unfortunately no, not quite....

A US judge refused to vacate a decision last year that declared California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Backers of Prop. 8 had wanted the decision thrown out on the grounds that the judge who made the decision is gay and therefore should have recused himself from the case.

“The fact that a federal judge shares a fundamental characteristic with a litigant, or shares membership in a large association such as a religion, has been categorically rejected by federal courts as a sole basis for requiring a judge to recuse her or himself,” wrote Judge Ware.

The decision means the ruling of US District Judge Vaughn Walker remains in effect. Prop. 8 backers have appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the case could end up before the Supreme Court, many legal analysts say.

From here.

It still needs to be decided if a higher court will hear appeals on Walker's decision.

 

[TE999]

Unfortunately no, not quite....



From here.

It still needs to be decided if a higher court will hear appeals on Walker's decision.

Bummer. At least it's a step in the right direction. If this goes to the Supremes, and it will, Prop 8's toast. It's a clear case of discrimination and a violation of civil rights and equal protection under the law.

Only the fear on the part of politicians of losing the Fundie vote has carried the state bans on Gay marriage this far.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Actually, there are two different issues at play here.

1. The state of California has refused to defend Prop 8 in court. Both the current and previous administrations have, by fiat, accepted Judge Walker's decision and therefore gay marriage is legal in their opinion.

However . . .


2. The people attempting to challenge Judge Walker's ruling are the fund raisers for Prop 8. As far as Judge Walker is concerned they "lack standing", that is to say since this is a state law, only the state can argue or appeal it. (see above) The question of "standing" is a very complex one, legally, but from what I have read it highly possible that the 9th Circuit will agree with Judge Walker. If so, Prop 8 is dead in the water because the USSC will refuse to hear an appeal unless the appellant has the standing to file the appeal. At the present time, the question of whether, under California law, the fund raisers actually have standing is before the California State Supreme Court. If they rule against the appellants, Prop 8 is overruled. End of discussion. It will have no bearing outside the state of California, of course. Other states will have to deal with the question in their own good time.

 

[3113]

Bummer. At least it's a step in the right direction. If this goes to the Supremes, and it will, Prop 8's toast. It's a clear case of discrimination and a violation of civil rights and equal protection under the law.

It's only toast if the CA Supreme court refuses to hear it. As VM point out, there are two possibilities:

(1) They refuse to hear it because those defending it are not the State of California and only the State of California can defend it. If that happens, it becomes legal for gays to marry in CA, but only in CA. However, anyone from any state could come to CA and get married and, from then on, of course, be married no matter what the law in their state.

(2) Now here's where it gets sticky...the Prop. 8 folk are arguing that they're defending it for the voters of CA--if this passes muster and they can argue it, then...

the Ninth Circuit will rule on the central issue of the case: Do gay couples have a right to marry? Since the circuit court has authority over more than just California, the ruling would be legally binding in 11 states and territories, from Guam to Montana. A Ninth Circuit decision would also tee up the case for the US Supreme Court.

Which means that if the Prop. 8 folk lose that, 11 states lose their right to maintain their heterosexuals-only laws. Which means the case will most certainly go from there to the Supreme Court. Which they might want because I'm sure they think that the conservative court will rule in their favor. Of course, it's likely that another case will get to the Supreme court on this issue long before Prop. 8 makes it there should this all happen.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What Prop 8's defenders are sweating: their argument that they are appealing on behalf of California's voters has a problem in that no one elected them to do so. That's what the governor and attorney general are for and if they refuse, as they have, game over . . . for California, of course.

That's why this desperate (failed) attack on Judge Walker. They know they are on very shaky ground and are flailing around trying for any tiny edge they can get--so far without luck.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And on the same general subject, a California bankruptcy court has declared DOMA unconstitutional.