Jump to content

Catholics Backing Away From Politically Fighting Gay Marriage.


california boy

Recommended Posts

The catholic church has decided not to get involved in the political gay marriage battle in Maine Has the Mormon Church decided to not get involved again politically as well? What do you think? Is this a good thing? Are attitudes changing about the need to impose Mormon doctrine on non-members?

Here is the link.

http://www.kjonline.com/news/Maine-Diocese-says-it-wont-campaign-against-gay-marriage-.html

Maine Diocese says it won't campaign against gay marriage

Instead, the Roman Catholic church plans to teach parishioners about importance of marriage between a man and a woman

By Kelley Bouchard kbouchard@mainetoday.com

Staff Writer

PORTLAND — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine will take no active role in a political campaign against a same-sex marriage referendum that's expected to be on the November ballot, Bishop Richard Malone announced today.

Instead, the diocese is expanding an existing educational program to better inform church members about the qualities and benefits of marriage between one man and one woman.

Malone issued a pastoral letter on marriage today that will be used extensively to teach 185,000 Roman Catholics in Maine about the gift of traditional marriage and the need to preserve it as it is.

"We are going to ask them to reconsider their understanding of what marriage is," Malone said during a news conference this afternoon.

Malone said he and other church leaders "haven't done a good job" providing this type instruction to its members in the past, so many Catholics aren't informed about the "true nature of marriage."

The letter, published as a report on glossy paper, explains "the fullness of marriage" using Bible passages, "2000 years of Christian teaching " and "reason and natural law."

Malone said the diocese doesn't want to impose a law or belief on anyone, but it does want to make the church's position known and contribute to the public debate over the push to redefine marriage.

"It's our constitutional right to make our voices heard," he said.

The pastoral letter will be distributed through Catholic schools and churches across the state, posted on the diocesan website and published in its Harvest magazine in May. It also will be the subject of church discussion groups and radio broadcasts.

Malone said the information is meant for parishioners, "but we're hoping the message gets out beyond."

The largely in-house educational initiative represents a significant departure from the major role that the diocese played in supporting a successful 2009 referendum against gay marriage. The diocese contributed more than $500,000 to that $3.8 million campaign and its public affairs director took a leave of absence to lead the effort.

This time, Malone said, the diocese won't be taking up special collections, buying TV ads or contributing staff to a political campaign against same-sex marriage.

He said that the educational initiative will be covered by the church's educational budget and that no specific funding has been dedicated to the effort. He said he didn't know how much it cost to publish and distribute the pastoral letter on marriage.

He described Brian Souchet, appointed last November to be director of the diocesan Office for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, as a volunteer. Souchet was parish outreach coordinator for the 2009 campaign against gay marriage.

Souchet said the diocese is taking the long view in its efforts to preserve traditional marriage. The educational program is aimed at one-quarter of active Catholics in particular who "don't quite get" the church's teachings on marriage.

"No matter what happens in November, this issue isn't going away," Souchet said. "We need to keep teaching as a church. To continue to just fight the November battles is shortsighted."

Last month, same-sex marriage advocates in Maine turned in more than enough signatures to put a gay-marriage question on the November ballot.

First, the question will be considered by a Republican-controlled Legislature and Republican governor. If both approve the measure, then same-sex marriage would become legal. If either rejects the measure, which is expected, the state will hold a referendum.

The Freedom to Marry Coalition has already formed, representing about 20 groups that support same-sex marriage, including EqualityMaine, the Maine Women's Lobby and the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination, said spokesman David Farmer.

"The opposition's campaign may be different this time, but we believe they will have an organized, well-thought-out and well-funded campaign," Farmer said. "And so will we."

Supporters of gay marriage spent $5.8 million on the 2009 campaign.

"We're going to run a pro-active campaign to explain why marriage matters for same-sex couples, which are the same reasons as other couples," Farmer said.

Opponents of gay marriage are poised to file paperwork with the Secretary of State next week, establishing a political action committee or a ballot question committee that will be called Protect Marriage Maine, said Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.

Conley said the opposition has a "great rapport" with Bishop Malone and support his plan to educate Catholics about the importance of traditional marriage.

"This campaign will benefit from their effort," Conley said. "Would it be our preference to have them formally involved in the campaign? Absolutely."

Conley said his organization will be soliciting donations and campaign assistance from Catholics across the state.

Same-sex marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Washington, Iowa, Washington, D.C., and Maryland. Civil unions for same-sex couples are allowed in Rhode Island.

Link to comment

The catholic church has decided not to get involved in the political gay marriage battle in Maine Has the Mormon Church decided to not get involved again politically as well? What do you think? Is this a good thing? Are attitudes changing about the need to impose Mormon doctrine on non-members?

You're mistaken; there was never any need to "impose" Mormon doctrine on non-members.

Link to comment

You're mistaken; there was never any need to "impose" Mormon doctrine on non-members.

If the Mornon church was not imposing Mormon doctirne on non-members, what were they doing? You are going to have to expalin why you think I am wrong.

Link to comment

If the Mornon church was not imposing Mormon doctirne on non-members, what were they doing? You are going to have to expalin why you think I am wrong.

You're going to need to explain why you phrase a simple exercise of political rights and freedom of speech by members of the church as "imposing" their doctrine on others. That's a particularly inflammatory misrepresentation designed to divert attention from any true discussion of the subject; in essence, if I differ in my opinion about whether SSM should be allowed, I'm demonized as "imposing" my doctrine on others outside my faith. That avoids having to confront the real problems with SSM.

Perhaps, if you're really sincere about exploring imposing doctrine on someone else, you can comment on the gay group Affirmation's stated agenda of forcing the church, via lawsuits, to perform and accept same sex marriages should SSM become the law of the land.

Link to comment

John,

Do you see any difference between "expressing/teaching an opposing opinion about a moral behavior (freedom of speech) " vs. "enacting a constitutional ammendment to remove a civil right" (imposing an opinion about that moral behavior on others)?

Daniel

Link to comment

You're going to need to explain why you phrase a simple exercise of political rights and freedom of speech by members of the church as "imposing" their doctrine on others. That's a particularly inflammatory misrepresentation designed to divert attention from any true discussion of the subject; in essence, if I differ in my opinion about whether SSM should be allowed, I'm demonized as "imposing" my doctrine on others outside my faith. That avoids having to confront the real problems with SSM.

Perhaps, if you're really sincere about exploring imposing doctrine on someone else, you can comment on the gay group Affirmation's stated agenda of forcing the church, via lawsuits, to perform and accept same sex marriages should SSM become the law of the land.

The church as an organization believes that gay marriage should not be allowed among its members. While the chruch is free to practice that belief and hold their members to that belief, they for some reason felt it was their duty to take away the right of non-members to practice their beief on this issue as they saw fit. The church called upon it's members to use the political process to legalize this dogma. It is pretty simple here. If the church had no interest in imposing its beliefs on non-members but rather were only concerned with its own members, they would have done what the Chathoic church is choosing to do in the state of Maine. It is what the article is about. Basically the Catholic church has decided to not try and impose its religious beliefs on non Catholics. I am asking in this thread if the Mormon church has decided to follow that same course of action. Not too difficult here.

Sorry I know nothing about Affirmation. I have never attended one of their meetings and I know nothing about any lawsuites against the church by them. If you could point me to a lawsuit they have filed against the church, I would be happy to comment on it once I know the facts.

Link to comment

Perhaps, if you're really sincere about exploring imposing doctrine on someone else, you can comment on the gay group Affirmation's stated agenda of forcing the church, via lawsuits, to perform and accept same sex marriages should SSM become the law of the land.

I'm unfamiliar with Affirmation having "stated" the agenda you're claiming. Can you post evidence where they've "stated" that this "agenda of forcing the church, via lawsuits, to perform and accept same-sex marriages should SSM become the law of the land"?

Here's what I can find on their website about their stated "mission"--I cannot find anything about their "stated agenda":

Welcome to Affirmation's website. We are an organization of people who believe in the worth of every soul regardless of their sexual or gender orientation. We rejoice in life. We reject the tyranny that would have us believe that who we are—gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender—is evil or wrong. We affirm that we are all children of loving Heavenly Parents; that our sexual orientation and identity are not an accident, but rather a special gift from God. Our lives and our relationships can be compatible with the gospel and are a special part of God’s creation.

Although many of us are no longer members of the LDS Church, we celebrate being part of the great Mormon tradition. We are a family that consists of active members of the LDS faith, former members and non-members. Our membership consists of individuals situated all over the sexual mosaic. We are all at different places in our coming-out process.

Affirmation's mission is to provide a forum for gay Mormons to associate with their peers. We seek to meet the needs of persons experiencing frustration or alienation from family, friends, and the Church because of their sexual orientation. In addition to offering assistance during life's occasional struggles, Affirmation provides a lifelong opportunity for service, fun, friendship, personal enrichment, and spiritual growth. When the journey of self-discovery, particularly the process of reconciling our gay selves within the context of our Mormon spiritual and cultural heritage, seems almost more than we can handle, Affirmation offers the opportunity of understanding and support by friends who travel the same path.

Also included among the membership of Affirmation are many friends and family, Mormon and non-Mormon, gay and straight. Associating with them, and feeling of their love and support is one of the greatest blessings to be obtained by joining and actively participating in Affirmation. We come to realize we are not alone. Together we work to develop ourselves, to build bridges of understanding, and to advocate for the things that will make the journey easier for those who follow. Rest assured, Affirmation maintains a policy of strict confidentiality of membership. You can feel safe associating with us.

Thank you again for your interest. Please seriously consider making Affirmation an important part of your life's journey. We care and are here for you. We also want you to know that we need you and your unique gifts. Together, we make a difference.

Daniel

Link to comment

Daniel2, don't take this personally, I'm sure you are in many ways a nice guy, but reading Affirmation's mission statement gave me the same reaction that Rick Santorum claims to have had upon reading JFK's speech on religion. To state that a gay sexual orientation is a gift from God, and that gay relationships are compatible with the gospel and a special part of God's creation takes a level of denial that is breathtaking. That's all I'm going to say.

Link to comment

Daniel2, don't take this personally, I'm sure you are in many ways a nice guy, but reading Affirmation's mission statement gave me the same reaction that Rick Santorum claims to have had upon reading JFK's speech on religion. To state that a gay sexual orientation is a gift from God, and that gay relationships are compatible with the gospel and a special part of God's creation takes a level of denial that is breathtaking. That's all I'm going to say.

No offense taken, Buzzard. :) I'm not a member of Affirmation, and I don't share their views or approach to God, God's creation, or any compatabilitiy with the LDS gospel--in fact, I've never been to an Affirmation conference, and have no desire to be involved therein. I don't specifically lobby for their stated mission--I just haven't read that their "agenda" is what John claims it is, and want to make sure that he's accurately representing the organization.

And, yeah... I hope I'm a nice guy in many ways. ;)

Daniel

Link to comment

John,

Do you see any difference between "expressing/teaching an opposing opinion about a moral behavior (freedom of speech) " vs. "enacting a constitutional ammendment to remove a civil right" (imposing an opinion about that moral behavior on others)?

Daniel

I think that stating this is fairly pointless but I'll do it anyway: there has never been a right for a person to marry another person of the same gender. There can never be such a right.

Just because a few judges say that there is such a right does not create such a right. What if they were to up and decide that cows had the right not to be eaten? And then that was struck down by a constitutional amendment. Would you then complain about a civil right being removed? If the legislature proclaimed that water was from now on gasoline, would you then fill your tank from your garden hose? I doubt it. Well, you might, but I don't think it would get you very far.

Western society may indeed eventually decide that same sex marriage is perfectly OK. But there has never been a right to it, nor should there be. It is apparently a fact that there was a bill introduced in the Indiana state legislature to set the value of Pi to 3.2 by legislative fiat. It did not get passed. But even if it had been passed, and signed by the Governor, it would still not have made Pi equal to 3.2. The value of Pi is 3.14.15965 etc, and nothing can change this, any more than King Cnut's command that the tide not wet his clothing and throne prevented it from doing it anyway. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and regardless of any legislature or judicial body's proclamation, a union between two persons of the same sex is not and cannot be a marriage.

Forcing me to believe otherwise will also not achieve anything. Apparently, after Galileo was forced to recant on his belief that the earth orbited the sun instead of the other way around, he muttered under his breath "But it still moves."

Link to comment

John,

Do you see any difference between "expressing/teaching an opposing opinion about a moral behavior (freedom of speech) " vs. "enacting a constitutional ammendment to remove a civil right" (imposing an opinion about that moral behavior on others)?

Daniel

There was no removal of civil rights. Gays have all of the exact same rights as anyone else, including that of marriage as currently defined. SSM seeks to create a privilege for a narrow interest group, without providing equivalent privileges to other special interest groups. It is well within an appropriate expression of opinion and freedom of speech to oppose such special privilege, especially when it is amply demonstrated that matters of faith will be subordinated to the exercise of that privilege.

Link to comment

The church as an organization believes that gay marriage should not be allowed among its members. While the chruch is free to practice that belief and hold their members to that belief, they for some reason felt it was their duty to take away the right of non-members to practice their beief on this issue as they saw fit. The church called upon it's members to use the political process to legalize this dogma. It is pretty simple here. If the church had no interest in imposing its beliefs on non-members but rather were only concerned with its own members, they would have done what the Chathoic church is choosing to do in the state of Maine. It is what the article is about. Basically the Catholic church has decided to not try and impose its religious beliefs on non Catholics. I am asking in this thread if the Mormon church has decided to follow that same course of action. Not too difficult here.

Sorry I know nothing about Affirmation. I have never attended one of their meetings and I know nothing about any lawsuites against the church by them. If you could point me to a lawsuit they have filed against the church, I would be happy to comment on it once I know the facts.

As I have noted, SSM is not some benign practice that will have no effect on religious belief. Licensed professionals in many areas have been forced to comply with narrow special interest privileges once those privileges have been enacted into law. When those privileges have conflicted with the religious beliefs of those licensed professionals, they have been punished when they did not personally perform the service; referrals to someone else, which are a rational compromise, have been rejected.

SSM marriage advocates have demonstrated a willingness and agenda to punish those who object to SSM and to force them to recognize it. Religious belief will NOT be an exemption, as has been amply demonstrated by the current contraception issue.

Again, it is a misrepresentation to claim that the church seeks to "impose" its doctrine on others. It is also ironic, given the fact that SSM advocates do seek to impose recognition of their agenda on society in general. It is entirely appropriate to oppose SSM for those reasons.

Link to comment

Again, it is a misrepresentation to claim that the church seeks to "impose" its doctrine on others. It is also ironic, given the fact that SSM advocates do seek to impose recognition of their agenda on society in general. It is entirely appropriate to oppose SSM for those reasons.

Furthermore, to say the church seeks to impose it's doctrine is to say that no one else feels the same way except the Mormons, which we know is simply not true.

For some reason the advocates of the other side never seem to see the hypocrisy in their trying to impose their lifestyle on others. They don't just want the same rights they want acceptance. I am reminded of Orwell's 1984 where it wasn't sufficient that a person "accepted" what Big Brother told him but he actually had to believe it.

Link to comment

Furthermore, to say the church seeks to impose it's doctrine is to say that no one else feels the same way except the Mormons, which we know is simply not true.

That is absurd. No one said that.

The point is that your church, as an institution, took and still takes an active political stand to impose its standards on non Mormons.

Bear in mind, it has every right to do so.

Someone in your church once said, teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. I suppose when presented with money, power and influence, its easier said than done.

I should tell you though, while your leaders may enjoy the political power in the short run, those who are not Mormon will resent, not thank, the Mormon Church using its money and influence to intervene in their lives.

For some reason the advocates of the other side never seem to see the hypocrisy in their trying to impose their lifestyle on others.

How so? If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get marry another women. Don't attend a gay marriage. Don't send a present to a gay couple who got married. Don't invite them to your home. Its your life. As far as I can see, no one on this side is imposing "their lifestyle" on you.

I hate hypocrisy. I see it a sign of intellectual weakness. So if you can show me, with some specificity how I have been hypocritical, I would grateful to you.

They don't just want the same rights they want acceptance. I am reminded of Orwell's 1984 where it wasn't sufficient that a person "accepted" what Big Brother told him but he actually had to believe it.

Forced acceptance? They want and are entitled to equal treatment by the Government. As tax payers and citizens, such demands should be expected.

Do they want to be accepted? Sure. Who doesn't?

I don't understand why you seem so outraged or offended that they want to be accepted, that they want to be treated fairly, and they want equal rights, including the right to marry.

Link to comment

As I have noted, SSM is not some benign practice that will have no effect on religious belief.

If you would have started out saying, "from my religious perspective" SSM is not some benign practice that will not effect our religious beliefs, I would not have an issue with what you are saying. However, you seem to be making this a statement of fact that everyone shares. They obviously don't/

Licensed professionals in many areas have been forced to comply with narrow special interest privileges once those privileges have been enacted into law. When those privileges have conflicted with the religious beliefs of those licensed professionals, they have been punished when they did not personally perform the service; referrals to someone else, which are a rational compromise, have been rejected.

SSM marriage advocates have demonstrated a willingness and agenda to punish those who object to SSM and to force them to recognize it. Religious belief will NOT be an exemption, as has been amply demonstrated by the current contraception issue.

Again, it is a misrepresentation to claim that the church seeks to "impose" its doctrine on others. It is also ironic, given the fact that SSM advocates do seek to impose recognition of their agenda on society in general. It is entirely appropriate to oppose SSM for those reasons.

You seem to be confusing the discrimination laws of this country with marriage rights in this country. The issues you refer to have to do with the federal government not allowing discrimination of businesses that deal with the general public. It also has to do with religious institutions WHEN THEY GET FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. You seem like a bright guy, are you just disingenuous about this issue or have you not really studied what this issue is about??

For example the well known case of the photographer in NEW MEXICO where gay marriage is not legal who got sued for not taking photos of a lesbian wedding. Or Catholic Charities who closed their adoption agencies BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WITHDREW FEDERAL FUNDING for their discriminating agains gay couples wanting to adopt.

On the other hand, if you can name ONE CHURCH who has been forced to perform a gay wedding then you have a point. Until then, YOU HAVE NO POINT and it is you that is misrepresenting the facts on the issue. Again, I go back to the Mormon church simply trying to impose their religious doctrine on those not of their faith. You have no argument to support your claim. It is the very reason this issue was not brought up in the prop 8 trial. No legal basis for this erroneous falsehood. In fact if you read the Prop 8 trial as a defense for prop 8. This very issue that was touted in the prop 8 trials was used by those supporting gay marriage as an example of the prop 8 campaign (funded by the members of the Mormon church) lying to create undure prejudice against gay couples. You are so wrong on this issue, and you should know better.

Link to comment

On the other hand, if you can name ONE CHURCH who has been forced to perform a gay wedding then you have a point. Until then, YOU HAVE NO POINT

It is the slippery slope. Look at what is happening with the birth control issue and the Catholic church. Can you guarantee that there won't be a time when the government will force a church to perform a gay wedding. No you can't. In fact we have incidents currently where gays have sued photographers for not wanting to photograph their gay wedding , and these are private individuals.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

Link to comment

That is absurd. No one said that.

CB in fact said "Are attitudes changing about the need to impose Mormon doctrine on non-members?" The point of course is this isn't Mormon doctrine but a widely held belief among many groups.

Forced acceptance? They want and are entitled to equal treatment by the Government. As tax payers and citizens, such demands should be expected.

This argument has no validity since they do have the same rights as tax payers and citizens. The agenda to push the marriage envelope overreaches the desire for equal rights.

Link to comment

Deborah:

It is actually the Catholic church/your boss that is trying to force its/their ideas down our throats. All this administratioin did was allow the individual/you to decide, and not the Catholic church /your boss. The Rubio/Blunt Amendment to a transportation bill would have allowed your church/boss to determine what if any medical proceedure/prescription drug you could have. Based on HIS/HER religious beliefs. IE; Need a blood transfusion don't have a Jehovah Witness as a boss.

Link to comment

Jwhitlock, CFR that licensed professionals have been forces to do anything.

Deborah, ss couples are not entitled to the same federal tax breaks as heterosexual couples. Federal tax rules for ss couples deends on the laws of the state that couple lives in. And before anyone CFR, to the instructions for IRS FORM 1040

Link to comment
It is actually the Catholic church/your boss that is trying to force its/their ideas down our throats. All this administratioin did was allow the individual/you to decide, and not the Catholic church /your boss. The Rubio/Blunt Amendment to a transportation bill would have allowed your church/boss to determine what if any medical proceedure/prescription drug you cold have. Based on HIS/HER religious beliefs. IE; Need a blood transfusion don't have a Jehovah Witness as a boss.

This is wholly misleading. Whether on purpose or not, we cannot tell, but its falsity is gross.

No one is forbidden from seeking any medical "service" he desires, as long as he is willing to pay for it himself. If a woman wants contraception, and any insurance she has does not cover it, there is nothing that dictates that she not go out and pay the cost herself.

No one is ramming anything down others' throats.

In reality, "health insurance" is a misnomer, and that very imprecision makes this conversation more difficult.

"Health insurance" is not synonymous with "health care", nor is it the same thing as "access to health care".

Insurance was never designed to pay for ordinary expenses for whatever thing is being insured. Auto insurance, correctly, does not pay for oil, tires, windshield/windscreen wipers, and headlight replacement. Auto insurance covers theft, crashes, traffic tickets, and hail damage to the car. Those are ordinary costs of owning and operating an automobile. These are possible, but not inevitable, expenses that occur irregularly (if at all), and so are proper subjects of insurance. The list, including life insurance, home owners', renters' and so on, of insurance policies covers unforeseen (or, if foreseen, like death, unknown) occurrences.

True health insurance would cover only catastrophic events, like heart attacks, tonsillitis, broken bones and injuries. It would not cover ordinary things like vitamins, birth control, even insulin for diabetics or hormone treatments for continuous conditions. These are just costs of living expenses. No insurance policy can correctly underwrite these conditions.

Health insurance, as we have known it in the late XX~XXI, is really two separate things. Combining them has made the whole discussion far more problematic than it needs to be. In addition to true health insurance/catastrophic coverage, there is also "pre-paid" medical care. This makes all health care rise in price (or, with straightforward governmental control, rationing occurs as a necessary situation). No one—not Congress (Parliament), rulers, presidents, no one—can repeal the Law of Supply and Demand.

To claim that the Catholic Church or anyone's boss can impose certain restrictions on his employees health care choices is simply polemics and wrong. By choosing a health insurance provider, the boss may determine how and how much he will contribute (indirectly) to his employees' and their families' health care, but he does not limit what anyone may seek on his own.

Further, it is now fully demonstrated that Fluke was a planted activist at Georgetown (a Catholic University), and that her primary purpose was not a legal education, but to make noise and apply pressure to force the Catholic college to provide contraception through its health care policy. Further, she wants all health care policies to cover transsexual operations and procedures to all who want them. This will necessarily drive up the cost for all participants, whose money would better be used in furthering their own goals, not those of perverts and other deviants.

This is just another example of the push to destroy culture and society, to eliminate all concept of right'n'wrong, to make sin acceptable and to undermine the fundamental institution of any country: the family. Satan is alive and doing quite well in USmerica—fighting the last battles of his on-going war against God, righteousness, and each of us individually. He has won in many cases in the last category, and will continue to make impressive incursions on the second front. That he'll eventually lose on the first does not mean we should accede to his demands in the meantime.

Every convert to his cause is a convert to his cause.

Lehi

Link to comment

My theory is that both the LDS church and the Catholic realize that backlash from Official political involvement may not be worth the hassle.

These Churchs are consistent in their position of ssm. The LDS church and Catholic chit h have made there positions clear. It is up to the members of each organization to determine what to do with position of their respective Church.

Teach them correct principles, comes to mind.

Link to comment

It is the slippery slope. Look at what is happening with the birth control issue and the Catholic church. Can you guarantee that there won't be a time when the government will force a church to perform a gay wedding. No you can't.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

So your feeling is that it is ok for the government to not extend the same equal rights to gay couples as straight couples because YOU are afraid that the government will force the Mormon church to marry gay couples?? Is that really your argument??? Can you point to ONE instance where any church has been forced to marry a couple who they did not want to marrry?? Why aren't Jews demanding to be married in Mormon temples? Why aren't Muslins demanding to be married in the Catholic cathedrals? Simply this. There is a constitutional amendment that prohibits such actions. So YES I can guarantee it will never happen.

The only time a church gets in trouble with discrimination laws of this country is when it allows the public (rents to the public) the use of their buildings. There has never been a time ever when a religion has been forced to marry ANYONE against their wishes.

Quite frankly, slippery slope arguments are ridiculous legal reasons to deny someone equal rights. It simply does not hold up in court because it is not rational. You could use a slippery slope argument to deny anything from a group of people. This argument is laughable. Come on Deborah, you gotta have a better answer than this one.

In fact we have incidents currently where gays have sued photographers for not wanting to photograph their gay wedding , and these are private individuals.

Evidently you COMPLETELY IGNORED my point that the New Mexico case was NOT about nor did it have ANYTHING to do with gay marriage. It had to do with DISCRIMINATION laws in this country. The article pointed that out specifically

"On Wednesday, the state commission ruled that Huguenin violated the state's Human Rights Act. An order was issued for the photographer to pay close to $7,000 for the couple's attorney's fees."

Human Right Act is not a gay marriage, it is a discrimination issue. Come on Deborah, you certainly know the difference. You have studied this issue enough to know the difference between a lawsuit based on allowing gay couples to marry and basic federal laws against discriminating against anyone including gay couples. Why make this silly analogies when you know perfectly well they are apples and oranges. Do you think we will not point this out to you? Did you not read my post?

Link to comment

I think that stating this is fairly pointless but I'll do it anyway: there has never been a right for a person to marry another person of the same gender. There can never be such a right.

Just because a few judges say that there is such a right does not create such a right.

According to the California government, same-sex couples DID "have the right to civil marriage," prior to Prop 8's passage. That wasn't a hypothetical or ambiguous idea--it was a legal reality. 18,000 same-sex couples legally wed during that time, and their marriages continue to remain in full effect, even after Prop 8's passage; even here and now.

You may personally and morally disagree with the judgement of the CA Supreme Court--but your mere disagreement doesn't change the legal reality that same-sex couples had already specifically been granted the very real and very concrete civil right of marriage.

Legally-speaking, Prop 8 removed that civil right. There's really no way around that.

There was no removal of civil rights. Gays have all of the exact same rights as anyone else, including that of marriage as currently defined. SSM seeks to create a privilege for a narrow interest group, without providing equivalent privileges to other special interest groups. It is well within an appropriate expression of opinion and freedom of speech to oppose such special privilege, especially when it is amply demonstrated that matters of faith will be subordinated to the exercise of that privilege.

See response above.

Btw... I'd consider this line of thinking having to "split hairs" to even say so, but same-sex marriage did not create a "narrow priviledge" for a "special interest group without providing equivalent privileges to other special interest groups." Same-sex marriage as much a civil right for straight people as it is for gay people. Gays can marry each other, straights can marry each other, or gays and straights can marry each other. Opposite-sex, mixed orientation couples are still free to marry one onother, according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs, should they believe that it would be immoral to act on "same-sex attraction." It's not the government's business to tell consenting adults they must marry someone of the opposite gender, just like it isn't the government's business to tell consenting adults they must marry someone of an opposite sexual-orientation. Whether straight or gay, male or female, states that have legalized same- or opposite-sex marriage allow their citizens to have the right to consentually marry the person of their own choice, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...