JLHPROF Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Apparently several lawmakers are already drafting backup laws (in case the constitution doesn't protect churches enough) to ensure no Church is required to perform SSM - http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1734820-155/percent-com-marriage-religious-poll-sex I wonder how long until those laws are challenged as unconstitutional for some reason...
Nofear Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 It's possible that the mere presence of such laws will provoke aggression, while if the various churches and law kept quiet they would be mostly left alone. Doubt it, but it probably will affect the timeline.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 It's possible that the mere presence of such laws will provoke aggression, while if the various churches and law kept quiet they would be mostly left alone. Doubt it, but it probably will affect the timeline. Oh, no. They will NOT be left alone by being quiet.
ERayR Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 It's possible that the mere presence of such laws will provoke aggression, while if the various churches and law kept quiet they would be mostly left alone. Doubt it, but it probably will affect the timeline. It is not wise to cower in fear and not prepare.
Buckeye Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Apparently several lawmakers are already drafting backup laws (in case the constitution doesn't protect churches enough) to ensure no Church is required to perform SSM - http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1734820-155/percent-com-marriage-religious-poll-sex I wonder how long until those laws are challenged as unconstitutional for some reason... From what I understand, there will be a challenge to the Utah law because it is overbroad in allowing state officers to decline to officiate SSM. No one has a problem with purely religious officers being exempted. But if you are a state officer you must treat all citizens equally.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) From what I understand, there will be a challenge to the Utah law because it is overbroad in allowing state officers to decline to officiate SSM. No one has a problem with purely religious officers being exempted. But if you are a state officer you must treat all citizens equally.I could conceive that in the future, anyone who undertakes to perform a marriage might be regarded as an agent of the state in that capacity and thus under statutory edict to perform a marriage for any and everyone who wants it. Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 No one has a problem with purely religious officers being exempted.No one, no one at all?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 No one, no one at all?I'm sure there are plenty who would love to poke faith groups in the eye in this and other ways, just as Utah became one of the first states in the nation to be judicially compelled to accept same-sex marriage in contravention of local community standards. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I'm sure there are plenty who would love to poke faith groups in the eye in this and other ways, just as Utah became one of the first states in the nation to be judicially compelled to accept same-sex marriage in contravention of local community standards.Yes; curious, that, innit?
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I could conceive that in the future, anyone who undertakes to perform a marriage might be regarded as an agent of the state in that capacity and thus under statutory edict to perform a marriage for any and everyone who wants it. I do more than conceive: I predict. 1
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Yes; curious, that, innit? Yet we are assured again and again that it was never about poking, it was about justice! Dang it!! Why don't you believe them???!!!
Popular Post Daniel2 Posted October 31, 2014 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2014 Yeah... This is probably a good idea. As a mere document, the Constitution doesn't offer enough protection in and of itself.You guys totally called us out... All of us gays actually really want to force every religion and every minister to marry us. In fact, at our midweek Gay Agenda Conference Call this week, we all decided to clarify that our mission is to completely eradicate any religion that disagrees with us, and to try to destroy the very Constitutional guaranteed and freedoms that granted us equality in the first place.Plus, it was announced that our TRUE goal really is to destroy every family, and convert every man, woman, child, dog, and toaster to the gay lifestyle so all forms of procreation (and every slice of crunchy warm bread) cease to exist, entirely, and life on earth is actually obliterated.Better pass a law protecting religions from marrying us, or you'll be the first to go. 6
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 No one, no one at all? What Buckeye means is that Buckeye presently thinks that way. Give Buckeye 5 years of propagandizing. He'll come around.
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 From what I understand, there will be a challenge to the Utah law because it is overbroad in allowing state officers to decline to officiate SSM. No one has a problem with purely religious officers being exempted. But if you are a state officer you must treat all citizens equally. If you have the power to compel the JoP, you have the power to compel the Temple Sealer. Or is the point to force all Mormons and others of faith out of all government offices? Yeah, that's the ticket! Force 'em out of the public square, and force 'em out of all public participation as public servants. 2
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 It's possible that the mere presence of such laws will provoke aggression, while if the various churches and law kept quiet they would be mostly left alone. Doubt it, but it probably will affect the timeline. Don't put up a fence to keep the foxes out . . . it'll make 'em angry and all more likely to kill the chickens. 1
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Yeah... This is probably a good idea. As a mere document, the Constitution doesn't offer enough protection in and of itself.You guys totally called us out... All of us gays actually really want to force every religion and every minister to marry us. In fact, at our midweek Gay Agenda Conference Call this week, we all decided to clarify that our mission is to completely eradicate any religion that disagrees with us, and to try to destroy the very Constitutional guaranteed and freedoms that granted us equality in the first place.Plus, it was announced that our TRUE goal really is to destroy every family, and convert every man, woman, child, dog, and toaster to the gay lifestyle so all forms of procreation (and every slice of crunchy warm bread) cease to exist, entirely, and life on earth is actually obliterated.Better pass a law protecting religions from marrying us, or you'll be the first to go. Nice mockery. I heard similar things concerning SSM when "domestic partnership laws" were all the rage. And, yes, I believe their narcissism and malice will never stop them short of the Holy of Holies, after which, G-d forbid, who knows? 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Nice mockery. I heard similar things concerning SSM when "domestic partnership laws" were all the rage. And, yes, I believe their narcissism and malice will never stop them short of the Holy of Holies, after which, G-d forbid, who knows?You know, this is a great point. We gave them domestic partnerships. That was not enough.Then we were forced to give them SSM through the redefinition of a word.What is next? Oh nothing. They are content. Expect they are not. It has been stated that the whole goal was to get churches to recognize it and to ultimately to destroy the family in the process. Maybe that is not Rockponds or Buckeye's ore Daniel's desire but it is that of those that agitate for the gay agenda. And that is the issue, among some other issues. I can't help it if people are blind to it. Edited October 31, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 2
danielwoods Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I could conceive that in the future, anyone who undertakes to perform a marriage might be regarded as an agent of the state in that capacity and thus under statutory edict to perform a marriage for any and everyone who wants it. Already happening. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
omni Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I predict that within five years they'll be forcing our people to marry dogs in the temple, wouldn't surprise me one bit if they moved onto trees and couches after that.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I'd like to marry this here paint can.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Nice mockery. I heard similar things concerning SSM when "domestic partnership laws" were all the rage. And, yes, I believe their narcissism and malice will never stop them short of the Holy of Holies, after which, G-d forbid, who knows?Mockery? I mistook it as a refreshing bit of candor from a gay-rights advocate. Edited to add: Just joking, of course. I knew what he was doing. But for irony to be effective, it must be significantly far removed from fact. This instance, alas, was not all that far removed. Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
Rob Osborn Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I will always refuse to accept SSM or acknowledge that two gay people are married. 2
Buckeye Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 What Buckeye means is that Buckeye presently thinks that way. Give Buckeye 5 years of propagandizing. He'll come around. It's been more than 5 decades since state officers across the nation were required to perform marriages for interracial couples ... and yet still no drive to force purely religious officials to do so. If you can point to a reason why SSM will be different than interracial marriage please do. Otherwise, I'm on very safe ground.
Buckeye Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Already happening. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364 They key point there is that they run a business. I'm not saying I support the state action against the business, but it's quite a different story from the State of Idaho telling the Rexburg 7th Ward Bishop he has to comply. Edited October 31, 2014 by Buckeye
Daniel2 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I predict that within five years they'll be forcing our people to marry dogs in the temple, wouldn't surprise me one bit if they moved onto trees and couches after that.You forgot toasters.I plan to force the LDS church to polygamously marry me, my dog, my lesbian sister, my african transgender atheist boyfriend, our tree, and my favorite mickey mouse toasting toaster in their temples, just as soon as us gays destroy the first ammendment.
Recommended Posts