Supreme Court Denies AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

TheAccountant said:

What with the divorce rate at nearly 50%, many people having multiple marriages, and shotgun weddings to make the girl "honest". It's funny you don't see the religious angst for many about that but I suppose that's a little inconvenient for most folks.

Click to expand...

Wow, you've not heard someone decry divorce, shotgun weddings, shacking up, polygamy, etc, in a church or religious setting? Please show a rock to live under in your neighborhood, so that I can block out the real world too.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

bamacon said:

This type of stuff won't help...

http://www.breitbart.com/california...l-let-.....-straight-alliance-bully-students/

Click to expand...

Broken link. But from the URL I agree.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

bamahippie said:

Wow, you've not heard someone decry divorce, shotgun weddings, shacking up, polygamy, etc, in a church or religious setting? Please show a rock to live under in your neighborhood, so that I can block out the real world too.

Click to expand...

I'm speaking of government officials and my own social media. Hell, I can go into any church and hear just about anything decried on any given Sunday. Just go into a Mormon church and they'll tell you the perils of caffeine.

Considering many comments by Probate Judges in the state as well as my Facebook feed has been inundated with comments about "gay marriage being against their religion" and I've never seen such comments or marriage licenses being denied on religious grounds of divorce and fornication, my point stands.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

bamacon said:

This type of stuff won't help...

http://www.breitbart.com/california...l-let-.....-straight-alliance-bully-students/

Click to expand...

Here's an attempt at a relink:

http://www.breitbart.com/california...l-let-.....-straight-alliance-bully-students/


Edit: Well, that didn't work either.

Here's a blurb from the article:

On January 29, students reported that members of the ..... Straight Alliance (QSA) were allowed to take over all freshmen English classes at Acalanes Union High School to grill students about their personal beliefs and their parents’ personal beliefs on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues.

The QSA asked students step forward to demonstrate whether they believed that being gay was a choice. Students were also required to state whether their parents would be accepting if they came out as gay. Those students who did not step forward were ridiculed and humiliated by QSA members.

The QSA also gave students a handout of LGBT terminology that included “pan-sexual,” “demi-sexual,” “gray gender,” and about a dozen other LGBT-approved terms. QSA then asked student to line up in order to demonstrate where the students fell in the “gender spectrum.”

Click to expand...

Well isn't that special. The "Q" word is filtered by the system. That's rather strange/odd methinks.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

TheAccountant said:

The modern institution of marriage has been bastardized long before gays could marry. What with the divorce rate at nearly 50%, many people having multiple marriages, and shotgun weddings to make the girl "honest". It's funny you don't see the religious angst for many about that but I suppose that's a little inconvenient for most folks.

Click to expand...

That argument is normally used as a justification for gay marriage. With the high profile splits of Rosie and Ellen from their partners, it's probably a stretch to say that gays are any more (or less) faithful or devoted to their relationships than straight couples.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

bamacon said:

Marriage is defined. It has been for centuries. I can call a blue whale a dog but it won't ever shed or chew bones or pee on a fire hydrant. As a Constitutional conservative I'd be fine with everyone receiving a civil union for all legal purposes and leave marriage certificates per se a local religious function. When it comes down to it I think many Christians have a problem with ignoring tenets of their faith and told not only are they are the ones with the problem, but that they are hateful bigots, and that they have to shut up and take it. Abortion as an issue has similarities. Throughout the Bible babies in the womb are referred to as humans who has a soul. They are never referred to as an innate bundle of cells. Hence when abortion was legalized some called it murder and other reproductive rights. There are some people of faith who hate gays and gay marriage and call it pure evil. Others are supportive of their rights and others, like me see arguments from both sides and see merits on both so people can't paint them with a broad brush. I guess and just like to see a compromise that would lessen the vitriol.

Click to expand...

You know there were married people and marriages pre-christ right? There were marriages pre-judiasm too. In fact there were marriages the pre-existed monotheism. Marriage existed before modern religions so why do you think you get to define it?

You want to ask historians how marriage was defined and go back to that? Marriage has had many definitions over the years. For centuries marriages were arranged, in many cultures even today they still are. I have an Indian friend (dot not feather) that is in a very happy arranged marriage right now in 2015 and lives a few miles from me. This idea that we are redefining marriage is ludicrous, we've been redefining it for centuries. Did your father in law (assuming you are married, and a man) provide you a dowry? Did your parents pick your bride? Would you have stoned her to death if she were not a virgin? These are all part and parcel of the "traditional" Christian marriage. We don't do these things anymore because we've redefined marriage. In the last century alone we've seen a dramatic shift to love based marriages. Go back to the early 1900's and people were still marrying off their daughters against their will to create business alliances, join fortunes, save fortunes, create lineages and ensure inheritance rights. It's easy to see, go back and read 18th Century literature, Jane Austen would do nicely, and come back and tell me that what you, your parents and your friends have has the same definition. Please. My wife is far to into that crap, whining about wanting Mr Darcy while the family has already promised her to some other idiot. This was marriage, in our culture, not that long ago. I seriously doubt this is your, or anyone else on tidefans personal marriage experience.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

ValuJet said:

That argument is normally used as a justification for gay marriage. With the high profile splits of Rosie and Ellen from their partners, it's probably a stretch to say that gays are any more (or less) faithful or devoted to their relationships than straight couples.

Click to expand...

No where in that comment have I argued that gays would divorce less than straights. Although that will be interesting data to analyze in a few years. At the base level I view marriage as nothing more than a commitment and social contract between two adults, if those adults have religious convictions behind that, fine. But I don't use someone's gold standard for everyone else.

My point is don't present straight marriage as some paragon of virtue that will be destroyed by gay marriage when everyone knows (or personally involved) multiple people who have been divorced or have had multiple marriages, or someone who got hitched only because the girl was knocked up.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

TheAccountant said:

I'm speaking of government officials and my own social media. Hell, I can go into any church and hear just about anything decried on any given Sunday. Just go into a Mormon church and they'll tell you the perils of caffeine.

Considering many comments by Probate Judges in the state as well as my Facebook feed has been inundated with comments about "gay marriage being against their religion" and I've never seen such comments or marriage licenses being denied on religious grounds of divorce and fornication, my point stands.

Click to expand...

Um, OK, I guess when I think of religious angst, my first thought is not hearing it from a government official, and my second thought was not social media. But I see what you mean. And my name's not Hell.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

TheAccountant said:

No where in that comment have I argued that gays would divorce less than straights. Although that will be interesting data to analyze in a few years. At the base level I view marriage as nothing more than a commitment and social contract between two adults, if those adults have religious convictions behind that, fine. But I don't use someone's gold standard for everyone else.

My point is don't present straight marriage as some paragon of virtue that will be destroyed by gay marriage when everyone knows (or personally involved) multiple people who have been divorced or have had multiple marriages, or someone who got hitched only because the girl was knocked up.

Click to expand...

I know a divorced Catholic Priest, yeah you read that right

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

TheAccountant said:

The modern institution of marriage has been bastardized long before gays could marry. What with the divorce rate at nearly 50%, many people having multiple marriages, and shotgun weddings to make the girl "honest". It's funny you don't see the religious angst for many about that but I suppose that's a little inconvenient for most folks.

Click to expand...

Shotgun weddings aren't a modern development. They've been common since way before there were even shotguns. If anything, I'd guess they're less common in modern times.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

Catfish said:

Shotgun weddings aren't a modern development. They've been common since way before there were even shotguns. If anything, I'd guess they're less common in modern times.

Click to expand...

Should have included this at the end.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

mittman said:

People try to bait me into that all of the time. The way I see it God created us all different. We are all susceptible to very different temptations. I have my temptations (one of my big ones is addictive behavior) IMO being tempted not to be faithful to my wife is no different from temptation to have as Paul put it an unnatural relationship. This is no different from any other temptation to do something outside of what God intended.

As has been pointed out marriage has forever been defined differently by different societies. IMO God gave us the freedom to not follow him and do this, but there are consequences.

So as you requested I will try to further clarify my stance for you. History has proven that secular government does a lousy job regulating religious behavior. In fact I believe theocracies do too. While I prefer to live in a society that embraces what I see as God's plan, I understand that is not always going to be possible. I can only do what I think is right and try to be merciful, kind and loving doing it. However, if homosexuals think that by applying this term to a secular contract outlining how they will live together in some way legitimizes this, they are mistaken. If they think that by equating resistance to it with to slavery and Jim Crowe laws they can draw some empathy from those that suffer from real racial bigotry, again they are mistaken. In fact it is insulting and hurts their cause.

Click to expand...

so, to you its a choice and a "bad" one as it is against his rules.

Please understand that in a secular country, none of what you believe matters. It should matter to you of course, but it doesn't have to matter to me. There are millions of Catholics in this country that believe that eating meat on Friday is a sure path to hell, but prohibiting serving and eating meat on Friday would be illegal. There are millions of baptists that believe alcohol is a sure path to hell and we still have ridiculous laws on the books with dry counties and no Sunday liquor sales. Jehovahs wittnesses believe blood transfusions to be a sin, Mormons believe the same of caffeine, jews and muslims believe this about pork and have hallal and kosher legal guidelines that they must follow. None of this should be codified into secular law. As they say, you believe gay marriage to be a sin, don't get gay married. Your god says no to shellfish, don't eat it but don't try to legislate away my rights to eat what it want.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

Jon said:

You know there were married people and marriages pre-christ right? There were marriages pre-judiasm too. In fact there were marriages the pre-existed monotheism. Marriage existed before modern religions so why do you think you get to define it?

You want to ask historians how marriage was defined and go back to that? Marriage has had many definitions over the years. For centuries marriages were arranged, in many cultures even today they still are. I have an Indian friend (dot not feather) that is in a very happy arranged marriage right now in 2015 and lives a few miles from me. This idea that we are redefining marriage is ludicrous, we've been redefining it for centuries. Did your father in law (assuming you are married, and a man) provide you a dowry? Did your parents pick your bride? Would you have stoned her to death if she were not a virgin? These are all part and parcel of the "traditional" Christian marriage. We don't do these things anymore because we've redefined marriage. In the last century alone we've seen a dramatic shift to love based marriages. Go back to the early 1900's and people were still marrying off their daughters against their will to create business alliances, join fortunes, save fortunes, create lineages and ensure inheritance rights. It's easy to see, go back and read 18th Century literature, Jane Austen would do nicely, and come back and tell me that what you, your parents and your friends have has the same definition. Please. My wife is far to into that crap, whining about wanting Mr Darcy while the family has already promised her to some other idiot. This was marriage, in our culture, not that long ago. I seriously doubt this is your, or anyone else on tidefans personal marriage experience.

Click to expand...

Lots of examples of dysfunction instead of function.

You are in fact attempting to redefine marriage in THIS society, and IMO the movement is not trying to get what you claim to want. If you want to be able to live together and be left alone, you do not need a contract to do that. In fact this is all about legitimacy and not just in a secular sense. The next step (and there are already cases) are lawsuits forcing congregations and chapels to perform gay ceremonies.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

It seems like this whole dustup is mostly over semantics. Most people seem to be OK with civil unions which would confer all the legal aspects of 'marriage' for same sex unions. Its only when the term marriage is thrown in there that people start taking sides. It seems more about proving ones point (on both sides) rather than making real change.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

BamainBoston said:

The problem with your argument is that you are asking the government to endorse a particular relationship. That's what state-sanctioned marriage does. This is not just saying we should leave people alone. We are asking the government to act.

Click to expand...

yeah, because as you've clearly pointed out our Government has created this system of granting benefits to the married. I posted in this (or the other cant recall) marriage thread a story of a Gay man who was denied the right to even b with his husband as he lay dying. I personally know a lesbian woman who has exactly zero rights to see the children she helped raise from birth with a previous partner who turned evil and left. They decided to have kids, got a donor, had two and then woman number 2 left after a few years. This kind of thing, sadly happens all the time in Hetero marriages too, the difference is that because they were in GA my friend has no right to see her own kids because she was never legally married and the children are not hers biologically. The law doesn't understand or care that she spent every day caring for and raising these kids for almost 7 years. When her girlfriend left and decided to be a "B" about it she lost all rights to the kids. Hasn't seen them in years and it clearly has devastated her. She and this woman lived together as a couple for a decade, that should suit common law as it would a man and a woman, but it doesn't. The law needs to address these realities. That means Government sanction.

You want to make a case for Government out of unions all together, the end of tax breaks and other benefits? I'm with you and for it. But there are other issues to address, inheritance, survivor ship rights, hospital visitation and so many more. My friend should has less rights to see her kids than some jerk who knocks someone up in a one night stand and disapeers for a decade and that is fundamentally screwed up

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

Jon said:

so, to you its a choice and a "bad" one as it is against his rules.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is against the rule book I follow. I have no problem with someone saying that the were born this way with these tendencies. It is true. However, I believe everything we do in our life is a choice. I make equally bad choices all the time. I am not perfect either.

Jon said:

Please understand that in a secular country, none of what you believe matters. It should matter to you of course, but it doesn't have to matter to me.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, but there is a such thing as a societal norms. If there were not it wouldn't be a society at all. If we are to live together in the same society there has to be agreed upon acceptable behavior. If there is not agreement there is going to be friction, and it will matter to both of us.

Jon said:

There are millions of Catholics in this country that believe that eating meat on Friday is a sure path to hell, but prohibiting serving and eating meat on Friday would be illegal. There are millions of baptists that believe alcohol is a sure path to hell and we still have ridiculous laws on the books with dry counties and no Sunday liquor sales. Jehovahs wittnesses believe blood transfusions to be a sin, Mormons believe the same of caffeine, jews and muslims believe this about pork and have hallal and kosher legal guidelines that they must follow. None of this should be codified into secular law. As they say, you believe gay marriage to be a sin, don't get gay married. Your god says no to shellfish, don't eat it but don't try to legislate away my rights to eat what it want.

Click to expand...

Examples of those norms, most of which I disagree with in some way. I have no problem with them living that way, arguing their point and attempting to have a society that is formed around their beliefs as long as I am given the same latitude, and I am willing to give you the same latitude.

I will give you an example from something you termed ridiculous. I said earlier that one of my big problems is with dependency. It is specifically alcohol. One of the reasons I live where I live is the fact that I was trying to go to a place that I wouldn't have as many problems with it anymore. I moved to a dry county specifically because it was one. I didn't have to fight that fight every time I went into a gas station, or out for dinner with someone shoving a bottle of wine in my face. Unfortunately there was a movement not more than a few years later. There were repeated votes to allow alcohol sales (the fact that it was voted down multiple times didn't stop them). Now I have to deal with it every day again. I lost that fight, and have to deal with it because the societal norm changed. I am no longer as comfortable in that society, and painfully so. Every day I feel like I need to get a drink and that I am denying a part of me that will not be satisfied if I do not. Sometimes it is excruciating.

This is what I see as happening, but the difference is that we are being forced to accept it as right, and in fact perform the ceremonies.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

Bamaro said:

It seems like this whole dustup is mostly over semantics. Most people seem to be OK with civil unions which would confer all the legal aspects of 'marriage' for same sex unions. Its only when the term marriage is thrown in there that people start taking sides. It seems more about proving ones point (on both sides) rather than making real change.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think mitt is more on point. It's about legitimacy and affirmation, not just tolerance.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

Jon said:

yeah, because as you've clearly pointed out our Government has created this system of granting benefits to the married. I posted in this (or the other cant recall) marriage thread a story of a Gay man who was denied the right to even b with his husband as he lay dying. I personally know a lesbian woman who has exactly zero rights to see the children she helped raise from birth with a previous partner who turned evil and left. They decided to have kids, got a donor, had two and then woman number 2 left after a few years. This kind of thing, sadly happens all the time in Hetero marriages too, the difference is that because they were in GA my friend has no right to see her own kids because she was never legally married and the children are not hers biologically. The law doesn't understand or care that she spent every day caring for and raising these kids for almost 7 years. When her girlfriend left and decided to be a "B" about it she lost all rights to the kids. Hasn't seen them in years and it clearly has devastated her. She and this woman lived together as a couple for a decade, that should suit common law as it would a man and a woman, but it doesn't. The law needs to address these realities. That means Government sanction.

You want to make a case for Government out of unions all together, the end of tax breaks and other benefits? I'm with you and for it. But there are other issues to address, inheritance, survivor ship rights, hospital visitation and so many more. My friend should has less rights to see her kids than some jerk who knocks someone up in a one night stand and disapeers for a decade and that is fundamentally screwed up

Click to expand...

In a purely secular sense I agree with this completely.

Re: Supreme Court Denie's AL Request for Stay Re: Gay Marriage

mittman said:

Yes, it is against the rule book I follow. I have no problem with someone saying that the were born this way with these tendencies. It is true. However, I believe everything we do in our life is a choice. I make equally bad choices all the time. I am not perfect either.



I agree to an extent, but there is a such thing as a societal norms. If there were not it wouldn't be a society at all. If we are to live together in the same society there has to be agreed upon acceptable behavior. If there is not agreement there is going to be friction, and it will matter to both of us.



Examples of those norms, most of which I disagree with in some way. I have no problem with them living that way, arguing their point and attempting to have a society that is formed around their beliefs as long as I am given the same latitude, and I am willing to give you the same latitude.

I will give you an example from something you termed ridiculous. I said earlier that one of my big problems is with dependency. It is specifically alcohol. One of the reasons I live where I live is the fact that I was trying to go to a place that I wouldn't have as many problems with it anymore. I moved to a dry county specifically because it was one. I didn't have to fight that fight every time I went into a gas station, or out for dinner with someone shoving a bottle of wine in my face. Unfortunately there was a movement not more than a few years later. There were repeated votes to allow alcohol sales (the fact that it was voted down multiple times didn't stop them). Now I have to deal with it every day again. I lost that fight, and have to deal with it because the societal norm changed. I am no longer as comfortable in that society.

This is what I see as happening, but the difference is that we are being forced to accept it as right, and in fact perform the ceremonies.

Click to expand...

first and foremost I am truly sorry for your issues with dependency. I have issues with eating too many of the wrong types of food, but I don't want to ban them for others. For me they cause real health issues. Others can live on fried chicken, biscuits and beer, wish I could.

Outside of that the whole societal norms issue is garbage.

Societal norms in this country we've correctly (IMO of course) done away with

- owning humans
- breeding our owned humans to suit our needs
- acceptability of whipping and other torture of our owned humans
- the right to buy and sell humans
- White men as the only people with any rights
- white men as the only who can own property
- Unacceptability of Divorce (still an issue for many in 2015 but there are very few of us that would argue today that a woman must stay in an abusive relationship as happened in the past to a much greater extent)
- Beating your Children, not spanking beating, see Adrian Peterson as an example of what was and now thankfully isn't a societal norm
- Beating your Spouse (the honeymooners joked about as a norm in the early days of TV that would be shocking today)


I could go on and on but you get the point. Oh and by the way lots of Christians fought on both sides of many of the issues above and used scriptures to defend all of them (and fight against them, many Christians were abolitionists too)

lastly, I am in agreement with you on Preforming the ceremonies, but only for religious institutions if the church or a clergy member doesn't want to perform gay marriages I am completely fine with that. But, if a Government official, like a judge or justice of the peace performs marriages as a part of his/her job then they should be required to for any two consenting adults that ask