As Sareitha points out, I am firmly of the opinion that the State should provide for the marriage of all consenting adults of all orientations.
I am also firmly of the opinion that the State should keep its legislation out of private institutions - homes, churches, clubs, etc - unless what is happening there causes harm to people or their property.
My church will not marry (perform the ceremony for) people who are not members of the church. My church will not marry a Christian to a non-Christian (my husband is an athiest; we got married in the state church of England but I go to a Free Church of Scotland congregation). And my church will not perform weddings for homosexuals. All of those things are based on our reading of the Bible.
BUT: let me reiterate: I believe the State has a duty to provide marriage for all consenting adults of all orientations. Just the State should not force churches to perform those marriages which do not agree with their doctrine.
Is that clear enough for you?
I am also firmly of the opinion that the State should keep its legislation out of private institutions - homes, churches, clubs, etc - unless what is happening there causes harm to people or their property.
My church will not marry (perform the ceremony for) people who are not members of the church. My church will not marry a Christian to a non-Christian (my husband is an athiest; we got married in the state church of England but I go to a Free Church of Scotland congregation). And my church will not perform weddings for homosexuals. All of those things are based on our reading of the Bible.
BUT: let me reiterate: I believe the State has a duty to provide marriage for all consenting adults of all orientations. Just the State should not force churches to perform those marriages which do not agree with their doctrine.
Is that clear enough for you?
Maybe it's because I'm not clear enough. I believe that IN ADDITION to having a secular, state oriented marriage for all consenting adults, private institutions like churches ought not be allowed to ban gay marriage.
It seems like you're not from the US so my points may not apply, but this post was directed at America. There are clear legal grounds for government interfering with private institutions. If there weren't, we'd still have segregation.
My point is that banning gay marriage on a religious level amounts to discrimination because gay marriage does not alter the essence of a religion.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that private institutions are allowed to discriminate on who they allow to be members. The case was about the Boy Scouts kicking out a gay man. The court decided that as a private institution, they have a right based on the right to freedom of association to decide with whom they will associate. They don't want to associate with queer folks, so they don't have to do so.
The same obviously applies to churches.
I don't know the circumstances of that case nor do I know the background. I've heard a lot of supreme court cases misinterpreted on this site and others, so if you don't mind I'd like you to give me the name of that case.
Also, Brown v. Board of Education pretty clearly stated that discrimination of certain brands was not permitted.
Whether or not discrimination is permitted on this level in churches is at question. I believe it is not because gay marriage does nothing to alter the essence of christianity.
Look at the link below. It clearly lays out the fact that the Boy Scout's first amendment right to freedom of association trumped the State's decision to force them to accept an openly homosexual troop leader.
Brown v. BoE limited the discrimination public entities could engage in and did away with the doctrine of separate but equal. It did not have an effect on private entities. Public schools were desegregated. Public pools were desegregated. Public busses and trains had their seats integrated.
Private companies, truly private companies that did not accept any public money, could continue to do as they pleased. And they did.
Whatever your beliefs on the essence of christianity, they don't matter. Each church is a private organization that is free to define themselves. If they accept public money for something, to provide a service, then they must follow public policies in doing so, but as for their membership and the rights and rituals they perform within themselves, the government has no business telling them what to do.
Let's take another example. It is known that smoking cigarettes leads to lung, and other cancers. Many state and local governments have therefore banned smoking tobacco products in public areas for the public's safety. They have not banned smoking in private clubs, where members know that smoking is allowed. They have not banned smoking in private homes, where the owner/renter/individual makes the choice.
Do you see the parallel?
It's also illegal to refuse to seat someone at a restaurant because they're black. It's illegal to only hire men (unless the job requires a man). It's illegal to only accept white kids into a college.
While brown v board did pertain to public facilities. The Civil Rights Act pertained to much more.
My mistake for using Brown v. Board as an example.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Gay Marriage
- 12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
2043 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1371 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1358 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1396 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1324 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1250 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1327 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1276 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1276 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1246 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1246 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
634 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1380 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1380 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1235 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1235 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1297 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1297 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1124 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1124 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1383 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1291 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1344 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1360 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1360 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1196 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1196 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1146 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1251 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1284 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1172 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1280 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1242 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1189 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1300 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1245 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1245 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1201 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1218 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1112 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1233 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1208 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1308 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1204 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
1290 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
1195 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1154 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1355 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
- 12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
1158 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1304 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
607 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1151 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1222 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1314 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1136 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1245 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1310 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1261 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
610 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1052 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
610 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1052 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
575 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1093 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1124 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1331 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1153 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
- 12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
1204 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
- 12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
1208 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
- 12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
1188 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1250 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1083 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1111 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1134 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1145 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
- 12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
1257 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1204 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1294 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1145 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
672 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
652 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
652 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1225 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1186 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1074 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1585 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1408 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1408 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
529 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
1018 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1219 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1199 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1332 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1220 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1152 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1186 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1116 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1204 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1021 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1188 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1333 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
976 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1294 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1237 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1160 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1186 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1229 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
668 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
631 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1397 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1343 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1263 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1093 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1267 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
617 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
638 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1243 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1498 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1139 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1332 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
- 12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
1192 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1118 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1211 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1194 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1187 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1187 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1402 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1234 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1179 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1189 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1080 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1185 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1292 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
667 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1310 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1209 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
1010 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
512 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1107 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1262 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*