If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

(06-26-2015 10:35 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

This part is pure unadultered bull****. The focus is to prevent churches from being required to marry people against their religions.

Quote:Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

You are confusing two issues. Most people support civil unions. 62% of the population does not support gay marriage.

(06-26-2015 10:35 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

(06-26-2015 01:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:35 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

This part is pure unadultered bull****. The focus is to prevent churches from being required to marry people against their religions.

Quote:Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

You are confusing two issues. Most people support civil unions. 62% of the population does not support gay marriage.

So, the focus is to say: "We don't like this, so no one can do it"?

(06-26-2015 02:04 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:35 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

This part is pure unadultered bull****. The focus is to prevent churches from being required to marry people against their religions.

Quote:Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

You are confusing two issues. Most people support civil unions. 62% of the population does not support gay marriage.

So, the focus is to say: "We don't like this, so no one can do it"?

The focus is to say "We don't believe in it. So WE won't do it." Some folks out there actually BELIEVE in something beyond themselves, and that they will one day have to answer for the things they did in life. Glenn Beck put it perfectly yesterday... we're citizens of a higher kingdom first and foremost. We answer to God first, man second. We will GLADLY suffer any Earthly consequences that man decides to throw our way, because in the end, they don't matter. When they eventually come for the Christians, I will stand up to be counted, proudly.

Churches / Temples / Mosques / etc already have the freedom to decide who they marry. None of that changes.

The idea of taking government out of marriage entirely and leaving it up to the individual couples to decide when/how they are married is a different discussion. I'm all for it.

Want to be married in a traditional religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a modern religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a secular ceremony? Have at it.
Want to just declare yourself married? It's up to you.

(06-26-2015 02:12 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Churches / Temples / Mosques / etc already have the freedom to decide who they marry. None of that changes.

The idea of taking government out of marriage entirely and leaving it up to the individual couples to decide when/how they are married is a different discussion. I'm all for it.

Want to be married in a traditional religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a modern religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a secular ceremony? Have at it.
Want to just declare yourself married? It's up to you.

For now. What happens when a couple claims discrimination? When a church says they won't provide a marriage service to a homosexual couple? Will they be forced to after being sued?

#gayweddingcake

(06-26-2015 10:35 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

Applying logic to the issue? Interesting.

Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

(06-26-2015 02:25 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:12 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Churches / Temples / Mosques / etc already have the freedom to decide who they marry. None of that changes.

The idea of taking government out of marriage entirely and leaving it up to the individual couples to decide when/how they are married is a different discussion. I'm all for it.

Want to be married in a traditional religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a modern religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a secular ceremony? Have at it.
Want to just declare yourself married? It's up to you.

For now. What happens when a couple claims discrimination? When a church says they won't provide a marriage service to a homosexual couple? Will they be forced to after being sued?

#gayweddingcake

A non-profit organization can do what it wish. Non-profits do not have a right to special treatment by the state, though.

Private, commercial entities are subject to non-discrimination laws, to the extent they exist.

From Roberts dissent:

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

That part is troubling.

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

There's no standing to sue a church for not performing a marriage.

There is standing to sue a recipient of government aid for discrimination in provision of services or in employment or benefits

There is standing to sue a recipient of taxpayer subsidies for discrimination.

It doesn't mean that those suits will be successful, at least initially.

But most people, myself included, support the principle established in Dale v Boy Scouts, in which a private entity, that doesn't receive taxpayer benefits, has the right to do as it pleases.

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

That part is troubling.

Why should the Country Club or a private church receive tax abatements? How does society benefit from a taxfree Lear Jet for Creflo Dollar? Or taxfree treatment for a 25 million dollar mansion for Joel Osteen? Or taxfree treatment of a Commercial shopping center owned by Second Baptist Church? Or free property taxes on a 100 million dollar property held by the Houston Polo Club?

Want a private club or a private church? Fine. But don't ask the taxpayers to help you purchase or maintain it.

Quote:When a church says they won't provide a marriage service to a homosexual couple? Will they be forced to after being sued?

Here we go again. For the record there are plenty of churches who won't marry someone because they either are not members of that church, have been divorced before, etc, etc. Am I correct in assuming lawsuits have been dismissed in those cases and new cases will most likely abide by those past judicial decisions? Besides, in actuality, how many couples gay or straight, would want to have one of the most important days of their lives in a church or presided by someone who despises them? Let's get real.

On a related note, there are several Christian denominations that accept gays as members, despite what Huckabee and his ilk believe.

(06-26-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

That part is troubling.

Why should the Country Club or a private church receive tax abatements? How does society benefit from a taxfree Lear Jet for Creflo Dollar? Or taxfree treatment for a 25 million dollar mansion for Joel Osteen? Or taxfree treatment of Commercial shopping center owned by Second Baptist Church? Or free property taxes on a 100 million dollar property held by the Houston Polo Club?

Want a private club or a private church? Fine. But don't ask the taxpayers to help you purchase or maintain it.

Don't use Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen to paint all religious institutions. These examples only represent a small portion of religious institutions. Budgets are tight among churches since 2008, mine included.

(06-26-2015 02:25 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:12 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Churches / Temples / Mosques / etc already have the freedom to decide who they marry. None of that changes.

The idea of taking government out of marriage entirely and leaving it up to the individual couples to decide when/how they are married is a different discussion. I'm all for it.

Want to be married in a traditional religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a modern religious ceremony? Have at it.
Want to be married in a secular ceremony? Have at it.
Want to just declare yourself married? It's up to you.

For now. What happens when a couple claims discrimination? When a church says they won't provide a marriage service to a homosexual couple? Will they be forced to after being sued?

#gayweddingcake

Today's ruling upheld the right of churches to discriminate in that manner. Gays did not win that right constitutionally. I agree however...Some radical queers will probably take a shot at this. Hopefully that will be shot down quickly.

(06-26-2015 02:46 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

That part is troubling.

Why should the Country Club or a private church receive tax abatements? How does society benefit from a taxfree Lear Jet for Creflo Dollar? Or taxfree treatment for a 25 million dollar mansion for Joel Osteen? Or taxfree treatment of Commercial shopping center owned by Second Baptist Church? Or free property taxes on a 100 million dollar property held by the Houston Polo Club?

Want a private club or a private church? Fine. But don't ask the taxpayers to help you purchase or maintain it.

Don't use Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen to paint all religious institutions. Budgets are tight among churches since 2008, mine included.

Then lets start by putting limits on parsonage exceptions to preacher property taxes.

(06-26-2015 02:42 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  

Quote:When a church says they won't provide a marriage service to a homosexual couple? Will they be forced to after being sued?

Here we go again. For the record there are plenty of churches who won't marry someone because they either are not members of that church, have been divorced before, etc, etc. Am I correct in assuming lawsuits have been dismissed in those cases and new cases will most likely abide by those past judicial decisions? Besides, in actuality, how many couples gay or straight, would want to have one of the most important days of their lives in a church or presided by someone who despises them? Let's get real.

On a related note, there are several Christian denominations that accept gays as members, despite what Huckabee and his ilk believe.

Of course there are. We have a gay couple in our church. No one seems to give a damn really. In fact...they are some of the most involved members in the congregation.

Don't know of any churches that turn away sinners. Kind of goes against their business model.

(06-26-2015 02:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:46 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

That part is troubling.

Why should the Country Club or a private church receive tax abatements? How does society benefit from a taxfree Lear Jet for Creflo Dollar? Or taxfree treatment for a 25 million dollar mansion for Joel Osteen? Or taxfree treatment of Commercial shopping center owned by Second Baptist Church? Or free property taxes on a 100 million dollar property held by the Houston Polo Club?

Want a private club or a private church? Fine. But don't ask the taxpayers to help you purchase or maintain it.

Don't use Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen to paint all religious institutions. Budgets are tight among churches since 2008, mine included.

Then lets start by putting limits on parsonage exceptions to preacher property taxes.

Not sure where to begin on that. I have zero experience with lavish parsonages or outrages purchases (airplanes). Where do you draw the line though?

Preacher property taxes?

Look, I'm opposed to the lavish actions exhibited by those mentioned previously, but they represent such a small # of actual churches.