Supreme Court To Decide Gay Marriage

[WinePusher]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

[nursebenjamin]

... what if the park they want to marry in belongs completely to a church that provides it (either for free or for a small fee) to members of their church for special events, and that church DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE. Suppose one, or both prospective spouses was born into/baptized into that church and so qualifies under the 'members' policy.

Shoot, suppose they don't.

Does that church have the right to tell them they can't have their wedding on church property, or take advantage of other church services for that wedding that the church supplies heterosexual weddings?


The answer is......probably not. The church will have to allow them to use the park, and thus be publicly forced to appear as if it supports the whole idea.

This is complete crap! There is not a chance in hell that churches will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or assist with gay weddings. This is just a scare tactic that conservative pundits use to frighten stupid voters. The US has a deep-rooted constitutional division between church and state and a deep-rooted constitutional protection of freedom of religion. No church in the US will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or otherwise assist with a gay marriage.

Now, I’m sure that you’ll go on and on about the pavilion in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. But the truth is, the (Methodist) community of Ocean Grove operated the pavilion as a public facility. The community received public money to maintain and operate the pavilion, and a $500,000 annual property tax exemption for allowing public access.

Because the pavilion was a public area, and because the state of New Jersey does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was wrong to refuse a same-sex couple access to the pavilion for their wedding ceremony.

The property in question (though not the boardwalk or beachfront) is now designated as a religious area by Ocean Grove. End of story. The pavilion and same-sex weddings will never be an issue again.

[nursebenjamin]

Suppose Fred and Joe decide that they want to join a non-profit (religious) organization and be 'couple' missionaries, working with, oh, I dunno, south american farmers teaching them how to make their farms productive and eco-friendly (no burning of the rain forest sort of thing). Suppose that, even though they are qualified up the whazoo, have all the right intentions, and would do the organization great good, the organization turns 'em down because they aren't married according to the doctrines of the church behind the organization. Can Fred and Joe SUE? Yep.

If you are speaking of an event that actually happened, then I’m sure that you are leaving out a few important details. FYI, anyone can sue anyone for anything. FYI, not all non-profits are religious organizations.

Suppose Fred and Joe want to go to school, and the best program for them is at BYU, a tier one school. Suppose that they get scholarships and everything, but...ooops, the church won't let them live in 'married housing.' Can they, WILL they, sue?

Probably.

BYU is a religious university. If the federal government prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the government was compelled to eradicate sexual orientation discrimination, the most the government could do is revoke BYU's tax exempt status.[4]

Suppose a deeply religious photographer who only advertises services for WEDDINGS, refuses to shoot a 'Commitment ceremony' (which even in the eyes of the state was not a wedding, since the state does not recognize same sex marriage) and she refuses to do so saying that she does not 'do' same sex weddings, can they sue? Even though she doesn't ADVERTISE services for same sex commitment ceremonies and making her shoot one is, to her, like forcing her to photograph a porno shoot? Well, yeah, and in a couple of these hypothetical situations, not only CAN they sue, someone DID.....and won. Whether you approve of the result or not, you cannot deny that it is a clear example of interfering with freedom of religion.

You are referring to a specific event and left out some important details. This occurred in New Mexico, and New Mexico prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation “in matters of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and union membership.� A photo studio is a place of “public accommodation�, therefore the photographer can not legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? If the photographer didn’t like black people, would you be ok with her having one entrance for white people, and a separate entrance for black people?

FYI, Pornography is not protected from discrimination in New Mexico.

[WinePusher]

The homosexual Judge in San Francisco that overturned Prop 8 did it because he was a homosexual, not because he was trying to objectively interpret the law.

How do you know this?

1) I have common sense.
2) The circumstancial evidence leads to the conclusion that this Judge decided in favor of gay marriage because he himself was gay. The fact that he was gay is a big factor because it means that he had a personal stake in the outcome of the case. And, the fact that his decision was a reversal of the California Supreme Courts decision that upheld Prop 8 shows that his decision wasn't based on legal reasoning.

Having a homosexual Judge decide a case that dealt with homosexuality was a disgrace to our judicial system.

Would having a female judge hear a case on workplace discrimination also be a disgrace?

No, but having a black Judge who benefited from affirmative action hear an affirmative action case would be. Or having a Judge who previously argued in favor of Obamacare hear a case regarding the validity of Obamacare (Elena Kagan) would also be a disgrace. Just having having an openly gay Judge decide a case about gay marriage.

He had a stake in the outcome of the case, and that alone should have disqualified him from presiding over it.

Some would have us believe that same-sex marriage somehow harms married heterosexuals. Wouldn’t then, a heterosexual justice also have a stake in the outcome of the case? Who should have presided over the case? A monkey?

This is ridiculous. If the Judge had been an anti-gay marriage activist you would be feeling the same way I am.

The whole reason why California had Prop 8 was in reaction to the initial overreach of the California Supreme Court, which had invalidated the will of the people. If people want gay marriage, the appropriate way to acheive it in a democracy is to persuade other people and get a law passed through the legislature or through a ballot initiative. Having a court make a law, as it did by overturning Prop 22 (the anti gay marriage bill in 2000) and Prop 8 spits in the face of our democratic principles. Instead of filing appeals and law suits, the people who want gay marriage should be collecting signatures and trying to get a Proposition passed the same way the anti gay marriage people did.

We do not live in a democracy; the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. If a law violates a clause of the Constitution, then why should collecting a bunch of signatures be necessary? As judge Walker stated, “When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. .... Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view.�

Ok, please show what rights were being denied to gay people other than a particular title. The only thing gay people were being denied was being referred to as 'married.' No one said that they couldn't live together, no one said they couldn't enjoy all the benefits associated with marriage. The only thing they couldn't have the word 'marriage.' And yea, I personally think that they should be allowed to get 'married' and be recognized as a 'married couple.' But if you were being honest with yourself you'd realize that gay people are not being denied any civil or legal right. They are not disenfrancised or anything of the sort.

If married gay couples were able to enjoy all the benefits associated with being married, then there would be no debate. They can not[3], hence the debate goes on.

I'm not familiar with this, but my basic position is that they should allowed to get married and enjoy all the benefits assocaited with being married. I've already stated that my position would be to get the government out of marriage which would solve the entire problem.

… the problem that dianaiad keeps bringing up about the government infringing upon the freedom of churches (which is a real problem because if the government says marriage is to include homosexuals, then churches would be legally obligated to marry homosexuals even if they disagree with it-which violates their freedom of association) disappers.

This is absolutely not true. You guys keep confusing civil marriage (ie. a marriage certificate) with religious marriage. California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are not relevant to religious traditions of marriage. These laws deal with how state and federal governments recognize same-sex marriage.

Religious marriage is the same thing as civil marriage. If you get married in a church you are also getting married in the eyes of the state. If the government says that marriage is between one man and one woman that means that it would be illegal for a church that supports gay marriage to perform gay marriages. In the same way, if the government says that marriage is open to gay couples then it would be illegal for a church to discriminate and exclude a gay couple from getting married in their church.

We are not debating marriage as recognized by the various churches, temples, synagogues, etc. We are debating marriage as recognized by state and the federal governments. Specifically, should couples receive "equal protection under the laws"? Should some couples (heterosexuals) benefit from all the rights and privileges of a civil marriage while other couples (homosexuals) are stuck with a "skim milk" version of marriage?

All religious marriages are civil marriages, but not all civil marriages are religious marriages, so your argument makes no sense. My argument has been that we should abolish the concept of a civil marriage. A marriage is basically a contract between two people, and contracts are negotiated within the private sector without any government interference. The only time the government gets involved is if this contract is violated. What we have right now is that government defining the terms of this contract, when in fact the terms of conditions should be determined by the parties involved, which is why I have repeatedly said that the government shouldn't be invovled in marriage.

[East of Eden]

... what if the park they want to marry in belongs completely to a church that provides it (either for free or for a small fee) to members of their church for special events, and that church DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE. Suppose one, or both prospective spouses was born into/baptized into that church and so qualifies under the 'members' policy.

Shoot, suppose they don't.

Does that church have the right to tell them they can't have their wedding on church property, or take advantage of other church services for that wedding that the church supplies heterosexual weddings?


The answer is......probably not. The church will have to allow them to use the park, and thus be publicly forced to appear as if it supports the whole idea.

This is complete crap! There is not a chance in hell that churches will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or assist with gay weddings. This is just a scare tactic that conservative pundits use to frighten stupid voters. The US has a deep-rooted constitutional division between church and state and a deep-rooted constitutional protection of freedom of religion. No church in the US will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or otherwise assist with a gay marriage.

A para-church organization, a Catholic adoption agency in IL, was forced out of business for the 'offense' of believing a child should have a mother and father. It is an outrage that they had to do this because of a few percent of the population that could have been served elsewhere. What radical secularists are trying to do is ghettoize Christians, saying you can worship for an hour on Sunday but don't bother living out your faith the rest of the week.

The photographer case here in Albuquerque was no different than forcing a black owned restaurant to host a KKK function, or a Jewish photographer to record a Nazi Party event. Would their refusal be 'discrimination'?

Just curious, which parent do you think children can do without, their mother or their father?

[East of Eden]

The homosexual Judge in San Francisco that overturned Prop 8 did it because he was a homosexual, not because he was trying to objectively interpret the law. Having a homosexual Judge decide a case that dealt with homosexuality was a disgrace to our judicial system. He had a stake in the outcome of the case, and that alone should have disqualified him from presiding over it.

Is there anything in the Judge's ruling that backs up your charge?

It would be kind of like having a judge who was a former NRA board member decide an important gun case.

[dianaiad]

... what if the park they want to marry in belongs completely to a church that provides it (either for free or for a small fee) to members of their church for special events, and that church DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE. Suppose one, or both prospective spouses was born into/baptized into that church and so qualifies under the 'members' policy.

Shoot, suppose they don't.

Does that church have the right to tell them they can't have their wedding on church property, or take advantage of other church services for that wedding that the church supplies heterosexual weddings?


The answer is......probably not. The church will have to allow them to use the park, and thus be publicly forced to appear as if it supports the whole idea.

This is complete crap! There is not a chance in hell that churches will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or assist with gay weddings.

they already are, nursebenjamin. Where have you been? This has been the point of several lawsuits already. Lawsuits that the churches did NOT win. Indeed, it looks like the only thing they don't have to supply is the officiator.

This is just a scare tactic that conservative pundits use to frighten stupid voters. The US has a deep-rooted constitutional division between church and state and a deep-rooted constitutional protection of freedom of religion. No church in the US will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or otherwise assist with a gay marriage.

that is false to fact. I repeat. There have already been lawsuits in which deeply religious business owners (who, by law, are perfectly free to refuse to supply goods and services that are against their religion in any OTHER way...like stores which refuse to sell alcoholic beverages or tobacco products, or kosher deli's which refuse to sell pork products, or anybody who refuses to host/provide services for nudist events [even where nudity is legal] or 'Christening" parties where the business is owned by someone who is against the religious nature of the event) have been sued for refusing to provide a venue or services to a gay wedding. Or even a 'commitment ceremony' which the state itself said was not a wedding.

So don't tell me that "No church in the US will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or otherwise assist with a gay marriage." THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN! Just as importantly, in terms of the first amendment, MEMBERS of a belief system have been told that they cannot, according to the law, practice their beliefs.

Now, I’m sure that you’ll go on and on about the pavilion in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. But the truth is, the (Methodist) community of Ocean Grove operated the pavilion as a public facility. The community received public money to maintain and operate the pavilion, and a $500,000 annual property tax exemption for allowing public access.

Excuse me, but it's not QUITE public access if the public has to apply for permission to go there, and if the church has any rights at all regarding who does what on the property, is it? BTW, you are quoting the excuse used to punish/fine the church, which is begging the question. The point is, that judgment was WRONG. A church does not lose all responsibility for its property when it allows 'the public' on it; that wasn't an easement they gave the government, where they have no control over what went on there; forcing them to host that gay wedding is ESTABLISHING a religion, and PROHIBITING the free expression thereof of the church itself, by forcing it to use property it owns for an event inimical to its doctrines. It was a lousy decision.

Because the pavilion was a public area, and because the state of New Jersey does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was wrong to refuse a same-sex couple access to the pavilion for their wedding ceremony.

The property in question (though not the boardwalk or beachfront) is now designated as a religious area by Ocean Grove. End of story. The pavilion and same-sex weddings will never be an issue again.

....and because in order to preserve their freedom of religion, nobody else can use the property for any other reason, either. Yeah, that's a win/win situation.

However, just so you know, that was not the only lawsuit I was thinking about. I'll admit that it was one of 'em.

I deeply disagree with the findings of that case.
Everybody, church AND public, lost.

[LiamOS]

It would be kind of like having a judge who was a former NRA board member decide an important gun case.

It would be more like having somebody who owns a gun hear such a case.

So far from my reading of this thread, I've seen no evidence to suggest that said judge was in any way biased. Being a homosexual does not automatically mean that you necessitate the right to marry.

[nursebenjamin]

... what if the park they want to marry in belongs completely to a church that provides it (either for free or for a small fee) to members of their church for special events, and that church DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE. Suppose one, or both prospective spouses was born into/baptized into that church and so qualifies under the 'members' policy.

Shoot, suppose they don't.

Does that church have the right to tell them they can't have their wedding on church property, or take advantage of other church services for that wedding that the church supplies heterosexual weddings?


The answer is......probably not. The church will have to allow them to use the park, and thus be publicly forced to appear as if it supports the whole idea.

This is complete crap! There is not a chance in hell that churches will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or assist with gay weddings.

they already are, nursebenjamin. Where have you been? This has been the point of several lawsuits already. Lawsuits that the churches did NOT win. Indeed, it looks like the only thing they don't have to supply is the officiator.

What cases? When? Where? Docket numbers? I’m not going to just take your word on this.

This is just a scare tactic that conservative pundits use to frighten stupid voters. The US has a deep-rooted constitutional division between church and state and a deep-rooted constitutional protection of freedom of religion. No church in the US will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or otherwise assist with a gay marriage.

that is false to fact. I repeat. There have already been lawsuits in which deeply religious business owners (who, by law, are perfectly free to refuse to supply goods and services that are against their religion in any OTHER way...like stores which refuse to sell alcoholic beverages or tobacco products, or kosher deli's which refuse to sell pork products, or anybody who refuses to host/provide services for nudist events [even where nudity is legal] or 'Christening" parties where the business is owned by someone who is against the religious nature of the event) have been sued for refusing to provide a venue or services to a gay wedding. Or even a 'commitment ceremony' which the state itself said was not a wedding.

So don't tell me that "No church in the US will ever be forced to conduct, recognize, or otherwise assist with a gay marriage." THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN! Just as importantly, in terms of the first amendment, MEMBERS of a belief system have been told that they cannot, according to the law, practice their beliefs.

One cannot discriminate against others on the basis on race, gender, color, or nation origin. In several states, it is also illegal to discriminate one the basis on sexual orientation. Alcohol, tobacco, pork, nudists are not protected classes. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

A business cannot provide a service to whites while refusing to provide that same service to black folks. A deli cannot feed Americans while refusing to sell sandwiches to Mexicans. A liquor stare cannot sell beer to men, while denying beer to women. Likewise, in a few states, it is illegal for a business to provide a service to heterosexuals while refusing that same service to homosexuals.

I understand where you are coming from. You believe that it is ok to do whatever one pleases, even harm others, as long as it’s done in the name of religion. But are you willing to acknowledge the other side of the argument – that in several states, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

Now, I’m sure that you’ll go on and on about the pavilion in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. But the truth is, the (Methodist) community of Ocean Grove operated the pavilion as a public facility. The community received public money to maintain and operate the pavilion, and a $500,000 annual property tax exemption for allowing public access.

Excuse me, but it's not QUITE public access if the public has to apply for permission to go there, and if the church has any rights at all regarding who does what on the property, is it? BTW, you are quoting the excuse used to punish/fine the church, which is begging the question. The point is, that judgment was WRONG. A church does not lose all responsibility for its property when it allows 'the public' on it; that wasn't an easement they gave the government, where they have no control over what went on there; forcing them to host that gay wedding is ESTABLISHING a religion, and PROHIBITING the free expression thereof of the church itself, by forcing it to use property it owns for an event inimical to its doctrines. It was a lousy decision.

1) Not true: A park might be public, but reserving the park’s pavilion might require a permit.
2) The pavilion isn’t (wasn’t) a church. It was ocean front property own by a non-incorporated community and maintained by state tax dollars. In exchange for those state tax dollars, the community agreed to allow the public access to the pavilion. Since New Jersey doesn't allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it was illegal for the community to allow heterosexual marriages, but refuse homosexual marriages. Again, are you willing to acknowledge that in several states, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 76:

I find it impossible to present an argument against those who get to declare entire segments of the population as trying to do their plotting against religious zealots, but I can't ask if it ain't one of 'em who ain't suffering from the evil, what with that whole evil deal being pretty much a religious deal.

Alas, asking questions is far more the crime than accusing folks of all manner of nefarity.

heh.....the last time I heard that sort of thing, my seven year old was hiding his brother's broken Tonka truck behind his back and going 'who, ME?
...

Ah yes, imply one is being childish 'cause they disagree.

I have found Miss dianaiad, that when it comes to you, you have the right to disparage any and all who debate you, but woe be upon those who dare present you a question.

Based on this information, we must now consider that it is perfectly rational to conclude that every dang one of them homosexuals wanna bust in every door, of every church in the land, and that they'd then forcibly require every Christian to hop up and sing them a big gay happy song.


I 'pologize for not having sooner realized it.

The proper term for the above hyperbole is called 'slippery slope.' It is, in fact, a fallacy. You are a master at it.

She says, as she states or implies that allowing homosexuals the rights others enjoy will somehow lead to her or her church being required to recognize their fellow human beings.

You have accused me of being all sorts of things; hateful, bigoted...and your position seems to be that because I do not want to be forced to change my religious...RELIGIOUS...practices and beliefs to conform with the opinions and wants of those who neither share, nor have any respect for, those beliefs, that somehow I am persecuting THEM.

Remember that time where I said...

...I sincerely wish to 'pologize for some of the rhetoric I've used regarding this issue. The mods have rightly got onto me about it here and there, and I contend Miss dianaiad has her some good reason to give me grief about it.

I have in the past 'pologized for some or all of it, and it seems as if my trying to do so does not heal the wounds my statements may have caused. I find myself incapable of presenting an apology fully reflective of the understanding that maybe my own rhetoric wrought it some discomfort to other folks, and I just don't know what else it is I need to do about all this, 'cept to 'pologize again.

And how you said:

Apology accepted, Joey...with all sincerity.

Good times.


My calling folks a bigot is out of line, regardless of what the dictionary has to allow, but it should be obvious to all by now that Miss dianaiad is allowed to, and will continue to assert that all who disagree are out to force her to somehow change her religious beliefs, or to force her to accept some of her fellow human beings. It ain't "marriage" we want for the gay folks, nope, it's we wanna force every Christian in the land to >insert whatever the accuser wishes<, just as much as they love them the getting married themself.


As I said, I see no need to continue to debate when I get in trouble for asking a question, while it is perfectly acceptable for Miss dianaiad to accuse me and my fellow pro-gay marriage advocates of some nefarious plot to force her to be proud of whatever it is she ain't proud of the gay folks getting married about.


With that I'll withdraw from the thread 'fore I get into even more trouble.

[dianaiad]

From Post 76:

I find it impossible to present an argument against those who get to declare entire segments of the population as trying to do their plotting against religious zealots, but I can't ask if it ain't one of 'em who ain't suffering from the evil, what with that whole evil deal being pretty much a religious deal.

Alas, asking questions is far more the crime than accusing folks of all manner of nefarity.

heh.....the last time I heard that sort of thing, my seven year old was hiding his brother's broken Tonka truck behind his back and going 'who, ME?
...

Ah yes, imply one is being childish 'cause they disagree.

Oh, no, Joey. Not BECAUSE you disagree. Never that.

I have found Miss dianaiad, that when it comes to you, you have the right to disparage any and all who debate you, but woe be upon those who dare present you a question.

Do I?

Find a quote, Joey, in which I have been personally insulting. I mean...really, personally, as in insultingly personally, insulting. Now, you'll probably be able to find one, but it's going to take you a good long time and I love providing wholesome hobbies.

I will admit that I am sometimes scathing about the position taken, but I do try hard to avoid getting personally insulting.

Based on this information, we must now consider that it is perfectly rational to conclude that every dang one of them homosexuals wanna bust in every door, of every church in the land, and that they'd then forcibly require every Christian to hop up and sing them a big gay happy song.

That's called a 'slippery slope,' and is considered to be a fallacy. Dial it back to what I actually said they want, Joey. Please.

I 'pologize for not having sooner realized it.

The proper term for the above hyperbole is called 'slippery slope.' It is, in fact, a fallacy. You are a master at it.

She says, as she states or implies that allowing homosexuals the rights others enjoy will somehow lead to her or her church being required to recognize their fellow human beings.

Except that you know better than that, Joey. I actually want them to have those rights. Very much. I want them to have both the civil rights and the right to marry EXACTLY the way heterosexuals have them. Exactly the same way and in the same manner.

What I don't want is for those who believe that marriage (the religious view of it) is the way THEY think it is to enforce that view on everybody else. Right now it happens that it's the gays who want to force THEIR view of what marriage is upon those who don't agree with them. Remember, in order for gays to get what they want, laws have to be passed; things have to CHANGE to suit them.

Well, I agree. Things have to change. "Marriage" in any religious sense, has to be taken away from the government. Marriage has been around a very long time; before any government. It was first religious...and the government barged into and recognized it; the government didn't INVENT it.

So OK, let's let the government do what it does; assign civil rights to whomever it wants to; gay, straight or confused. Whatever. However, religions have the absolute right to their own doctrines and view of what marriage is, and as soon as the government dictates to a religion what they MUST think about it, or do about it within the belief system, we have a destruction of the first amendment.

If there was ever a matter for the complete separation of church and state, this is that matter; get government completely out of marriage. Utterly and completely OUT of it.

If we do, here's what would happen:

Any church or business owner who provides services to celebrate civil unions would have to provide services to ALL civil unions. However, just as a Jewish catering service which handles ONLY Bar Mitsvahs is not then required to cater a Catholic confirmation party, a business which handles only heterosexual weddings will not have to handle homosexual weddings....and the photographer who advertises ONLY homosexual weddings (and never once refers to heterosexual ones) may turn down heterosexual weddings.

Everybody, in other words, WINS.

Everybody gets the rights.
Everybody gets married.
Everybody gets what they claim they want.

So ask yourself; who loses?

You have accused me of being all sorts of things; hateful, bigoted...and your position seems to be that because I do not want to be forced to change my religious...RELIGIOUS...practices and beliefs to conform with the opinions and wants of those who neither share, nor have any respect for, those beliefs, that somehow I am persecuting THEM.

Remember that time where I said...

...I sincerely wish to 'pologize for some of the rhetoric I've used regarding this issue. The mods have rightly got onto me about it here and there, and I contend Miss dianaiad has her some good reason to give me grief about it.

I have in the past 'pologized for some or all of it, and it seems as if my trying to do so does not heal the wounds my statements may have caused. I find myself incapable of presenting an apology fully reflective of the understanding that maybe my own rhetoric wrought it some discomfort to other folks, and I just don't know what else it is I need to do about all this, 'cept to 'pologize again.

And how you said:

Apology accepted, Joey...with all sincerity.

Good times.[/quote]

Ok, crossed posts....(grin) Sorry about that....

My calling folks a bigot is out of line, regardless of what the dictionary has to allow, but it should be obvious to all by now that Miss dianaiad is allowed to, and will continue to assert that all who disagree are out to force her to somehow change her religious beliefs, or to force her to accept some of her fellow human beings. It ain't "marriage" we want for the gay folks, nope, it's we wanna force every Christian in the land to >insert whatever the accuser wishes<, just as much as they love them the getting married themself.

Y'know, when evidence is so strong that something is, then it's not bigotry to say so...even if what 'is' seems to be negative.

When there is an idea floated out there that gets absolute equality between gays and heterosexuals in terms of civil rights and marriage, and the gays not only don't like it, but attack and vilify the proponents of it because the one thing the idea does NOT do is allow them (or anybody else) to force religious approval of what they want, then I can only conclude that what they want is forced religious approval.

After all, the idea GETS them all the rights. It GETS them the right to marry, exactly the same way heterosexual couples would be married. Exactly. The. Same. Way. and. in. the. same. sense. Completely the same, utterly the same, wholly the same.

And those who would promote this absolute equality of rights are called bigots and homophobes because this idea does NOT give anybody the right to force someone to act against their RELIGIOUS beliefs in order to approve of someone else's marriage, even when it gives them the absolute right to marry no matter what anybody else thinks, religiously, of that marriage.

I honestly do not get it.

As I said, I see no need to continue to debate when I get in trouble for asking a question, while it is perfectly acceptable for Miss dianaiad to accuse me and my fellow pro-gay marriage advocates of some nefarious plot to force her to be proud of whatever it is she ain't proud of the gay folks getting married about.


With that I'll withdraw from the thread 'fore I get into even more trouble.

Until next time, m'friend.