quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

I think it's hysterical[8D], the traditional 98%, being hetero-sexual, is permitting the historical homosexual 2% to destroy one of its institutions.

Which institution is being destroyed?

quote:

How is this possible without the complicit activity of the Progressive liberal left?

I would have thought that equaity before the law would also be a republicrat, conservative,right position also.

quote:

I swear, liberals are more destructive than the atom bomb, acting with wild abandon and giving no thought to the destruction being wrought. Liberals actually applaud it, rationalizing its inherent betterment over centuries of civilization which their betterment is actively destroying.

Most people call that progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The federal government will not and cannot mandate that any particular preacher has to marry any particular anything.  If it would be mandated it would be done at the state level.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

I think it's hysterical[8D], the traditional 98%, being hetero-sexual, is permitting the historical homosexual 2% to destroy one of its institutions. How is this possible without the complicit activity of the Progressive liberal left? I swear, liberals are more destructive than the atom bomb, acting with wild abandon and giving no thought to the destruction being wrought. Liberals actually applaud it, rationalizing its inherent betterment over centuries of civilization which their betterment is actively destroying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I guess the left has no issue with government telling religion what to do; just with religion telling government what to do.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
What I see here is the government digging it's claws deeper into what originally was a religious practice (marriage). It violates the 1st amendment but, let's go a little further:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The federal government will not and cannot mandate that any particular preacher has to marry any particular anything.  If it would be mandated it would be done at the state level.  

Maybe not right now, but they could, in the future. Look at what government is forcing religious organizations into doing a la Obamacare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Its much better to have knowledge than go thru life guessing wrongly.
After all you cannot legally marry a 13 year old any more, so its been re-defined, more than once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hes got this rather convoluted bullshit as they all do over in teabaggerville, that having insurance companies underwrite birth control prescriptions is forcing the catamites of the Catholic Church to force their members to eat estrogen or some such shit.

You know, kinda like the argument that marriage equality is forcing you to become a homosexual and marry your uncle or some shit.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I gave a pretty good example in Post #26. It doesn't have to be the federal government; it just needs to be some judge (who may not have even been elected) in a civil court ...

I don't see what is so difficult about seperating the government from religion. The PPLs certainly seem to be okay with seperating religion from the government, any other time and, in this case, we even have an amendment that specifically states that the government can't tell religion what to do (unless you're a polygamist, of course).

I guess the left has no issue with government telling religion what to do; just with religion telling government what to do.

I guess we need to only offer them cake, when they're too full from dinner.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

honestly? the fact that the US is several decades behind (other countries) is not much to cheer about.. imo.. not to mention that a change in state/federal govt can reverse such "victories".. your political system sucks.. just sayin'

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The federal government will not and cannot mandate that any particular preacher has to marry any particular anything.  If it would be mandated it would be done at the state level.  

Maybe not right now, but they could, in the future. Look at what government is forcing religious organizations into doing a la Obamacare.

What for fucks sake is the govt. forcing on religion via the aca?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I very much agree with you that everyone has a right to be treated equally and as such I'm against your marriage and strongly in favor of you having to refer to it as a civil union.

If I'm reading Michael correctly, all civil benefits will be attached to the "civil union" part. The "marriage" part will be but a subset of civil unions and will confer no benefits outside of any a religious institution confers. That is, in the eyes of government, a marriage is but a civil union like a JoP civil union, or a same sex civil union. All civil unions get the same civil benefits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the pervue of religion and "civil unions" as the pervue of the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the pervue of religion and "civil unions" as the pervue of the government.

So then if a church decides that same sex marriages are legit then they can marry lesbians and gays? One of the problems with allowing "religion" to decide this is that religions vary on their opinions on the topic.
And out of curiosity, if a "marriage" and a "civil union" are identical in every way then what exactly are you gaining by the distinction. I think I'd be OK with your viewpoint if it had been setup that way from the start. But as it is, "the right to marry" is a real thing with history behind it.