Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Almost there: nationalizing gay marriage. Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status   (nationalreview.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Justice Kennedy, Charles Krauthammer, abortion law, supreme court ruling, same-sex marriages, majority opinion, DOMA, special reports  
•       •       •

1915 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:43 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-27 09:30:03 AM  
15 votes:
Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.
2013-06-27 11:45:49 AM  
5 votes:
When did the Catholic church lose its tax exempt status for refusing to marry divorced people?

Oh, they haven't? You mean the mouth breathers arguments against marriage equality are all bullshait? I am shocked.
2013-06-27 10:00:07 AM  
5 votes:
"So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"
2013-06-27 01:00:28 PM  
3 votes:

2 grams: Karac:

Your system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your plan is neither internally consistent (you want to remove government from the marriage business by replacing it with ... the government) and painfully stupid - since all you want to do is change the heading at the top of the license.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through when you could stop preventing gays from exercising the same rights as straight.  And doing that isn't even doing something - it's simply not going out of your way to be a dick to someone just because they don't think love is a sin.  My plan is simpler because all it involves is not actively being an asshole.

It is the same system we have today with name changes. . Your'e aboslutley right. It just shuts up the idoits who arguing over the word "Marraige" on both sides of the issue.

But why wouldn't it work?

Me, I personaly don't care. If people want to fight and argue with institution who want to "Preservee the sanctitiy of marriage" go for it. You'll have a long stupid fight over a word.  A word I don't think the Govrement should be basing legal issues on anyhow because it's tangled up with all sorts of spritual, social and emotinaly charges issues.


It wouldn't work because the EXACT SAME FUNDAMENTALISTS who are against gay marriage are the EXACT SAME FUNDAMENTALISTS who are against gay 'civil unions'.  Which is why you see states edit their constitutions to outlaw gay marriages or anything that 'simulates marriage'.  Go look back 10, 15 years ago - when gays WERE willing to settle for the label of 'civil unions' - they were rejected.

Why do you think bigots who ten years ago wouldn't allow gays to get civil unioned would be accept it today?

The fight isn't over the words 'marriage' and 'civil union'.  It's over lettings gays have legal recognition of their relationship AT ALL.
2013-06-27 11:45:45 AM  
3 votes:
Are churches REQUIRED to perform any wedding?
2013-06-27 11:45:01 AM  
3 votes:
Churches finally having to catch up with the 21st Century?

pjmedia.com
2013-06-27 02:43:44 PM  
2 votes:

2 grams: No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless of same sex, or not get a Civil Union. A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever. I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
2013-06-27 02:42:16 PM  
2 votes:

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


Appeasment never shuts up bigots. They must be trampled, shunned, proven wrong, and ultimately forgotten in the mists of decades until their very existence is looked upon with shame.

"Civil unions" won't do that.
2013-06-27 01:27:56 PM  
2 votes:

2 grams: But why wouldn't it work?


Because the Christian Conservative wouldn't agree.  Go look at all the state laws and amendments banning gay marriage and you'll see many also have language that ban civil unions or anything that resembles marriage.  They're the ones that forced gays to go for full on marriage because they refused to compromise to civil unions when this issue started getting big several years back.
2013-06-27 01:03:49 PM  
2 votes:

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


There is no biblical rationale for opposing marriage equality.
"What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" by Fr. Daniel Helminiak and
"A Question of Truth" by Fr. Gareth Moore have analyzed this subject to discussion.

In order to oppose marriage equality you first have to reject God for creating your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; now you've violated the First Commandment. Next, you're invoking sections of Leviticus, ignoring prohibitions against being uncircumcised, wearing blended fabrics, eating pork, etc. and you are trying to apply a rule established to define a separate Israelite Kingdom so they wouldn't get assimilated into the Canaanite culture or simply be known as Egyptian refugees. Once the Israelite Kingdom was gone at the end of the Book of Kings, these rules had been overcome by events; Jesus said as much in the Gospel, and violated standing Jewish laws by entering the home of a gay Roman couple to heal a man (treating people of different religions, races, cultures and sexualities as you would want to be treated yourself; Christ showed the Golden Rule to be a trump card in Matthew).

By opposing marriage equality, are now in the position of having violated the First Commandment, thrown away the example of Christ and His example in Matthew, his comments later in the Gospel that it is most important that you love, and if you are in the United States, the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

You are an immoral and wicked man, and are in no place to preach to others.
2013-06-27 12:38:42 PM  
2 votes:

2 grams: It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of  "Marriage".  It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.


That has never been true. Shut the fark up with this disingenuous nonsense.
2013-06-27 11:53:39 AM  
2 votes:
The point of a separate of Church and State is that it works both ways, which is something fundies on the Church side should keep in mind every time they think there shouldn't be one.
2013-06-27 11:44:37 AM  
2 votes:
Hey. You want to fix a budget problem? Simple solution: Tax the church. They've been getting a free ride for far too long, and not just in American history. I'm all for it, whether they break down and accept marriage equality or not.
2013-06-27 10:42:03 AM  
2 votes:
In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.
2013-06-27 09:35:30 AM  
2 votes:
This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak
2013-06-28 01:24:44 AM  
1 vote:

lawboy87: The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.


Not quite true, as I understand; if they hire the sinner (whether that sin is an interracial or a gay marriage), they won't be able to deny spousal benefits offered to non-sinful spouses. But the ministerial exception makes it pretty easy to just leave such sinners unemployed.
2013-06-27 06:00:13 PM  
1 vote:

TheMysticS: Um, I'm a Breeder and I don't care. I've mostly heard it in fun, like I think Ghostfish was going for.

If I hear it in a derogatory connotation, I just figure the 'your momma' would work.

Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.
Then, I might be offended.


I'm a heterosexual and I find breeder to be offense.  Even if I don't plan to have kids homosexuals refer to us in the same term like we were a bunch of porch monkeys.
2013-06-27 05:37:10 PM  
1 vote:
Shakers don't perform weddings at all.  (Not coincidentally, there aren't very many Shakers anymore.)
2013-06-27 05:05:58 PM  
1 vote:
Surprised that nobody in this thread has so far posted the story of Chastity Bumgardner. A church in Ohio refused to hold her wedding there because it was an interracial couple. As far as I know, the church didn't face any legal consequences for that.
2013-06-27 03:12:57 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.


Christ, you're thick.

After the SC ruling, that part of Texas' law will simply not hold up. They would be fools to pursue it, and if they did fight it in court, guess what? THE SC WOULD RULE THEIR LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Supremacy Clause. Read it, for fark's sake.
2013-06-27 02:53:51 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.


In an earlier post, you cited "shut up both sides" as a primary reason for wanting to ditch marriage as a civil term and I'm here to tell you that's not going to work based on my evidence in the previous post.
2013-06-27 02:47:35 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.


You realize, heaven help us, that you are describing the situation as it already exists?

You're just worried who gets to use the word that has described that situation only for the last few thousand years.

Why do you want to allow churches to steal ownership of the word?

Your "great idea" changes nothing else.
2013-06-27 02:45:39 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


We already have what you're talking about. It's called "civil marriage."
2013-06-27 02:17:19 PM  
1 vote:

BMulligan: rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??

Why not both?


I think there are a few intentional communities around that started that way.
2013-06-27 02:01:30 PM  
1 vote:

rufus-t-firefly: Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

So we should stick to the Biblical definition of mar ...


Geez, you just keep getting bites man, even after it's been explained. 15/10 and a gold star. The potato avalance was a nice way to tie it all together.
2013-06-27 01:58:06 PM  
1 vote:

monoski: You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding


Huh.  That seems odd, as I personally attended an Orthodox wedding at a very large church in the wealthy suburbs of Athens, Greece (Bride was the niece of a law school friend of my father's) while living there in the early `80s.

No one asked me my affiliation (Atheist) nor indicated that being of the wrong faith/nationality would bar my entry.  And I didn't speak a word of Greek at the time, so it was pretty obvious that I was not a local.
2013-06-27 01:57:08 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


So we should stick to the Biblical definition of marriage.

Hey, you like that girl, but she's not interested in you? Just rape her and pay her father - then she has to marry you! Already married but want a few more wives? Go get 'em, tiger!

Widows with no male children? Don't worry - you can...wait, not "can"...are required to marry your brother in law!

www.janetober.com
2013-06-27 01:51:52 PM  
1 vote:
"In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws."

And that's why abortions are freely available to any woman at any time.
2013-06-27 01:41:23 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is [...] potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


*standing ovation*
Damn, you're good! Now I don't feel so bad about getting hooked in the atheism thread the other day.
2013-06-27 01:34:32 PM  
1 vote:
Just like we force churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to perform marriages for people of other faiths.

Wait...do we do that?

Oh, that's right - we don't.
2013-06-27 01:33:06 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.


No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.
2013-06-27 01:21:01 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.


I looked forward, and you don't seem to be getting the love you deserve for this comment. Very funny.

/No homo.
2013-06-27 01:17:58 PM  
1 vote:
Bwhahahaha.

The great thing about the 1st amendment is the DOMA ruling has 100% no effect on whether or not churches have to perform a gay marriage.

I mean, I'd prefer to strip religious leaders of the power to legally marry people, as that does seem like a violation of the separation of church and state.  Why the fark is the government investing ANY power in a priest, rabbi, imam, or other religious leader?

It's not even that convenient for a soon to be married couple.  You're already down at the county clerk's office to get the license, then you take it to the church, then someone takes it back to the clerks office.   You can pop over to the magistrate or justice of the peace and take care of the legal stuff on the first visit if you want, and then you're free to get the religious or non-religious ceremony from anyone that will marry you.
2013-06-27 01:11:29 PM  
1 vote:

Satanic_Hamster: grumpfuff: I couldn't tell you where, but I'm positive it exists. I've had it, and it probably tastes even better than you imagine. I think it was a Middle Eastern-type place, but fark me if I remember anything more specific.

But was it's just MILK, or the goat's own mother's milk? Because the latter makes it more awesome.

Have a lot of middle eastern places around here. Usually just get lamb dishes and/or kibbe. Going to have to do some research.


As originally written, only its mother's milk. As applied for the last thousand years or so (if not more?), all milk.

Used to be, milk and meat came from potentially the same animal, or someone in its family - a farmer owns some cows, one of whom may be your steak's momma and therefore gave the milk that you're using to seethe the steak. So rather than have to source all of your milk and meat through the supply chain, they just broadened the prohibition. ("They" used to do that a lot.)

As a metaphor or concept, though, it seems pretty clear. You don't destroy something and then use what should have been its sustenance to further reduce it.
2013-06-27 01:02:32 PM  
1 vote:
No one will force churches to perform same sex weddings--though, oddly enough, there may be loss of parishioners when they realize that your ministry won't support them. Which is perhaps why Unitarians are growing faster than many other ministries in the US. You want to keep on with the support of an aging population, and lose young folks, keep it up. That's not quite the same as forcing you, but some ministries may get the idea that to be more inclusive will mean more viable in the long run as an institution...
2013-06-27 12:58:22 PM  
1 vote:

GhostFish: An idiot, or someone who's being derisively flippant. I'm a bit of both.


Oh, I'm not saying you'd have to be an idiot to say it, I'm just saying most people are going to look at you like you're an idiot.

grumpfuff: I couldn't tell you where, but I'm positive it exists. I've had it, and it probably tastes even better than you imagine. I think it was a Middle Eastern-type place, but fark me if I remember anything more specific.


But was it's just MILK, or the goat's own mother's milk?  Because the latter makes it more awesome.

Have a lot of middle eastern places around here.  Usually just get lamb dishes and/or kibbe.  Going to have to do some research.
2013-06-27 12:52:22 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: It is the same system we have today with name changes. . Your'e aboslutley right. It just shuts up the idoits who arguing over the word "Marraige" on both sides of the issue.

But why wouldn't it work?


Because the people who are against gay marriage aren't really concerned about whether you call something a civil union or a marriage, that's just what they tell you so they won't look like bigots.  They really just don't want gays to have the same rights as everyone else and thus will not be happy with any solution that allows gays equal standing under the law.
2013-06-27 12:46:34 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of "Marriage". It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.


Ahh, I see.  Instead of standing up to and pointing out other peoples' idiotic ideas, you wish to submit to them and add your own.  If you think fundamentalists wouldn't have a shiatstorm over the government trying to relabel their marriages as 'civil unions' then you're farking delusion.

Take a look at what you just wrote.  You're agreeing with morons who say that gay 'marriage' will lead to man-turtle marriages; you're treating that idea as something worthy of consideration. You're just adding on the 'solution' that gay civil unions won't lead to man-turtle civil unions.

You don't have to be that dumb, it's not some virus you get just by breathing the same as someone who's already caught it.   You can fight it; you can resist.  You can even try to cure them instead of letting them infect you.
2013-06-27 12:45:18 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: Bloody William: 2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.

What a nice, paper-thin, vapid way of fixing this "problem." Play with names until people are mindlessly placated. Guess what? That solution changes absofarkinglutely nothing. More importantly, with laws being as they are now, they create the sexual version of "separate but equal," where "civil unions" sound great but the aspect of marriage being a fundamental aspect of family law. People are offended over society changing, so to answer it you want to play with names to make those people who are offended happy. In doing so, you would produce just another Plessy vs. Ferguson debacle that has the added benefit of farking up hundreds of years of family law instead of JUST LETTING GAYS MARRY.


It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of  "Marriage".  It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.

No, it's not "Seperate" but Equal.  EVERYONE gets a Civil Union: traditional couples, and same sex. Everyone.  Familly Law would need to change to only recognize Civil unions. (would have to grandfather in Marrige licesese).

You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.  Go ...


...do you not see that all you did was change the name of the legal service? That's not "getting out of the marriage business", that's "changing the name of marriage so that people don't get butthurt when we allow gays to do it."  And they'll get butthurt anyway, because they'll still feel that gays are getting "preferential treatment" by being recognized as "equal" to straight couples.

Also, Ohio, which has an anti-gay marriage statute in its constitution, forbids any arrangement that "simulates marriage". Civil Unions "simulate marriage", therefore, by Ohio law, civil unions are illegal. In theory, this would also mean no straight couple could share any sort of benefits if they're not married. In practice, only gays are affected.
2013-06-27 12:41:50 PM  
1 vote:

Pincy: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?

I'm pretty sure gay people can be breeders as well.  Lesbians can do artificial insemination.  And I know a woman who is currently pregnant as a surrogate for two gay guys and the sperm that fertilized the donor egg inside of her came from one of the guys.


Sure. There's tons of ridiculousness with this pearl-clutching. And I get that at the core of lockers's whining, there is a kernel of validity to not using discriminatory language like that; I certainly wouldn't. I just feel the need to needle a straight guy acting so injured by the term "breeders" in a thread about how there's still a massive political machine against equal rights.
2013-06-27 12:41:24 PM  
1 vote:

DarnoKonrad: d23: DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.

There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!


Yea, there's nothing illegal about informally sleeping/living with multiple people.  The problem is that when it's formalized, it's often just a tool to oppress women and children -- at least this is what the expert witnesses to Canada's trial on the subject testified.  As long as that's true, there's a good reason to keep it illegal -- at least under a common law system like our own and Canada's where you can argue such points.


Except in many states fornication is illegal.  Sometimes it even gets prosecuted.
2013-06-27 12:39:49 PM  
1 vote:

monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding


Some years ago I was best man at a Catholic wedding. We were running through the rehearsal and the priest said "And at this point the best man and the maid of honor kneel." I said "Excuse me father but I'm Jewish. I will be happy to lower my head to show respect but I can't kneel in a Catholic church." He said "Either you kneel or the wedding's off. Find another best man if you want but I won't perform the service if you don't kneel." When we got to that part of the service I hovered with my knees above the stairs, gritting my teeth and seething with anger. After the ceremony I went off to find the priest and punch him in the nose, but he had collected his check and left.
2013-06-27 12:39:28 PM  
1 vote:

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?


I'm pretty sure gay people can be breeders as well.  Lesbians can do artificial insemination.  And I know a woman who is currently pregnant as a surrogate for two gay guys and the sperm that fertilized the donor egg inside of her came from one of the guys.
2013-06-27 12:38:13 PM  
1 vote:

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


The current system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'marriage' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your plan is neither internally consistent (you want to remove government from the marriage business by replacing it with ... the government) and painfully stupid - since all you want to do is change the heading at the top of the license.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through when you could stop preventing gays from exercising the same rights as straight.  And doing that isn't even doing something - it's simply not going out of your way to be a dick to someone just because they don't think love is a sin.  My plan is simpler because all it involves is not actively being an asshole.
2013-06-27 12:32:59 PM  
1 vote:
kvetchmom.files.wordpress.com
2013-06-27 12:29:33 PM  
1 vote:
Churches won't be required to perform gay marriages because they have constitutional rights too.

Churches shouldn't have tax exempt status in the first place.
2013-06-27 12:21:44 PM  
1 vote:

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.


I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"
2013-06-27 12:21:07 PM  
1 vote:

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


I think it's a terrible idea. The only thing stopping megachurches and evangelists from openly running political parties is their greed for their tax-exempt status.

As much as I'd love to tax churches into oblivion, take that away and you open the flood gates to Theocracy.
2013-06-27 12:20:27 PM  
1 vote:

d23: DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.

There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!



Yea, there's nothing illegal about informally sleeping/living with multiple people.  The problem is that when it's formalized, it's often just a tool to oppress women and children -- at least this is what the expert witnesses to Canada's trial on the subject testified.  As long as that's true, there's a good reason to keep it illegal -- at least under a common law system like our own and Canada's where you can argue such points.
2013-06-27 12:16:27 PM  
1 vote:
Tax-exempt churches, tax-exempt political groups and rich people like Mitt Romney going through alternate sources to avoid taxes... and you wonder why this country is in so much debt when taxes are a big revenue generator...
2013-06-27 12:15:09 PM  
1 vote:
memedepot.com

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
2013-06-27 12:11:39 PM  
1 vote:

lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.


i.imgur.com
2013-06-27 12:07:48 PM  
1 vote:

abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.


NAILED IT!

This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it. The Loving v Virginia case is a great analog that clearly establishes that Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc. have NEVER been forced by the government, or punished in any manner, to marry anyone outside those they choose.  The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.
2013-06-27 12:04:54 PM  
1 vote:
There is a unique case in New Jersey where a church received a tax break under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program. A lesbian couple wanted to host a commitment ceremony there and the church said no. The church was sued for violation of New Jersey's non-discrimination in places of public accommodations law and also lost the tax exemption on the pavilion.
2013-06-27 12:02:23 PM  
1 vote:

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


Are churches--as opposed to church-owned businesses--exempt from all anti-discrimination laws?  I know some churches won't do interracial weddings (they were in the news last year); are they at any risk of losing their tax-exempt status because of it?

But yeah, since churches are currently allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion (duh), gender (women can't be Catholic priests), ethnicity (you can't become a one of the kohanim, you have to be descended from them), and marital status, I can't see them being held accountable for other types of discrimination.
2013-06-27 12:02:09 PM  
1 vote:

lockers: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.


You don't think a legitimate, non-profit charity should be tax exempt? Like say a secular foundation for AIDS research?
2013-06-27 12:00:56 PM  
1 vote:
Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.
2013-06-27 11:59:20 AM  
1 vote:

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.
2013-06-27 11:58:14 AM  
1 vote:
Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.
2013-06-27 11:56:47 AM  
1 vote:
"In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws."

So not at all?
2013-06-27 11:54:56 AM  
1 vote:

Jackson Herring: God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.

haha that's got to be one of the most shiat that didn't happen things i've ever heard


Well, there is this: http://storyful.com/stories/605
2013-06-27 11:50:56 AM  
1 vote:
Or, we could just take away their tax-exempt status, period. They seem to be cool with ignoring that "render unto Caesar" bit by the guy they claim to follow anyway.
2013-06-27 11:49:21 AM  
1 vote:
That would be awesome, but no, that won't be happening.
2013-06-27 11:46:22 AM  
1 vote:

God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar? And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.


Sounds like a real man of God.
2013-06-27 11:18:01 AM  
1 vote:

hillbillypharmacist: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

Yup that's odd.  It's a fine idea- right now they don't pay taxes and still basically do what they want.


Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.
2013-06-27 09:45:33 AM  
1 vote:
Of all the stupid, awful arguments against marriage equality, I've always found this to be one of the most brainless.
2013-06-27 09:41:40 AM  
1 vote:

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


Not only that, but imagine what it's like for the handful of bigoted churches that won't perform mixed-race weddings these days?  Sure, they still exist and the Evil Gub'mint doesn't harass them... but their congregations are all 90+ and their few indoctrinated children, so they're slowly dying anyway.  Give it a few decades and see how many hold out.  Meanwhile, you may not get the one you wanted, but you should be able to find one... if you live in the right state.

My prediction is that the 12 states where it's legal will begin to see a resurgence, a real economic recovery as all the excess talent and experience in the homosexual population slowly relocates to them.
2013-06-27 09:31:58 AM  
1 vote:
And turtle-f*cking! Don't forget the turtle-f*cking!
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report