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.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   Republicans in Utah are considering drafting a second marriage amendment, this one to absolutely guarantee, for suresies, that churches really would not be forced into performing gay marriages   (sltrib.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Utahns, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, same-sex marriages, public accommodations, constitutional amendments, First Amendment, Lehi, LDS Church  
•       •       •

2617 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Dec 2013 at 5:20 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-31 02:40:13 PM  
Why?
 
2013-12-31 02:48:15 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Why?


So they can remain in the closet
 
2013-12-31 02:50:18 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Why?


Because Jesus.
 
2013-12-31 03:31:43 PM  
Except for a very, very, very few total crazies I have not heard anyone saying that churches need to marry anyone they don't want to at any point.  Of course these few idiots are given a widespread audience to boost ratings on TV, instead of the reasonable voices who actually represent people.  The call has always been for equality in the civil regime where there is a recognized civil marriage and not civil "partnership" since those never were fully equal and did not transfer across state lines.  It was to be allowed access to all the benefits and lets face it problems of a "real" marriage like health care decisions and visitations, tax "benefits" (as often you would be better of single due to the marriage penalty), etc.  This call just again shows that these people don't recognize that what gays and lesbians want is to be treated as people, and they don't want to destroy your life.
 
2013-12-31 03:35:10 PM  
How about a constitutional amendment that clarifies that no one can make you jab yourself in the eye with a needle on Tuesdays.

Or how about "f*ck you"? "F*ck you" works too.
 
2013-12-31 03:35:42 PM  
Hehehehehehehe
*chuckles*
Hahahahahahaha
*inhale*
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-12-31 03:36:56 PM  

interstellar_tedium: Except for a very, very, very few total crazies I have not heard anyone saying that churches need to marry anyone they don't want to at any point.


Churches can deny anyone a marriage in their church.  My ex-husband was ADAMANT about being married in a Catholic church. We had to be interviewed by a priest, who had to give his approval of our marriage, and provide proof of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation - all of which I had, despite not being a practicing Catholic. Then we had to go to awful Pre-Cana classes.  Had I not met the technical standards, they could have said no. (Too bad they didn't.)  So obviously, they can say no to same-sex couples.  They have the freedom to say no to anyone and everyone, because they get to make the rules in their own churches.
 
2013-12-31 03:37:16 PM  
You know, if that puts the issue to rest, where gays can get married and churches can get a warm fuzzy and stop fighting marriage equality, then great.  The civil right is distinct from religious rite, and if they need the distinction codified then they need it codified.

Gosh if they'd just kept religion and government separate in the first place...
 
2013-12-31 03:41:45 PM  
I thought a second marriage amendment in Utah meant something else.
 
2013-12-31 03:42:53 PM  

factoryconnection: You know, if that puts the issue to rest, where gays can get married and churches can get a warm fuzzy and stop fighting marriage equality, then great.  The civil right is distinct from religious rite, and if they need the distinction codified then they need it codified.

Gosh if they'd just kept religion and government separate in the first place...


I could imagine some idiot trying to sue a church for not marrying them, even if church policy was against gay marriage.  They would lose, but you may be right - let them codify it.

WHY anyone would want to be married in an institution that is against them is beyond me, but it must be incredibly conflicting and difficult  to have been raised in a faith, and still believe in it, but to be shunned by said faith.
 
2013-12-31 03:47:50 PM  

factoryconnection: You know, if that puts the issue to rest, where gays can get married and churches can get a warm fuzzy and stop fighting marriage equality, then great.


That's the thing about these. They're presented as some sort of olive branch to the religious morons, who respond by changing absolutely nothing and continuing to oppose marriage equality forever. Which is what happened in California.

Fortunately, our society appears to be slowly dragging itself towards some semblance of the rule of law, and the courts are incrementally forcing thise idiots to live in the modern era.
 
2013-12-31 03:50:43 PM  

serpent_sky: interstellar_tedium: Except for a very, very, very few total crazies I have not heard anyone saying that churches need to marry anyone they don't want to at any point.

Churches can deny anyone a marriage in their church.  My ex-husband was ADAMANT about being married in a Catholic church. We had to be interviewed by a priest, who had to give his approval of our marriage, and provide proof of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation - all of which I had, despite not being a practicing Catholic. Then we had to go to awful Pre-Cana classes.  Had I not met the technical standards, they could have said no. (Too bad they didn't.)  So obviously, they can say no to same-sex couples.  They have the freedom to say no to anyone and everyone, because they get to make the rules in their own churches.


Yep.  A guy I used to work with got engaged to this obnoxious idiot.  She wanted to get married in one of the local churches, simply because it was a beautiful cathedral. They weren't members, they weren't even remotely the same denomination, and hadn't even set foot inside until she asked the pastor about scheduling the service.  She was SHOCKED, SHOCKED when he turned her down.
 
2013-12-31 03:59:09 PM  

serpent_sky: interstellar_tedium: Except for a very, very, very few total crazies I have not heard anyone saying that churches need to marry anyone they don't want to at any point.

Churches can deny anyone a marriage in their church.  My ex-husband was ADAMANT about being married in a Catholic church. We had to be interviewed by a priest, who had to give his approval of our marriage, and provide proof of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation - all of which I had, despite not being a practicing Catholic. Then we had to go to awful Pre-Cana classes.  Had I not met the technical standards, they could have said no. (Too bad they didn't.)  So obviously, they can say no to same-sex couples.  They have the freedom to say no to anyone and everyone, because they get to make the rules in their own churches.


Exactly this. My late husband (Catholic and already divorced) and I (raised agnostic) decided not to marry in the church, after seeing all the hoops we would have to go through. We were married by a Justice of the Peace in a civil ceremony, instead. That's their right and we turned it down, as was ours.

Churches already have the right to marry anyone they want to. The backup plan is a civil ceremony, just as it always has been. Plus plenty of independent churches will marry non-members these days.

This is just the last gasp of derp before marriage equality is available to everyone.
 
2013-12-31 03:59:13 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Why?


Makes it look like they're actually doing something.  Attention that requires little effort.

I hope they attach an anti-Sharia Law rider.
 
2013-12-31 04:02:25 PM  
Well, as the law stands in Utah, anyone can force anyone else to have gay sex any time they want to, and then FORCE that person to marry them and enslave them to a lifetime of gay sex.
 
2013-12-31 04:11:50 PM  
Meh, if it shuts the fundies up, then more power to it. I don't really have a problem with them putting that into writing, as it seems like most fundies don't understand churches can already refuse anyone for any reason.
 
2013-12-31 04:13:17 PM  

Hector Remarkable: Well, as the law stands in Utah, anyone can force anyone else to have gay sex any time they want to, and then FORCE that person to marry them and enslave them to a lifetime of gay sex.


global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-12-31 04:16:57 PM  
Churches aren't forced to do anything.
Marriage has nothing to do with church anyway.
I mean yeah, putting on a show so they could make a couple bucks was one thing, but many churches are doing fine finding other ways to make cash
 
2013-12-31 04:17:03 PM  
Pro gay marriage Utahn here. This ranks a solid 'meh' with me. If given the chance, I probably won't vote for it since I am pro -marriage equality, but since I agree an institution should be able to choose who they marry, I won't vote against it either. I'll likely just abstain.
 
2013-12-31 04:25:38 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Why?


because otherwise they will have to fllow sharia law!!
DUH

why arent these people locked up for being dangerously delusional?
 
2013-12-31 04:26:43 PM  
I think what they're looking for is the First Amendment.

No one is forcing Churches to do anything. But the persecution card gets the flock of sheep bleating.
 
2013-12-31 04:36:21 PM  
The churches are just attention whores in all this.
They could just STFU and love thy neighbor, but Nnnoooooooooooooooo.
 
2013-12-31 04:55:01 PM  
...because a waste of their legislature's time is in the interests of all?
 
2013-12-31 04:57:23 PM  
The Churches are already protected.  It's called the First Amendment.
 
2013-12-31 05:05:45 PM  
Why would you even want your marriage blessed by an institution that thinks you're a sinner bound for eternal hellfire?
 
2013-12-31 05:15:21 PM  
To be fair drafting this language may take a while, as most Utah Republicans have to excuse themselves for a private moment when contemplating anything involving the words "forced" and "gay."
 
2013-12-31 05:28:24 PM  

sprgrss: The Churches are already protected.  It's called the First Amendment.


Although you have to admit, it would be pretty funny if a gay couple could force the Westboro Baptist Church to host their wedding.
 
2013-12-31 05:30:50 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Pro gay marriage Utahn here. This ranks a solid 'meh' with me. If given the chance, I probably won't vote for it since I am pro -marriage equality, but since I agree an institution should be able to choose who they marry, I won't vote against it either. I'll likely just abstain.


You are making a mistake - they want to wedge this in the door, then extend it to businesses and individuals, so that public accomodations can be refused to gays, and so that county clerks can refuse to issue licenses, and so on - they are trying to create legal mischief, and fill courts with contentious cases that will impede equality for LGBT people.
They should be stopped dead, and right now.
 
2013-12-31 05:32:21 PM  

hubiestubert: ...because a waste of their legislature's time is in the interests of all?


Laser like focus on jobs.
 
2013-12-31 05:33:16 PM  
They just want something that lets them feel like they've beaten the "gay agenda".

They may not be able to prevent gays from getting married, but by gosh they'll make sure things still aren't completely equal.
 
2013-12-31 05:33:17 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Meh, if it shuts the fundies up, then more power to it. I don't really have a problem with them putting that into writing, as it seems like most fundies don't understand churches can already refuse anyone for any reason.


Fundie takes on an entirely different character in Utah.
 
2013-12-31 05:35:18 PM  

jso2897: Three Crooked Squirrels: Pro gay marriage Utahn here. This ranks a solid 'meh' with me. If given the chance, I probably won't vote for it since I am pro -marriage equality, but since I agree an institution should be able to choose who they marry, I won't vote against it either. I'll likely just abstain.

You are making a mistake - they want to wedge this in the door, then extend it to businesses and individuals, so that public accomodations can be refused to gays, and so that county clerks can refuse to issue licenses, and so on - they are trying to create legal mischief, and fill courts with contentious cases that will impede equality for LGBT people.
They should be stopped dead, and right now.


I'll look at the language and follow the debate. As it stands, I have no issue with it.
 
2013-12-31 05:37:02 PM  

jso2897: Three Crooked Squirrels: Pro gay marriage Utahn here. This ranks a solid 'meh' with me. If given the chance, I probably won't vote for it since I am pro -marriage equality, but since I agree an institution should be able to choose who they marry, I won't vote against it either. I'll likely just abstain.

You are making a mistake - they want to wedge this in the door, then extend it to businesses and individuals, so that public accomodations can be refused to gays, and so that county clerks can refuse to issue licenses, and so on - they are trying to create legal mischief, and fill courts with contentious cases that will impede equality for LGBT people.
They should be stopped dead, and right now.


I think we can establish a hard line between how we allow religious institutions to discriminate and how we allow for-profit institutions to discriminate that would permit a church to only marry those who follow its tenets, and forbid companies from prohibiting service based on personal bias.
 
2013-12-31 05:41:05 PM  
This is already true. Churches can't be forced to perform or recognize a marriage. Example: a church in the South refused to perform a marriage for a black couple in 2012. Nothing happened to them other than a heap of public ridicule.
 
2013-12-31 05:41:52 PM  
So, I'm good with some institutions of intolerance and hatred not being forced to provide a traditional service to all its members, based upon arbitrary criteria.

I would ask that, in exchange, they lose their "favored-company" status of tax-free income and property.

Let them be crazy on their own dime.
i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-31 05:42:28 PM  

sprgrss: The Churches are already protected.  It's called the First Amendment.


Well, except the churches (Unitarian or whoever) who want to perform same-sex marriages nationwide.  They have the First Amendment right to same-sex marry someone in Alabama, I guess, but it wouldn't mean anything yet.  Which, I guess gets back to the clear secular/civil concept of marriage.
 
2013-12-31 05:43:16 PM  
I have no issue with this, I don't think religious institutions should be forced to provide services that violate their beliefs.
 
2013-12-31 05:43:55 PM  
Never mind that churches are not required to marry gay couples even in states where gay marriage is legal.
 
2013-12-31 05:44:51 PM  
If the churches want to abstain from providing a fair environment to all people then they should give up their tax exempt status.
 
2013-12-31 05:46:33 PM  

factoryconnection: You know, if that puts the issue to rest, where gays can get married and churches can get a warm fuzzy and stop fighting marriage equality, then great.  The civil right is distinct from religious rite, and if they need the distinction codified then they need it codified.

Gosh if they'd just kept religion and government separate in the first place...


Separation of church and state?  That's just crazy talk.
 
2013-12-31 05:46:55 PM  
Do Republicans in Utah genuinely not know the difference between a "marriage" and a "wedding", or are they just pretending?
 
2013-12-31 05:47:38 PM  
This is kinda like creeping Sharia law, isn't it?
 
2013-12-31 05:47:47 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: I have no issue with this, I don't think religious institutions should be forced to provide services that violate their beliefs.


Which is already the case, so the Republicans are unnecessary.
 
2013-12-31 05:50:05 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: I have no issue with this, I don't think religious institutions should be forced to provide services that violate their beliefs.


They ALREADY aren't forced to do it, which can only mean that Utah Republicans are trying to pass some other type of language that would allow more institutions to deny same-sex marriage.
 
2013-12-31 05:50:56 PM  

serpent_sky: interstellar_tedium: Except for a very, very, very few total crazies I have not heard anyone saying that churches need to marry anyone they don't want to at any point.

Churches can deny anyone a marriage in their church.  My ex-husband was ADAMANT about being married in a Catholic church. We had to be interviewed by a priest, who had to give his approval of our marriage, and provide proof of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation - all of which I had, despite not being a practicing Catholic. Then we had to go to awful Pre-Cana classes.  Had I not met the technical standards, they could have said no. (Too bad they didn't.)  So obviously, they can say no to same-sex couples.  They have the freedom to say no to anyone and everyone, because they get to make the rules in their own churches.


And that's the weird thing. NO ONE is trying to take that away from them because that's their prerogative, and yet nonsense like this proposed amendment are being offered as though there were actual attempts to take away that right. It is a solution that has no problem, and yet the sky is f*cking falling in these people's heads and this is how they're going to eek out some protection from the evil persecution that is equal rights for all citizens in the eyes of the law. It's asinine, and a massive waste of taxpayer money for a state legislature to even be entertaining sh*t like this.
 
2013-12-31 05:51:22 PM  
It's one of the "Hey people aren't against gay marriage so let's pretend gay marriage will force something people don't like just so they will be against it!" It's what they did in California, they said without banning gay marriage you kids would be taught about gay sex in elementary school and it worked (at least for awhile). They got prop 8 passed.
 
2013-12-31 05:52:25 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: I have no issue with this, I don't think religious institutions should be forced to provide services that violate their beliefs.


Not sure if trolling or just really, really stupid, but I'll explain.

Churches do not have to perform weddings for anyone, gay or straight.

FFS, I've known people that couldn't get married at the local Catholic church because it was their second marriage.
 
2013-12-31 05:55:55 PM  
It's because a few crazies on TV may start spewing stuff like churches and bakeries are seen in the same way by the gov't when it comes to gay marriage. First they were forced to make gay wedding cakes...and bam every church having a gay marriage quota or lose their tax benefits...


/or something like that
 
2013-12-31 05:56:47 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Which is already the case, so the Republicans are unnecessary


DeltaPunch: They ALREADY aren't forced to do it, which can only mean that Utah Republicans are trying to pass some other type of language that would allow more institutions to deny same-sex marriage.


stoli n coke: Not sure if trolling or just really, really stupid, but I'll explain.

Churches do not have to perform weddings for anyone, gay or straight.

FFS, I've known people that couldn't get married at the local Catholic church because it was their second marriage.


Should have been more clear, I understand that religious institutions don't have to perform any type of marriage they don't choose to.  I was more commenting on the fact that if they want to pass a meaningless amendment then good for them.
 
2013-12-31 05:59:50 PM  
I can still make them marry me to my turtle if we're both opposite sexes thought, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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