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.

(The Raw Story)   Pastor: "Yer violating my religious freedom...by not allowing me to officiate at same-sex weddings." Bonus: North Carolina pastor. UltraFark Bonus: Supported by Baptist ministers   (rawstory.com) divider line 270
    More: Spiffy, North Carolina, opponents of same-sex marriage, religious freedom, United Church of Christ, Unitarians  
•       •       •

6350 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 3:52 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-29 04:13:34 PM  

Rent Party: PunGent: Rent Party: Teiritzamna: Welp looks like the rest of the fark lawyers brigade has this bad-boy well handled.  I love it when all you guys are in one thread.

/Now i can go back to working on my Supreme Court Brief.
//in 26 minutes?

Fark Lawyers (including yourself) all have a specific favorite band, for exactly this reason.

Ooh, what color are we?

Chartreuse!

Although you're not a member of the club yet.    Are you a certified law talker, or holder of a JD from a Real College(tm)?


Real estate attorney in the Boston area, degree from Boston University Law School.

Most folks consider it a real school :)
 
2014-04-29 04:55:32 PM  

RobSeace: Theaetetus: In reality, what this all comes down to is the fact that you don't think that the government should use the term "marriage". And since you have no possible justification for that - not even the "confusion" justification that BMFPitt tried - then we must assume that it's bigotry.

Guys, I think there's just miscommunication going on here... Did you miss this bit:

RyansPrivates: You can have polyamorous marriages. You can have same-sex marriages. You can have opposite sex marriages. These are all kinds of marriages.
You can have college room-mates in "civil relationship contracts". You can have two widowed friends In "civil relationship contracts"

It's clear he's just talking about the "civil relationship contracts" applying to people who don't want to be called married for whatever reasons...


Except that he's also saying the government shouldn't use the term "marriage". There's no justification for that, except bigotry.
 
2014-04-29 04:56:37 PM  

hubiestubert: Comes down to it: freedom of religion, equality under the law, and the right to privacy are all bound up in the issue of marriage equality.

There are no good arguments, other than some folks' interpretations of texts, and essentially the ban on marriage equality, which then brings it into the realm of religious freedom. Then there's the equality under the law portion of the show, and sad fact, that the state, if it divorces itself from the religious ban, then it has no real vested interest in this sort of ban. In putting this ban up, it then looks to enforce some folks' interpretations of religious texts and beliefs, while denying others. The state is supporting a ban based on religious interpretation, and thus the ban NEEDS to be opposed on grounds of religious freedom. Unless someone can give us a good reason that marriage equality is somehow detrimental to folks. And please provide us with some examples of how Massachusetts and other states have fallen into anarchy, despair, and how the wedding industry has just imploded, and children are just left wallowing in their own filth. Not to mention how many kids are obviously going to become gay from their adopted parents' example, the same way that only straight couples produce straight children, and obviously it's about procreation only, since we forbid old folks and the infertile from marrying, and not to mention that kids can obviously never succeed without a male and female role model--which is why we immediately remove kids from single parent homes, right?

This recockulousness needs to end. It's not about what you approve of, it's not about your comfort zone. If you're not comfortable marrying folks of the same sex in your churches, fine. Have at it. But maybe keep the Hells out of OTHER churches and denominations.

Religious freedom, equality under the law, right to privacy. What other folks do in their churches, is none of your concern.


I think I love you.  Possibly in a totally gay way, I'm not sure.  I like having sex with brains.
 
2014-04-29 04:58:11 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Nope, this is exactly what you're proposing: two institutions, one called marriage, and one called something  different.

Are you unaware that even right now, there are human relationships that exist that are not marriage?  And that there ate terms that describe these relationships that cause purple to understand them without an org chart?

Your proposal is coming across loud and clear: "civil unions" would be available to everyone, "marriage" would only be available to heterosexuals, but both would convey the same legal rights. If you disagree with this concise description of your proposal, then please enlighten me, because it's what you've been repeating over and over.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

I agree that I have been repeating myself over and over.  Yet you continue to insert this fantasy you have in your head where gay marriage would be somehow treated differently than other forms of marriage if we gave non-married people the ability to have the same rights as married people.

You are a young-Earth creationist level of insane with this.


Yeah, why would I think you wanted to replace marriage with some other institution? Oh, right:

BMFPitt: I would also like to replace government sanctioned marriage with civil unions

 
2014-04-29 05:05:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Yeah, why would I think you wanted to replace marriage with some other institution?


Because you have some strange pathological need to invent bigotry where none exists, and you don't understand the English language or the concept of supersets?
 
2014-04-29 05:17:36 PM  

Theaetetus: RobSeace: Theaetetus: In reality, what this all comes down to is the fact that you don't think that the government should use the term "marriage". And since you have no possible justification for that - not even the "confusion" justification that BMFPitt tried - then we must assume that it's bigotry.

Guys, I think there's just miscommunication going on here... Did you miss this bit:

RyansPrivates: You can have polyamorous marriages. You can have same-sex marriages. You can have opposite sex marriages. These are all kinds of marriages.
You can have college room-mates in "civil relationship contracts". You can have two widowed friends In "civil relationship contracts"

It's clear he's just talking about the "civil relationship contracts" applying to people who don't want to be called married for whatever reasons...

Except that he's also saying the government shouldn't use the term "marriage". There's no justification for that, except bigotry.


I think it's just because if the government used that term for all, it would make those folks who don't want to be called "married" (because they're not romantically involved at all) uncomfortable or something...

But, like I said, I think it's a fairly silly idea and don't see the need for it, however I think you're just overreacting by assuming bigotry on anyone's part... I can see how it superficially sounds like an argument a "let them homos get civil unioned not married!" type might make, but it really doesn't seem to be that at all...

/Also, being a law-talking guy, I was hoping you'd address my question about consummation and its legality, because I'm genuinely curious if that ancient concept still holds any legal weight at all these days...
 
2014-04-29 06:15:58 PM  
RobSeace:
/Also, being a law-talking guy, I was hoping you'd address my question about consummation and its legality, because I'm genuinely curious if that ancient concept still holds any legal weight at all these days...

Oh, sure. It's still on the books in many states, but it would be facially unconstitutional to enforce. There has already been precedent saying that prisoners can get married, even ones who are in for life and don't get conjugal visits. Similarly, deploying soldiers can get married, as can people with medical conditions that prevent consummation.

The only time it would come up would be in a proceeding to annul a marriage for lack of consummation... and since no-fault divorce is legal in every state, this would be about property divisions - one spouse arguing that they are entitled to half of the marital property, the other arguing that because they didn't do the nasty, the marriage is void and there is no "marital property". I'd bet, from a public policy perspective, no judge would enforce that requirement since it would unfairly let those aforementioned people enter into a marriage and then either dissolve it or take advantage of property transfers unilaterally.
 
2014-04-29 06:30:54 PM  

RyansPrivates: Benjimin_Dover: RyansPrivates: BMFPitt: RyansPrivates: Open to any 2 consenting adults.

Why limit it to 2?

I don't inherently have a problem with more than 2.  But as some point a number needs to be settled on, for administrative purposes.  Here is what i said upthread:

RyansPrivates: As I said, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for a simplified contract between 2 consenting adults.  Some might say "why just 2", but that is really a detail to be ironed out. My (non-legally informed) opinion is that you could say that the least complicated version of this contract and least burdensome for medical and legal authorities is just 2 people.  Like I said, the goal should be a simple form that you can go and get in 15 minutes.  Getting out of it should be just as easy, provided both partners consent to dissolution of the contract.  The messy divorce system would remain intact for those who want to fight it out in civil litigation.

A number doesn't have to be agreed upon.  If fifty people want to enter into a contract with each other and let them.  If two people get hitched, then they each hold fifty percent of the power/assets/whatever.  If three want to get hitched, then they each get a third.  If fifty want it, then they each get 1/50th.  I think it would be self limiting.  Somebody gets tired of the other's shiat and wants out, then they can dissolve out of it and take his/her portion and be gone.  I think not many people would want that hassle.

Yeah, I can see that; I was only thinking about from an administrative point of view. If the appropriate costs can be factored in, not really a problem.  So, you could say 2 people would cost (warning: anally extracted estimate) $50 dollars, and maybe each additional party is $50, maybe as the numbers get higher, the contracts goes up.  I dunno.  I think you make a good point about it being pretty much self-limiting.  The main thing is that the institution itself shouldn't become onerous to enforce/allow, whi ...


As another thought, I think that if an additional "member" wants in, say from 4 to 5, then the 4 party contract gets dissolved and a new 5 party contract is made or all 4 have to agree to allow the 5th.  It would not be a bunch of overlapping 2 or 3 party contracts.
 
2014-04-29 09:00:20 PM  

EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.


The logic?  This is beyond you?
 
2014-04-29 10:06:47 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Yeah, why would I think you wanted to replace marriage with some other institution?

Because you have some strange pathological need to invent bigotry where none exists, and you don't understand the English language or the concept of supersets?



Oh, hey!  I'm too lazy to sift through all your posts.


Are you saying:

Marriage = romantic and financial arrangement open to all consenting adults of all genders

Civil Union Thingie = not-necessarily-romantic financial arrangement open to all consenting adults of all genders


Or are you saying:

Marriage = romantic and financial arrangement open only to people with opposing genitalia

Civil Union Thingie  = open to all consenting adults of all genders, either romantic or not, we don't care


 'Cause the important part here is that you just don't get to tell one group that they can't have something (an idea called marriage) that another group gets to enjoy.  If legally I can't have a wedding with my wife as a ceremony to begin our marriage - just because we have the same dangly bits - we have been discriminated against.


I guess the other way to organize all this nonsense would be to make Marriage a subset of a totally inclusive Civil Union Thingie (CUT), in which CUT is governed by law, and Marriage is a romantic and/or religious ceremony (requiring filing of CUT) provided by whoever you want.  So all adults of all genders could go down to the courthouse, get the CUT contract, and then depending on the nature of the relationship, either have a wedding or not.

Sounds more complicated than just allowing everybody to use the system that's already in place.
 
2014-04-29 10:28:53 PM  

rosekolodny: Sounds more complicated than just allowing everybody to use the system that's already in place.


I think they are trying to concern-troll this into something much more than simple marriage so they can then say "look how gay marriage is destroying traditional marriage!!!"

If they are honest they would separate this new invention from the issue at had. The gay community is not asking for multiple-partner marriage ... they are asking for equal access to what other citizens have.

If these guys want multiple partner marriage then they can campaign for that separately.
 
2014-04-29 10:37:41 PM  

rosekolodny: Oh, hey!  I'm too lazy to sift through all your posts.


I'm too lazy to provide you an answer you could have easily obtained by reading a few of them in the time it took you to pay that.

I guess the other way to organize all this nonsense would be to make Marriage a subset of a totally inclusive Civil Union Thingie (CUT), in which CUT is governed by law, and Marriage is a romantic and/or religious ceremony (requiring filing of CUT) provided by whoever you want.  So all adults of all genders could go down to the courthouse, get the CUT contract, and then depending on the nature of the relationship, either have a wedding or not.

Sounds more complicated than just allowing everybody to use the system that's already in place.


That is the system already in place.  For people who want to get married, absolutely nothing would change except the title of the form, which would also allow for more than two people.
 
2014-04-29 10:41:47 PM  

BMFPitt: rosekolodny: Oh, hey!  I'm too lazy to sift through all your posts.

I'm too lazy to provide you an answer you could have easily obtained by reading a few of them in the time it took you to pay that.

I guess the other way to organize all this nonsense would be to make Marriage a subset of a totally inclusive Civil Union Thingie (CUT), in which CUT is governed by law, and Marriage is a romantic and/or religious ceremony (requiring filing of CUT) provided by whoever you want.  So all adults of all genders could go down to the courthouse, get the CUT contract, and then depending on the nature of the relationship, either have a wedding or not.

Sounds more complicated than just allowing everybody to use the system that's already in place.

That is the system already in place.  For people who want to get married, absolutely nothing would change except the title of the form, which would also allow for more than two people.



OK, I shall simplify for you.  Are you a proponent of an institution called marriage which is available only to people of opposite genders?  Because that ain't fair.
 
2014-04-29 10:42:18 PM  

Farking Canuck: I think they are trying to concern-troll this into something much more than simple marriage so they can then say "look how gay marriage is destroying traditional marriage!!!"


You aren't very good at thinking.

If they are honest they would separate this new invention from the issue at had. The gay community is not asking for multiple-partner marriage ... they are asking for equal access to what other citizens have.

And we are saying that gay marriage is a nice first (or second, if you want to go back a few decades) step towards equal access.

If these guys want multiple partner marriage then they can campaign for that separately.

You mean exactly what we did?
 
2014-04-29 10:45:57 PM  

rosekolodny: OK, I shall simplify for you.  Are you a proponent of an institution called marriage which is available only to people of opposite genders?


See my previous response in bolded and oversized text for a question that has been answered dozens of times already.
 
2014-04-29 11:12:20 PM  

BMFPitt: rosekolodny: OK, I shall simplify for you.  Are you a proponent of an institution called marriage which is available only to people of opposite genders?

See my previous response in bolded and oversized text for a question that has been answered dozens of times

ONCE already.


Look, I think I get you.  But your refusal to use words like "gender" or even "sex" makes it seem like you are choosing to not be explicit in your language.  Your arguments are tautological, and direct questions remain unanswered.  I think this is just your conversational style and not intentional evasion, but for some of us it is frustrating.

I THINK you mean that all people (in any number and gender, but of age to enter in a contract) should be legally allowed to do civil unions, and that marriage is a thing of churches and social convention.

But when you propose something that is seperate-but-equal-sounding, it makes one question your motives.  This is where explicit language is a big help.  All you have to say is which humans you believe are entitled to enter into which kinds of union.  I suspect that your deliberate omission of descriptors is meant to be inclusive, but in this case it obfuscates.

I see your bolded, oversized text from before, and I believe you do mean to be inclusive.  I think you could have saved yourself some time by being more direct and more clear.
 
2014-04-30 01:45:55 AM  

sprgrss: ciberido: sprgrss: I was talking about weddings, not marriage.   As I said, a wedding is a ceremony.  A marriage is not a ceremony.  The difference between the two is key.

The two go hand in hand.  You cannot be married without a wedding (yes, even the ceremony conducted by a magistrate are weddings).  You are attempting to split a hair that cannot be split.


Are you being deliberately obtuse?  A wedding a ceremony.  I can have a wedding for my dogs.  That doesn't make them legally married.

You cannot possibly fail to understand such a simple concept.
 
2014-04-30 01:51:45 AM  

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: AmbassadorBooze: It should be replaced with contracts, eg. two people have a contract to support each other money wise, or that lets them visit each other in the hospital.

Hospital Administrator: "Who are you? GTFO, noob."
AmbassadorBooze: "But I have a contract that lets me visit my significant other, who is in your emergency room!"
Hospital Administrator: "WTF are you talking about? I never signed any such contract."
AmbassadorBooze: "No, but my significant other and I did..."
Hospital Administrator: "And WTF should I care? If I didn't sign any contract with you, then why are you coming to me to enforce your contract? Get out of here before I call security."

And  scene.

Or, if you disagree and think that contracts can be used to bind third parties, in the absence of any statute granting particular rights or placing obligations on the third parties, then I just signed this contract with my spouse giving me your car. So, I'll need your- er,  my keys, thank you very much.

I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.


At which point it's not a contract.  It, like marriage, is something more than a contract, if it imposes legal obligations on third parties.
 
2014-04-30 02:01:26 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: rosekolodny: Sorry to break this to you, but many white women are married to blah men.  What you propose would effectively nullify most WASP unions.

Sure, yet interracial marriage was once illegal in the US. If the state has the right to define marriage by gender, why doesn't it have the right to define it by race?

Does this really go over American heads?


The usual rejoinder is something like: "Marriage is for producing babies.  A (heterosexual) interracial couple can produce babies, but a gay couple (interracial or not) cannot."

Then someone points out that, by that logic, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, and before anyone can bring up adoption, the person opposed to same-sex marriage usually mutters something about POTENTIALLY having kids and changes the subject.
 
2014-04-30 06:46:04 AM  

rosekolodny: Look, I think I get you.  But your refusal to use words like "gender" or even "sex" makes it seem like you are choosing to not be explicit in your language.  Your arguments are tautological, and direct questions remain unanswered.  I think this is just your conversational style and not intentional evasion, but for some of us it is frustrating.


Yes, clearly when I say something that explicitly applies to all people, then repeatedly point out that the person who claims it is living in a fantasy world, it is reasonable to assume that it only applies to some random subset because reasons.
 
Displayed 20 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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