I would like to see the evidence that religious institutions are going to be compelled to have or recognize homosexual marriages. On the main topic I am on record as saying all state sanctioned unions should be civil unions, whether hetero or homo. Ideally this should be left to contract law but the institution is to ingrained to have that radical of a change.
I brought this up in another thread but I personally do not see the sacredness in the term "marriage". That said understanding that others do my argument would be to take the term out of all state sanctioned unions. That means that as far as the state is concerned there is no separate but equal situation while religions are free to maintain their own standard of marriage.
I have no problem with taking "the state" out of marraige. Now, if only we could get the Republican Party out of the state!
No evidence per se, but I imagine a convoluted scenario where gay marriage was legalized nationwide or in Texas, and you had religious facilities on public property, like A. D. Bruce at U of H, that also rent out for funerals or weddings; and the chaplain refused to officiate or even book gay weddings. The 'Coug would definitely run a piece and editorials on it and all the student political groups and possibly even SGA would speak up on the issue; at which point University administration would have to step in pretty much ensure some kind of court action from any and all directions. At a more conservative state school with an on campus church, the Admin would probably side with the religious center more quickly, which might just bring the outside advocacy lawyers in that much faster.
I agree that pursuing equality is a noble cause, but I totally disgree that wanting what someone else has is necessarily a good cause. In this specific instance, heteros have something IMO they should not hve to begin with, so logically it's counter-productiveto the big picture for homos to ask for something that we should be trying to get rid of. The most logical outcome of these circumstances is that all parties jointly place pressure on the person or persons who will/can revoke these rights from heteros and hence bringing true EQUALITY for everyone, rather than equality only between homosexuals and heterosexuals who want to get married. So the way I see things is that the actual person(s) who SHOULD be receiving these grievances has, more succesfully than I have ever seen on this scale, pitted homos and heteros against each other so effectively. So right now, the government is in posession of a Right which it is trying to hold onto desperately. To do this, they've (directly or indirectly) led heteros to believe that homos getting married lessens the "sanctity" of marriage and dilutes their rights but more importantly there would be less money to go around for married peoples. I think this whole thing is a massive distraction. None of you should lose sight of the fact that this SHOULD only be a small part of a large effort to reduce government intereference in areas where it's not needed. Everyone deserves equality, don't let the authorities dilute the cause by getting you to fight each other for something both sides want. To sum it up, this should be "pro-freedom and pro-equality for individuals" but it seems to be more about sides attacking each other for a problem that's got way way way way more than two sides. Note: used short version of homo/hetero for speed. not to offend.
Show me where I said that. I've seen Andy Griffith marry folks most of my life. Even Captain Stubing. My own parents eloped and were married by a civic official in Beaumont. They were married for 53 years. Any confusion I suffered was in the terminology not the reality.
Huh? My premise was a question: how is marriage different from a civil union. The assertion I made was that gay couples should enjoy the same legal and economic standing as hetero couples. I did add the caveat about religious freedom for the churches to not be compelled to do things that violate their by-laws and beliefs. And you see strawmen everywhere. Normally people that use that strawman argument reach the opposite conclusion that I do. I didn't whine; I mocked. Your arrogance for congratulating me when our positions are essentially the same regarding this issue is a little over the top. All the while you cajole me... You can probably find hundreds of places where I've endorsed gay marriage in these archives. I have no problem using the word. Others may and that is an issue but the real issues are legal not semantic. It's not made up and it's not beyond the pale. Similarly, it may not be likely, but beyond a shadow of a doubt gun registration makes gun confiscation easier... if that is indeed what comes next. You cannot just dismiss the things that concern others as "made-up." Well, you can but others don't have to. The Slippery Slope is a minor and real concern but don't forget that I endorse the legitimacy of gay marriage..... yet you still want to quibble over minor things. Unless you can see the future, you can't dismiss those concerns willy-nilly. Someone tell Batman to enjoy his sunshine tomorrow.
You're not going to find evidence but you'll find concerns expressed. Can anyone find evidence that they won't be compelled? I doubt it. You may find musings but they are not evidence.
You were the one who brought this up in post 26 Obviously since that is your concern I would like to hear the basis of why this should be considered a legitimate concern.
My point is that any discussion of it at this point is just conjecture and that runs in both directions. There is no "proof" that some may be trying to force churches to marry gays (although I'd bet there have been cases filed and maybe even tried; would that constitute proof?), nor is there "proof" that that kind of compulsion would never happen. Protection of religious freedom. If gay marriage violates a particular church's by-laws or beliefs, they have a right to not participate in that kind of marriage. The church that I attended before I re-married would not let me marry in their facility nor could I use their pastoral staff because I was a divorced man. Did I protest and start a petition? No. I quietly found a new church.
What is marriage? <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XF3SKZRNTuw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Churches are not currently compelled to marry people so I don't see why that would change. If some Catholics went to a Baptist church and said they wanted a traditional mass the church can easily refuse. If some mean atheists went to a church and said they wanted a religious wedding so they could laugh and mock the whole time the church can refuse. Churches have full freedom to marry whoever and however they want (except they can't currently marry gay people in most states if they wanted to do so). I guess giddy you are saying that even if there is risk you are still in favor of legal gay marriages but you want everyone to be sensitive to the possibility and/or current fear in some people of churches being forced to perform ceremonies contrary to their morality? I think you are just confusing people because the latter part seems superfluous but I get your point and don't think anyone posting in here wants churches to be compelled (or believes the government would want or would ever be allowed to do so).
I think if any religious institution had a homosexual employee they would have to recognize his/her marriage This is based on the other argument about them [religious institutions] having to provide HealthCare benefits that cover contraception basically ... . Religious affiliation and ideals and doctines are trumped by the fed recognition So basically. . .the separation of Church and State is kind of 1 way . . . we don't want church to influence/mingle with the state but are quite ok with the state influencing/mingling with the church Rocket River
RR, if you really want to "mingle Church and State," charge the various religions property taxes. It would help pay for public schools, among other things.
Maybe so but we live in a litigous age where one person (with the right judge) can overturn a lot of tradition.
Churches can if they choose too and several denominations and individual parishes do. In states where gay marriage isn't recognized the state doesn't recognize the marriage.
Religiously they don't have to recognize that union. In terms of legally as an employer they may in regard to benefits but there is nothing to say that doctrinally they have to recognize it.
