Marriage Equality!

[Oreo Cookie]

View attachment 105746
Great day!!

Love the picture! Glad you and Jen were there for the announcement! Have a great vacation!

 

[CPT Tripss]

The whole subject of who "owns" particular symbols gets crazy. Try all these campaigns with various colored ribbons. I've even heard of lawsuits between charities to "protect the brand".

As for the rainbow, the University of Hawaii did change the name of their men's sports teams to "Warriors" when it used to be "Rainbows" or sometimes "Rainbow Warriors". I heard that it was in response to some of the insults they got on the road.

Susan Koman Foundation sued to stop other non-profits from using pink in fund raising.

Wasn't Hawaii in the same conference as BYU?

 

[tcufrog]

I call BS when people claim this should be left up the the states. If it had been left up to the states in many states men and women of different ethnicities still wouldn't be able to get married. When I told my older son his response was to cry because it meant to him that he wouldn't have been born. He is biracial since I am Anglo and my dh is Asian Indian.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

AWESOME MAR!!!

33 years ago today my husband and I started our journey together , so long ago I was 2 weeks out of high school.
Tonight we toast to "EQUAL LOVE!"

Happy anniversary! 33 years! We're coming up on 31.

If you consider reconsidering,
.....you should look around the forum
......for a member who is also a CM
.....and who also happens to be
.....a JP, and who not only performs
.....wedding ceremonies discreetly onsite
.....but also recommends locations
.....and send this person a PM

 

[tennvalgirl]

I think my opinion is as valid as yours. And I do have two houses in Canada. Thank you!

Okay, I'm gonna be nosy and ask why you have 2 houses Art

 

[SirDuff]

Okay, I'm gonna be nosy and ask why you have 2 houses Art

Since he lives in the US, his claims of having two houses in Canada means having at least three houses.

 

[ChrisFL]

My thoughts on this:

http://thenewbullypulpit.blogspot.com/2015/06/gay-marriage-my-take.html

 

[Muushka]

No, there are a few more decisions (4 or 5 left if I recall) which will come out Monday. I was surprised we got this one before the last day too, nice us them to give us the weekend to celebrate



I hope in time this will unite the country. Religious people are entitled to their views on the religious institution of marriage, and now that the legal question has been settled regarding laws on civil marriage, maybe some of the hostility can die down. The decision reconfirmed a clergy members right not to perform a ceremony, as it should. It also permits those clergy who do believe Christianity has room for gay marriage to practice their faith. People can hold whatever religious beliefs they want. The legal matter was just adding anger, oppression and to the situation. With that behind us, perhaps a conversation can move forward in a more helpful way.

I mean, 50 years hasn't solved racism, but putting the legal equality issue to rest improved that conversation.

I hope that you are right and that this will unite the country. But as I look at this thread and see the way some have been treated. Laughed at, made fun of, called names.... for expressing an opinion that is different from theirs. One that our president and Hillary Clinton held until a couple of years ago.

I appreciate your thoughtful post though, and I hope I am wrong. My fear is that like the baker who was fined $135,000 or the photographer who was sued, both for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, is the way it will go in churches. I'll stop there.

But again, I hope you are right.

 

[bcla]

Susan Koman Foundation sued to stop other non-profits from using pink in fund raising.

Wasn't Hawaii in the same conference as BYU?

Hawaii has been in a bunch of conferences. Currently it's the MWC for football and Big West for most other sports. Then there's the Mountain Pacific for the low-participation sports. They were in the WAC for some time. I think BYU was in the 16 team WAC, but they then split off into the MWC.

In any case, it's still officially the "Rainbow Warriors", but they don't make mention of it much, and the logo has changed from a rainbow to the macho looking stylized H that looks like a Polynesian tattoo.

It used to look like this:

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Churches being fined for not performing same-sex marriages hasn't happened in Canada, where marriage equality has been the law nationally for a decade now (and longer in some provinces). Many churches require that people be members in order to be married in the church, and if their beliefs don't hold with same-sex marriages then someone who believed in it couldn't be a member.

What is interesting to me is that more and more denominations are now voluntarily celebrating same-sex marriages. There was recently a Mennonite same sex marriage!

In terms of people's reactions to those who have a different opinion, I think there is a difference between having an opinion about same sex marriage and trying to impose your opinion on others. You don't want to marry a person of the same sex, then don't. (Or you want to but won't because your God forbids it.) We're all good with that. But it's not right to want laws in place to force others to follow your personal religious beliefs.

For example - Mormons believe it is bad to drink coffee. Do you think they should be able to get the government to pass laws preventing everyone from drinking coffee? And the Old-Order Mennonites who live near me believe it is bad to drive cars. They only use horse-drawn buggies. Should we (out of respect for their beliefs) pass a law forbidding everyone from driving cars?

To me, that's the same as having laws that prevent people from marrying because their relationships are forbidden by your religion.

 

[pryncess527]

I appreciate your thoughtful post though, and I hope I am wrong. My fear is that like the baker who was fined $135,000 or the photographer who was sued, both for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, is the way it will go in churches. I'll stop there.

But again, I hope you are right.

As a religious institution, the church gets a level of protection that can not be justified for a baker or photographer. Those are private businesses that provide a service and can not refuse service to an entire class of people. That is completely different than actively officiating a ceremony. Churches can refuse couples for any reason. Catholic Churches often have a series of requirements you must meet, no one has ever successfully forced a Catholic priest to marry non Catholics, or even required them to rent out their cathedral.

I think that people accepting legal marriage as a separate issue from the religious ceremony will serve to ease tensions.

 

[Muushka]

Again, thank you for another thoughtful post. And again, I sure do hope that you're right.

 

[kimblebee]

Churches being fined for not performing same-*** marriages hasn't happened in Canada, where marriage equality has been the law nationally for a decade now (and longer in some provinces). Many churches require that people be members in order to be married in the church, and if their beliefs don't hold with same-*** marriages then someone who believed in it couldn't be a member.

What is interesting to me is that more and more denominations are now voluntarily celebrating same-*** marriages. There was recently a Mennonite same *** marriage!

In terms of people's reactions to those who have a different opinion, I think there is a difference between having an opinion about same *** marriage and trying to impose your opinion on others. You don't want to marry a person of the same ***, then don't. (Or you want to but won't because your God forbids it.) We're all good with that. But it's not right to want laws in place to force others to follow your personal religious beliefs.

For example - Mormons believe it is bad to drink coffee. Do you think they should be able to get the government to pass laws preventing everyone from drinking coffee? And the Old-Order Mennonites who live near me believe it is bad to drive cars. They only use horse-drawn buggies. Should we (out of respect for their beliefs) pass a law forbidding everyone from driving cars?

To me, that's the same as having laws that prevent people from marrying because their relationships are forbidden by your religion.

This is beautifully said. Canada did not fall apart because we allowed same sex marriage..we just kept on going. I'm sure there were protests (I don't remember) but people got over it. It's not even a topic anymore.

If people want to start saying that the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, let's make sure we follow alllll the 'rules' in the bible. Doesn't it say something about stoning women for just about everything? Why start picking and choosing what you obey?

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Why start picking and choosing what you obey?

Simple.

It allows you to justify your nasty hate with a book written thousands of years ago.

However, the bible also says many other things that no one or little to no one follows. The bible or at least the Old Testament isn't too kind to women as well

It just is crazy to wrap your head around he idea of people caring so much about other people's lives...

 

[ShayBells]

I for one am happy with this. It's about time. It should and should have and should always be just called marriage no matter the sex of the individuals. Love is love is a simple, pure, and true statement.

Another good statement is "The one with out sin cast the first stone."

Even If you believe it's a sin you should not judge, that is God's job and you trying to do God's job is probably one of the worst sins.

Congratulations America for doing something purely good.

 

[Caskett616]

Again, thank you for another thoughtful post. And again, I sure do hope that you're right.

Think of this: has any Catholic church (and I picked the Catholic church because I'm Catholic) has ever been forced to marry a couple that's been divorced? Not to my knowledge. So relax. Same-sex marriage will not be forced on any religious entity.

 

[Geoff_M]

Well, that was quick... faster than you can say "slippery slope", Politico: It's Time to Legalize Polygamy

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

....

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

The good news for Polygamists, public opinion, no doubt bolstered by examples of sympathetic media treatment such as "Big Love" and "Sister Wives", is following a familiar trajectory. The next clock is now ticking before another group of people, carrying signs reading "Marry Who You Love", in front of the SCOTUS are hugging and high-five'ing each other.

 

[andiraye]

I just want to chime in and share my elation. My FB feed has been lit up in rainbow and I get happy again every time I log on.

I, too, do not understand why anyone cares what two grown ups want to do with their personal lives. I also think about my children and, if it turns out they are gay, how heartbroken I would be if the law prevented them from living their lives with the person they love in the same way as DH and I have, simply because of gender.

A great day.

 

[Sabeking]

Simple.

It allows you to justify your nasty hate with a book written thousands of years ago.

However, the bible also says many other things that no one or little to no one follows. The bible or at least the Old Testament isn't too kind to women as well

It just is crazy to wrap your head around he idea of people caring so much about other people's lives...

First I guess we are allowed to talk religion now??

Just because some do or don't follow certain things in the bible speaks to people not the Creator. Second you say the Old Testament was not kind to women, Are we talking about people or the Creator? Just curious.

I am not happy that government issues marriage licenses to anyone. I don't think it's their business and is a way to make money and collect taxes.

Personally homosexuality is not something I agree with based on my faith. However, that does not reflect in my treatment of anyone. My cousin is a lesbian and I spent this last weekend with she and her partner and had a blast as usual. She doesn't judge my views and I don't hers. We have respect for each other's opinion. Flame me.

 

[kimblebee]

First I guess we are allowed to talk religion now??

Just because some do or don't follow certain things in the bible speaks to people not the Creator. Second you say the Old Testament was not kind to women, Are we talking about people or the Creator? Just curious.

I am not happy that government issues marriage licenses to anyone. I don't think it's their business and is a way to make money and collect taxes.

Personally homosexuality is not something I agree with based on my faith. However, that does not reflect in my treatment of anyone. My cousin is a lesbian and I spent this last weekend with she and her partner and had a blast as usual. She doesn't judge my views and I don't hers. We have respect for each other's opinion. Flame me.

I don't think he's talking religion, he's just stating facts. You are talking about a creator and that IS religion and not allowed. At least that's my take on it.