So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[Oreo Cookie]

I've always been for equality, therefore I've always supported marriage equality.

 

[1001 Ghosts]

Yes, I hope it does continue to protect this, but from what I'm reading all over the place, it seems like the goal is otherwise. I truly wish I could join the conversation. I know where it will lead though. Even if we could discuss it honestly & with respect, it is still violating the boards' rules, as I would have to talk about my "beliefs", which include banned topics! I have enjoyed what we have been able to discuss though!

It's like the old saying goes, "he who laughs last, laughs best"

Except it sounds much better when you say it in a foreign language....

 

[momof2n2]

I don't want to hijack the OP's thread. I don't think we're allowed to discuss religion or politics here either, so that makes it very hard for me to answer anyone's questions as to why I believe the way I do. I don't think those who are pro SSM really care how I feel anyway, nor should they care. It is a shame that we can't have a discussion here though, but it is what it is.

I agree. Neither religion nor politics are allowed. And for any who may not have "come around" OR who maybe once thought SSM ok but "came around" another way can not even explain their answers... It's complicated & awkward.

 

[aristocatz]

Yes, I hope it does continue to protect this, but from what I'm reading all over the place, it seems like the goal is otherwise. I truly wish I could join the conversation. I know where it will lead though. Even if we could discuss it honestly & with respect, it is still violating the boards' rules, as I would have to talk about my "beliefs", which include banned topics! I have enjoyed what we have been able to discuss though!

If it will lessen your fears, some (I think in this thread??) posted the actual ruling, which makes a point to clearly state the religious institutions (ie churches, etc..) are protected). I understand that you can only say so much, to remain within the rules of the boards.

 

[bcla]

If it will lessen your fears, some (I think in this thread??) posted the actual ruling, which makes a point to clearly state the religious institutions (ie churches, etc..) are protected). I understand that you can only say so much, to remain within the rules of the boards.

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

 

[rickybobby]

If it will lessen your fears, some (I think in this thread??) posted the actual ruling, which makes a point to clearly state the religious institutions (ie churches, etc..) are protected). I understand that you can only say so much, to remain within the rules of the boards.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

 

[kimblebee]

Like I have stated in this thread or the other one, I know we are different countries BUT Canada has not had one single case where a church or other religious institution was forced to perform a ceremony they didn't want to. No one lost tax status or anything like that. Life just went on.

 

[mnrose]

Like I have stated in this thread or the other one, I know we are different countries BUT Canada has not had one single case where a church or other religious institution was forced to perform a ceremony they didn't want to. No one lost tax status or anything like that. Life just went on.

As it will here. There have been many states now who have approved same-sex marriage. NONE, I repeat NONE, of those states has seen a single instance of a church being forced (or even being asked) to perform a same sex marriage against their will (there are many churches who welcome same sex couples). Nor have any lost tax exempt status. Not a one.

This is nothing more than a talking point by some people to scare people.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally I never really thought about it. And then when it came up, it didn't make any difference to me. I never could understand the fuss.

 

[bcla]

As it will here. There have been many states now who have approved same-*** marriage. NONE, I repeat NONE, of those states has seen a single instance of a church being forced (or even being asked) to perform a same *** marriage against their will (there are many churches who welcome same *** couples). Nor have any lost tax exempt status. Not a one.

I'm pretty sure some have been asked. However, none have suffered any penalty for refusal.

 

[kimblebee]

As it will here. There have been many states now who have approved same-*** marriage. NONE, I repeat NONE, of those states has seen a single instance of a church being forced (or even being asked) to perform a same *** marriage against their will (there are many churches who welcome same *** couples). Nor have any lost tax exempt status. Not a one.

This is nothing more than a talking point by some people to scare people.

That's a good point. I keep forgetting that this was law in a majority of the states already. If people could just calm down and think rationally for a moment they would see this.

 

[Rhombus]

That's a good point. I keep forgetting that this was law in a majority of the states already. If people could just calm down and think rationally for a moment they would see this.

That's asking WAY too much of certain people.

 

[mnrose]

That's a good point. I keep forgetting that this was law in a majority of the states already. If people could just calm down and think rationally for a moment they would see this.

No kidding. I just watched Jon Stewart from last night, and some of the commentary by some politicians was just shockingly stupid. As in these "5 unelected judges' blah blah blah. Of COURSE they are unelected. That's EXACTLY what the constitution provides, and has for 250 years. None of this should be news, but apparently it is. LOL.

And, I don't recall a similar outcry when Citizen's United was decided by the same margin. I guess we only care about "unelected judges" deciding things when they don't rule our way.

I had seen NONE of this drivel until I saw it on Jon Stewart, but if you watch this kind of crap, I can see where you are being misled.

But, just so we are clear. The makeup and duties of the Supreme Court are set forth in the Constitution. Have been for a long time. Our founders DELIBERATELY made them an unelected body, for some very good reasons. They are to decide based on law, not the whim and caprice of an ever changing electorate. The decision was entirely within their powers and entirely legal. Get over it. If you don't like the decision, by all means, have at it in trying to get the Constitution amended. And good luck with that. You'll need it.

 

[Bluestars]

I was never against it and am glad that it is finally legal in all states. It was strange to have a binding marriage contract legal in one state, but not in another. I am happy that it is legal everywhere and hope that means everyone can move on and accept it so that it becomes a non-issue someday. I believe in live and let live.

 

[aristocatz]

They may not be able to force them due to the 1st Amendment, but there is a lot of talk about taking their tax exempt status away, as well as that of religious schools, etc. There's a lot of the unknown out there, and there are a lot of activists who won't stop at SSM. Time will tell. Thank you pryncess.

Wow, what do religious school have to do with SSM? I think, just like any new thing that not everyone agrees on, news media gets a little out of control with their fears.

 

[okeydokey]

I have said for years that one day our kids and grandkids would look back at all this "controversy" and wonder what the big deal was about. I would like to read this thread again a decade from now.

 

[Missy1961]

Wow, what do religious school have to do with SSM? I think, just like any new thing that not everyone agrees on, news media gets a little out of control with their fears.

They have little or nothing to do with it; it's a scare tactic. Churches aren't going to lose tax exempt status over this. But it's a way to scare people.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

I get a kick out of anyone who thinks the Supreme Court illegally decided this issue. The Supreme Court can't illegally decide any issue! It is the supreme law of the land! Come on, it's right there in the name! There is no higher court that could tell them they've ever done something wrong. What the Supreme Court decides is the law - that's it.

Don't we have "In God we Trust" stamped on all our money?

Yes, unfortunately. It was a silly measure put in place in 1956 to try to convince folks not to embrace Communism. Similarly, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. The 50's were a scary, repressive time period.

The country was started with Christianity as a centerpiece.

Ehhhh....sort of. This country was started with religious freedom as a centerpiece, that we can agree on. There's a lot of discussion between historical scholars as to how many of the founding fathers were Christian, how many were more likely deists, and how many were agnostics. I don't know and we probably never will know. But what we do know is that they never wanted anyone to be persecuted for their religious beliefs or non-beliefs.

Part of that was the definition of marriage as a man and woman, in the dictionary.

The first dictionary in America was written by Daniel Webster in 1828. I do believe he defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He also defined a buckeye as a "useless nut", a comparison still utilized derisively today by my fellow Ohio State haters. However, your argument is that we should take a Christian/Biblical definition for our Christian/Biblical nation. The Bible includes in its definition of marriage polygamy, concubines, virgins sold by their fathers, female spoils of war, enslaved women, and women purchased by their rapist.

Civil Union, same rights, just different word with same meaning except one is man-woman, and other is same gender.
Same rights, same rights, same rights.
Acceptance, Acceptance, Acceptance.

Unfortunately, no. People in a civil union do not necessarily have the same rights granted by the government as those in a marriage, even in states that recognize civil unions (many do not). That's sort of the point of all this. Now, if the Federal government makes a law that civil unions must be valid in all states, accorded all the same rights as marriage, and that marriage is solely a religious word which has no meaning for the government, hey, I'm down with that! I will be among the first to stand up and dissolve my religiously officiated wedding in favor of a civil union. Would you?

Regardless, this wouldn't solve your problem at all, because the government can't tell churches what to do. It can't tell them not to perform weddings. And many churches do, in fact, permit gay weddings. Because that's part of their religion. So really, ultimately, gay marriage will be a religious institution that the government can't touch not because of Congress, or the Supreme Court, or anyone in the government...but because of the actions and beliefs of religious institutions themselves.

 

[lustergirl]

I say "whatever floats your boat." Way too many other things in this world to worry about.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Churches could lose tax exemption over gay marriage
By Daniel John Sobieski
Lost in the celebrations over universal gay marriage, like abortion, being deemed a right found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution is the chilling effect the ruling has on religious liberty. In a telling exchange between the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, detailed by Tom Blumer at Newsbusters.com, in which Verrilli admitted that churches could lose their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay weddings:

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.

So the administration admits that the tax exemption of institutions could be at risk if they refuse to acquiesce in the acceptance of gay marriages. There is no reason to assume that this mandate would not apply to institutions such as the Catholic Church. Those who think this is a red herring forget that this is the administration dragging the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of elderly nuns devoted to helping the aged poor, through the courts, because they won’t comply with Obamacare’s contraception coverage mandate: as Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

The Little Sisters contend ObamaCare not only violates the First Amendment's religious guarantees, but also the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That requires the government to implement its policies in ways that do not impose an unnecessary burden on the free exercise of religion …

If the Little Sisters lose their case, they'll either have to violate their religious conscience or face fines of around $2.5 million a year, or about 40% of what they beg for annually to care for the dying poor. Their ministry would be severely crippled, as would the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.

The Obama administration’s hostility to the free exercise of religion was seen in the Hobby Lobby case, in which the government argued that acting on your religious beliefs in your personal and business life is illegal. The courts ruled otherwise, agreeing that this was an attempted infringement of the free exercise of religion:

So do scores of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions and businesses who argue either that the way they run their private businesses is an extension of their faith or that a church, something the federal government seeks to redefine, is not something that happens one hour a week on a Sunday but 24/7 through the hospitals, schools, soup kitchens and charities they may operate. They argue that acting out their faith through their works should not be illegal.

We should also not underestimate the passion of gay activists, who, in the secular realm, have argued that no institution has the right to follow the religious beliefs of the proprietors in its daily operations. Just ask Crystal O’Connor, member of the family that owns Memories Pizza, who touched off a firestorm when she refused to cater a hypothetical gay wedding. She told a local ABC news affiliate that she agreed with Indiana’s version of the federal RFRA signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993:

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she told local station ABC57. It is important to remember that nobody has actually been denied service or has been discriminated against under Indiana’s RFRA. O’Connor’s statement reflects, not bigotry, but a reaffirmation of the family’s religious conscience supposedly enshrined under RFRA laws.

A few years ago, Catholic Charities in Illinois, which for over four decades had been a key player in providing needed social services for poor and neglected children, decided to close up shop rather than be forced by the state to not turn away same-sex couples as foster and adoptive parents. As the Boston Globe reported:

For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme…

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,’’ said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services.

The case has been made by many that all marriage, gay or straight, is not a constitutional right but rather, like a driver’s license, is a privilege granted by the state for secular purposes. In the case of marriage, it was a recognition that traditional marriage provided stability and the orderly preservation of future society by providing a secure and stable framework for the procreation and rearing of children. Not every marriage lasts or bears children, but that was the intent.

Bigotry comes in many forms, and those who ask others to tolerate their lifestyles refuse to tolerate the religious consciences of those who disagree with them. Churches losing their tax exemption may seem a stretch to some, but it was once a stretch to think the Supreme Court would eviscerate federalism and the Constitution to insist that the Constitution was written to protect the right to gay marriage.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...xemption_over_gay_marriage.html#ixzz3efvgMpMz