David Tyree is a moron

[Perfect Zero]

I'm sorry, but everything posted here is sensationalist bull . Nothing in your world will change if gay marriage is legalized. You can have your beliefs, but the fact is is that everyone can get married, whether in a church, a courthouse, a beach, by whoever, because it takes 15 minutes to fill out an application online to be ordained to wed a couple. EXCEPT GAYS. This is the big problem with denying marriage equality, plain and simple.

It's not sensationalist, it's something that we really have to look at. If we want to talk about the rights of gays, that's fine. There has to be talks about the rights of people that oppose gay unions though.

Having said that, I'll agree that it is a big problem. I came up with a solution in the last post though.

(By this, I mean straights and gays would be named in civil unions, not just gays).

As long as you're willing to give up the extra perks that come with marriage (recognition in other states, ability to sponsor your spouse to immigrate into the USA, government benefits, joint-tax returns, tax breaks, etc.), that'd be a fine solution.

I talked about re-working the wording. In that plan, the term "civil union" would replace "marriage." Marriage then becomes defined by the officiating body, and the results are the same.

[Perfect Zero]

does the state have the right to tell churches they have to marry gays? Would the gay couple have the right to claim discrimination? That would be a major problem.

Yes, it would. Which is why the answer to the two preceding questions is "No, and no."

Unless you can cite a single case in American history where a Catholic church was forced to marry practicing Jews, your fears are obviously and totally without foundation.

Wow, that's a horrid example. Those are two different religions. Obviously you're grasping at straws here.

[Gothamite]

The only one "grasping at straws" here is you.

You ignored my earlier example, so here it is again.

Can you cite a single case in American history where a Catholic church was forced by the state to marry a divorced person? If the answer is anything but "no", then your fears are without foundation and your argument is laughable.

[Sodboy13]

There has to be talks about the rights of people that oppose gay unions though.

It's about time that we, as a nation, focus on the needs and concerns of our bigots.

[Dexter Morgan]

The whole argument though is that "marriage equality" would be forced on the citizenship of a population that doesn't want anything to do with it. The voters of the State of Texas voted to approve the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. The State of California did the same thing in Proposition 8. How can you tell the citizens of some of the most populous states that their voice doesn't count? Talk about enforcing the ideas of the few upon all. At this point, you have an option to move to a state of your choice and do what you want within their laws, and I would encourage gay couples to marry in New York and live their lives there.

My biggest fear is that this will lead down a slippery slope with many factors. Would my Church be allowed to congregate since homosexuality is a sin and they cannot become a part of the membership? Would I have to face jail time because I don't agree with the ideas of gay couples? To what extent will this go on?

At this point, the best thing to do would be to define civil unions as unions between two consenting adult humans, and leave the marriage part to the church. This would allow gays to have their victory, and allow traditional couples to keep their holy bonds of matrimony under the approval of God.

People should never vote on other people's rights, If Texas put Jim Crow laws up to a vote, they may pass. Would you be okay with that?

[Dexter Morgan]

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Period. You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.

[Gothamite]

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Period. You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Cosmic]

I've had this idea stewing around in my head for a long time, so it's interesting to see it coming from someone else. I think a lot of opposition to gay marriage comes from the word "marriage". When people hear "gay marriage", I think there are many who think the gov't will force their church to marry gay couples. There is a religious marriage: two people standing before God, professing their love, promising eternal love, undying devotion, etc. Then there is this whole other thing where the gov't certifies the union of two people in a committed relationship, recognizing benefits to society from people forming stable households. For some reason, this is also called marriage.

If you want to change the name of legal marriage, I don't really have a problem with that; I never understood why the gov't was in the "marrying" business in the first place. But if you're talking about civil unions as a separate class from legal marriages, they are not equal. You would still be depriving gay couples of their rights based on the philosophies of certain religious groups.

[Dexter Morgan]

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Period. You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.

Seems pretty simple to me.

That's because it is simple.

[IceCap]

Ah, but any one interpretation of God is not particularly relevant here.

Marriage is a civil institution, which can be administered by a church, but only with the prior approval of the state.

If a church doesn't want to perform a marriage between two men, or two women, it doesn't have to. But they have no right to tell other churches, or the state, that they can't either.

But does the state have the right to tell churches they have to marry gays? Would the gay couple have the right to claim discrimination? That would be a major problem.

This is a ludicrous argument. Legalized same sex marriage would not force a church that condemns homosexuality to perform gay marriage. It would only make it legal for those churches that accept homosexuality to perform same sex marriages. Even after same sex marriages are legalized your religious freedom to consider homosexuality a sin would still be upheld.

[Dexter Morgan]

Ah, but any one interpretation of God is not particularly relevant here.

Marriage is a civil institution, which can be administered by a church, but only with the prior approval of the state.

If a church doesn't want to perform a marriage between two men, or two women, it doesn't have to. But they have no right to tell other churches, or the state, that they can't either.

But does the state have the right to tell churches they have to marry gays? Would the gay couple have the right to claim discrimination? That would be a major problem.

This is a ludicrous argument. Legalized same sex marriage would not force a church that condemns homosexuality to perform gay marriage. It would only make it legal for those churches that accept homosexuality to perform same sex marriages. Even after same sex marriages are legalized your religious freedom to consider homosexuality a sin would still be upheld.

Exactly, bigots are still permitted to be bigots, they just can't force their bigotry on others.

[Perfect Zero]

This is a ludicrous argument. Legalized same sex marriage would not force a church that condemns homosexuality to perform gay marriage. It would only make it legal for those churches that accept homosexuality to perform same sex marriages. Even after same sex marriages are legalized your religious freedom to consider homosexuality a sin would still be upheld.

This is the fear of many Christians, and I hope that what you said in this quote would be the case. If the state allows for gay unions, then I would hope that it would not pursue action against churches that do not condone the practice. That is what I'm trying to get at in all of this (and something I think Gothamite is trying to get at; not sure if that's what it is).

As I have said before, I would be fine if the state took out the word "marriage" and replaced it with "civil union," then if they wished let it go to gays and straights. Marriage isn't even defined by the state in my book, it is ordained by God.

[Dexter Morgan]

This is a ludicrous argument. Legalized same sex marriage would not force a church that condemns homosexuality to perform gay marriage. It would only make it legal for those churches that accept homosexuality to perform same sex marriages. Even after same sex marriages are legalized your religious freedom to consider homosexuality a sin would still be upheld.

This is the fear of many Christians, and I hope that what you said in this quote would be the case. If the state allows for gay unions, then I would hope that it would not pursue action against churches that do not condone the practice. That is what I'm trying to get at in all of this (and something I think Gothamite is trying to get at; not sure if that's what it is).

As I have said before, I would be fine if the state took out the word "marriage" and replaced it with "civil union," then if they wished let it go to gays and straights. Marriage isn't even defined by the state in my book, it is ordained by God.

I guess many Christians are ignorant, if they bothered educate themselves on the issue they would know no one is trying to force churches to perform gay marriages.

Like it or not, marriage isn't only a religious institution. For some it is, others it's not. Neither I or my wife are religious people, we married because of love and wanted to show out commitment to each other. It had nothing to do with "God". We didn't get married in a church and we didn't get married by a priest.

[Gothamite]

This is the fear of many Christians, and I hope that what you said in this quote would be the case. If the state allows for gay unions, then I would hope that it would not pursue action against churches that do not condone the practice. That is what I'm trying to get at in all of this (and something I think Gothamite is trying to get at; not sure if that's what it is).

If that is the fear of many Christians, then those particular Christians haven't been paying attention.

Third time now, and I really would appreciate an honest answer: has a Catholic church ever been persecuted for refusing to marry a divorced person?. If not, then we can put those unfounded (and silly) fears to rest.

If that is your real objection, then it has been asked and answered. Not going to happen, not a legitimate reason to oppose marriage equality.

And for those scoring at home, we still haven't found a single Constitutionally-valid reason for denying gay couples their fundamental rights. This one doesn't even come close, to be dispelled so easily.

As I have said before, I would be fine if the state took out the word "marriage" and replaced it with "civil union," then if they wished let it go to gays and straights. Marriage isn't even defined by the state in my book, it is ordained by God.

Ah, that book would be fiction, then.

Seriously, you are entitled to your own opinions but not you own facts. Marriage is a civil and secular institution. It may be administered by a church, if that church has been pre-approved by the state. The church may also add its own flavor to the ceremony, as long as they play by the state's rules. But a church is never required for a marriage - the state's participation is.

You may not like that, but you cannot argue with reality.

[OnWis97]

There has to be talks about the rights of people that oppose gay unions though.

It's about time that we, as a nation, focus on the needs and concerns of our bigots.

it is. When we eliminated segregation, there were no "talks about the rights of people that oppose integration though." We need to learn from that mistake.

[IceCap]

Talk about enforcing the ideas of the few upon all.

Yes. It is. If the government listened to the will of the people segregation would still be the law of the land in the American south. The will of the people in Germany in 1933 was for Hitler to be Chancellor. The civil rights of a minority should NEVER depend on the approval of the majority.

And you know what? Your own Constitution agrees with me. Alexander Hamilton, who's ideas formed the ideological backbone of the Constitution, wrote about the "tyranny of the majority" and that a republic should strive to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. Hamilton, one of the Constitution's key framers, argued that the mass of people are ignorant, and thus cannot be trusted to influence such important decisions as civil liberties.

Or if you want something more contemporary, I'll use a Tommy Lee Jones quote from Men in Black.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it."

You just don't trust the mob ("majority rule") with the rights of minorities.

This is a ludicrous argument. Legalized same sex marriage would not force a church that condemns homosexuality to perform gay marriage. It would only make it legal for those churches that accept homosexuality to perform same sex marriages. Even after same sex marriages are legalized your religious freedom to consider homosexuality a sin would still be upheld.

This is the fear of many Christians, and I hope that what you said in this quote would be the case.

It's already the case. Take a look up north, at the country you share a continent-spanning border with. Same sex marriage was legalized here years ago. Churches that are still ideologically opposed to homosexuality have retained their religious freedom to deny marriage to homosexual couples. Gay marriage isn't being forced on any church that doesn't want a part in it. Also legalized gay marriage did not lead to speaking out against homosexuality becoming a crime. So no worries on the slippy slope front there.

Also, not every Christian is opposed to same sex marriage, so the "G-d" argument doesn't fly. The Christian community is split on the issue, so the anti-same sex marriage Christians hardly have any right to claim that they're speaking for all of Christianity.

If the state allows for gay unions, then I would hope that it would not pursue action against churches that do not condone the practice. That is what I'm trying to get at in all of this (and something I think Gothamite is trying to get at; not sure if that's what it is).

As I have said before, I would be fine if the state took out the word "marriage" and replaced it with "civil union," then if they wished let it go to gays and straights. Marriage isn't even defined by the state in my book, it is ordained by God.

The problem I have with the civil union argument is that it's essentially the "separate but equal" argument pro-segregationist forces used to defend segregation in the American south. Yet, as the Supreme Court ruled, separate is inherently unequal. By refusing even the title of marriage to homosexual couples you are marking them as "inferior" to heterosexual couples. Once you do that you set a very dangerous legal/social precedent.

[Gothamite]

And just to follow my Canadian friend's very impressive knowledge of Hamilton (the most overlooked of our Founding Fathers), I'd point out that he originally opposed adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, for fear that people would think those were the only rights we possessed.

Sadly, not even the inclusion of the 9th Amendment, which addressed this concern in no uncertain terms, can stop misinformed people from spouting things like "I don't see a right to marry in the Constitution."

[IceCap]

And just to follow my Canadian friend's very impressive knowledge of Hamilton (the most overlooked of our Founding Fathers), I'd point out that he originally opposed adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, for fear that people would think those were the only rights we possessed.

Sadly, not even the inclusion of the 9th Amendment, which addressed this concern in no uncertain terms, can stop misinformed people from spouting things like "I don't see a right to marry in the Constitution."

Hamilton is overlooked, but he got on the 10. Jefferson had to settle for the 2

Seriously though, Hamilton is awesome. The man was nothing short of centuries ahead of his time. And you're 100% right, he's pretty relevant to the proceedings here. You don't trust the unruly mob with the civil liberties of a minority. Mobs tend to hate minorities.

Just like the right thing had to be imposed on the majority of the American south during the Civil Rights era, the right thing once again has to be imposed on the majority of Americans living in states like Texas and California.

[rams80]

This is the fear of many Christians, and I hope that what you said in this quote would be the case. If the state allows for gay unions, then I would hope that it would not pursue action against churches that do not condone the practice. That is what I'm trying to get at in all of this (and something I think Gothamite is trying to get at; not sure if that's what it is).

Why do Christians fear governmental persecution in this country? Our elections for decades have boiled down to battles of who loves Jesus more.

[IceCap]

This is the fear of many Christians, and I hope that what you said in this quote would be the case. If the state allows for gay unions, then I would hope that it would not pursue action against churches that do not condone the practice. That is what I'm trying to get at in all of this (and something I think Gothamite is trying to get at; not sure if that's what it is).

Why do Christians fear governmental persecution in this country? Our elections for decades have boiled down to battles of who loves Jesus more.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, "Christians, you've been in charge since the year 312 and a guy by the name of Constantine. Just enjoy your success."