It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you don't see faith-based organisations being coerced to perform same-sex marriages?


Unfortunately I do.


I have no problem and see no constitutional problem with gays being allowed to do there thing and religion doing there own thing.


Unfortunately due to political correctness and the thought police I dont see that world lasting long and the extreme progressives forcing all institutions to conform to the same which would mean a attack on religion.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you don't see faith-based organisations being coerced to perform same-sex marriages?


Unfortunately I do.


I have no problem and see no constitutional problem with gays being allowed to do there thing and religion doing there own thing.


Unfortunately due to political correctness and the thought police I dont see that world lasting long and the extreme progressives forcing all institutions to conform to the same which would mean a attack on religion.


I wonder if there is a difference in making same-sex unions "legal" versus "Constitutional".



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio
but the term 'marriage' is synonymous with a man-woman union only...there are several thousands of years of precedent


Actually, same-sex marriage is as old as man/woman marriage...

Source



Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt.
...
Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You know, the thing is that I'm fine with allowing gay couples to have the same legalities. That's equal treatment, but where I draw the line is when I am compelled to act against my conscience to accommodate it.

No one is compelled to act against their conscience in order for me to have the recognition under the law of being the legal partner of my husband. No one would be compelled to act against their conscience for gay couples to enjoy the same.

It's when they insist this means they can force others to act in ways contrary to their belief that we go over the line. I did not insist that my marriage certificate meant I could compel any religious practitioner to perform the ceremony for my husband and I. Certainly, as we are not Muslim, no Imam would have, and I don't think we would have had an easy time finding a rabbi to do it, either. Should we have sued then for having our rights violated?

Because basically, this is how I view people who sue over not having someone perform a ceremony for them.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Im with you on this.

I dont care if gays can marry or whatever.

Not my problem.


Just dont force me to take part in such things.
edit on 20-10-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The cake shop owner....i agree he should have been sued. That is 100% EEOC related, as the cake shop owner provided a service that was predicated on complying with the EEOC. Were his conscience to tell him to not serve a person who was not caucasian, he would have been raked over the coals (rightly) as well. Sexuality should be an EEOC issue.

As it concerns religion....no, they should not be sued for not conducting marriages. If we would just legally observe a civil union as = to marriage, none of this would even really be an issue.

But let me ask this, to play devils advocate: if a church thought it was sinful to marry a white person to a black person (or asian, latino, or any other "race"), would that be something we are ok with? There are quite a few churches who believe that "the races should not mix" due to scripture related to the tower of babel. How do we feel about that? Is equal opportunity really intended to be equal?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The term "marriage" is a religious term.


Not exclusively. PLENTY of people get married and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.



From a legal standpoint, "marriage" needs to be divorced from "civil union".


It is. Marriage has state and federal benefits. Civil unions do not have the same benefits.



I got married with a Justice of the Peace, because my wife is catholic and I wasn't about to jump through all those hoops (and neither was she). So our marriage isn't recognized by the Catholic church, which is fine since we haven't set foot in one in a decade.


So, your marriage is not religious. Neither is mine. No religious words were spoken and yet, I have been legally married for 22 years. Marriage is not exclusively a religious term.



If a civil union carried with it the same benefit as a marriage, that would be fine.


It doesn't. There are MANY state and federal marriage benefits that do not apply to "civil unions". And I would have to ask: Why have two different designations if they are the same thing? ONLY for religious purposes.


But if marriage carries with it additional benefits, under the direction of Government regulation, then we have a problem. Because that is the government condoning a religion, which is counter to our Constitution.


And that is exactly why the state institution of marriage must be offered to all citizens equally. To offer it only to people the church approves of would be the government sanctioning a religion. Anti-constitutional.


edit on 10/20/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Forcing legally recognized religious institutions to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies is not going to happen.

Religious institutions self-govern by law, they do not fall under civil law. Hell, I don't think they even fall under constitutional law. Therefore, the US government does not have the legal right to enforce such a ridiculous regulation on them.

And at the same token, religious institutions cannot dictate their governance onto any other form of government outside of their own.

Hence the "separation of church and state" thing.

The entire system would have to be rewritten for them to be able to do so... and no government is going to do that because it would be suicide.

So long as religious institutions continue to have their sanctuary laws, it cannot ever happen.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

This is a non issue Mr Rabbit. Christian Churches are not being forced to marry gay couples. Nothing is mandated. This is simply recognition that the federal government, must recognize gay equality for legal purposes. We do not officially live in a theocracy, in which gay people are sub human without legal rights.

You have the right to believe whatever religion you want to believe. You also have the right, to live accordingly to said religion personally. However, you do not have a right to enforce upon others how to live based off religious mandate via government, eg, rule by divine right. Nor, the right to deny new and existing religions that welcome same sex marriage.

Government should theoretically be neutral about whom marries whom. Genders shouldn't even be a prerequisite.

I find this a hopeful step in reigning in out of control Christianity, and a return to a neutral secular non religious moral code and law.
edit on 20-10-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you don't see faith-based organisations being coerced to perform same-sex marriages?


I think we need to ask ourselves what "equal opportunity" really means. I was under the assumption that all humans should be afforded equal opportunities. That is the spirit of the constitution that I read, anyway. Despite the illogical way in which it related to slavery.

I don't want to see anyone coerced. I think that you are bringing up a Slippery Slope Fallacy by asking that question, to be truly honest.

Why don't we start with providing a methodology so that humans can be treated like humans, then worry about coercion of the church when we get there. While it really isn't all that relevant, I do feel that church's have had their day burning books to hide information and maintain the status quo. Perhaps it is the dawn of a new day. Who knows. Before I really worry about religion, I want to worry about humans.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
if a church thought it was sinful to marry a white person to a black person (or asian, latino, or any other "race"), would that be something we are ok with? There are quite a few churches who believe that "the races should not mix" due to scripture related to the tower of babel. How do we feel about that? Is equal opportunity really intended to be equal?


The government should NEVER try to force a church to marry someone they don't approve of being married. NEVER. That would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I don't think it will ever come to that. People may TRY. People may sue. But I would be in extreme opposition to the government forcing a church to go against their beliefs. A business is a totally different matter.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Then what (if any) difference is there between "legal" and "Constitutional"?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So long as gay people cannot marry because it offends the church that the "sanctity of marriage" is being trifled with, marriage is a religious term.

Arrange for protection under the law to be equal.

You really don't have an argument with me here that ventures much further beyond the realm of semantics. Call it what you like...at the end of the day people that I know are not allowed to live a life that is equal to their heterosexual counterparts. Because religion doesn't want their "sanctity of marriage" to be soiled. It is a religious term, despite its misguided legal usage.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well, there was the thread about the wedding chapel that if being threatened over this issue. Government claims it is for profit. The owners see are ordained pastors who say it is against their conscience and belief. Todd Starnes at FOX points out that most pastors in the US do charge a fee for officiating a marriage ceremony in their churches ... they do have to cover the bills of the church and parish somehow.

If the chapel loses on the grounds they charge for the ceremony, how long will it be before someone sues because normal pastors also usually charge a fee for a regular marriage ceremony?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well, the IRS is "legal", but unconstitutional. As it relates to your question, as a set of laws our tax code are not ratified into the constitution. And the tax code really is what we are talking about here, as well as insurance (which has now become tax, under ACA)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So long as gay people cannot marry because it offends the church that the "sanctity of marriage" is being trifled with, marriage is a religious term.


Oh, according to the religious, yes. It is. But the government contract reads "Marriage License". And marriage has long been a state contract. Even the religious have to have it to LEGALLY marry.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Well, there was the thread about the wedding chapel that if being threatened over this issue.


That is a business. NOT a church. They CHARGE for marrying people.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

i agree with this.

But if a black/white couple were refused marriage services, people would take up pitchforks and torches. While I may have a torch in hand myself, it wouldn't be to force them to change their minds insomuch as to just protest them being jerks. But that aside....I don't think a church can refuse marriage based on race, national origin, or any other protected class.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I wondered why the president didn't just come out and say same-sex marriage should be legal!

Why say, "Constitutional"?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think it being referred to as a "Marriage Contract" is a folly that should be undone.

or just usurp the name altogether, tell the churchs that it was a state run affair for time immemorial, and that they are not forced to conduct a marriage if they don't want, but they no longer have a stranglehold over its definition.

Precedence would support it, as ancients had government and religion all intermingled, even before Christianity/Judaism.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join