[The Final Dakar]

Federal judge adds Alaska to list of same-sex marriage states - LA Times

The ruling was something of a foregone conclusion because the federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Alaska and eight other western states, ruled last week that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitutional rights of gay couples. Still, the ruling by District Judge Timothy Burgess sped up the process of legalizing the marriages in Alaska, which could otherwise have taken many weeks.

Gov. Sean Parnell's office told the Associated Press the state would appeal.

West Virginia to stop challenging same-sex marriage - LA Times

West Virginia's attorney general said Thursday he will seek to end all litigation surrounding the state's ban on same-sex marriage, effectively clearing a path for gay and lesbian couples to get married there.

Atty. Gen. Patrick Morrisey said in a statement that he will "respect" the U.S. Supreme Court's decision earlier this week not to hear appeals on lower-court decisions that overturned same-sex marriage bans in other states -- including one from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in a Virginia case but whose jurisdiction includes West Virginia.

Same-sex marriage in N.C. starts Monday

A court ruling late Friday evening overturned North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriages, making them now legal in the Tar Heel state.

At this rate, we may have to shut this thread down by 2016.

[The Final Dakar]

Fox News host grills Tony Perkins: ‘What’s the damage to you’ if your neighbors are gay married?

“Marriage is not to affirm adults, it’s for the protection of children,” Perkins argued. “And if love is the only factor, where do you draw the boundaries?”

...

“Well, we know from the social science that children do best with a mom and a dad,” Perkins said. “If love is the factor, what boundaries are there?”

...

“What are you suggesting?” Wallace asked. “That there’s going to be polygamy, that people are going to be marrying their pets?”

“I didn’t say that,” Perkins replied defensively.

“Alright, you and your wife live happily in this house,” Wallace said. “There’s a same-sex couple living here. What’s the damage to you?”

“Let’s talk about the wedding vendors that have been put out of business,” Perkins said.

“I’m not talking about that,” Wallace interrupted. “That’s a different issue. I’m asking you, what’s the impact on you and your family to have these people living next to you.”

[The Final Dakar]

I'm sorry, I forgot about Alaska! Federal judge rules Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | Alaska Dispatch

[Atheist]

I'm getting dizzy just trying to keep up with it all! Disappointed Michigan is lagging behind.

[The Final Dakar]

31! Judge Strikes Down Arizona's Ban on Gay Marriage - ABC News

Sedwick said in his ruling that because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled against gay marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho, he did not need to give a lengthy reason for his ruling and was bound by the appeals' court decision.

[The Final Dakar]

Salty tears from Jan Brewer


Personal agendas, Jan? The collective judges of our past 5 presidents have but with one exception, come to the same conclusion. I suppose they all held a meeting to come to a consensus?

The inability of politicians (let alone the American people) to have a basic understanding of our constitutional set-up of checks and balances is aggravating.

[Chongo]

Now, the open persecution of chuches can begin.
Houston Narrows The Scope Of Controversial Subpoena Of Pastors' Sermons : The Two-Way : NPR

[Chongo]

The Rainbow Shirts are busy.
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines - Alliance Defending Freedom

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Rainbow Shirts are busy.
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines - Alliance Defending Freedom

The is one of the biggest WTFs in recent history.

I mean, WTF ???????

I see this going up all the way to the Supreme Court.
If this stands, you can kiss religious freedom goodbye in the US.

-t

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Rainbow Shirts are busy.
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines - Alliance Defending Freedom

The linked article leaves out some fairly important facts. All we know is that a "wedding chapel" run by "ordained ministers" has been told they have to perform same sex marriages. If the chapel is an actual church and not a for-profit business, I might have an issue. The article does not make this clear, or even what body ordained the couple in question. Sounds like they have an opportunistic business across the street from the marriage license bureau offering quick and dirty weddings. I think the title of the article may be misleading.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

If it's a for-profit wedding business, I can see them requiring that business perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. However, if it's an actual church they should tell the gov't to pound sand.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If it's a for-profit wedding business, I can see them requiring that business perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. However, if it's an actual church they should tell the gov't to pound sand.

I'm sorry, but whether or not it's for profit or not, forcing somebody to do something against their religious beliefs is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. The nature of the organization has naught to do with it.

The government allowing gay marriage and forcing religious leaders to perform it are two wholly different things. The former upholding the 1st amendment and the latter destroying it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm sorry, but whether or not it's for profit or not, forcing somebody to do something against their religious beliefs is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. The nature of the organization has naught to do with it.

The government allowing gay marriage and forcing religious leaders to perform it are two wholly different things. The former upholding the 1st amendment and the latter destroying it.

I see where you're coming from, I do, but you can't have businesses discriminating against whole blocks of the population just because they find a lifestyle to be icky or questionable. A church is something else entirely, because a church by its very nature isn't a for-profit corporation. If a wedding chapel wants to be able to claim religious freedom in whom they marry, then they have to live by the same rules as all the other churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

[Waragainstsleep]

If you are making a profit under rules intended to champion personal freedom then you should not be allowed to discriminate. Thats why the SCOTUS decision to treat Hobby Lobby as a person is so horrifyingly dangerous. A corporation is not a person and it should never be allowed to have personal religious freedom to overrule the freedoms of its employees or its customers. Whats next, a company telling staff how to vote?

[Chongo]

If receving a payment is the issue, then no church is immune, which is where this is realy going. We paid a stipend to the Priest and Church (St. Thomas the Apostle) when we got married. When two of my sisters married, we had the reception in the Church hall. Many parishes have halls they rent to couples so they can have the wedding and reception in the same location.

[andi*pandi]

I think we know most churches take payments for halls and such, even if they're called "donations." However, the distinction between "for profit" and non-profit, is well, profit, and doctrine.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Now, the open persecution of chuches can begin.
Houston Narrows The Scope Of Controversial Subpoena Of Pastors' Sermons : The Two-Way : NPR

This wouldn't be any issue if churches didn't have tax-exempt status. Then there'd be zero concern about them being politically active.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Rainbow Shirts are busy.

It's a conspiracy!

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines - Alliance Defending Freedom

Either this is a crazy order or there's more than meets the eye, as others have alluded to.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm sorry, but whether or not it's for profit or not, forcing somebody to do something against their religious beliefs is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. The nature of the organization has naught to do with it.

That depends on what state you're in.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

When two of my sisters married

Lesbian incest? How progressive.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's a conspiracy!

Masha Gessen would agree.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Masha Gessen would agree.

Always the replies that clarify nothing.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think we know most churches take payments for halls and such, even if they're called "donations." However, the distinction between "for profit" and non-profit, is well, profit, and doctrine.

Lets see, there's the suit brought againt the Knights of Columbus, a non profit group. in Canada; and we have the gay billionaire suing the C of E. There is also the CA marriage ammnendment where the judge called out the Catholic Church and the Catechism in his ruling.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Always the replies that clarify nothing.

In case you forgot what Gessen said:

"Gay marriage is a lie."
"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we're going to do with marriage when we get there."
"It's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist."
As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has "three children with five parents":

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In case you forgot what Gessen said:

So she speaks for everyone then? Sounds like you believe her because she's saying what you want to hear.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So she speaks for everyone then? Sounds like you believe her because she's saying what you want to hear.

She gave that speach at a meeting to rounds of applause, at leat the she speaks for those in attendance. Is she or is she not one the LGBT major activists?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

She gave that speach at a meeting to rounds of applause, at leat the she speaks for those in attendance.

That doesn't mean a whole lot. I mean we get 1000s of people to endorse almost anything. Flat-earthers, white supremacists, communists, black supremacists, secessionists, apocalypsists, 9-11 truthers, illuminati conspiracists, etc.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is she or is she not one the LGBT major activists?

I've never heard of her, but I'm not an authority on that kind of thing. She certainly is an activist. Have any other prominent figures endorsed her views?

I think my favorite thing about this thread is how you much credence you give international events. Russian lady says gay marriage is a lie? She must speak for all the gay couples trying to get married in the US!

[Chongo]

Gessen writes for several US publications.
From her Wiiki page:

She has been a prolific contributor to such publications as The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, New Statesman, Granta, Slate, Vanity Fair, and U.S. News & World Report.

and unless someone else appointed her, Obama knows her.

In September 2012, Gessen was appointed as director of the Russian Service for Radio Liberty, a U.S. government funded broadcaster based in Prague.[13][14] E]

[andi*pandi]

plenty of divorced straight parents with mixed families who have 3 kids 5 parents.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

plenty of divorced straight parents with mixed families who have 3 kids 5 parents.

Legally five parents?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've never heard of her, but I'm not an authority on that kind of thing. She certainly is an activist. Have any other prominent figures endorsed her views?

I endorse her views. She could be less incendiary about it but her point is solid.

Her situation is three kids spread across five parents. She considers this to be a family unit because, well... it is.

Supporting hetero or gay marriage doesn't really address her situation. In fact, I'd say it harms the likelihood of having her situation recognized.

And I'd like to point out, unlike most people in this argument, she walks the talk. She wants her situation recognized because lack of recognition is harming her children. Not the theoretical children of heterosexuals marriage is supposed to protect, but actual live children who were born in a world which isn't binary, regardless of how much they want it to be that way.

/rant

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gessen writes for several US publications.

So does Ann Coulter. Doesn't mean the shit she spews is mainstream conservatism.

Originally Posted by subego 

I endorse her views.

I was talking about people of note, but you already knew that.

[The Final Dakar]

And I repeat:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Russian lady says gay marriage is a lie? She must speak for all the gay couples trying to get married in the US!

Too much grasping at straws.

The ministers getting sued was your first news contribution worth reading in this thread (though it's a little light on details).

[The Final Dakar]

Decided to google: Christian Chapel Owners Were Reportedly Threatened With Jail Time and Fines For Refusing to Marry Gays — and Now They’re Fighting Back | TheBlaze.com

While some might be wondering why ordained ministers are purportedly being forced to marry gay couples, consider that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which opened in 1989, is a for-profit business, which means it is not exempt from local nondiscrimination regulations.

Just what everyone suspected. While I'm sure you disagree with the law, this is no revelation.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And I repeat:

Too much grasping at straws.

The ministers getting sued was your first news contribution worth reading in this thread (though it's a little light on details).

I posted this story as well.

Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church | Daily Mail Online

[subego]

State churches are required to serve all the people in the state.

We don't have those in this country. They're against the law.

Didn't we go over this?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

State churches are required to serve all the people in the state.

We don't have those in this country. They're against the law.

Didn't we go over this?

The article mentions the Catholic Church, and they are not the state Church in the UK. Belive me, it will only be a matter of time. The argument will be that Priest are "officers of the state" when they officiate weddings.

More slippry slope from out friends at the Huffington Post
Should Incest Between Consenting Adult Siblings Be Legalized? Experts Sound Off

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I posted this story as well.

Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church | Daily Mail Online

Not the US. Sorry Chongo, but fear-mongering stuff like that when there's a such a difference between our basic rights and theirs just doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by subego 

State churches are required to serve all the people in the state.

We don't have those in this country. They're against the law.

Didn't we go over this?

This is the other reason. We explain the facts and you just ignore them so you can believe what you want to believe.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The article mentions the Catholic Church, and they are not the state Church in the UK. Belive me, it will only be a matter of time.

Everything is a matter of time. It's nonspecific tripe.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

More slippry slope from out friends at the Huffington Post
Should Incest Between Consenting Adult Siblings Be Legalized? Experts Sound Off

Command-F "Marriage". 0 results. This has no place in the thread.

[The Final Dakar]

Meanwhile in Wyoming… Wyoming Becomes Latest to Legalize Gay Marriage - ABC News

State lawyers filed a legal notice Tuesday morning that said they won't defend a recently overturned Wyoming law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, meaning county clerks can begin to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and the state will recognize same-sex unions performed legally elsewhere.

The change is particularly notable in the state where Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student was robbed, tied to a fence and viciously beaten 16 years ago in a rural area near Laramie. He died days after the attack on Oct. 12, 1998. The slaying galvanized a national push for gay rights and tough penalties for hate crimes.

32? 33?

[subego]

Chongo, I guarantee you the RCC in America will never have to marry a gay couple if they don't want to.

If they tried, I'd be protesting with you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Chongo, I guarantee you the RCC in America will never have to marry a gay couple if they don't want to.

If they tried, I'd be protesting with you.

As would I.

[The Final Dakar]

Info graphic:

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Chongo, I guarantee you the RCC in America will never have to marry a gay couple if they don't want to.

If they tried, I'd be protesting with you.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

As would I.

Does that mean you support the Bishops in thier fight agianst the HHS Mandate?

BTW......... someone WILL take the Catholic Church to court for the "right" to marry in the Church.
Rhere is is this gem as well:
Leaders criticize anti-Prop. 8 ruling's claim that religious beliefs harm homosexuals :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop. 8, the 2008 California ballot measure which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. He declared as a “finding of fact” that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
Under this finding, Walker’s decision cited statements of several religions on homosexual acts and legal recognition of same-sex relationships, including the 2003 Vatican document “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons.”

That document written by Pope Benedict XVI when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I see where you're coming from, I do, but you can't have businesses discriminating against whole blocks of the population just because they find a lifestyle to be icky or questionable.

Yes, you can. The 1st amendment protects everyone, not just the good guys. If we pick and choose where we apply it, it will become meaningless and quickly be abused by the powers that be. Freedom of expression applies to all expression, including the expression that we find icky or questionable.

The public's recourse is to boycott and shun that business, who will quickly fold and/or lose it's significance. Vote with your wallet and with your own speech.

A church is something else entirely, because a church by its very nature isn't a for-profit corporation. If a wedding chapel wants to be able to claim religious freedom in whom they marry, then they have to live by the same rules as all the other churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

I fail to see how the nature of the organization impacts the 1st amendment. Nowhere in the Amendment does it distinguish between for-profits and non-profits.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you are making a profit under rules intended to champion personal freedom then you should not be allowed to discriminate. Thats why the SCOTUS decision to treat Hobby Lobby as a person is so horrifyingly dangerous. A corporation is not a person and it should never be allowed to have personal religious freedom to overrule the freedoms of its employees or its customers. Whats next, a company telling staff how to vote?

Ah but a person is still a person, and even as an agent of a corporation cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs, however wacked out they may be.

The bill of rights preempts all other laws - that includes the good guys and the bad guys. If you try to use the law to determine between them, might as well throw out the 1st.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes, you can. The 1st amendment protects everyone, not just the good guys. If we pick and choose where we apply it, it will become meaningless and quickly be abused by the powers that be. Freedom of expression applies to all expression, including the expression that we find icky or questionable.

We'd still allow separate lunch counters, bathrooms, and water fountains, if that were the case. You can freely express yourself, you just can't bar someone from your business just because you don't like how "Mother Nature" made them. I'd much rather allow for market forces and civil protest to take care of the matter, but there are big hairy issues there, too.

I fail to see how the nature of the organization impacts the 1st amendment. Nowhere in the Amendment does it distinguish between for-profits and non-profits.

Religious NPOs are allowed to discriminate, by federal law. There's a more polite way of saying it, but that's it in a nutshell.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Ah but a person is still a person, and even as an agent of a corporation cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs, however wacked out they may be.

The bill of rights preempts all other laws - that includes the good guys and the bad guys. If you try to use the law to determine between them, might as well throw out the 1st.

Let me clarify, when you say agent, you mean proprietor?

I don't have any employees yet myself, but when I do I will absolutely respect their requests and requirements regarding their religious beliefs (within reason) even though I consider it all to be utter horse shit and not because the law requires me to do so.
If I was against contraception but I ran a company healthcare plan I wouldn't dream of refusing to cover the costs of someone else's contraception just because I don't agree with it. Thats what the right to religious freedom is. You don't get to dictate, restrict or discriminate based on your views. You are allowed your views and thats it. No more than that.
Allowing companies or organisations to impose these restrictions is tantamount to feudalism. The rich boss gets to tell his minions how to live or they get evicted and starve in the streets? Its unconscionable.

I hope someone from Hobby Lobby has triplets and sues the company for the entire cost of raising them until they turn 21. Food, clothes, bigger house, babysitters, education, holidays, cars when they are old enough, the works. See how they feel about paying for a few pills after a quarter of their employees charge them for all their kids.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

We'd still allow separate lunch counters, bathrooms, and water fountains, if that were the case.

How does somebody using your bathroom or serving them lunch constitute religious expression?

You can freely express yourself, you just can't bar someone from your business just because you don't like how "Mother Nature" made them.

Don't want to open up the nature or nurture conversation, but "barring them from your business" and "performing religious ceremony" are not equal under the eyes of the constitution, specifically the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Congress shall make no prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If you are forcing someone to perform a religious ceremony against their will, you are prohibiting their free exercise. The bill of rights trumps all other laws of the land, no matter how much you wish it not to be so.

I'd much rather allow for market forces and civil protest to take care of the matter, but there are big hairy issues there, too.

You also can't force somebody to do something against their religion. There is no way around that. None, without amending the constitution.

Religious NPOs are allowed to discriminate, by federal law. There's a more polite way of saying it, but that's it in a nutshell.

You don't have to be a religious NPO to exercise the first amendment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does that mean you support the Bishops in thier fight agianst the HHS Mandate?

I would if birth control was the sole use for the pill.

You want to force the RCC to pay for condoms? I have a problem with that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How does somebody using your bathroom or serving them lunch constitute religious expression?

Dining with "infidels" is expressly frowned on in the Koran.

Don't want to open up the nature or nurture conversation, but "barring them from your business" and "performing religious ceremony" are not equal under the eyes of the constitution, specifically the first amendment.

Then make the place an actual church.

Congress shall make no prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If you are forcing someone to perform a religious ceremony against their will, you are prohibiting their free exercise. The bill of rights trumps all other laws of the land, no matter how much you wish it not to be so.

It's not stopping anyone from exercising their religious beliefs, you simply have to decide if you're a pastor or a proprietor.

You also can't force somebody to do something against their religion. There is no way around that. None, without amending the constitution.

Yes you can, I know Jews who work in EMS careers who have been forced to work on Shabbat.

You don't have to be a religious NPO to exercise the first amendment.

but you do have to be a religious institution if you want to discriminate for religious reasons. To put it within a Biblical context, you can't serve both God and mammon (money).

[Waragainstsleep]

The even bigger problem conceding to corporations on religious freedom is that they will start making up religions in order to circumvent ay laws and taxes they don't like the look of.

In all seriousness, what happens when one of them declares it a sacred religious belief that the lowest performing employee should be flogged at the end of each month?