The Supreme Court Quietly Gave In To Gay Marriage:

[Aquila]

Here's what I believe to be the best answer to the problem...

Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?
Partnerships Could Be Tailored to Fit
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Good Sam... let's say a gay couple is Episcopal (many recognize gay couples). Episcopal pastors often want to marry gay couples. Wouldn't prohibiting them from doing so be an infringement on their religious freedom?

Yes it would, but that is what I made a point on an earlier post and that is by giving one group a certain right it will most of the time infringe on another. That is why I believe this subject should be decided on a state level. Either way this goes someone's rights is going to be violated and the government shouldn't be able to step in and decide who. Let individual states decide what is in the best interests of their majority. Would you rather allow something that violates 100,000 to defend 1,000.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And then there is what many call the "Golden Standard of Marriage". Meaning, if you're living with someone and are being intimate with someone... you should marry them... REGARDLESS of race, gender, religion, or politics.

Never heard of this golden rule. Must be something new.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm curious... how could a gay couple FORCE a conservative Christian pastor to perform a gay wedding ceremony???

Are the laws currently written so that any straight couple could demand a pastor marry them, even if it was against that pastor's wishes???

They can use laws to sure drag them into court. Whether or not they win? I don't know. To me if these cases go to court the preacher's rights have already been violated.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If I'm a store owner, my role is to provide a service to the general public. If I'm a Christian store owner, my role is to provide a service to the general public... while presenting a message. Now, if I choose not to provide that service to "sinners"... am I not sending the WRONG message???

And if I'm a store owner and selling Valentine's Day items for couples... aren't nearly half of those couples going to be couples who are unmarried??? Should I start requiring my customers to present their marriage certificates before I accept their patronage?

This gets stupid. If I owned a store and it was Valentine's Day... I'd provide my merchandise and service to any couple wishing to do business. It's my service to my community, the general public.

And I have to remember... my religious liberties aren't being taken away if I'm sued for being a JERK.

Maybe the store owner was a bad example. The thing may become different though maybe for a christian wedding planner who would refuse a homosexual based on religious beliefs. Personally if I catered weddings I wouldn't feel appropriate providing my service in a homosexual marriage ceremony. I may be termed a jerk, but if I'm sued for upholding my religious convictions than I believe my liberties would be taken away no matter how stupid you think they are.

But don't worry it is coming. The majority of Americans ideas and values are changing to the way of thinking that you present. I choose first to be a Christian before an American.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm curious... how could a gay couple FORCE a conservative Christian pastor to perform a gay wedding ceremony???

Are the laws currently written so that any straight couple could demand a pastor marry them, even if it was against that pastor's wishes???

501c3 could cause a problem.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's what I believe to be the best answer to the problem...

Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?
Partnerships Could Be Tailored to Fit
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

I could handle this solution so long as that every private marriage firm has the right to set requirements based upon religious and other preferences. For instance if a specific church organization could hold their values as a standard of requirements to validate a marriage contract. Free enterprise businesses shouldn't be slapped with discrimination issues for upholding their values. (This could also complicate and even restrict divorces depending each private firms terms and conditions.)

Their could be gay only firms if that is what they so chose. People should be able to deny service to whomever they choose and the repercussions should only be by the way free market operates.(Ex: if I denied to cater a gay wedding then they should go somewhere else not sue me. If I'm not doing business well in the community let my business suffer from natural course.)

I think simplest solution is to leave it the way is and let gays keep their civil unions.

[Originalist]

I know it's a long read but I encourage ALL to read the essay I posted on Judicial abuse of the 14th Amendment.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Yes it would, but that is what I made a point on an earlier post and that is by giving one group a certain right it will most of the time infringe on another. That is why I believe this subject should be decided on a state level. Either way this goes someone's rights is going to be violated and the government shouldn't be able to step in and decide who. Let individual states decide what is in the best interests of their majority. Would you rather allow something that violates 100,000 to defend 1,000.

How would allowing an Episcopal church to marry whomever it wishes infringe on my liberties???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Never heard of this golden rule. Must be something new.

It's actually from Tony Campolo, if I remember correctly. The idea is over ten years old. However, it's primarily embraced by liberal believers.