Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional - Page 2

remixor · 11-19-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twifkak

One of the points brought up by a friend of mine is that if it was/were a full-on marriage, instead of a civil marriage, then if, say, a church denied you the right to wed under their services solely based on your genders, you would be able to sue (or, hypothetically, be able to win a lawsuit). I'm not an expert, so I can't confirm or deny that statement.

I'm not sure you could sue the church for this... Well, you could try, but I don't know if you'd have much of a case. I mean, if a Baptist church (just picking a random one) doesn't allow same-sex marriages under religious reasons, how can you challenge that? If they do allow it, great, but it's not like you can sue a Christian church for not recognizing Buddha or something even if you do. If it's not part of their strictures, they have no obligation to recognize it. As far as CIVIL marriages go, though, it's absurd not to allow same-sex marriages.

Titan · 11-19-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

I'd just like to point out theres a difference between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. I think Bush is confusing the matter, which is especially wrong in a country that is supposedly secular. The issue should have nothing to do with the religious defnition of marriage at all, and merely the extension of rights gained in the legal act of marriage to anyone who wants to make that commitment. The sooner he accepts that the better for everyone.

I agree. Civil unions are the companion to religious marriages in various states (at least Vermont and maybe others). Bush is speaking only about the latter. However, he has never faced up to the question of civil unions and has ducked it. I would hope he would favor them, but am unsure if he does or not. Likewise, all the Dems running for president with the exception of Sharpton, have never faced up to the question of religious marriages and have ducked it. That is a much closer call I think.

Titan · 11-19-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaf

It is doltish not to respect the "minority".

Depends on the minority. Poor white trash is regularly disrespected in this county, along with child pornographers, serial killers and so on.

Garyos · 11-19-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twifkak

What law?

Isn't that what this thread is about? Making it a law to allow same-sex marriages?

remixor · 11-19-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garyos

Isn't that what this thread is about? Making it a law to allow same-sex marriages?

No, it's on whether or not a ban would be considered Constitutional.

Garyos · 11-19-2003, 08:13 PM

But if same-sex marriage was established as Constitutional, wouldn't that make it illegal not to allow it?

remixor · 11-19-2003, 08:26 PM

Go back and read your post that Twif was referring to when he said "What law?" You said something to the effect of "Wouldn't a church get fined if they didn't allow same-sex marriages?" and then when Twif asked why you said because that's the law. There's no such law, though.

Garyos · 11-19-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remixor

Go back and read your post that Twif was referring to when he said "What law?" You said something to the effect of "Wouldn't a church get fined if they didn't allow same-sex marriages?" and then when Twif asked why you said because that's the law. There's no such law, though.

I quoted twifs post where he was talking hypothetically... So I was too. Note that I wrote "because it would be the law", not "because it is the law". Sorry if I didn't convey this properly.

remixor · 11-19-2003, 08:53 PM

Ah, ok. Though I still don't think it would be possible to fine churches for this type of thing. See my above post. I think it's within the scope of a church to determine whether marriages conducted under their authority can be same-sex. That's different from legal (non-religious) marriages, which should absolutely allow same-sex unions. Of course, I'd think its great if a church allowed it as well, but if they don't that's their perogative.

Ninth · 11-19-2003, 10:00 PM

Yes well, as far as I know, a religion wedding is not a wedding at all as far as laws are concerned, so obviously a law about same-sex weddings wouldn't apply to the church.
I guess they'll have to change their way of thinking all by themselves... jeez, that's gonna be hard.
(they meaning priests and the like)

remixor · 11-19-2003, 10:01 PM

Point taken, you can stop triple posting now. j/k

Ninth · 11-19-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remixor

Point taken, you can stop triple posting now. j/k

ME?????
Did no such thing! :p

twifkak · 11-20-2003, 12:53 PM

Yeah, I didn't realize you were speaking hypo, Garyos.

The 1st amendment definitely works in favor of churches, but keep in mind that religion doesn't get free reign. They may have sacred confessionals and all that, but just because there's a Church of Smoking Weed doesn't make it legal.* So, as always, I admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a rational decision on gay marriages.

*That was also hypothetical. Sorry to disappoint.

Tamara · 11-20-2003, 11:43 PM

Actually there *was* one. It wasn't actually called the church of smoking weed, but it did claim that that was necessary to their religious procedures. They got busted tho

zarathustrian · 11-21-2003, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamara

Actually there *was* one. It wasn't actually called the church of smoking weed, but it did claim that that was necessary to their religious procedures. They got busted tho

No, they just moved to Canada.

Titan · 11-21-2003, 03:47 PM

I thought it was an American Indian tribe whose religious ceremonies included Peyote.

Tamara · 11-22-2003, 05:22 AM

there must have been two different groups, the one I read about was nothing like that .. it was on the ridiculous side .. fark had linked to the story.

Phil25 · 11-22-2003, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

Depends on the minority. Poor white trash is regularly disrespected in this county, along with child pornographers, serial killers and so on.

Yes, but 40% of the population doesn't support serial killers. Hell, about 40% of people supported Bush around election time.

twifkak · 11-22-2003, 09:26 AM

"Close your eyes, give me your hand, darling.
Do you feel my heart beating?
Do you understand?
Do you feel the same?
Am I only dreaming?
Is this burning an eternal flame?

I believe it's meant to be, darling.
I watch you when you are sleeping.
You belong with me.
Do you feel the same?
Am I only dreaming,
Or is this burning an eternal flame?"
--The Bangles

remixor · 11-22-2003, 01:02 PM

Nah, you're just dreaming. Pinch yourself.

11-19-2003, 08:13 PM	#26
Garyos AKA Morte Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Sigil Posts: 1,101	But if same-sex marriage was established as Constitutional, wouldn't that make it illegal not to allow it? Share Share this post on Twitter

11-19-2003, 08:26 PM	#27
remixor A search for a crazy man! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,987	Go back and read your post that Twif was referring to when he said "What law?" You said something to the effect of "Wouldn't a church get fined if they didn't allow same-sex marriages?" and then when Twif asked why you said because that's the law. There's no such law, though. Share Share this post on Twitter __________________ Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright

11-19-2003, 08:53 PM	#29
remixor A search for a crazy man! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,987	Ah, ok. Though I still don't think it would be possible to fine churches for this type of thing. See my above post. I think it's within the scope of a church to determine whether marriages conducted under their authority can be same-sex. That's different from legal (non-religious) marriages, which should absolutely allow same-sex unions. Of course, I'd think its great if a church allowed it as well, but if they don't that's their perogative. Share Share this post on Twitter __________________ Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright

11-19-2003, 10:00 PM	#30
Ninth Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 6,409	Yes well, as far as I know, a religion wedding is not a wedding at all as far as laws are concerned, so obviously a law about same-sex weddings wouldn't apply to the church. I guess they'll have to change their way of thinking all by themselves... jeez, that's gonna be hard. (they meaning priests and the like) Share Share this post on Twitter

11-19-2003, 10:01 PM	#31
remixor A search for a crazy man! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,987	Point taken, you can stop triple posting now. j/k Share Share this post on Twitter __________________ Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright

11-20-2003, 12:53 PM	#33
twifkak :P ^^^ at tamz Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Football Town, USA Posts: 1,354	Yeah, I didn't realize you were speaking hypo, Garyos. The 1st amendment definitely works in favor of churches, but keep in mind that religion doesn't get free reign. They may have sacred confessionals and all that, but just because there's a Church of Smoking Weed doesn't make it legal.* So, as always, I admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a rational decision on gay marriages. *That was also hypothetical. Sorry to disappoint. Share Share this post on Twitter __________________ In the next AG crash ___\| A temporary board ____\| I am born to spam In the "Get New" list __\| Scrolling up and down \| I am born to spam through a broadband ISP \| i am back to steal your bandwidth --Spammo-head, "Windbag"

11-20-2003, 11:43 PM	#34
Tamara Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 914	Actually there was one. It wasn't actually called the church of smoking weed, but it did claim that that was necessary to their religious procedures. They got busted tho Share Share this post on Twitter

11-21-2003, 03:47 PM	#36
Titan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Posts: 177	I thought it was an American Indian tribe whose religious ceremonies included Peyote. Share Share this post on Twitter

11-22-2003, 05:22 AM	#37
Tamara Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 914	there must have been two different groups, the one I read about was nothing like that .. it was on the ridiculous side .. fark had linked to the story. Share Share this post on Twitter

11-22-2003, 09:26 AM	#39
twifkak :P ^^^ at tamz Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Football Town, USA Posts: 1,354	"Close your eyes, give me your hand, darling. Do you feel my heart beating? Do you understand? Do you feel the same? Am I only dreaming? Is this burning an eternal flame? I believe it's meant to be, darling. I watch you when you are sleeping. You belong with me. Do you feel the same? Am I only dreaming, Or is this burning an eternal flame?" --The Bangles Share Share this post on Twitter __________________ In the next AG crash ___\| A temporary board ____\| I am born to spam In the "Get New" list __\| Scrolling up and down \| I am born to spam through a broadband ISP \| i am back to steal your bandwidth --Spammo-head, "Windbag"

11-22-2003, 01:02 PM	#40
remixor A search for a crazy man! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,987	Nah, you're just dreaming. Pinch yourself. Share Share this post on Twitter __________________ Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright

User Name		Remember Me?
Password