carlfense Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Ever since the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, red state legislators have struggled to come up with creative new ways to legally demean gay people. This year, Texas and South Carolina appear poised to up the ante: Rather than pass state laws stripping gay people of their rights, legislators in both states will consider barring state judges from ruling in favor of gay marriage. Any judge who violates the law by siding with gay plaintiffs would lose her salary, her pension, and her benefitsincluding health insurance. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/01/13/texas_south_carolina_consider_denying_pay_to_pro_gay_judges.html Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 WAAAAY too many legislators in this country need to stop thinking their perverted version of Christianity is the law. They need to separate their traditional, narrow view of "marriage" with being wed, and allow for civil unions recognized by law and let "marriage" be defined however their religion wants. The insane homophobia in Russia would be laughable and condemnable if it wasn't nearly mirrored in America. Those whackjobs are violently dehumanizing gays... we're just trying to do it with the bludgeon of the law. You cannot believe that "All men are created equal" and that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights and continue to promulgate craptastic laws & rules & constraints like this. 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The lengths these people will go to in order to prevent a f'ing wedding. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Well that is one way to control another branch of govt. It will be interesting to see how this will back fire on those legislatures. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Isn't that illegal? Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 WAAAAY too many legislators in this country need to stop thinking their perverted version of Christianity is the law. They need to separate their traditional, narrow view of "marriage" with being wed, and allow for civil unions recognized by law and let "marriage" be defined however their religion wants. The insane homophobia in Russia would be laughable and condemnable if it wasn't nearly mirrored in America. Those whackjobs are violently dehumanizing gays... we're just trying to do it with the bludgeon of the law. You cannot believe that "All men are created equal" and that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights and continue to promulgate craptastic laws & rules & constraints like this. Tell us how you really feel Knapp. Actually, I'm for the traditional definition for marriage - between a man and women - as a definition (how marriage has been defined for centuries). But that shouldn't mean that civil unions can't and shouldn't have the same 'benefit' in our society as 'marriage'. We are a pluralistic society which has changed over 200 years. With most societal changes, they take hold over a long period of time and are rarely reversed - as Paul Harvey use to say "You can't un-ring the bell" - church bell or otherwise. So instead of these kind of 'laws', legislatures should be about finding ways to protect the religious and civil rights of all citizens. Churches should still retain the freedom of whom they will wed in their building if they don't agree wt the concept of gay marriage. Other churches that agree wt the concept of gay marriage are free to hold the ceremonies as they desire. Civil unions should be accommodated accordingly - within the court system. Which brings up another point: should a small business with religious convictions that are contrary to the concept of gay marriage be forced to provide the wedding cake, etc for the wedding? Some lawsuits are happening over this issue. One could say it boarders on a conflict between civil rights and religious rights. Regardless, to Knapp's final point - all people regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation should be treated as equal and be able to pursue 'happiness' as a right in our society. Maybe the word "marriage' is the sticking point. I'm a traditionalist therefore my view on the word 'marriage'. A rose by any other name is still a rose. So therefore in our society, civil union is still a 'marriage' by its actual practice or benefit. I bet if the civil union verbiage was used there would be less of this non-sense such as these types of potential laws. What do you guys think? Is it the word 'marriage' - are some of us too hung up on that word? I think one can have a traditional view of marriage and still agree with the concept of civil unions that have all of the same benefits. Correct me if you think I'm off here. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Isn't that illegal?Yep. Link to comment
True2tRA Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt anybody, let it be. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I missed the wedding of two dear friends last year. Nebraska doesn't allow them to be married because they're guys. They had to go to Washington for the government to recognize their union. If I sound bitter it's because I am. Nobody should have the legal right to have kept me from that wedding, but the "Nebraska Nice" folks here in this state did just that. I've gone to two weddings in the past year, but not theirs, because I couldn't get there for the ceremony. In fact, nobody in our circle of friends did. That's a load of crap. I believe our French friends have figured this out, and we need to follow their example. Civil Unions are the legally binding way for two people to wed. It is recognized by the State, which provides the laws which govern our civil lives. When French couples want to "marry" (and I understand this word is a stickler for Christians, but it isn't your word, it's OUR word) and have the legally binding benefits that this entails, they must do so under the auspices of a government magistrate. You're welcome to have a ceremony at a church, but if that's ALL you do, it has no legal bearing on your status with the State. For the State to recognize your union, you have to go to the local mayor's office and do it legally. This is simple logic. We don't try legal cases in churches, we try them in courts of law. We don't debate laws at synagogues, we debate them in government halls. The benefits bestowed on a couple by joining together that we debate today are legal. Basically, Christians need to butt the hell out of our lives. Keep your church ceremonies, and more power to you. All the joy in the world to you, and may you live long and happy lives together. But keep your morals out of America's business, my business, anyone's business. I agree with basically everything you're saying, TGH, just from a different standpoint. It's pretty easy for straight Christians to stand aloof and claim nobody is harmed by these moronic laws - they can get married. But gay Christians? Eh. Screw them. That lack of love for their fellow man, that act of turning away from the very words that declared America an independent, free society, chap my ass. TGHusker - you call yourself a "traditionalist," but what you mean by that is "Christian." Christians didn't invent marriage, Jews in the days of Israel weren't the only humans to be married, and those bronze-age myths about "God gave you marriage" are bunk. Unless you think Horus gave you marriage, or Thor, or Vishnu, or Zoroaster. People all across the globe have been married since before we discovered fire, but today, in this country, Christians think it's their concept, their word, their "tradition." It ain't. It's man's. 7 Link to comment
ZRod Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Knap, when are you running for office? Link to comment
killer cacti Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Do any of you live in TX or SC? Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I missed the wedding of two dear friends last year. Nebraska doesn't allow them to be married because they're guys. They had to go to Washington for the government to recognize their union. If I sound bitter it's because I am. Nobody should have the legal right to have kept me from that wedding, but the "Nebraska Nice" folks here in this state did just that. I've gone to two weddings in the past year, but not theirs, because I couldn't get there for the ceremony. In fact, nobody in our circle of friends did. That's a load of crap. I believe our French friends have figured this out, and we need to follow their example. Civil Unions are the legally binding way for two people to wed. It is recognized by the State, which provides the laws which govern our civil lives. When French couples want to "marry" (and I understand this word is a stickler for Christians, but it isn't your word, it's OUR word) and have the legally binding benefits that this entails, they must do so under the auspices of a government magistrate. You're welcome to have a ceremony at a church, but if that's ALL you do, it has no legal bearing on your status with the State. For the State to recognize your union, you have to go to the local mayor's office and do it legally. This is simple logic. We don't try legal cases in churches, we try them in courts of law. We don't debate laws at synagogues, we debate them in government halls. The benefits bestowed on a couple by joining together that we debate today are legal. Basically, Christians need to butt the hell out of our lives. Keep your church ceremonies, and more power to you. All the joy in the world to you, and may you live long and happy lives together. But keep your morals out of America's business, my business, anyone's business. I agree with basically everything you're saying, TGH, just from a different standpoint. It's pretty easy for straight Christians to stand aloof and claim nobody is harmed by these moronic laws - they can get married. But gay Christians? Eh. Screw them. That lack of love for their fellow man, that act of turning away from the very words that declared America an independent, free society, chap my ass. TGHusker - you call yourself a "traditionalist," but what you mean by that is "Christian." Christians didn't invent marriage, Jews in the days of Israel weren't the only humans to be married, and those bronze-age myths about "God gave you marriage" are bunk. Unless you think Horus gave you marriage, or Thor, or Vishnu, or Zoroaster. People all across the globe have been married since before we discovered fire, but today, in this country, Christians think it's their concept, their word, their "tradition." It ain't. It's man's. Knapp, yes I agree - Christian's didn't invent marriage. I never said that. By traditional I mean this is how I grew up knowing marriage - both from the Christian culture and from a societal culture. The change in societal culture is fairly recent with changes in laws/court cases on sodomy, marriage, etc taking place as recent as the 1990s - which is pretty recent when we talk about societal change. Christian culture has had a huge influence on the 'institution' of marriage in this country as it has had a large influence on the culture in general. We are now is a post Christian culture - the culture is more pluralistic now than ever. While there are those who want to try to create law to reinforce old traditions, those laws, like these in the OP, will most likely fail because of where culture is today including judicial rulings. However, to paint all straight Christians as uncaring gay bashers (my words not yours) is a bit of a broad brush. The Christians first mandate is to love - no qualifiers. Our 1st obligation is not to defend a certain Christian ideal world view and try to legislate it on others. We aren't prohibited from being involved in governance but if governance activity violates mandate # 1 to love others as we love ourselves (love God 1st then others as self - golden rule) then we need to step back an think about our positions. Christ didn't tell the disciples to overthrow current law but to spread the gospel of grace and love within the current culture - allow that to change the society one person at a time. Link to comment
irafreak Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Well if the people of the state vote to ban it, it's not one man's place to overrule it. That's how the country was built. Doesn't matter the issue. There is a democratic process that should be upheld or why have rules or a constitution? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The people of several states voted in the Jim Crow laws using that same logic. Those laws were discriminatory and we were right to overturn them. Besides, judges rule laws unconstitutional all the time. Why should this be any different? Link to comment
Recommended Posts