Equal Marriage Arizona Off and Running
Reverend Charlotte was the first signer on our petition for ballot qualification. She was incredible, telling the TV audience that she wants the ability to marry gay couples in her church, but doesn't want to force her brothers and sisters in other parishes to conduct marriages that are against their beliefs.
It was a big day for her on a personal level as well. She was married to her same-sex partner in New York a couple of years ago, and as of yesterday the Feds recognized that marriage. We still have not done so in AZ, but she was thrilled to help us get started repairing that as well.
Some of you may know that I blog in part because I am incredibly introverted and have trouble with public interactions with strangers. Yesterday I did 2 live TV feeds, one live in-studio TV appearance, and 4 taped TV interviews plus any number of radio and print interviews. Today I think I am suffering from some form of PTSD. But that is why we hurried to get our petition filed -- we wanted to be part of the story when the Supreme Court ruled, and we were.
If you are in AZ, check out our web site at equalmarriageaz.com to see how you can help. If you are out of state, you can still help financially, or just check out our Facebook page and lend us your moral support there.
mahtso:
"...but doesn't want to force her brothers and sisters in other parishes to conduct marriages that are against their beliefs." That is readily accepted as true. Unfortunately, in my opinions others do not share her view, and others also want to force businesses to cater to these marriages.
As with the discrimination lawsuit the blogger wrote about, these businesses may prevail, but at what cost?
June 27, 2013, 10:43 amfotini901:
You mean like forcing lunch counters to serve black people?
June 27, 2013, 11:28 ammahtso:
The civil rights lawyers may have a different take on this, but no, it's not like that because it does not take a government sanction to be a black person, but being married does require a government sanction (or more correctly, the blogger is advocating for certain people to be granted a government-sanctioned status).
To me, it is more like telling Hobby Lobby that it must provide services that are contrary to its owner's religious principles. (But, again, maybe the civil rights lawyers would see it differently.)
June 27, 2013, 2:18 pmJohn Moore:
Yep, and also, how about religious charities that are not part of a church? If gay marriage were about medical rights and stuff like that, I'd be for it. But once it's passed, it will turn into a huge club for gay radicals to use against people with religious convictions. For that reason and that reason alone, i am vehemently opposed to Warren's proposal. The religious protections are a fig leaf - they aren't enough, they don't cover religious people, just religious institutions.
Put another way, it's a travesty that "libertarians" support the "right" for gays to gain government sanction for their marriage. It's shockingly inconsistent.
June 27, 2013, 11:08 pmobloodyhell:
Explain to me where it is in the Bible that black people are inherently sinful and should be shunned. I've no doubt that there were people who attempted to contort the Bible's contents to suggest that back then, but it is and was, even then, clearly bogus. OTOH, with regard to homosexuality, it's pretty damned unambiguous in the Bible's precepts. Just go look up any bible concordance for "sodomy", and you'll turn up multiple totally unambiguous and clear proscriptions against the behavior.
But I'll not support refusing gays service at lunch counters. I think it's where the respect for individual religious rights comes in. The larger company is free to make suitable accommodations if it chooses to do so for religious employees, but not against either gay employees or against gay customers. If they choose to do so, they can say "sorry, if you want to refuse service to gays, you need to have a job with someone else.". Or they can have people who specifically are charged with politely and quietly taking over the "onerous" task (I consider it to be ridiculous on that level) of dealing with a gay customer. I suspect it's mostly going to be the former, and have no issue with that for the most part.
What I can't see is forcing a religious worker at a hotel to clean up the room for a gay couple (that's getting a bit intimate) but mostly won't allow a corporate institution to refuse service. I DO support the owner of the Hawaiian B&B who got a pair of lesbians determined to ram their sexual orientation down the owner's throat. That's a privately-owned business which occurs on privately owned property. At that point the individual religious rights come strongly into play, and should.
I strongly oppose Warren in his endeavors because his efforts don't even give LIP SERVICE to individual religious rights. About the only thing it does is prevent gays from forcing churches to marry them on site.
For the most part, I actually support gays having most of the rights taken for granted with regards to others. But this is NOT about "what goes on in the bedroom". This is about gays bringing their activities OUT of the bedroom and placing public social obligations on EVERYONE ELSE that tie to marriage. And that is why it's ludicrous to be claiming this isn't something the Government should be dealing with. Marriage is a contract, and as such is within the government's bailiwick. Moreover, it's about the social obligations others have towards the individual gay. Am I forced to do business with you, even though you've made a pass at me? Yes, that's, in the end, what will apply.
Warren kvetches in another thread about how the law opens up a huge can of worms for him as the employer with regards to offense and sexual behavior... and here he is launching additional powers for yet another possible victim group to lay waste to properly behaving businesses via tort law. Because, as the Hawaiian B&B owner case shows, ("all too many") gays don't care about you, they only care about rubbing their sexual preferences in the face of everyone around them.
June 28, 2013, 12:30 amobloodyhell:
}}} I strongly oppose Warren in his endeavors because his efforts don't even give LIP SERVICE to individual religious rights. About the only thing it does is prevent gays from forcing churches to marry them on site.
I repeat that from below, as well as other places here and elsewhere. Despite these issues being raised not only by me, Warren has chosen to ignore them, despite the fact that they are both serious and legitimate.
And for that, shame on you, Warren. I grasp you don't address individuals for the most part, but this is not a trivial matter and you NEED to explore it as a part of your process of pushing this initiative to find suitable adjustments.
Because right now I'm about ready to donate to ANY cause that fights you, and openly advise others to do the same This ignoring of individual religious rights is just flat out WRONG.
June 28, 2013, 12:33 am:-/
perlhaqr:
Am I forced to do business with you, even though you've made a pass at me? Yes, that's, in the end, what will apply.
You're not a woman, are you? I'd guess that damn near 100% of women who have ever worked in a customer-facing foodservice capacity has had to deal with precisely this scenario... but in a heterosexual context.
I'll not support refusing gays service at lunch counters. [...] I DO support the owner of the Hawaiian B&B who got a pair of
lesbians determined to ram their sexual orientation down the owner's
throat. That's a privately-owned business which occurs on privately
owned property.
Ok, I'll bite. What the heck is the difference between "Flo's Diner" not serving blacks, and "Sarah's Hawaiian B&B" not serving lesbians?
June 28, 2013, 6:46 amperlhaqr:
But it doesn't take a government sanction to be gay. The "married" part is a governmental recognition of the union, yes, but an unmarried gay couple can still be pretty easily picked out by a bigoted hotelier.
(For my part, I think Title II of the 1964 CRA is an abomination. I think people should be perfectly free to turn down paying customers, and in fact would prefer that bigots make their bigotry known so I can not give them money.)
June 28, 2013, 6:49 amirandom419:
In a perfect world, I'd want to see separation of marriage and state. For the current crop of proposals, I have to agree witthat it is probably more about acceptance, otherwise they'd do what Washington did and propose the everything but marriage act.
June 28, 2013, 8:08 ammahtso:
You make a valid point. But, to my knowledge, no one is trying
to force business owners to participate in same-sex acts, and even if they did, a denial would not lead to a (viable) lawsuit. On the other hand, a photographer in New Mexico and a florist in Washington have been sued for opting not to participate in same sex marriages. Or put another way, some people are trying to force business owners to participate in their same-sex marriages.
In addition to the state sanction, for many people, marriage
June 28, 2013, 11:28 amis a religious issue, which distinguishes it from many other activities.
Nehemiah:
I couldn't agree with you more, obloodyhell. Pastors being sued or even arrested for hate speech because they speak against so-called same sex marriage is not far off.
June 28, 2013, 12:00 pmperlhaqr:
Ok, well, what if I'm a member of a religion that teaches that black people are an abomination? (This is raw devil's advocacy here.)
I dunno. I just don't grasp the difference between the government forcing people to interact with black people they don't like, and the government forcing people to interact with gay people they don't like. Both of those things are conditions that pertain to the customer that do not require government sanction. I mean, yes, the government is forcing the people in question to (nominally, anyway) participate in the wedding, but a wedding isn't a sex act. And presumably (at least, I think this is what you're saying, from your comment above starting with "The civil rights lawyers") you do think it would be appropriate for the government to step in if either the photographer or florist had told a heterosexual black couple "No, I'm sorry, I don't do black weddings".
I guess what I'm asking is, "Why should there in particular be a religious exemption from the 1964 CRA in a country that has laws against the establishment of religion?"
Why do people who are intolerant assholes get a free pass "because God!" when people who are intolerant assholes "because non-God based dickbag!" don't? And how is this not a complete security hole (from a computer jock standpoint) for anyone to say "because God!" about, well, any group they'd prefer not to do business with?
And, in case it was insufficiently clear from my earlier comment, I don't think the government should force either of those people to do anything. As I say, I want bigots to advertise, so I can not inadvertently contribute to their financial success by hiring them.
June 28, 2013, 3:48 pmperlhaqr:
And why is "The Bible" (referring, one presumes, to the document containing the Old Testament, New Testament, and typically used by Christian sects as the basis of their religion) particularly relevant here or the standard against which we can measure the validity of the law in a country that has no established religion?
If you can claim God talked to Moses and said "t3h gheyz are t3h suck!", and he wrote it down, why can't I say "Well, I had God on the phone last week, and he told me black people suck, and so I wrote that down in this here document I'm calling "The Fucktardi Bible". And have that be just as valid, from a legal perspective, in a country that does not have an established religion.
June 28, 2013, 3:54 pmRoy:
Trivial question,perlhaqr. Homosexuality has zero, zip, nada, no, none, nil evidence of resulting from anything other than choice. Not a scintilla of evidence. At all. Period. On the contrary, a vast amount of (carefully ignored) evidence (eg, identical twin studies, folks who didn't choose homo behavior then did then do not) demonstrates unequivocally that homosexuality happens as a choice. Not so race. (Do you not marvel that the evidence forms no part of the discussion?)
The homo community insists that all endorse that choice, that all attempts to point out that millenia of social consensus rejecting homo choices counts for zip, that any even wondering aloud whether there exists legitimate reason for gov't to protect the only sort of marriage which produces children must face not merely civil but criminal sanction. No discussion of cost v benefits allowed under penalty of law.
Anyone that has even a remote doubt that the heterophobes intend to use gov't as club to not merely squelch but squash ANY opposition has an exceptionally blind eye.
June 28, 2013, 5:43 pmRoy:
Hear what dissenting Scalia warned: “In the majority’s judgment,
any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned
disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a
presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the
purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’
our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All
that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an
aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of
its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies
for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to
elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by
adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
Put bluntly, the
Supreme Court has blessed the homosexual lobby's declaring anyone who
does not toe the line a straight consumed by hate. How will it not subsequently reason that protection of society means they must take away the tax exemption of churches and schools
that stand by Scripture, they must fine and imprison those who, for whatever reason, oppose homosexuality?
"Flat out wrong" understates the disaster of Warren's position.
June 28, 2013, 6:03 pmRuss R.:
Roy,
Your ignorance is laughable... and willful I suspect.
Read and learn: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-in-the-w.html
Cognitive Dissonance... it's what's for dinner.
June 28, 2013, 7:02 pmRuss R.:
What individual religious right is being denied?
You're still free to practice, or not practice, your religion, as you see fit.
June 28, 2013, 7:05 pmmarque2:
I don't think anti gayness was one of the 10 commandments. I do recall two places where it is mentioned in the old testament - but please be more literate before saying stupid statements.
June 28, 2013, 10:00 pmmahtso:
"I guess what I'm asking is, "Why should there in particular be a religious exemption from the 1964 CRA in a country that has laws against the establishment of religion?"
Because the Constitution also has a free exercise clause (but I don't profess to be a Con Law expert).
"And presumably ... you do think it would be appropriate for the government to step in if either
the photographer or florist had told a heterosexual black couple "No, I'm sorry, I don't do black weddings". "
I think that is the law.
In the abstract,I agree with your statement that people should be free to turn down customers, but I am viewing this through 2013's lens, not the lens from 1960 in the deep south. (As an aside, an acquaintance who had lived in Boston and the south in the 1990/2000s told me the racism "practiced" in Boston was far worse b/c it was based on hatred whereas in the south it was paternalistic.)
June 29, 2013, 6:22 amJW:
Oh, look. The bigots are out with their transparent and asinine arguments against increasing personal liberty because the state might do something contrary to another personal liberty.
Yeah, that's got to be why you oppose gays having equal marital rights. Sure. Anything you say.
June 29, 2013, 7:13 ammahtso:
No doubt you would agree that a man should be allowed to marry his brother.
June 29, 2013, 9:01 amJW:
No doubt. How again is it any of your business? How are you harmed?
Let's note here, that being 'offended' is not harmed.
June 29, 2013, 9:10 amJW:
Am I forced to do business with you, even though you've made a pass at me? Yes, that's, in the end, what will apply.
"Help! The fags want my sweet, pretty ass! Save me!" This is awesome. Do tell more about how you're at the mercy of their sexual depravities.
Marriage is a contract, and as such is within the government's bailiwick.
Only as an arbiter of disputes and even then it doesn't need to be. There are private dispute resolution options available. The fact that the state has inserted itself in to the process with it's own moral code is irrelevant to expanding personal liberty.
Moreover, it's about the social obligations others have towards the individual gay.
I have zero social obligations to anyone, for any reason, other than to not be rude to them at a dinner party where I'm a guest.
June 29, 2013, 9:25 amCraig L:
Is the Reverend Episcopal, Methodist, or Universalist?
June 29, 2013, 9:42 ammahtso:
It is my business because you posted a comment on this forum and because state-sanctioned marriage affects all of us economically through the tax laws. But I am not offended by any of this, not in the slightest degree.
I have no idea if those economic effects would cause me any harm (and even if they would, I would not consider that to be a valid basis to oppose incestuous marriages be they same sex or not), but before changing the current system I think it is reasonable to explore the reasons for the change and the possible end effects, which may well include requiring people to participate in same sex marriages against their will. My opinion is that we would all be better served if the state got out of the marriage-sanctioning business.
Another aside: I got a laugh one day when Dennis Prager asked an advocate for same sex marriage if she agreed that incestuous marriages should be allowed; her response: that is disgusting.
June 29, 2013, 10:13 amJW:
It is my business because you posted a comment on this forum and because state-sanctioned marriage affects all of us economically through the tax laws
You have an interesting threshold for interfering in other people's lives. If it affects you because of tax laws, then change the tax laws so that it doesn't. How hard was that to figure out?
I have no idea if those economic effects would cause me any harm (and even if they would, I would not consider that to be a valid basis to oppose incestuous marriages be they same sex or not)
Then why bring it up?
which may well include requiring people to participate in same sex marriages against their will.
Are the homos planning to kidnap you and marry you off to Bruce or Spike?
Any other things you have to participate in against your will? Tacky and tasteless tattoos on display? Pets off the leash? Soft-serve ice cream? Laughing children? The free world is a cruel and harsh place.
My opinion is that we would all be better served if the state got out of the marriage-sanctioning business.
Bingo. We agree 100%.
June 29, 2013, 10:55 amRoy:
Right, Russ. I do choose ignorance, ignoring ignorant folks who grab at straws, anything, anything, in order to maintain their position despite contrary evidence. The link you supplied provides a classic example. A new hypothesis is the straw it rests its hope upon.
June 29, 2013, 11:12 amRuss R.:
It goes far beyond just "a new hypothesis"... there has been plenty of research on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
Feel free to ignore this as well. Clearly your mind is made up.
I don't doubt that "choice" can explain some instances of homosexuality (more so among lesbians and especially among bisexuals), but it fails to explain many other phenomena.
But please do tell how your "choice" theory explains:
June 29, 2013, 11:55 am- Why lesbians are more frequently obese than heterosexual women.
- Why gay men are less frequently obese than heterosexual men.
- Why homosexuality in men correlates with the number of older brothers.
- Why gay men are more frequently left-handed.
- Homosexuality in other species.
perlhaqr:
So, if the First American Neo-Nazi Church prints Adolf Bibles that say "Lo, the black man is an abomination, let him be shunned by all right thinking peoples. Do not converse with him, do not do business with him, and do not procreate with him.", will your "religious exemption" apply then, to letting businesses refuse to serve black people?
June 29, 2013, 2:11 pmperlhaqr:
marque2: Yob tvoyu mat'. Moses is not merely the recipient of the 10 commandments, but also the pentateuch, you arrogant fuckbag. Please be more historically knowledgeable before trying (and failing) to correct others.
June 29, 2013, 2:17 pmRoy:
OK, Russ. I'll risk that you really do want to think rather than react.
I'll assume you recognize that wiki provides no more than an intro look at even non controversial topics. But it is worth your pondering the timelines present in both links: What do you suppose drove the cited past consensus (homosexuality is at minimum without explanation if not abnormal) into the later hypotheses (we've got to have some explanation so that homosexuality is not merely not abnormal but certainly not wrong)? (Found in several independent lists as among the 20th C's top 20 books, Thomas Kuhn's "Revolutions in Scientific Thought", I recommend as worthy of your reading sometime of the next couple years. The whole notion of paradigms, the idea of group think as seen for example in the 'global warming' discussion, I see at work resulting in the developing hypotheses. My point above regarding grabbing at
straws.)
As to "wrong", I suspect you will agree with me that there the devil lies in the details. If there exists no absolutes (I suspect you reject, eg, any appeal to the Bible, which is, well, clear enough on the issue), then how does one avoid "might makes right"? Perhaps, however, you might agree to get around that blockade by working thru my observation about the reasonableness of gov't protecting the only kind of marriage which produces children. (A reason I'd propose as significant balance to the several comments in the overall thread to the effect that gov't has no
business saying anything at all about marriage.) BTW, I don't mean to suggest I think the present laws and their application do most of much less all of what they should to accomplish that protection. I only meant that I think such protection should exist.
Regarding your questions: I don't know if the "facts" you cited are actually true. But I assume that in any case you are suggesting that they
June 29, 2013, 2:45 pmimply something other than choice, say, biological determinism, explains them. A quick search reveals that others have already done the job of providing explanation. Granted, one has to sort past stupid comments/exchanges. But the answers you seek for your first two questions are in the comments at this link:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-15-million-study-why-lesbians-are-fat
mahtso:
I have not interfered in anyone's life.
I brought up economic harm for two reasons: you asked what is the harm and because others may see that as a valid reason to oppose incestuous marriages.
Kidnapping? Obviously you don't want to engage in serious discussion, I guess that should been apparent given that you entered this discussion making an ad personam "argument" about people that you don't know. Nevertheless, as I wrote above, people are being sued for exercising what many see as their free exercise right not to participate in weddings that go against their religious beliefs.
Change the tax laws? Valid approach. I assume some see keeping the status quo as also being a valid approach (that one was hard for me to figure out).
"Bingo. We agree 100%." Maybe -- but from the tone of your first comment I assumed you support more government involvement.
June 29, 2013, 3:11 pmmahtso:
My exemption?? Its the Constitution's free exercise clause, not an exemption, and is something that the founders thought was important enough to memorialize.
June 29, 2013, 3:13 pmmarque2:
I still think you could use a refresh of the old testament before you mouth off, your comment was almost indecipherable.
Or maybe you could take a English class to learn how to write down coherent thought.
June 29, 2013, 3:24 pmJW:
I brought up economic harm for two reasons: you asked what is the harm and because others may see that as a valid reason to oppose incestuous marriages.
I asked how the choice of someone else's mate harms you personally and how that justifies interfering in that decision. I could care less about undefinable social effects.
Kidnapping? Obviously you don't want to engage in serious discussion
Write more better and get your sarcasm meter checked.
Nevertheless, as I wrote above, people are being sued for exercising what many see as their free exercise right not to participate in weddings that go against their religious beliefs.
That's a separate issue from the expansion of this particular personal liberty and in fact, has nothing to do with the issue. That's the red herring that gay marriage opponents have been bringing up lately as a way of derailing the discussion. That is the coercive state at work, one supported by liberals and conservatives, enforcing someone's else's moral code through the threat of violence. That has no place in a free society.
It doesn't matter if the belief is religious-based or not. People should be free to do business, or not, with anyone they choose, as should the buyer. Why would anyone want to enrich a business owner who is bigoted against them? That's beyond idiotic.
I assumed you support more government involvement
Nowhere did I say or imply that, beyond the state getting the hell out of the way.
June 29, 2013, 3:46 pmRuss R.:
I wouldn't for a moment suggesting that homosexuality is genetic and heritable. Natural selection would have quickly put an end to it after only a few generations.
The choice theory can explain SOME instances of homosexuality, but it has some serious failings. (See above.)
I read some of the comments you directed me to, and they make a case that obesity is higher in lesbians because obese women have a harder time finding a man, and therefore choose to resort to same sex relationships. Plausible but not entirely convincing. This explanation however, entirely fails to explain the lower obesity rate of gay males.
A far more plausible explanation for MOST homosexuality is a congenital disorder, deriving from gestational hormonal abnormalities (and no, I'm not afraid to call homosexuality abnormal).
So, I'll grant you that research is highly politicized because there are too many interest groups on both sides with agendas to push. I have no such agenda.
As to the question of whether homosexuality is "wrong", if you're Christian they yes... strictly speaking, homosexuality is wrong (Leviticus 20:13). But then so is eating pork (Levitcus 11:7-8).
But, since the Bible isn't the law of the land, a better definition of wrong is "does it harm anybody"? And I can't say that I've ever been harmed by anyone's homosexuality... grossed out on occasion, but even overt displays cause no real harm.
So, while I consider homosexuality abnormal, I don't at all consider it wrong. My attitude is "live and let live". If they want to marry each other... why stop them? Marriage is about more than having kids. Canada has allowed full-fledged gay marriage for nearly a decade.... it has yet to cause any serious issues. People just shrug their shoulders and carry on.
(BTW, it's Pride Week up here in Toronto...one of two times in the year that I absolutely avoid going downtown. The other is Caribana.)
June 29, 2013, 4:56 pmRuss R.:
A bigger question is... why should you care whether homosexuality is a choice or not? Religion is 100% choice. While I personally choose not to practice any religion, I entirely respect other people's religious choices, provided those choices are exercised by consenting adults (or in the case of minors, with parental consent).
Even beyond this, I respect every individuals right to choose who they wish to associate with, or not associate with, in their personal or business dealings FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER... religious or otherwise.
So, if you own a hotel and you don't want to rent rooms to prostitutes, heroin junkies, college students, or gay couples (or Canadians, Buddhists, accountants, people who wear Crocs, whatever...) that's entirely you're right... it's YOUR hotel. You're free to choose how you want to do business, and people are free to choose whether or not they want to do business with you.
The government, however, has no such right. It has an obligation to treat every individual equally under law.
June 30, 2013, 5:42 amperlhaqr:
"Your exemption" == "the exemption to the CRA for religious sensitivities you are talking about".
And it would be an exemption... to the CRA. I mean, surely you're aware the Congress passes laws all the time that violate the Bill of Rights, right?
June 30, 2013, 5:50 amperlhaqr:
You're not familiar with the phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging", are you?
June 30, 2013, 5:55 amwkevinw:
Wow, the lack of understanding of the supposedly libertarians is jaw dropping. There should be no discrimination against anybody in the area of marriage, because there shouldn't be any involvement of the government in marriage. It is a religious and social institution.
If two people want to create certain legal relationships, it shouldn't matter about sexual orientation or any other demographic. It is a matter of contract law. In short all should be civil unions or civil contracts. If you want to itemize the agreements into a template/boilerplate form, e.g. rights for inheriting assets, powers of attorney, that's fine.
Take marriage out of the legal system and put it back in religious society; if you really understand American history. This is the way it used to be, believe it or not.
Good luck with loading up the Federal Register with lots of social legislation. Watch the country and economy struggle for the foreseeable future with that. Example- Social Security and Medicare. Do you think they have unintended consequences in the same-sex marriage issue? the immigration issue? You better believe it.
It's time to get a clue about this stuff.
June 30, 2013, 6:00 ammarque2:
Maybe not, but you aren't familiar with much else. At least you English skills have improved to the point where you can write trite metaphors
June 30, 2013, 8:11 ammarque2:
I have decided to show pity on you. There were 2 direct mentions of Gods commandments of homosexuality in Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, which I had forgotten because it wasn't as direct.
Here are the quotes (King James)
Genesis 19:1-13 Where the men of Sodom attempted the rape of Gods male angels - God punished them by destroying the city. Hard to pick apart the exact quotes since it is a historical retelling rather than a command
The other two are in Leviticus.
18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18 is basically a long list of laws of immorality. You are not suppose to hang (so to speak) with your father, mother, sister, brother, grand kids, uncle, aunt,woman and daughter together (or woman's son's daughter or woman's daughter's daughter), neighbors wife, inlaws, any step relations related to the above, and animals.
There we go, now everyone has the references, and can read them for themselves. Was that so hard?
And in about 10 years all these relationships will not only be accepted. Warren will allow them all to get married in the state of Arizona.
Interesting note about Leviticus 18, but most of the the rules are for men. Apparently Lesbianism is allowed. Note that bestiality was specifically mentioned for both men and women but gayness is only a crime for men or it would have been specifically mentioned no? I always found this to be peculiar.
June 30, 2013, 9:33 ammahtso:
Ok, now I understand your question, you are a Nazi whose
June 30, 2013, 10:37 amchurch requires you to shun black people and you are looking for an exception
to an unconstitutional statute. You really should hire a lawyer, but I’d
suggest looking into the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Start with the
10th Circuit’s recently Hobby Lobby opinion.
Stan:
I don't know when or where (or if) Warren implicitly or explicitly supported some kind of group rights over individual rights. But I think I understand his logic: Homosexual individuals have a right to be treated equally, to pursue happiness and recieve the same legal benefits. Short of removing government from the institution of marriage (a political impossibility right now), supporting gay marriage makes sense. In many states, civil unions either do not exist or they fall far short of providing the same legal benefits as marriage. It's not just semantics.
Forcing religious persons or institutions to perform ceremonies or accept lifestyles against their beliefs is so obviously unconstitutional that it presents little threat, and if it did, every intellectually honest libertarian (and most reasonable people) would oppose it. I don't know what other individual religious rights are in danger from gay marriage unless it is like a "right not to be offended." I don't mean to sound flippant, but if I am missing a genuine threat somewhere, enlighten me and be specific.
In response to Roy, I agree it's disgusting. But characterizing the opposition as enemies of humanity is hypoerbole; actual rights violations it is not.
Nehemiah, legalizing same-sex marriage and arresting pastors for "hate-speech" are two different things. I don't see how recognition of SSM supercedes the First Amendment (i.e., people should not be arrested for opining against SSM).
June 30, 2013, 1:01 pmmarque2:
Maybe if Gay marriage is so good, and biblical notions of the bible are so bad, even stupid and old fashioned maybe we should allow marriage in all these situations:
Leviticus 18:
6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister,because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
June 30, 2013, 6:41 pmmarque2:
That is absolutely right so if everyone else is getting married in these types of relationships described in that stupid old fasion bible, which should have nothing to do with law, it would be a great thing for our country.
6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister,because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
June 30, 2013, 6:42 pmRuss R.:
What the Bible says, while often sensible, carries no legal weight.
You know why?
Because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's why.
June 30, 2013, 7:14 pmRoy:
Do you suppose, Russ, that any human decision (including Congress making laws = applying force to others) does not ultimately rest upon system grounded in some faith?
June 30, 2013, 8:07 pmmarque2:
That is right Russ, I agree with you completely. So lets go let fathers and daughters. sons and mothers, animals and men, brothers and sisters,etc get married.
There is no reason to discriminate against any of them. Why is the government preventing any of them from getting married. After all what happens between consenting adults is no-ones business. Right? Isn't that your line?
June 30, 2013, 8:47 pmmarque2:
Large parts of the bible are actually rules of law codified for the Jewish people. To disregard them because they are in the bible is silly. There was a reason for them.
What I find funny is all the fuss about the 10 commandments. Fully 8 of the ten have been codified in some form or another.Though it can be a bit of a stretch.
Should we dump though shalt not kill, steal,purger just because it is in the bible. Congress shall make no laws they say ...
June 30, 2013, 8:53 pm