North Carolina (in before MrFun!)

[klesh]

I can give you that, to be sure. My thought would be you don't need to go to a church to call yourselves "married"... you could in fact skip the church type ceremony altogether and just say you're married, because you've gotten your civil union down at the town hall. Its sort of like being about taking the power out of the word marriage, and giving it to civil union which everyone can have. That throws out hundreds of years of tradition, but sometimes traditions are worth being thrown away. Its semantics really, but it satisfies those who don't want to see their church supporting homosexuality (for whatever twisted reasoning), while leaving cooler, less uptight churches (like maybe Unitarians) free to perform traditional marriage ceremonies.

We let everyone get married in Massachusetts, and so far, the sky hasn't fallen.

[rah]

Yet there are those that still claim they are personally harmed by those getting married in Mass. Go figure.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, Ben, which gay charity did you donate the $10 that I asked you to donate after venart helped you out?

Pretty sure I posted it prior to my banning...

GALA north.

http://www.galanorth.com/index.php

I know a fair number of the folks there...

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet there are those that still claim they are personally harmed by those getting married in Mass. Go figure.

It's called religious freedom, rah. Christians should be able to actually practice Christianity without the state shutting them down.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's a history teacher who knows next to nothing about history. If he can spell 'degree' then I'd be shocked.

What's your educational background, Kentonio? I've asked you this before and you've never told us.

[Ben Kenobi]

The government registration bit, for anyone, should be at town hall being called civil union. This gets you your rights to act on behalf of your spouse for medical stuff, lets you do joint taxes and all that jazz. You can be a gay couple, straight couple, whatever.

Government no longer has anything to do with the word "marriage", that can be a church function if you want it.

That's not going to work. Government intervention insofar as it benefits you - isn't consistant. What you want are all the benefits without any of the consequences.

If this were to happen - the government would shut down any church that did not practice gay marriage, on the grounds of discrimination. The state would be even more involved in marriage than it was before.

[dannubis]

It's called religious freedom, rah. Christians should be able to actually practice Christianity without the state shutting them down.

So Mr History Guy... Since when is marriage the property of Christianity ? It seemed to exist before Christ was born and in other cultures too...

[kentonio]

What's your educational background, Kentonio? I've asked you this before and you've never told us.

Someone who almost took degree level history before deciding on something more practical, but who still knows enough to find your grasp on European history absolutely laughable. In itself that would be fine, there's plenty of historical areas where I know next to nothing, but as our discussion about the Tudors illustrated you are incapable of just admitting your lack of knowledge, and that hubris makes you look unnecessarily stupid.

There's nothing wrong with not having knowledge on a subject, but making daft comments and then trying to cover them up with wiki quotes is hardly subtle. For a teacher to do that is especially worrying.

[Asher]

Ben isn't a real teacher as he's not gone to a teacher's college.

IIRC he was hired as a "teacher" by some private nutjob religious group in Texas and "tutors" in his free time.

[giblets]

It's called religious freedom, rah. Christians should be able to actually practice Christianity without the state shutting them down.

Massachusetts isn't forcing churches to marry gays. So how does this stop Christians from practicing their religion?

[giblets]

Gay marriage canard: Churches will be forced to marry gays

I knew this assertion was stupid to begin with, but I recently had to address this misconception in an argument with a fellow liberal. So for the sake of dispelling the myth, I'm addressing it here.

In all of the state supreme court rulings on the issue of gay marriage, none of them support forcing churches to alter their ceremonies to accommodate gay couples. Such a policy would constitute a violation of the separation of the church and state, but furthermore, when conservatives (for the most part) embrace this canard, they betray an ignorance of the institution of civil marriage, which government is responsible for creating and maintaining.

All of the state supreme court rulings reflect this point.

Links to the rulings are provided below the fold with emphasis on the relevant text.

From the Iowa Supreme Court:

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

From the Connecticut Supreme Court:

Finally, religious autonomy is not threatened by recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry civilly. Religious freedom will not be jeopardized by the marriage of same sex couples because religious organizations that oppose same sex marriage as irreconcilable with their beliefs will not be required to perform same sex marriages or otherwise to condone same sex marriage or relations. Because, however, marriage is a state sanctioned and state regulated institution, religious objections to same sex marriage cannot play a role in our determination of whether constitutional principles of equal protection mandate same sex marriage.

From the California Supreme Court:

Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

From the Massachusetts Supreme Court:

We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution.... No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage.

See? All the conservatives have to do is be proficient in Google and reading and they would no longer embrace this myth!

Unfortunately, it appears this is too much to ask, so I have to dispel the myth for them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/23/723390/-Gay-marriage-canard-Churches-will-be-forced-to-marry-gays

It's sad when conservatives have to make up crap in order to argue against same sex marriage. It really shows how desperate they are.

[Ben Kenobi]

So Mr History Guy... Since when is marriage the property of Christianity ? It seemed to exist before Christ was born and in other cultures too...

In the English common law? Since Good Queen Bess - the same one who executed the priests - did the same with marriage and marriage registrations. She made it so that you had to register in order to be considered married. Since then, the state owns marriage, and anyone who deviates from what the state desires is crushed.

Whenever there is a conflict between the state and the church over marriage, who prevails? Here's a hint - it's not the Church. And it's already happening in Canada - you can be fired for expressing the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, you can be charged with hate speech - there have been decisions filed against the Church for choosing not to marry gay people - there have been private businesses that were fined for doing the same, choosing not to participate.

So, yes, it is happening, and happening pretty quickly. The Church will get shut down, will get it's property confiscated - it's happened before, and it will happen again. It's already happening in MA - look at what happened with the Catholic adoption services - they got shut down by the state for choosing to disagree with the state. Nothing more, nothing less. Comply or be shut down.

And it will happen. You all predicted that there would be 'no negative consequences', but we're at the point where Obama is trying to choose the leaders of the church (where he got slapped down 12-0), is trying to shut down every Catholic hospital in the nation over their opposition to contraception - what makes you think that when push comes to shove, that they aren't going to confiscate the property held by the church to the state - to pay the massive bills that the state is running up and 'distribute the proceedings among the poor'.

It will happen, and it is coming, and we are not far from it. States that are broke are going to get their money from the same source as they did way back when - from the Church. And gay marriage will be the pretext.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben isn't a real teacher as he's not gone to a teacher's college.

The law doesn't require me to possess anything more than a bachelor's degree in the subject that I teach. Which I do have, and that is all that is required. I may go back and get my certificate - that was the plan last year, but I chose not to do that just yet.

IIRC he was hired as a "teacher" by some private nutjob religious group in Texas and "tutors" in his free time.

Uh yeah, it's called the "Catholic Church", and I teach at a private Catholic school. And yes, I tutor as well. The community college back home used to have me tutor struggling students, for years after I graduated. They'd send me clients. Now I get referrals from folks that I know here looking for extra help.

[Ben Kenobi]

Massachusetts isn't forcing churches to marry gays. So how does this stop Christians from practicing their religion?

If the Catholic church chooses to marry people in controvention to the laws of the state - look at how fast they will get shut down. MA already did this with the Catholic adoption services - comply or be shut down.

What's stopping MA from doing the same to the priests - barring them from issuing marriage licenses?

[giblets]

If the Catholic church chooses to marry people in controvention to the laws of the state - look at how fast they will get shut down. MA already did this with the Catholic adoption services - comply or be shut down.

What's stopping MA from doing the same to the priests - barring them from issuing marriage licenses?

Massachusetts doesn't allow adoption agencies which are CONTRACTING WITH THE STATE to discriminate. If the Catholic church wants to be bigoted, it merely has to stop contracting with the government. Also, since when did priests issue marriage licenses?