Re the bolded - clergy do not have to perform it at all. One (er, two I guess) can get married without any clergy involvement. The reason that clergy often (probably usually) do perform marriage ceremonies is inertia. It's the way it was done, and that goes back centuries. Since there are non-clergy options, and the First Amendment exists, there is no need to (unsuccessfully) attempt to force any clergy to perform any ceremony at all.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Re the bolded - clergy do not have to perform it at all. One (er, two I guess) can get married without any clergy involvement. The reason that clergy often (probably usually) do perform marriage ceremonies is inertia. It's the way it was done, and that goes back centuries. Since there are non-clergy options, and the First Amendment exists, there is no need to (unsuccessfully) attempt to force any clergy to perform any ceremony at all.
Have you read anything from that time? They capitalized almost anything, for no discernable reason. It's like reading email from your grandmother. In this case, I agree it was likely on purpose, but what about the significance of capitalizing: Happiness? Nature? right of Representation? Despotism? inalienable Rights? Governments? Administration of Justice (not used as nouns)? Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners? Trade?
'
It has been obvious to some on here (me too) that you have no sense of humor, only hate for those you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
You obviously missed me in the Katina and 3will threads. And mainly just hate for you. I disagree with @HeismanWildcat85 on a lot but I don't hate the guy.
She probably should go ahead and cancel all debates with Trump then.
Maybe Jefferson was paying respect to the child birthing process that allows American men and women to create American babies. It's hard to say, without guessing. Also since he was a Deist, he could've been capitalizing the C as a proper noun. Really hard to say.
Clergy don't. Who has said they did?
Not sure of your angle... it doesn't require a clergy or a church to get married. Anyone can go down to their local court house and get it done.
Yeah, DaBoss and I rarely agree on anything except sports and movies. I have no issue with DaBoss. I like the guy.
There's only a few on this forum that I wouldn't mind if they got hit by a freaking semi.
Last edited:
Circle back to the original point. You stated that without the Georgia law, a pastor could be sued every time he refused to perform a gay wedding, tying up the courts. I said that's nonsense, and as support noted that in the near 50 years since Loving (analogous to Obergefell), there have not been these cases re interracial marriage. The fear that there will be such cases re gay marriage is unfounded.
bigblueinsanity: "And they can still refuse to perform such [interracial] marriages (presumably). They just cant refuse based on sexual preference." That's just flat out wrong, and bringing in imaginary boogeymen that did not appear in analogous situations over the last 50 years is simply more evidence the problem does not (and indeed cannot) exist. The state, through any instrument, cannot force clergy to perform weddings against their will. Period.
What was his name?
You get it? I'm suggesting you're married to a man.
*Cue Big Bang Theory laugh track*
I'm bored.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I did marry an Asian. My only worry. Is she post-op? Maybe. She won't let me see childhood pictures
She was the guy in your Avatar.
I did marry an Asian. My only worry. Is she post-op? Maybe. She won't let me see childhood pictures
Exactly. What I don't understand is why anyone wants to try and force it anyway. Go to the court house and be done with it.
You do understand the meaning of the word "could"? We're talking about the same group of people who drove from other states to have the terrible Kim Davis decline to issue a marriage license. The same group who routinely bring the wrath of social media justice onto pizza places and bakeries who wont do as they please. Its obvious these are different times and this is a different group of social justice seekers. The first time any pastor refused, there would have been requests from all over the country; just to prove a point.
Whens enough enough?
the state cannot and never would try to force clergy to perform gay marriage. unimaginable! inconceivable! but it is AOK for it to do so to flower shops, photographers, and pizzerias.
what's so difficult to understand in the puzzle palace of insanity that is America in 2016
what's so difficult to understand in the puzzle palace of insanity that is America in 2016
I'm tired of this topic because we just go in circles but this video is a pretty good example of the double standard. Steven Crowder goes into several Muslim bakeries with a hidden camera trying to get a cake for a gay wedding. It's nice to see because Christians are the only one you see get bullied and called out on this topic. Muslims are off limits though from the LGBT community.
Ha ha ha ha the infamous "gay wedding cake" litmus test.
Too good to do it in Jessamine?
BTW, the old wedding chapel in Nich is now a craft beer house. Very cool place but likely won't make it.
There is at least arguable legal support for the bakery angle - witness the desegregation of hotels, restaurants, and the transportation industry. But clergy =/= commercial entities. It's a key difference. I can try to sue you for damn near anything, doesn't mean I'll make it past the pleading stage (read: lawsuit thrown out at the first opportunity) for failing to state a legally supportable injury. Happens literally all the time in a wide variety of contexts, and it doesn't mean we need more laws to clarify. Gay marriage has been legal in at least one state since 2004 (Mass.). Where are the lawsuits in the last 12 years attempting to force clergy to perform gay marriages? Not one angry gay couple tried to force a Catholic priest to marry them in that time, but it's going to result in "requests from all over the country" now? Boogeyman is boogeyman. Yeah, election year scare mongering!
the state cannot and never would try to force clergy to perform gay marriage. unimaginable! inconceivable! but it is AOK for it to do so to flower shops, photographers, and pizzerias.
what's so difficult to understand in the puzzle palace of insanity that is America in 2016
What's so difficult to understand that businesses =/= churches, and the law treats them vastly differently for good, constitutionally based reasons?
b/w the walmart and downtown right before the pizza hut. Awesome for people watching and self-esteem.
Where's that beer place?
They're not off limits, they just don't have the power to do anything outside of small, easily avoidable communities (Dearboristan, etc...). In contrast, Christian virtues are often invoked when bringing up laws or practices that the LGBT community feels (rightly or wrongly) harm them. I don't think anyone can credibly argue that a Muslim regime wouldn't be worse than a Christian one for the LGBT community.
Which hints on the key issue: Is the right to have gay marriage ceremony superior to the right of the individual clergymen to choose their clientele?
No and thats a valid point. But theyve definitely targeted others in their social justice crosshairs where theyve done exactly that.
I agree its fear mongering. I agree a law to address it was unnecessary.
Really? Except for that whole executing gays thing in Islamic countries. Nowhere do you have Christians executing homosexuals.
I also, will respectfully disagree that Muslims have no influence or power in this country. They most certainly do nowadays especially in this administration.
Maybe the double negative confused you (edit: and it's not that clear, apologies), but I am agreeing with you there. The degree of Muslim versus Christian influence in this country is extraordinarily lopsided. My point remains.
Last edited:
I think we both agree generally (thanks for engaging!), and the clear answer to this question is no.
Yeah, not clear. How about - No doubt a Muslim regime would be worse for the LGBT community than a Christian regime.
If I was a Muslim I'd wear my traditional garb like Will Smith wore his school uniform on Fresh Prince.
Added him to ignore long ago but I know what you mean.Ha ha. Can anyone else read one of LEK's posts without thinking Loud Egghead Know-It-All?.
Well, I'm right here, so if your only retort is I am mean, sorry you're not smart enough to keep up.Ha ha. Can anyone else read one of LEK's posts without thinking Loud Egghead Know-It-All?.
suddenly, the fears of something worse than merely a contested convention look more prescient:
[CNN: Do you stand by your pledge to support whomever the Republican party nominates?]
Trump: "No, I don't anymore."
Cruz: "I'm not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and family."
Kasich: "All of us shouldn't have even answered that question."
You can almost hear Hillary cackling in the background.
[CNN: Do you stand by your pledge to support whomever the Republican party nominates?]
Trump: "No, I don't anymore."
Cruz: "I'm not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and family."
Kasich: "All of us shouldn't have even answered that question."
You can almost hear Hillary cackling in the background.
Last edited:
So is the Republican Convention going to be open carry or what?
They should just bring back duels and pistols at dawn to "make America great again."
They should just bring back duels and pistols at dawn to "make America great again."
