President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks, does some the church still goes against interracial marriages?

can they still in this days refuse?

Yes. It's in my response to BFFT. They can refuse anyone they want and it still happens today. A white church in Mississippi even refused to marry a couple because they're both black. No legal problems whatsoever. Forcing the church isn't going to happen.

It's good to see you, marg.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I thought I saw a few instances where churches were being sued for discrimination because they would not marry same sex couples. Did nothing come of those?

I think if you want to enter a legal commitment with another person to be their other half it doesn't matter what you are as long as you are human. If the term marriage offends then call it something else. It is a bit different because with marriage it is not solidified until the marriage is consummated.

I do not believe that people offering services should be forces to offer services to anyone they don't want to.

originally posted by: mrsdudara
I thought I saw a few instances where churches were being sued for discrimination because they would not marry same sex couples. Did nothing come of those?

There has never been a successful lawsuit against a church for not marrying same-sex couples.

It is a bit different because with marriage it is not solidified until the marriage is consummated.

Consummation can be done in several ways. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not believe that people offering services should be forces to offer services to anyone they don't want to.

You have a right to that belief, but the law differs.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Glad to see you too, I now remember, you know I live in the south but we are mostly Southern Baptist church strong hold, in GA so I know that Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi, also have a lot of old racism but here where I am at is plenty of interracial marriages, and also the town is considered a safe haven for same sex couples, in the last statistics we came out top on centrism when it comes to political parties.

How about that.

a reply to: mrsdudara

when they offer those services tax free as a source of income (i.e., a church), yes they should.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Im sorry. You confused me a bit. You said there has never been a person to successfully sue someone for not marrying them. Then when I said people should not be forced to provide a service to someone if they don't want to you said the law differs.... but if no one has been sued successfully, doesn't that mean the law agrees with that?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Then we agree to disagree.

originally posted by: mrsdudara
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Im sorry. You confused me a bit. You said there has never been a person to successfully sue someone for not marrying them.

A church. There has never been a successful lawsuit against a church for not marrying same-sex couples. This "hitching Post" business is not a church and I think it's the first time a business that offers weddings has wanted to refuse to marry gay people, so it's kind of a new kind of case. I expect we'll see all kinds of new cases as this marriage equality thing settles out through the country.

But this is a for-profit wedding business, like a flower shop, photographer or a baker. They even offered "religious weddings and civil weddings" on their literature, but when marriage equality was adopted by the state, the business owner changed their website to offer only religious weddings between a man and a woman.

They then sued the state to protect that position.

Then when I said people should not be forced to provide a service to someone if they don't want to you said the law differs....

Businesses (in many states) don't have the option to deny their services to a person, based on that person's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. With churches, the law doesn't (and shouldn't) be involved with who they choose to marry.

Does that make sense?

There is an update that solves this whole issue.

The "Hitching Post" is changing its legal business to that of a "nonprofit religious corporation". The city has said since they are doing this, they will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Basically, they are being treated like a church. I'm sure it's just some legal mumbo-jumbo that they had to sign and their business practices may change slightly, but for now, they are allowed to discriminate freely.

Source

a reply to: marg6043

I love watching the inbred religious right froth at the mouth over this

a reply to: mrsdudara

I forgot same-sex couples don't have sex after they get married, that's only for heterosexual couples.

If people get offended that a human wants to marry another human and want them to have a different word than marriage, tough. This is about equality and having a different name for marriage defeats the purpose of us wanting everything the same as heterosexual people so we can finally be equal.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If religious people can try to force LGBTQ+ to be straight, why can't we force them to marry LGBTQ+ people? At least with them being forced to marry LGBTQ+ people there isn't stuff involved to make you have crazy convulsions (removing the "evil gay" goo) and I doubt there aren't nearly as many people getting hurt.

I do believe there is something in there about, The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In fact I believe it says there are unalienable god given rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....

Face it, The United States was born as a country where gay folks could prance around and be happy with no one judging them...

And then you came along..........

a reply to: mrwupy

And then you came along..........

who is you?

a reply to: marg6043

and was applied equally to the states via the 14th amendment. The part people ignore is each state can decide who can be married. Without the 14th amendment, other states don't have to recognize the act from another state. The US Congress is responsible for determining what states are required to accept and what they are not.

Besides, he is correct -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Determining who can marry is a religious issue and the state / government should not be anywhere near endorsing one religion over another.

I sincerely believe that if certain states made it illegal for cousins to marry we wouldn't be having these kinds of debates.

In a courthouse. A church has it's choice. That from a person that hates all religion.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I wondered why the president didn't just come out and say same-sex marriage should be legal!

Why say, "Constitutional"?

Perhaps the president is just predicting that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, just like they ruled on the constitutionality of interracial marriage. It's only a matter of time before it happens, in my opinion.

I dont understand why marriage means so much to homosexual people.

Marriage is a church concept. The Church is a man made group of people who have their own way of doing things. They dont want to recognize homosexuality, they dont believe in it...

So why do homosexual people... want so badly to be a part of their ''church'' tradition that doesn't even accept them?

screw marriage, if you want your own term of commitment to your loved one that has its own understandings and appreciation... create one! one that means something... go for it, id love to attend a new type of celebration between lovers!

why do you care so much about the church and their traditions when they dont even want to recognize your feelings?

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Who said anything about churches marrying gays? We are talking about getting marriage licenses from the state. We are talking about equal protection under the laws being in the constitution. Equal protection under the laws means equal treatment under the laws. Equal treatment under the laws means that if a gay couple wants to acquire a marriage license by the state, they have a constitutional right to do so.

Why does the state call their license a marriage license? Don't know - take that up with the state. Doesn't matter what the license is called - everyone still deserves equal treatment under the laws.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
I dont understand why marriage means so much to homosexual people.

Marriage is a church concept.

Why would atheists get married if that were the case?

For SOME, it's a "church concept". For others, not at all. ALL marriage licenses, regardless who they're for, are issued from the STATE, not the church.

So why do homosexual people... want so badly to be a part of their ''church'' tradition that doesn't even accept them?

They don't. They want to participate in the same rights the rest of us have. Marriage endows state and federal rights. That's why MANY get married. Others get married to publicly profess their love and union. Others do it to create a family. Still others do it for convenience. There are MANY reasons to get married, not just because it's a "church" thing, to some.

screw marriage,

That's a choice we heterosexuals have. And certainly, some choose it. But we have the choice. Everyone should.