If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: reldra

I didn't say they were a Christian organization. The basic morals were aligned with the Christian community otherwise where would the resistance to gay membership originate? LOL.

The Boy Scouts (years back) were floundering - - - then they were "saved" by Mormons. Really.

They are a religious organization. No atheists or agnostics allowed.

Original program came from England and was patterned after the military. What can I say, I research stuff.

The Boy Scouts will not say either way and generally say they are not a religious orgainization, have not established themselves as such Boy Scouts I research too Anee

As I said it originated in England.

When creating the Scouting method, Baden-Powell was adamant that there was a place for God within it.

In Scouting for Boys, Baden-Powell wrote specifically about Christianity, since he was writing for youth groups in the United Kingdom:

We aim for the practice of Christianity in their everyday life and dealings, and not merely the profession of theology on Sundays…[1]

Indeed, the Scout Promise requires an incoming member to fulfil their "duty to God".

However, the founder's position moved shortly after the Scout movement began to grow rapidly around the world, and his writings and speeches allowed for all religions. He did continue to emphasise that God was a part of a Scout's life:

When asked where religion came into Scouting and Guiding, Baden-Powell replied, It does not come in at all. It is already there. It is a fundamental factor underlying Scouting and Guiding.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah I see what you'resaying. If Christians don't "own" marriage (as others have said) why can't a Christian entity decline to marry them? I think it reeks slightly of the anti-sharia laws. Let them say no. The courthouse will be legally required to say yes, why does it matter?

Btw, i Just got my marriage license 2 days ago, and my fiancés status in this country caused us to "look around" to find a place. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree or comply to my beliefs, but I found a place that did. Good enough for me.

a reply to: buster2010

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: reldra
On the point of the three person marriage. It can be legal in some of the states, and the arguments are already laid down, along with the laws are on the books. The RFRA laws that have been popping up, the ones that are suppose to be anti gay, where in short it states that laws can not be used to burden against a persons religious belief. If a group, belonging to a religion, could argue and force the issue in court, getting the various criminal laws struck down and forcing a show down in the US Supreme Court. And those groups have a valid argument that the current laws by denying them poly marriage is a burden on their faith and religion.

Thus the court would have to decide to either strike down criminal laws and federal law, and reverse a prior courts decision and uphold the RFRA laws, or strike down the RFRA laws and uphold the various criminal, federal laws and the prior court case.

I don't know of any states where it is civilly legal. I do know that it occurs in spiritual joinings...there is a reality show about it and the family went to court and won. The courts are reluctant in regard to how it would affect custody and support in the case of separation. It is new territory. You are correct, in regard to civil poly marriages, it will take laws being struck down. As far as I know, at this moment, it is not easily legal anywhere.

a reply to: Annee I am going to go with what their Attorney says. Not wikipedia. They are also not a religious tax exempt group.

a reply to: Annee

You also weren't a 'Scout', what can I say...

None of that is relevant to the grass-root members of Boy Scouts.

If the national group goes the route of appeasement, that group will also suffer loss of groups not unlike the link I posted of 34,000 Presbyterian churches abandoning that affiliation.

This is largely a grass-roots reaction/response. As usual the politicians are responding in those regions as demanded by those same grass-root individuals.

Your 'research' not withstanding....

a reply to: reldra

The courts are reluctant in regard to how it would affect custody and support in the case of separation. It is new territory.

I would venture to say that it is because they [the State] are not party to a 'marriage' contract and thus really have no jurisdiction. The other parties only recourse would be a claim in a court of record, and not a suit in civil court.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Actually, I'd agree with that assessment. It is a cultural spat.

The gov't has intruded on it federally, and this local legislation is in response.

I'm not upset in the slightest.

More like the upset lies with those that are now finding the going a wee bit tougher than expected with their agenda...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

You also weren't a 'Scout', what can I say...

None of that is relevant to the grass-root members of Boy Scouts.

If the national group goes the route of appeasement, that group will also suffer loss of groups not unlike the link I posted of 34,000 Presbyterian churches abandoning that affiliation.

This is largely a grass-roots reaction/response. As usual the politicians are responding in those regions as demanded by those same grass-root individuals.

Your 'research' not withstanding....

I did a lot of research on the Boys Scouts about a year ago.

It was just something I found interesting. I like to research beginnings of things and how they evolve.

The Mormons basically resurrected the floundering Boy Scouts.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: reldra

The courts are reluctant in regard to how it would affect custody and support in the case of separation. It is new territory.

I would venture to say that it is because they [the State] are not party to a 'marriage' contract and thus really have no jurisdiction. The other parties only recourse would be a claim in a court of record, and not a suit in civil court.

That is good reasoning.

a reply to: reldra
While currently it is not legal, the door however has been opened by the different states. And all it will take is the time and determination of a few people and lawyers to exploit these new laws.

I'm 100% pro gay marriage, but it's silly to think that there won't eventually be cases of religious institutions forced to perform gay marriages. Isolated incidents exist right now, and it may always stay isolated incidents here and there, but it's silly to think that it won't happen with what we've seen with the wedding cake thing and the photography people, etc.

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

Thank you. It's good to see that I'm not the Lone Ranger here.

dp

originally posted by: reldra
I am going to go with what their Attorney says. Not wikipedia. They are also not a religious tax exempt group.

Then why the ban on Atheists and Agnostics?

I never said they were tax exempt as a religious org. They are non-profit.

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
Isolated incidents exist right now, . . .

What isolated case where a church is forced to marry anyone.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The Christian faith doesn't "own" the word marriage. It has no claim to the institution of marriage either. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.

christians in this country falsely assume that THEY created the idea and institution of marriage.

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
I'm 100% pro gay marriage, but it's silly to think that there won't eventually be cases of religious institutions forced to perform gay marriages. Isolated incidents exist right now, and it may always stay isolated incidents here and there, but it's silly to think that it won't happen with what we've seen with the wedding cake thing and the photography people, etc.

Won't happen. Show me any one of those isolated incidents that have succeeded and you might have a point. Otherwise you're making decisions on hypothetical situations that won't happen. Besides, there are already churches who will marry them plus they don't need a church to marry them in the first place so there is no reason they have to force one to do so. We already allow churches to discriminate in multiple different ways and there is no plan on changing that.

a reply to: ketsuko

last time i checked, in the past those marriages where illegal and vehemently blocked by states until recently.

just like gay marriage.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

Thank you. It's good to see that I'm not the Lone Ranger here.

I think you mean it's good to see that you're not alone in making decisions based on Fear. Unsubstantiated fear at that.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think my opinion is sound.

Has the definition and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed?