Religious implications of N.Y. federa...

Religious implications of N.Y. federal appeals court striking down DOMA

There are 37 comments on the www.washingtonpost.com story from Oct 19, 2012, titled Religious implications of N.Y. federal appeals court striking down DOMA. In it, www.washingtonpost.com reports that:

This November, four states will be voting on marriage. Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota all have ballot initiatives that will either ban or allow marriage equality for all their citizens. In Minnesota, voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to prevent gay and lesbian citizens from entering into marriage. Maine, Maryland and Washington will ask their citizens to vote on legislation that has already passed through the legislature and been signed into law to allow all citizens access to the institution of marriage and the protections that come with that institution. Interestingly, all of these votes will come just weeks after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.washingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Oct 20, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there are deep religious implications, but they are only for those churches that already marry gay couples.
THEIR freedom to express their religious beliefs will finally be respected, while not harming a single denomination who feels differently.
I understand what you're trying to say, but actually on this one you're wrong. NO church ANYWHERE in the US is currently prevented from marrying a same-sex couple. Granted, that marriage may not be recognized by the state or the federal govt, but they can still marry any couple they want according to their religious beliefs.

Now with military chaplains you have a point, since they were prevented from even conducting a same-sex religious marriage ceremony on base, even it if their religion allowed it.

Don't fall into the anti-gay trap of confusing a religious marriage ceremony with a state-sancetioned civil marriage.
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Pittsfield, MA

#23 Oct 20, 2012
Religion has nothing to do with it. In fact you need gay priests to rationalize your own perversions.
Did you know that gays wish to point out that most pedophilia is between a man and a young girl. They even go as far to call it 'straight' pedophilia when actually there is no such thing. Any male having intercourse with an adolescent male or female is far from straight. Any sexual intercourse outside of a 'committed relationship' between a man and a woman is deviant, degrading, defaming, unhealthy, unnatural, and morally unsound.

The BLTG deviants stereotyped and isolated themselves into a conundrum that is finally being exposed. Any married male buttsexing an adolescent male is not 'straight' but a closet bisexual with tendencies for young children. Thank the perverted liberals for all this classified confusion folks but at least the yolk is now finally being separated from the white.
Ernst Rohm coming to America with Homofascism.
Shoulda left the schools, Disney, and The Boy Scouts alone. Dead givaway.
BOO-YAHHHH!!!!!
LOL!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24 Oct 21, 2012
Qwerty26 wrote:
<quoted text>
From Jesus' lips:“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”- Matthew 24:34
The things he was talking about included his return.
I say, "2000 years of 'any day now.'"
That is pure false interpretation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25 Oct 21, 2012
Qwerty26 wrote:
It's funny to me that certain religions claim the whole marriage thing as their own - their invention, their sacrament. The Catholic church is probably the chief of these.
When viewed in history, however, we see that the church did not want anything to do with marriage, for centuries. During its early centuries, the fledgling Christian religion didn't want anything to do with sex at all, since their savior was returning any day now and it just wasn't important. Better that all Christians just be celibate, they wouldn't have long to wait.
It only became a "sacrament" in the 14th century, when some church quisling must have realized that there was MONEY to be made here!(And probably recognizing that "any day now" was taking longer than expected.)
The focus of your understanding is far too Roman.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you're trying to say, but actually on this one you're wrong. NO church ANYWHERE in the US is currently prevented from marrying a same-sex couple. Granted, that marriage may not be recognized by the state or the federal govt, but they can still marry any couple they want according to their religious beliefs.
......
That's the point, isn't it?

It's NOT a legally recognized marriage.

I can be married by the SAME pastor, in the SAME church, at the SAME altar as a straight congregant, and only they will receive a legal marriage license.

The marriages are equal, and yet only one is legally recognized.

That is, indeed a religious implication, and one that every church and pastor that marries gay folks now is keenly aware of. And rather horrified by.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#27 Oct 21, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
Religion has nothing to do with it. In fact you need gay priests to rationalize your own perversions.
Did you know that gays wish to point out that most pedophilia is between a man and a young girl. They even go as far to call it 'straight' pedophilia when actually there is no such thing.......
You poor thing. YOU are the one with obsessions that surround harming kids, not the people you screech against.

It's in your every post. And here you are trying to justify straight people who hurt kids.

We just feel sorry for you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Oct 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the point, isn't it?
It's NOT a legally recognized marriage.
I can be married by the SAME pastor, in the SAME church, at the SAME altar as a straight congregant, and only they will receive a legal marriage license.
The marriages are equal, and yet only one is legally recognized.
That is, indeed a religious implication, and one that every church and pastor that marries gay folks now is keenly aware of. And rather horrified by.
I still disagree.

It's a CIVIL implication. The fact that we CAN get married by our church negates any religious implication.

Religious marriage we have.

Civil marriage we lack in 44 states.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#29 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I still disagree.
It's a CIVIL implication. The fact that we CAN get married by our church negates any religious implication.
Religious marriage we have.
Civil marriage we lack in 44 states.
The marriage ceremony that a church can conduct for gay people is still not a legally recognized marriage, no matter how much they might want it to be. It is only recognized within that one church building. And the marriages conducted by that same church for straight folks automatically obtain legal recognition.

I still believe this does against the principles of religious freedom for the churches involved, since only certain of the marriages they conduct achieve government recognition.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#30 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I still disagree.
It's a CIVIL implication. The fact that we CAN get married by our church negates any religious implication.
Religious marriage we have.
Civil marriage we lack in 44 states.
The main argument that is being used to deny legal recognition of same-sex marriages is a religious argument. And by bringing up the religious implications we are pointing out how allowing a religious argument to deny legal recognition negatively affects religious freedom.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#31 Oct 21, 2012
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
The main argument that is being used to deny legal recognition of same-sex marriages is a religious argument. And by bringing up the religious implications we are pointing out how allowing a religious argument to deny legal recognition negatively affects religious freedom.
But the "religious argument" is nonsensical, because Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists, amongst others, do not believe in God, or The Bible, and nobody questions their RIGHT to be married ANYWHERE in the U.S.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Oct 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The marriage ceremony that a church can conduct for gay people is still not a legally recognized marriage, no matter how much they might want it to be. It is only recognized within that one church building. And the marriages conducted by that same church for straight folks automatically obtain legal recognition.
I still believe this does against the principles of religious freedom for the churches involved, since only certain of the marriages they conduct achieve government recognition.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Churches have no authority to impose their religious beliefs on civil law, whether that benefits or hinders us. That's kinda what we've been fighting all these years, just in reverse.

It's a civil issue, NOT a religious one.

It's an important distinction, because if you think YOUR church should be able to force the civil govt to accept YOUR definition of marriage, it's NO DIFFERENT than the anti-gays thinking THEIR church should be able to force the civil govt to accept only THEIR definition of marriage.

We need to completely separate religious marriage from civil marriage.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#33 Oct 21, 2012
Why can't trolls change their rants? Yours has been going on for months.
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
Religion has nothing to do with it. In fact you need gay priests to rationalize your own perversions.
Did you know that gays wish to point out that most pedophilia is between a man and a young girl. They even go as far to call it 'straight' pedophilia when actually there is no such thing. Any male having intercourse with an adolescent male or female is far from straight. Any sexual intercourse outside of a 'committed relationship' between a man and a woman is deviant, degrading, defaming, unhealthy, unnatural, and morally unsound.
The BLTG deviants stereotyped and isolated themselves into a conundrum that is finally being exposed. Any married male buttsexing an adolescent male is not 'straight' but a closet bisexual with tendencies for young children. Thank the perverted liberals for all this classified confusion folks but at least the yolk is now finally being separated from the white.
Ernst Rohm coming to America with Homofascism.
Shoulda left the schools, Disney, and The Boy Scouts alone. Dead givaway.
BOO-YAHHHH!!!!!
LOL!

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#34 Oct 21, 2012
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
But the "religious argument" is nonsensical, because Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists, amongst others, do not believe in God, or The Bible, and nobody questions their RIGHT to be married ANYWHERE in the U.S.
Non-Christian religious people have their own understanding of divinity -- so it's incorrect to say they "don't believe in God." Maybe not the Christian deity, but it's pretty arrogant to presume that one religion has the One True God in their corner.

And you are absolutely right that the whole "religious argument" against legal recognition of same-sex marriage is nonsensical. It's illogical. It's prejudicial, and bigoted, and just plain stupid. And it violates the right of religious freedom because the whole argument is based on allowing one religious opinion to force itself on civil legal issues that affect everyone.

Just like with divorce, which is legally recognized everywhere, individual religious groups have the choice to recognize or not recognize divorce as they see fit. For instance, Catholics reject divorce so divorces are not recognized within the Catholic church. Catholic couples who want the dissolution of their marriage recognized within the church have to follow Catholic rules to obtain an "annulment" which is much more difficult to obtain than a civil legal divorce. And that is something that religious groups are absolutely free to do as they choose.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#35 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches have no authority to impose their religious beliefs on civil law, whether that benefits or hinders us. That's kinda what we've been fighting all these years, just in reverse.
It's a civil issue, NOT a religious one.
It's an important distinction, because if you think YOUR church should be able to force the civil govt to accept YOUR definition of marriage, it's NO DIFFERENT than the anti-gays thinking THEIR church should be able to force the civil govt to accept only THEIR definition of marriage.
We need to completely separate religious marriage from civil marriage.
It's more like I believe the arguments nulify themselves. You can't use "religious freedom" as an argument against gay folks marrying, after admitting that preventing same sex couples from marrying denies others THEIR religious freedoms.

As to removing religion from marriage altogether?

That is never going to happen as long as churches are allowed to perform marriages that are automatically legalized by the state. And I don't see something like that changing soon.

Governmental recognition of a marriage SHOULDN'T have anything to do with ANY church. But, that's not the way it works right now.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#36 Oct 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's more like I believe the arguments nulify themselves. You can't use "religious freedom" as an argument against gay folks marrying, after admitting that preventing same sex couples from marrying denies others THEIR religious freedoms.
As to removing religion from marriage altogether?
That is never going to happen as long as churches are allowed to perform marriages that are automatically legalized by the state. And I don't see something like that changing soon.
Governmental recognition of a marriage SHOULDN'T have anything to do with ANY church. But, that's not the way it works right now.
Again, you're not denied your religious freedom, since you can marry in your church anytime you want, and there is no right to having a religious ceremony recognized by the government.

What we ARE being denied is our CIVIL freedom, since not all our marriages- religious or civil- are recognized or allowed by the civil government. When our religious marriages are treated differently by the civil government than other religious marriages infringes on our CIVIL freedoms, not our religious freedoms.

Marriages by churches are NOT automatically legalized by the state. They have to be authorized by the civil government in order to be legal, either through legislation specifically authorizing certain religious individuals to perform CIVIL marriage ceremonies, or by applying for a license/registration/etc.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#37 Oct 21, 2012
Oink Oink Oink Oink Oink wrote:
<quoted text>
Of all faiths only one will look the other way if you sleep with a pig. Take your time.
maybe you should ask yourself who Jesus had in mind when He said what He said in Matthew 5:11.

You?

Or people like me?

New International Version (©1984)
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

International Standard Version (©2008)
"How blessed are you whenever people insult you, persecute you, and say all sorts of evil things against you falsely because of me!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Blessed are you whenever they revile you and persecute you and they say every evil word against you for my sake, in falsehood.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, lie, and say all kinds of evil things about you because of me.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-11.htm

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#38 Oct 21, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
Religion has nothing to do with it. In fact you need gay priests to rationalize your own perversions.
Did you know that gays wish to point out that most pedophilia is between a man and a young girl. They even go as far to call it 'straight' pedophilia when actually there is no such thing. Any male having intercourse with an adolescent male or female is far from straight. Any sexual intercourse outside of a 'committed relationship' between a man and a woman is deviant, degrading, defaming, unhealthy, unnatural, and morally unsound.
The BLTG deviants stereotyped and isolated themselves into a conundrum that is finally being exposed. Any married male buttsexing an adolescent male is not 'straight' but a closet bisexual with tendencies for young children. Thank the perverted liberals for all this classified confusion folks but at least the yolk is now finally being separated from the white.
Ernst Rohm coming to America with Homofascism.
Shoulda left the schools, Disney, and The Boy Scouts alone. Dead givaway.
BOO-YAHHHH!!!!!
LOL!
maybe you should ask yourself who Jesus had in mind when He said what He said in Matthew 5:11.

You?

Or people like me?

New International Version (©1984)
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

International Standard Version (©2008)
"How blessed are you whenever people insult you, persecute you, and say all sorts of evil things against you falsely because of me!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Blessed are you whenever they revile you and persecute you and they say every evil word against you for my sake, in falsehood.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, lie, and say all kinds of evil things about you because of me.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-11.htm

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Steve King to Newsmax: House GOP Bill Would Ban... May 7 wild child 1
News US appeals court: NSA phone record collection i... May 7 Sterkfontein Swar... 2
News U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against NSA Phone Reco... May 7 RustyS 1
News Nevins Joins U.S. Bankruptcy Court In Connecticut Apr '15 Citizen44 2
News Actavis: No apologies for seeking Alzheimer's d... Apr '15 Crazy Talk 2
News NY court revives suit over Nazi stolen art at O... Mar '15 goonsquad 2
News Court nixes Occupy marchers' suit over mass arr... Feb '15 USA Today 4
More from around the web