We have stopped providing music for weddings because of the gay marriage issue.
We have a harpist in the family who could earn $400-800 per wedding and is being
asked constantly to play for weddings. She's in college, but probably will
return to live with us because she won't be able to afford to live on her own,
unless she lands a job with an orchestra. (Very difficult to come by.) The gay
marriage rights movement has crippled her future career already bec. she doesn't
believe in gay marriage. She's taking a big gamble, still majoring in harp. No
more wedding harp career for her. We wonder what she will do.
Full faith and credit. Constitutional principle. Constitution is important
when you like it, but when you don't, you ignore it.
If we had seperation of Church and State like we are supposed to, then the
government would provide Civil Union Certificates instead of Marrage
Certificates. As far as I am concerned, this is a question of equal protection
under the law.I'm already married to my partner we just don't have
the same protections under the law as hetrosexuals.I pray you let my
comments through to your site.
LDS4gaymarriage, Thats brilliant!!!
jcap - Gay people already have the rights to marry. There is absolutely NO law
in any of the states that prohibits marriage to gay people. They are welcome and
free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, so they have the exact same rights as
everyone else.LDS - Sure...and Christians cane publically worship in
Saudi Arabia....as long as it's done in a mosque. They have the exact same
rights as everyone else.
Gay people already have the rights to marry. There is absolutely NO law in any
of the states that prohibits marriage to gay people. They are welcome and free
to marry anyone of the opposite sex, so they have the exact same rights as
If same sex marriage becomes legal, then perhaps there could be a Ghandi-like
civil disobedience. Think of thousands of people choosing to go to jail rather
than obey unjust "anti-discrimination" laws forcing them to photograph, cater,
etc. to same "legal" sex marriages that they believe are morally wrong.
To Quit it!"Quit bringing up the First Amendment if you don't
understand it. "Establishment of Religion" refers to a STATE RUN church."It also refers to a CHURCH RUN State! - Those with religious authority
must not serve in political offices in such a way as to make the political
office an extension of the religious authority.This is the same
corruption we see when Popes and Church Priests appoint Kings to rule and,
therefore, only appoint political rulers who support and sustain their own
religion.This kind of corruption establishes a particular religion
as the basis of political power, just as King Henry VIII having his parliament -
filled with religious functionaries - name him the head of the Church in
England.The political powers of government must not "establish" any
particular religion. "Establishment" can occur BOTH WAYS: by the political power
exercising religions authority, OR by religious authority exercising political
power!It is and has always been a two-way street, not the ONE-WAY
influence you claim.
My church teaches me to love everyone. I have homosexual family members
whom I love and admire very much. I also have alcoholics, druggies (one
attempted suicide), overeaters, smokers, angry persons, etc. I dont feel these
genetically predisposed behaviors are ideal,some are illegal. Because I love, I
would never marry anyone to any of these addictions, or to any religion.
Marriage legally forces one to stay in a union. Generally, my people (a hated
minority) feel homosexuals, children, and polygamists, should have the right to
walk away. This isnt hatred. Its a point of view, which may differ from yours.
Saying no to drug addictions or homosexual behaviour doesn't make me reponsible
for their high suicide rates. In twin-studies, many homosexuals had genetically
identical siblings who chose freedom. All should have this moral right. Even if
someone is attracted to drugs, its still unconstitutional to force the religious
to validate abuse. Homosexuals are free to work, teach, hold office, protest,
etc, (but why are they busy hating on Mormons instead of vandalizing hospitals
for visitation rights and etc., but whatever), it's still wrong to force
businesses, my children etc. to legalize.
" The primary problem is that the government interfered with a church
event/polygamy and took over marriage to control such and we are still paying
the price. "LDS - Government needs to be involved in marriage for several
reasons - spouses are exempt from testifying against a spouse. Governemnt needs
to identify who that is. Other issues like child support, alimony, inheritance,
visitation, etc..all need to be enforced by government."Ironically,
gay marriage will lead us back to polygamy, the primary reason for governmental
interference initially. If two legal consenting adults regardless of gender, why
not three or more... I can already hear the cries: oh my civil rights are being
violated."LDS - What's so wrong w/ polygamy coming back? The Church has
been very diligent in trying to separate itself from the image of polygamy.
This would make that harder. individual Civil rights are more important than
some private group's PR campaign.
Quit bringing up the First Amendment if you don't understand it. "Establishment
of Religion" refers to a STATE RUN church. We currently do not have those, but
forcing state laws on churches will effectively create and control churches and
you will then validly have a reason to balk, but by then it will be too late.
The fox is already in the hen house and you are too busy worshiping at the altar
of Obama to notice. No, I am not Mormon but Agnostic.The best
solution would be to require all consenting legal adults to have civil unions
followed by a religious union/matrimony for those that desire such. The primary
problem is that the government interfered with a church event/polygamy and took
over marriage to control such and we are still paying the price. Ironically,
gay marriage will lead us back to polygamy, the primary reason for governmental
interference initially. If two legal consenting adults regardless of gender,
why not three or more... I can already hear the cries: oh my civil rights are
My thoughts:It's an all true irony that some American people,
specifically some law writers and lobbyists, are seeking to extend our freedom
in ways that actually decrease it. Those who are for gay marriage often turn the
issue around to say that those against it are taking away their freedom, when in
fact supporters of gay marriage are attempting to subject everyone else into
compliance with their one-sided opinion. As of now, people may choose to be gay
and I may choose to not support it. If certain laws are passed, people may
choose to be gay, but I would be forced to offer support that I would not be
choosing of my own free will to give, as would Clergy, statesmen, and a whole
slew of other authorities.Lets hope the American people think wisely
when it comes time to vote. There are things I do not want to see America go
through, but let's just say I won't entertain a false hope to avoid the moral,
economical, political, spiritual, and physical wars that will continue to worsen
before resolution. Make a stand!
If it does come to that, it would be a pretty short war as we all know who has
If the law were to force a person to perform/participate in gay marriages when
that person believes gay marriage is evil and against God, it would be the very
same as asking a tree hugger to cut down a beautiful and very old tree in the
Redwood Forest. It would be forcing an athiest to participate in certain
religious rites that they strongly disagreed with. We need to live and let live,
people. It's one thing to peaceably allow others to make their own choices and
quite another to be forced to participate!! There definitely needs to be laws
allowing for religeous rights!!!
This is why freedom is so scary for many,TO be truly Free, you must
allow predjudice,YOu are Free to do you want, they are
Free to do what they want,this state or that community is FREE to
make laws they want,as long as they are not,for example,
sacrificng your children,,you are free to live in a state and
community you want, it IS a choice.(REMEMBER the constitution say
what the federal government can or cannot do)IF one state
wishes to have gay marriage,and another chooses to define marriarage
traditionally,that is okay,THAT IS FREEDOM,if one business wish cater to certian peoples, and another business wishes not
to, and another caters to all,that their choice,AND
THAT IS FREEDOM,And IT IS FREEDOM when you can move about and go
live where the values, the laws, the culture, reflect yours,and you
allow others, states, or their communities to reflect the values and laws and
culture they want,but when you get the FREDERAL government involved
they will take away freedom,and force all to live by rules created
by those who are currently in charge.
We all have our freedom to choose, but we can't change the consequences of our
choices or actions.
When did you choose to be heterosexual? I did not choose to be gay
but I am. Even the LDS church has not said it is a choice.
The truth is, you have to allow people freedom of choice while eschewing
prejudice. This means, treating all human beings "equally" outside of their
lifestyle preference, but at the same time being able to stand up for your
believes when it comes to those very lifestyles you are against. Being black
isn't a lifestyle preference, being gay is. You wouldn't think of not serving a
person in a restaurant because he is black. Why would someone not serve a gay
couple in a restaurant? It seems to me that someone eating at an establishment
should be treated like every other Joe off the street. Then again, what about
catering to a gay reception? Catering seems to be "helping" the lifestyle. I think you can be against the lifestyle without being prejudice. Being
prejudice means treating someone different for things they can't change. Color
of skin, nationality, age, who their parents were, even sexual orientation, etc.
Fighting against a lifestyle is not prejudice, it says that you believe the
choices made are wrong. However, we need to be careful not to become prejudice
when we fight against lifestyles. Decisions must be based on the choices not
"People should not be forced to serve anyone in any capacity."I
choose not to serve LDS people at my business.
The Constitution already protects religions from having to perform marriages
they don't agree with. That's why the LDS Church can restrict who has access to
the temples and even their own ward houses.The Catholic Charities
issue had NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Adoption, is a civil function that
they were licensed by the State to do. There were discrimination clauses that
said all families should be considered equally.When it's you having
your rights taken away, when you're turned away from a business licensed by the
State, then come talk to me.Laws like Prop 8 are an affront to the
freedom of religion because they are restricting religions such as the
Unitarians (many of our founding fathers were members) from performing marriage
rites for same gender couples. That is unconstitutional.Yes, when
you restrict a minority group from having the same privileges you have just
because you think it's against your religion, that is bigotry.We
should be encouraging all people to be creating loving stable families. That's
what's best for society.
The can of worms this opens hasn't begun to show. If we don't protect marriage,
this is just the beginning of utter chaos and loss of freedoms by the religious
and conservative. Give them whatever other rights they think they are being
deprived of - make healthcare universal; not employment-dependent. Let
significant others be allowed as visitors and "next of kin" or whatever else
they feel is not fair. You don't have to alter the basics of marriage to
accommodate other benefits. People should not be forced to serve
anyone in any capacity. Doctors who don't believe in performing abortions
should not be forced to do so, yet laws are being created to make this
mandatory. We should still be able to live our lives the way we choose. People
should be able to refuse service when doing so violates their morals. Churches
need to be protected in cases like this and should not be ruled by the
government when laws are changed that are in direct opposition to their very
foundation. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from those "prohibiting
the free exercise thereof" [of religion].
Re: What if 2:18pmActually, the what if's are coming true already, and as
it turns out, we were right to fear.Examples of heterosexual couples
losing previously protected rights:1-In the case Parker v. Hurley (514
F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), the Courts agreed that under the guise of diversity,
any attempt to prohibit instruction of grade-schoolers about gay marriage or to
permit parents to opt their children out of it must be stopped.2-Public
accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force
religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in
religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public.3-Catholic
Charities in Boston have stopped offering adoption services because the State
has determined that their religious beliefs cannot trump the redefinition of
marriage, and therefore they cannot discriminate in providing adoptions for gay
couples.And so the list goes on from university accreditation
organizations to Canada's C-250 bill, which criminalized public statements
against homosexuality (punishable by up to 2 years!).It is the gay
marriage proponents who are trying to take away my rights!
It appears extend true freedom to others is a very difficult and scary thing,to allow others to think believe, worship, practice their religion, to
have freedom of conscience,, to live their lives and run their businesses
according to dictates of their conscience,but would prefer to use
the government to FORCE others to accommodate them,TO have freedom
and allow others that same freedom is a very difficult and scary thing
OK, suppose we say it is all right to not serve someone due to that persons
beliefs etc.What if the reason the person who is refused service is
because they are LDS. Still OK?
Re: What if...?"Gay baiting and fear mongering is bringing in
millions of dollars from the right, so get used to these types of apocalyptic
"what if" messages. No matter how divorced from reality they really are."Give it a rest already. Real liberals see right through you. This isn't
a left or right issue and any real liberal would be outraged at the behavior of
those who support same-sex marriage. Thomas Jefferson who is the founding father
of the Democratic Party would be up in arms about such conduct. Patrick Henry
would be giving a speech saying "Give us liberty or give us death." A real
liberal doesn't care if they agree with someone to defend their rights.Those who claim that the civil rights of gays being violated have no
understanding of the Constitution or our system of government. They ignore the
most fundamental of all principles. That the will of the majority must be
submitted to even when in the wrong because a will independent of the majority
is a far greater evil.A real liberal would also know the history of
the courts anti-progressive decisions. So come down from your high horse
Re: What if..."How come so many people condemning gay marriages have
to use fear based, hypothetical, future tense, what if, slippery slope
arguments?"Why do you need to resort to simple minded arguments that
have no basis in facts? That don't consider the real concerns of both LIBERALS
and CONSERVATIVES and explain to us why the hell the state should promote the
moral and religious beliefs of the proponents of same-sex marriage."They cherry pick a few cases where the laws have been challenged and make
them sound like its an everyday occurrence. They're not."I have yet
to read anyone who has said that these examples are everyday occurrences instead
they are pointing out that these things are happening, have happened and are
likely to follow the same pattern as taken in other countries where religious
people have been prosecuted for exercising their freedom of speech and openly
condemning homosexuality. Those countries have Constitutions that protect
freedom of speech and religion and are modeled after the U.S. Constitution so
the concern that it can happen in a country modeled after ours than it can
happen in our country is a valid concern.
To: Re: What about docs...?You might a valid point. There are a
limitless supply of pharmacists and doctors and doctors and pharmacists
shouldn't be compelled to perform any action with which they disagree or to
treat patients who they don't agree with.Hospitals and doctors have
a right to refuse service as long as they aren't an emergency room provider who
is refusing access to an emergency room. A doctor who sees a
hypochondriac can refuse service and so can any other doctor. He doesn't have to
waste his time on a patient who is crazy and instead can refuse service and
refer them to a psychologist if they wish to see one but he doesn't have to
continue to see them when there are other patients who are on a waiting list to
see him but can't because he can't accept new patients because he has reached
the maximum number of patients that he deems appropriate to see considering his
limited resources.Anyone who suggests a doctor/pharmacist needs to
treat a patient or fill a prescription are stupid. That is a violation of their
fundamental human rights.
How come so many people condemning gay marriages have to use fear based,
hypothetical, future tense, what if, slippery slope arguments? They
cherry pick a few cases where the laws have been challenged and make them sound
like its an everyday occurrence. They're not.I would be all for a
religious exemption clause if it guaranteed access to civil unions and legal
protections for same sex couples, but we all know that type of reasonable real
world consensus is not the goal of the conservatives fueling the debate (the
same irrational hysteria is being drummed up around medical provider conscience
rules). Gay baiting and fear mongering is bringing in millions of
dollars from the right, so get used to these types of apocalyptic "what if"
messages. No matter how divorced from reality they really are.
Then you should find a new doctor or pharmacy, because there are literally
hundreds of thousands of them available, and there are plenty to choose from
that will agree with who you are and what medical needs you have. Do
you honestly think that somebody is going to give you the best possible care
after you have gone out of your way to personally and professionally destroy
them, and after the courts force them to care for you against their will?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to go to somebody who voluntarily cares for you
to the best of their abilities because they agree with your point of view?
Seems to me that marriage was something that happened before there was such a
thing as "Government, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. etc. etc.. It was a
very religious ceremony, has been and should remain such and if a given religion
doesn't believe that those who are perverted in their sexual behavior should
receive the blessing of the Church, that should be protected. We protect our
children from drug sellers, porn predators, we should also protect them from
those who cannot reproduce and must recruit, else why the demands for teaching
in the schools that this is an acceptable behavior. How many wander into this
life style for the thrill of it?
What if your doc will not treat you or your pharmacy will not fill your
prescription because they do not agree with who you are or what medical need you
The issue is simple to fix. Make all unions civil unions with all of them
having the same rights as the other. Then if you want to get married, go to
your religious preference and get married. No one loses. Everyone gets what
they want.Also, people tend to forget, that everywhere the GLBT rights are
not being taken away. Everyone in every state has the right to get married and
enjoy those benefits. Just to a member of the opposite sex.
Tell Miss California that the gay community does not want to create religious
martyrs over the gay marriage issue. Hilton's question to her at the Miss USA
pageant was designed to force her to approve his agenda and when she didn't he
did his best to run her into the ground.
Sorry to remind everyone that the terms have been messed up.Sexual
Orientation ignores the source of the decision. In truth, it is Sexual
Whim and nothing more.And whim is very different than being born to race
or gender.For all who wish to throw a tantrum over this, please show
the proof.The discussions are endless without establishing that initial
Marriage existed prior to the state and is an inalienable right so says the
Supreme Court in Meister v Moore 96 U.S. 76, 1877. All marriage statutes are
"merely directory" or optional. What we have today, mostly, are mere civil
unions, created by statute, with the state as a superior party of interest.
These state granted "marriages" are legally and morally at odds with the true
and everlasting marriage covenant and ceremony. God is not and cannot be a party
in the marriage since the state is the superior party of interest. Yet a
marriage license is required before the LDS Church will perform a temple
marriage, even though a marriage license is legally optional (see Meister v
Moore above). If you want to read more google original intent, click on
education, and read the article on common law marriage.
Suing every person? The problem is that people don't conduct their personal
affairs the way they use to... they go the state and ask permission to be a
corporation. Corporations are subject to "public policy" law including the LDS
Church's IRS approved 501(c)(3)corporations. Don't do a mother may I with the
corporate strings attached and then complain about the strings. You knew they
were there and you wanted to corporate benefits.
Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service?" That used to be
standard for all businesses, small and large, on whatever grounds they deem
necessary. I agree with the Civil Rights Act, and with other laws, which make it
wrong to refuse services based on skin color or physical/mental handicap, but
something that goes against somebody's religious beliefs should be a no brainer.
Those taxi cab drivers in, I believe, Chicago, who refused to carry
passengers that were holding bottles of alcohol should absolutely have the right
to refuse service. I was appalled they were forced to either suck it up and do
it or quit. Sueing a photographer for not taking pictures of a gay wedding when
they believe it's morally wrong is not right. There are literally dozens, if not
hundreds, of professional photographers in any given city to choose from. There
are multiple places to go to adopt children. There are multiple places to go to
have your wedding ceremony. There are multiple places to go to get your wedding
dress, or to find a caterer, or to give you artificial insemination. Stop sueing
every person that disagrees with you.
I don't see a problem. The government never forced racial equality on the Mormon
Church when they recriminated against blacks. I think temple
marriage are kind of creepy but my option as no legal status. When
we pass gay marriage in California Mormons will still have the right to bigotry
in their churches. I really have no problem with this. I've stayed away fifty
years. I can stay out of LDS Churches until I die.
Courts have ruled that relgious organizations can discriminate in their hiring
practices, requiring employees to conform to certain religious practices. There
is already preccedent, it would not be ruled unconstitutional to provide
religious exemptions in gay marriage law.
Is marriage a civil or a religious ceremony? Is it the church or the state that
recognizes marriage? Is it the church or the state that grants individuals the
right to marry? Where do people get the permission (Licence) to marry, from the
church or the state? Answering these questions is where the problems
become apparent. It seems all of the authority for marriage rests with the
state. It also seems that the meaning, justification, or good feelings that come
with marriage are more religious in nature and have nothing to do with the
state. This is why I think it's so interesting the debate about
marriage. The state is the authority and religion give it meaning yet it seems
the religious community think they have the authority and if gays are allowed to
marry it takes away their authority. Just look at Polygamy, which marriage does
the state recognize. The one sanctioned by the state or the spiritual marriage?
The state doesn't recognize the polygamist spiritual marriage hense the church
has no authority over marriage. So it really does boil down to civil rights. Let
all people marry if they want too.
To: Re: Cosmo and a civil warThere is little doubt that this is
coming to a head but please don't confuse this with a liberal versus
conservative view since real liberals are extremely upset with those who support
same-sex marriage. They may have infiltrated the Democratic Party but they
aren't liberals. Far from it. Real liberals would never have sought to have the
California Supreme Court overturn the will of the people.Thomas
Jefferson who was the founding father of the Democratic Party would role over in
his grave and liberals such as Patrick Henry would shout out in outrage that
such idiocy could be called tolerance or fighting for civil rights since gay
marriage activists aren't fighting for civil rights. They are seeking to impose
their own moral and religious beliefs on all of America by having the state
sanction their beliefs which would effectively deny those who don't share their
views the opportunity to marry unless the conform to that view or at least
acquiesce to being part of it.Real liberals are extremely upset when
we see bigoted tyrants like those in California advocating for same-sex
It's amazing to me that so many people are against gays marrying, but these same
people call gays "promiscuous." Has it ever occurred to you that allowing gays
to marry would help solidify relationships and take away some of the promiscuity
you believe exists?!? It seems to me that anything that would support a
monogamous relationship is GOOD.
Youre bigotry and intolerance is your own... stop blaming God.
People need to have unfettered rights to marry whomever they please. Be it gays, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals, animals, polygamists,
bigamists, triad marriages, or whatever form they want. This is
America for crying out loud. We have the right to pursue our dreams according
to the dictates of our own consciences.
Take away the power to marry from the state...separation from Church and State
is the cry I always hear. Since marriage is religious based,and a religious
tenent, let the churches decide who they will marry.The Governor has
this right, religion must be protected, Freedom of Religion is the fundamental
right of the constitution,you cannot force a church to do something that is
against their belief system.
I won't predict five years necessarily, but it took about ten years--the
1850's--for the nation's last great moral debate--slavery--to boil over once the
heat was on high. Did Prop 8 mark the stoking of this fire? Seems like it.
We are at a crossroads. The conservative view has made many
concessions along this path so far, but marriage is where most will balk, and
won't go any further. The question of slavery was about being rid
of a great evil. The question before us now concerns the redefinition of
marriage, which is about being rid of a great good. The whole nation suffered
in that first civil war, but especially those who clung to the evil of slavery.
They had wealth and power on their side, but not numbers. They had might, but
not right. We will all suffer in the coming confrontation. Those
who advocate redefining marriage have wealth and power on their side. Marriage
preservationists have the numbers. Both are convinced they have right. When
the suffering is over, it should be pretty clear to all where it actually is.
Legal Marriage and Religious Marriage need to be completely separated. All
people who what to get married, gay or straight, would have a civil servant
grant them the legal rights. Then if they want, they can have a religious
ceremony. Take away the power to legally marry from the priests/bishops, etc.
I fear we will be immersed in civil war within five years. Homosexual marriage,
will be the fuse that sets it off!
Tekakaromatagi,"What about conscientous objectors who don't believe
in fighting in the army."Actually, there's no provision that allows
those who are conscientious objectors to allow them not to serve in the
military. They must still do so but the exception is made that they don't have
to fight but they still must serve. Any law that would allow them to not serve
would be unconstitutional on its face. The militia is any adult male between the
ages of 17 and 45 regardless of religious opinion. Congress has the
constitutional authority to govern and regulate the militia. As such it has
authority to decide who will and won't fight but Congress does not have the
authority to exempt a person solely on religious grounds because it would
violate the 1st amendment."Provisions are made for them. Why can't
that be made for people with cultural or relgious objections to gay
marriage?"Actually, provisions aren't made for conscientious
objectors. They must serve in the militia regardless of their religious
opinions. Once the unorganized militia is organized or a member of it enters the
organized militia Congress can decide if they are shooters or cooks.
Another problem with enumerating the ways in which gay marriage cannot interfere
with religious rights is that any situation or religious right you fail to
mention will be considered unprotected.
I may be wrong, but I thought that the Smith decision about the payote usage was
the most recent supreme court decision on religious freedom. If I
remember correctly, if the state has a substantial state interest and doesn't
focus the laws solely on one particular group, then they are constitutionally
allowed to pass the law. If the government feels that they have a
compelling state interest to assure that their citizens don't face
discrimination in any way, and feel that religious ceremonies cause people to
feel discriminated against, then the government can target those religious
ceremonies.I may be wrong but I was under the impression that this
is how it currently works.
Gay marriage, you have got to be kidding. What next? Let me tell you what is
next, monogamy goes away, pre-marital sex becomes more fashionable than it
already is, pornography in all its forms becomes normal, degeneracy becomes
acceptable which includes pedophilia and adultery, then our society falls into
chaos and declines dramatically similar to the perverts of the late 4th century
Rome. People, we must stand together and fight for clean and correct morality
in all its forms. Otherwise, we will be forced to raise our families amoungst
eextreme evil. This is simple right and wrong. Stop the madness and those who
are doing nothing more than justifying their own sick behavior.
What about conscientous objectors who don't believe in fighting in the army.Provisions are made for them. Why can't that be made for people with
cultural or relgious objections to gay marriage?Or is that 80% of
the people who come from cultures that define marriage as being between a man
and a woman would object? There would be so many the law would be
Compromise,"I am not a lawyer but this article might be a good
compromise to settle this issue,at least for many. Protect religious
organizatons from being sued by gay activists for refusing to preform gay
marriages, etc, while allowing gays to "get married" elsewhere. Can such a law
be written and constitutionaly stand?"Such a law couldn't stand
since it would be like a law that made an exception for religious people who
believe God wanted blacks to be separate from white people and therefore can
discriminate when offering public accommodation or services.The
problem with the reasoning behind making an exception is that such exceptions
can't be made. Government doesn't have the authority to make laws "respecting an
establishment of religion" or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."They can't say "well since you are religious and want to discriminate go
ahead." The law must be uniform. The problem here is if gay marriage is legal
than religious people must provide those services to gays if they offer them at
all. The only way they can get around doing so is that the law
doesn't allow gay marriage.
Marriage is simply an obsolete administrative convenience for governments, and
individual contracts are much more useful and do not need to be changed when one
moves from state to state in the U.S. However, in the interest of full civil
rights for EVERYONE, we favor gay marriage because we want to see WHICH of two
partners of the same gender get to lose a great many legal and civil rights
(depending on the individual state -- and only a COUPLE of states have Equal
private enterprise deserves protections, so that businesses and organizations
can run as they want... most large corporations already have "domestic
partnership" benefits and make no distinction in whom they serve. This is good
for their businesses. If someone wishes to withhold services from the one group
in the country with the largest amount of disposable income, it should be their
right to do so. We should not be a nation that forces anyone to slave for
another, and where one business may be missing others will rise up and fill that
void. One major problem here is that the gay community has for too long depended
solely upon bully lawyers to beat people into submission with lawsuits. By putting in sweeping provisions to prevent lawsuits, lawmakers are
only being realistic to prevent the sort of expenses WILL happen due to the
avarice in the most privileged group of supposed victims in this country.
rightascension,"I find it hard to imagine photographers, florists,
caterers, bakers, wedding planners and musicians who will let religious
objections to gay couples' marrying if there is money to be made from such
weddings."You mean like Elaine Huguenin of New Mexico and owner of
Elane Photography who refused to provide two lesbians with services for their
commitment ceremony on grounds that it violated her religious beliefs and who
found herself being sued for it and having the New Mexico Human Rights
Commission rule against her and ordering her to pay $6,637 to the couple and
stated that she violated the law for refusing to provide services.People do refuse to put their religious values ahead of their financial
interest. There are many who will not work on Sunday regardless of its negative
impact on their careers. While I am not a religious person people have the right
to express themselves and to abide by their own religious and moral convictions.
The writer at least ought to get the facts straight. Massachusetts did not
"order" the Catholic Adoption agency to place children with same-sex couples.
In fact, the adoption services already had placed a few children with same-sex
couples. The problem arose when a Boston Globe reporter publicized the gay
adoption. Catholic authorities then ordered the adoption services to stop
same-sex placement. Fearing legal issues in halting same-sex adoption they
decided to withdraw from adoption services. Note: Catholic Adoption services
receives Federal/State money, serving as a State agency. (LDS adoption services
receives no federal/state money and they offer only voluntary adoptions.)
So they`ll all be gone in one generation? Did it ever occur to you that gay
people are the result of straight sex? They will never be all gone. Do a
little thinking before you come off as a first class rube.
thus we see that for the gay advocates in the NH legislature it's as much or
more about forcing the gay lifestyle on others as it is about gay rights.
"Opponents of same-sex marriage have frequently said it threatens to penalize
members of the clergy who refuse to solemnize such unions or who preach against
them. Legal experts almost unanimously dismiss such alarms. Refusals to
officiate or to mute a religious doctrine, they say, are solidly protected by
the First Amendment."Where do they get this idea? The First
Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."It doesn't say
that Congress can't pass a law that impacts Churches or religious persons nor
does it guarantee religious conscience. For example, laws against polygamy
impact religious institutions that believe in polygamy.Religious
persons don't have a right to refuse their public accommodation based on race,
gender or sexual orientation. A Pastor who refuses to marry a black couple on
religious grounds could be sued for doing so since he provides a public service.
Churches that are open to the public which deny access to blacks can be sued for
doing so.Religion isn't a free pass. If gay marriage is legal then
anyone who provides marriage services must provide it to gays like blacks.
"For some time, scholars have debated this issue, and some are now urging states
considering same-sex marriage laws to include strong protections for religious
organizations. Some are even suggesting protections for individuals and small
businesses who offer services for weddings like photographers, florists,
caterers, bakers, wedding planners and musicians. The argument is that these
individuals and businesses might have religious objections to gay couples'
marrying and could be exposed to sizable fines or strong penalties under
nondiscrimination statutes."You can't do that. You can't make an
exception based on religion and say that religious person who aren't okay with
being involved in gay marriage can choose not to serve gays if gays are allowed
to marry any more than you can say that religious people who are opposed to
homosexuality can deny services to gays who wish to purchase food at a public
restaurant as long as it's a CIVIL RIGHT to eat in a public place.The only thing allowing religious people to deny gays marriage services is
because gay marriage is not legal. Remove that and they MUST provide those
services because failure to do so would violate the constitution and law
You can't assert that same-sex marriage is a civil right and assert that
accommodations be made for a private business who doesn't wish to provide a gay
couple with services related to their marriage. It it the premise of the civil
rights acts that those who are providing public accommodations can't deny
accommodations to persons based on characteristics protected by the 14th
amendment.If marriage is a civil right than it follows that a
business involved in providing services to married couples can't discriminate
based on orientation if their religious opinions prevent them from doing so. The
only way that a Church or private business can claim they don't wish to take
part in a gay marriage is if marriage isn't a civil right.If gays
are allowed to marry and a Church or private business provide marriage services
than they CAN'T discriminate based on sexual orientation. It would be a
violation of the law and the Constitution. This is one reason gay marriage can't
be legalized unless we repeal the 14th amendment or the 1st amendment because
freedom of religion conflicts with the 14th amendment if gay marriage's legal
Let's give all the homosexuals their own island. They can have their gay
marriage but they have to have all their children naturally no artifical
insemination. Common Sense says they can have all the rights they want but in
one generation they are all gone. Where are little childrens rights if they are
raised and taught to believe something wrong to be right. It is our
responsibility to teach children right from wrong. There is nothing right about
having sex with the same gender. There is nothing natural about it and it
benefits society in absolutely no positive way. If you want to make wrong
choices in private keep it private. Common sense what has happened to it? If we
get enough people doing the same thing wrong we get to call it right. Still is
I am not a lawyer but this article might be a good compromise to settle this
issue,at least for many. Protect religious organizatons from being sued by gay
activists for refusing to preform gay marriages, etc, while allowing gays to
"get married" elsewhere. Can such a law be written and constitutionaly stand?
I find it hard to imagine photographers, florists, caterers, bakers, wedding
planners and musicians who will let religious objections to gay couples'
marrying if there is money to be made from such weddings.