budlover13
King Tut
i don't see how unless the gov says that THEY have the right over marriage.
Chic-fil-a is kicking some butt!
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
i don't see how unless the gov says that THEY have the right over marriage.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, apparently i am. so step right on out and say it.
why do you so vehemently object to gays getting the same title for their loving marriage as the rest of us do?
budlover13
King Tut
Ever hear of a "justice of the peace"?
Refusal of gay marriage by church=Lawsuit
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This confused me since I thought i was making the freer choice. Then I realized, upon re-reading your premise post, that I'd omitted one of the nested "nots". To clarify, I thought I was opting for "no lawsuits". I don't begrudge churches their right to marry whom they choose. I would begrudge them the right to dictate to those outside their congregation. What can I say; I've had summat smoky.
That said, why would a separate Federal law be of advantage? As UB pointed out, churches are already protected by the Constitution afaik. cn
beenqueer says that gays getting married will have all the gays suing church's unless a new law is put in place that says specifically that gays can't sue the church's. The gays will supersede the constitution without a law in place
budlover13
King Tut
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
#1 - why the fuck did you put an apostrophe in "churches"?
#2 - why the fuck did you use "they're" instead of "their"?
#3 - no one would win a lawsuit against a church that refused to marry a gay couple, it's called the first amendment. you're right on par with the morons passing laws disallowing sharia law. redundant and unnecessary, but an excellent way to spot the bigots.
#4 - there are plenty of churches that will marry gays.
#5 - you don't need a church to marry you, i am an ordained dudist and have the powers to marry people.
#6 - stop dodging and answer the question already. getting bigots to admit their bigotry is worse than herding cats.
hey be a good mod and read the thread maybe you will know what is going on.
budlover13
King Tut
Again, they are free to sue. They are also free to pay the churches expenses of defending such a frivolous lawsuit.
budlover13
King Tut
Ummmm, i have? Lol.
what right to get married in a church are you talking about? you're making shit up.
I don't believe that works for civil rights lawsuits.
budlover13
King Tut
What right do they have to get married there? If the churches stance is anti-gay and they are members, that's THEIR bad, not the churches.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Now you're just being cheeky. Granting gays the right to call their marriage what it is does not give them the right to compel any church of their choice to perform the ceremony. What is your goal here? cn
<edit> Budlover said it first.
budlover13
King Tut
They shouldn't HAVE to marry ANYONE. Because it's their right to do so or not.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
jesus fuck you are bad at deflecting.
no one is saying that churches have to marry gays, all we want to know is why YOU insist that gays' loving marriages can't be called "marriage" and why they must be given a different title.
budlover13
King Tut
Because of tax code. /discussion.
Similar threads
