Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, gay marriage stuff)

[sleepy jack]

Still ashamed of my left coast

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

2. the ruling as it stands is in direct violation of the equal protection clause. They made the point to say that you can't tell someone, we afford you all the liberties of anyone else; right to own property, right to vote, but then turn around and say "we don't like your sexual orientation, so we're taking away this selected right from you." (I thought that was the strongest point)

Get back to me though Addy, I'd love to know your thoughts. That goes for everyone, I just know he's got a special viewpoint in this deabte being in the legal profession.

The flip side to that arguement is "we don't like your theological orientation, so we're taking away this selected right from you."

It there was such a thing as *** marriage, and it was a federal law, then Churches and Ministers will be in trouble if they did not comply to two *** men wanting a marriage because of the equal protection clause.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

The flip side to that arguement is "we don't like your theological orientation, so we're taking away this selected right from you."

It there was such a thing as *** marriage, and it was a federal law, then Churches and Ministers will be in trouble if they did not comply to two *** men wanting a marriage because of the equal protection clause.

If that were actually true then the Catholic church would already be in trouble for not allowing women to become priests, but it isn't so it's pretty apparent that this is a non-issue. Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion.

[Surell]

Originally Posted by adidasss

Wow...that's six out of 50 then, 4 of which came this year...pretty spectacular.

It's that damned Obama!

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

If that were actually true then the Catholic church would already be in trouble for not allowing women to become priests, but it isn't so it's pretty apparent that this is a non-issue. Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion.

The Mormon church had a ban on black priesthood until the 1980s and also excluded them from all sorts of religious ceremonies. Just to add to your point. The ban being lifted had to do with a "revelation" which was supposedly had and not actual government interference.

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

If that were actually true then the Catholic church would already be in trouble for not allowing women to become ministers, but it isn't so it's pretty apparent that this is a non-issue. Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion.

I'm not talking only about the Catholic Church but any minister from any denomination or even a JP with a moral conviction who does not want to perform a relegious ceremony or preside over or legalize a marriage can not do so if there is a Federal Law supporting *** marriage and not risk legal action brought against him or her.

The is no law pertaining to who can be ordain in a Church, for whatever legal reason, but if a Church was part of the gov't, a Federal Government Established Church then they would under the law be required to follow Federal law.

That statement "Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion."
sounds a little bit intolerant of Religious organizations to use their conscience to decide for their own good.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

The flip side to that arguement is "we don't like your theological orientation, so we're taking away this selected right from you."

It there was such a thing as *** marriage, and it was a federal law, then Churches and Ministers will be in trouble if they did not comply to two *** men wanting a marriage because of the equal protection clause.

That is in fact the flip side of their argument, but even still, thats not how the amendment works.

Priests and Ministers, as a group aren't allotted any rights. The 14th doesn't bar....uh barring rights, its a barring of selected rights.

Essentially you can't say "well you're human enough to do "x", "y", and "z". But not when it comes to "a." We don't like how you do "a" so we're not letting you do that.

That is illegal.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

That statement "Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion."
sounds a little bit intolerant of Religious organizations to use their conscience to decide for their own good.

I'm not sure. If he's saying their allowed to be as intolerant as they want, thats not really judgemental.

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Essentially you can't say "well you're human enough to do "x", "y", and "z". But not when it comes to "a." We don't like how you do "a" so we're not letting you do that.

That is illegal.

But that is too ambiguous of an arguement. You know "a" could be murder, murder most foul.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I'm not talking only about the Catholic Church but any minister from any denomination or even a JP with a moral conviction who does not want to perform a relegious ceremony or preside over or legalize a marriage can not do so if there is a Federal Law supporting *** marriage and not risk legal action brought against him or her.

The is no law pertaining to who can be ordain in a Church, for whatever legal reason, but if a Church was part of the gov't, a Federal Government Established Church then they would under the law be required to follow Federal law.

I was using the Catholic church priesthood as an example. There are already countless ways in which churches engage in discriminatory behavior and basically none of it attracts the ire of the government. There's no reason that gay marriage would be any different.

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

That statement "Religious organizations will continue to be free to be as intolerant as they want without fear of any kind of government intrusion."
sounds a little bit intolerant of Religious organizations to use their conscience to decide for their own good.

LOL. I'm in favor of allowing religions to be as discriminatory as they want. In what way is that intolerant?