Churches urge high court to act on gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Moyank24, Sep 6, 2014.

  1. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #1
    Imagine how burdensome it is for the those of us who are being denied our rights? :rolleyes:

    I've said over and over that I have no issue with religion - a line is drawn in the sand, however, when they actively pursue the denial of rights based on personal beliefs.

    The fact that these guys are still trying to so hard makes every victory we've had in court this year so much sweeter.
     
  2. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #2
    Yes, because your groups have a complete monopoly over religious freedom. Forget those churches and synagogues that don't have problem with gay marriage... :rolleyes:
     
  3. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #3
    Sounds like the church wants the court to rule that the U.S. Constitution specifically gives the state the right to pass laws that give favourable treatment to the views of the religious establishment, which is strange given that it explicitly forbids this kind of legislative behaviour.

    I really don't understand their issue. Pass a law that permits gay people to get married but nothing that forces churches to marry people they don't want to marry. Simple, what the heck is their problem?

    Sounds like more whining from the religious establishment.
     
  4. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #4
    Wait. The constitution mandates same sex marriage?

    My wife is going to be bummed.
     
  5. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #5
    Not specifically, no. But it might restrict the government from limiting personal freedoms for arbitrary reasons, which in this case would be preventing people from being married to the person of their choosing based upon sexual orientation.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6


    Good luck with that.
     
  7. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #7
    I'm not understanding the religious freedom argument. What do civil marriage contracts have to do with their religious freedom? Even to someone who opposes same sex marriage, this can't possibly make any sense.
     
  8. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #8
    It's the only way left they can say "we're bigoted *******s who think other people don't deserve equal civil rights" without saying it straight-up.

    "Religious freedom" is a crock of ****. There is no way possible that anyone with any shred of logical reasoning whatsoever would think denying civil rights to a large group of the population was "religious freedom". But then again, why would anyone expect logic when dealing with the religious?
     
  9. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    I've been told (by a prominent leftie member) recently in another thread that marriage is not a civil right.
     
  10. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #10
    Reads like a list of hate groups.
     
  11. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #11
    Link?
     
  12. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #12
    And neither is a job. Yet if I refused to hire somebody based on my religious beliefs, I'd be setting myself up for a lawsuit.

    I can answer that one. There is no mandate for same-sex marriage. There's just no mandate against it. There's also no legal basis for denying it.
     
  13. kingalexthe1st macrumors 6502

    kingalexthe1st

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    #13
    It's stuff like this that makes my blood boil. That people with a belief can exercise some sort of 'right' and 'freedom' to reduce the freedom and equality of others is wrong on every level. Why this kind of thinking wasn't stamped out decades ago is beyond me.

    Alex
     
  14. Moyank24 thread starter macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #14
    According to SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia, marriage is a right.

    And frankly, who cares if it is or not? These churches are confused about the definition of religious freedom.

    If you ever have a question about why there are some posters who have a strong bias against the church, or religion in general, please refer back to this thread.
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    Exactly.

    "Religious freedom" means you can build a church and practice whatever wacky religion you want. It doesn't mean you can use those beliefs to infringe on the rights of others.
     
  16. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #16
    Yeah, I don't think freedom of religion ever meant "YOUR legal contract is contrary to MY religious beliefs and should be banned". How does one even stretch their imagination to come up with that absurd "legal argument"?
     
  17. skottichan macrumors 6502a

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #17
    Here's my problem with this. I know for a fact that there are religions from Wiccan to several sects of Christianity, not only accept, but support marriage equality. Why aren't their "Freedom of Religion" rights being respected by the LDS church (and others) in this matter?
     
  18. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #18
    Christians tend to think they invented marriage. well god invented it. but marriage has been around long before Christianity or Judaism. marriage was about making alliances and making heirs. the bible tried to get some love involved since back in those days wives were just the breeders and caretakers of the house not the lover of the husband.
    Really we are seeing is that Christians are really upset that they can't run very ones lives and it is really pissing some of them off. well see megachurch leaders calling for death to the gays death to the muslims death to atheists all in the name of jesus. I can't imagine jesus agreeing to that.
     
  19. Ledgem macrumors 65816

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #19
    I hope SLC Flyfishing wasn't thinking of me when he referenced a "prominent leftie member" (as I don't think of myself as nor wish to be prominent here, and I don't think I'm a "lefty" or a "righty"), but I recently disagreed with him over his similar interpretation of Loving v. Virginia. Loving was not suing the state of Virginia for the right to be married, as she had already been officially married out of the state. Rather, due to Virginia's laws against interracial relations, she was facing a felony charge and prison time. Her lawsuit was about having her conviction overturned, and it led to a nationwide ban on making such relations and marriages illegal.

    The Constitution doesn't talk about marriage, and what people seem to neglect when comparing interracial marriage to other forms of marriage struggle today is the fact that interracial marriage (and relations) was a crime. It isn't just that people were being denied a status and benefits, they were actively being punished.

    I completely agree. Religious freedom means that the churches are free to practice how they wish. If marrying certain people within their confines or by their pastor offends them and goes against their beliefs, then in my opinion they shouldn't be forced to do it. It would be a rotten and discriminatory thing to do, but it is their beliefs and we should respect that. However, they do not own the term "marriage," nor do they get to define what marriage must mean to the rest of the nation. That oversteps religious freedom and becomes a scenario whereby they are forcing their doctrines on others.
     
  20. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20
    Dear "believers" - keep your "religion" there where it belongs - out of the lives of others. "Thank you".
     
  21. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #21
    But...but....THE GAY "AGENDA"!!!
     
  22. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #22
    I support the right of the churches to petition the courts. It's their right to do so, and it will be up to the courts to sort through it all.
     
  23. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #23
    If by "sort through it" you mean laugh them out of the courtroom, then yeah, they'll sort through it alright....
     
  24. kingalexthe1st macrumors 6502

    kingalexthe1st

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    #24
    No. Absolutely not. They believe in something that has no evidence for it, and lots of evidence against it. And if they are going to use the supernatural to discriminate against people in the real world (people in their religion or not) then I for one don't have to respect their decision one iota. It's unacceptable.

    Alex
     
  25. Ledgem macrumors 65816

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #25
    I don't support discrimination, either, but I recognize that these are private institutions that were privately funded. If people don't like it then they are free to find another church that caters to their beliefs, build one themselves, or otherwise try to work from within to change their churches' stance. Just as I dislike the idea of the churches forcing their views on society, I don't like the idea that the majority, through the government, would tell these institutions what they should be believing and how they should be carrying those beliefs out.
     

Share This Page