The Real Way to Protect Marriage

[OzmO]

Mad?  No, I'm not mad.   

How have you been OzmO?

Very Well thank you.   

and you?

[loco]

Calm down loco, you quoted me and asked a question.  I answered.  I don't direct anything at you alone, personally, oh persecuted one!  

Oh, okay.  For a moment there I thought you were saying I like to oppress others, calling me homophobic, fearful of secularization, and a dishonest Christian.  

You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.

The whole thing is more or less about homophobia and fear of secularization. At least, be an honest christian.  

You are the one who needs to calm down.  

[loco]

Very Well thank you.   

and you?

I can't complain!   

[MCWAY]

No, I don't particularly believe in marriage counseling and think the money spent on it could be put to better use in a few sessions with a good financial planner.  Those types of counsellings are rudimentary and provide an overview that is only of use to the most naive people. 

As it exists now (at least, with some churches), that's true. Other churches have stricter, more intensive counseling sessions. Non-religious venues where you can get hitched have none.

 No pastor, no matter how modern or hot he is, is going to be teaching anyone the value of tantric pleasures. Those types of counseling usually start and end with "be accommodating of his desires" for her and "be more romantic and sensitive" for him.  You can get the same in any self-help book.

You ain't been to some of the marriage conferences that I've attended.  .

This thread points out how "soft" the religious right is on adulterers/divorcees and people who engage in every other manner of "sexual immorality" no matter what is written, because it's convenient for heterosexual christians, whereas you're harsh on homosexuals for reasons listed:  homophobia, fear of secularization. 

As mentioned before, adultery is grounds for divorce. Divorce, however, has become far more frivolous than it was intended to be. Take a wild guess who's responsible for that (Hint: it ain't the religious right).

The case can also be made that the liberal left wants to take virtually every form of sexual perversion and legalize it, hardly surprising as sex and drugs tend to be the only things about which the left is actually liberal.

[Decker]

"I agree with that Sen. Sanatorium, who says if we let this stuff go too far, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs."

[Dos Equis]

Nice try Beach!  Where is there one litigation regarding actual marriage in that article?

Businesses cannot discriminate. That's the law. And it's a good one, otherwise there are many minorities who would suffer.

Not surprised that we don't see cases involving homosexual marriages in conflict with religious organizations, because the only state that allowed those marriages was Massachusetts till about a week or so ago.   

The case I was thinking about is in the article:

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

[Decker]

"I agree with that Sen. Sanatorium, who says if we let this stuff go too far, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs."

Quote from Tony Soprano.  Hilarious.

[Deicide]

Who the fuck wants to get married anyway?!

[Straw Man]

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

 Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Good Stuff  - Civil liberties and equal treatment trump discrimination and bigotry

[Dos Equis]

Court tosses Fla. statute banning Bible distribution on public sidewalk - 6.19.08

A federal court Wednesday ruled in favor of attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and permanently struck down sections of a state statute used to bar a member of Gideons International from distributing Bibles on a public sidewalk. The court determined that the statute under which Thomas Gray was threatened with arrest was “constitutionally vague” in violation of the 14th Amendment. read more...



1st Circuit: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is constitutional - 6.9.08

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled Monday that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexual behavior does not violate the U.S. Constitution. As argued in a friend-of-the-court brief funded by the Alliance Defense Fund and filed by the National Legal Foundation, the court determined that the policy is constitutional because it is based upon important considerations of military life, not irrational fears or prejudices. read more...



Alaska Supreme Court issues order to keep patient alive - 6.3.08

The Alaska Supreme Court granted an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney’s motion for stay and signed an order Friday that will keep Providence Hospital from removing a woman’s life-support tubes. Ending her life support could result in her death within minutes or days. read more...



Florida man fails to have wife’s feeding tube removed - 6.2.08

A state judge has signed an order, requested by an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney, to appoint a committee that will make recommendations on the health of Karen Weber. Weber is a stroke victim whose husband wants to have her feeding tube removed even though his wife made clear that she doesn’t desire to go to hospice and has communicated with family and friends. read more...



Wisconsin marriage amendment upheld - 5.30.08

A Wisconsin court threw out a challenge to the state’s marriage amendment Friday, ruling that the amendment does not violate state law. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys had filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing for the constitutionality of the amendment. read more...



ACLU fails to silence religious expression in Wilson County schools - 5.30.08

A court order issued Thursday fell short of granting the American Civil Liberties Union what it was seeking in its lawsuit against the Wilson County School System, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. read more...



Wash. school district agrees to respect student prayer meetings - 5.29.08

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have obtained a favorable settlement for a Christian student who filed suit against the East Valley School District. The settlement acknowledges the student’s constitutional right to meet on campus for religious purposes during non-instructional time. School officials initially prohibited her from meeting with other schoolmates for prayer, discussion, and fasting in a room regularly open for other student-organized gatherings. read more...



Pa. court reverses decision against midwife for helping Amish woman - 5.28.08

A Pennsylvania appeals court has reversed a State Board of Medicine ruling against a midwife who had been fined and ordered to cease practicing after she assisted an Amish woman during childbirth. ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the woman last year, arguing that a state board wrongly interpreted statutes so as to outlaw the practice of lay midwifery, a practice relied upon by many religious communities in the commonwealth, including the Amish. read more...



6th Circuit upholds protections for Grand Rapids citizens against sex shops - 5.27.08

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled that an ordinance restricting sexually-oriented businesses is constitutional, upholding a lower court’s decision in the case. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents a group of local citizens wishing to protect their families from the harmful secondary effects of such businesses. read more...



ADF: Sharing religious views on public sidewalk is not a crime - 5.23.08

An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney has secured a settlement with city of Beaumont officials that will result in changes to an ordinance that violates the First Amendment rights of citizens wishing to publicly express their views. Under the old ordinance, two men were arrested and charged for sharing their religious views on a public sidewalk. read more...



Court affirms will of Oregon voters: marriage amendment constitutional - 5.22.08

An Oregon appeals court ruled Wednesday that Measure 36, the state’s constitutional amendment affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman, is constitutional. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding to allied attorney Kelly Clark, who defended the amendment before the court on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Coalition. read more...

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/victories/Default.aspx

[Hugo Chavez]

Court tosses Fla. statute banning Bible distribution on public sidewalk - 6.19.08

A federal court Wednesday ruled in favor of attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and permanently struck down sections of a state statute used to bar a member of Gideons International from distributing Bibles on a public sidewalk. The court determined that the statute under which Thomas Gray was threatened with arrest was “constitutionally vague” in violation of the 14th Amendment. read more...



1st Circuit: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is constitutional - 6.9.08

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled Monday that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexual behavior does not violate the U.S. Constitution. As argued in a friend-of-the-court brief funded by the Alliance Defense Fund and filed by the National Legal Foundation, the court determined that the policy is constitutional because it is based upon important considerations of military life, not irrational fears or prejudices. read more...



Alaska Supreme Court issues order to keep patient alive - 6.3.08

The Alaska Supreme Court granted an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney’s motion for stay and signed an order Friday that will keep Providence Hospital from removing a woman’s life-support tubes. Ending her life support could result in her death within minutes or days. read more...



Florida man fails to have wife’s feeding tube removed - 6.2.08

A state judge has signed an order, requested by an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney, to appoint a committee that will make recommendations on the health of Karen Weber. Weber is a stroke victim whose husband wants to have her feeding tube removed even though his wife made clear that she doesn’t desire to go to hospice and has communicated with family and friends. read more...



Wisconsin marriage amendment upheld - 5.30.08

A Wisconsin court threw out a challenge to the state’s marriage amendment Friday, ruling that the amendment does not violate state law. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys had filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing for the constitutionality of the amendment. read more...



ACLU fails to silence religious expression in Wilson County schools - 5.30.08

A court order issued Thursday fell short of granting the American Civil Liberties Union what it was seeking in its lawsuit against the Wilson County School System, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. read more...



Wash. school district agrees to respect student prayer meetings - 5.29.08

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have obtained a favorable settlement for a Christian student who filed suit against the East Valley School District. The settlement acknowledges the student’s constitutional right to meet on campus for religious purposes during non-instructional time. School officials initially prohibited her from meeting with other schoolmates for prayer, discussion, and fasting in a room regularly open for other student-organized gatherings. read more...



Pa. court reverses decision against midwife for helping Amish woman - 5.28.08

A Pennsylvania appeals court has reversed a State Board of Medicine ruling against a midwife who had been fined and ordered to cease practicing after she assisted an Amish woman during childbirth. ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the woman last year, arguing that a state board wrongly interpreted statutes so as to outlaw the practice of lay midwifery, a practice relied upon by many religious communities in the commonwealth, including the Amish. read more...



6th Circuit upholds protections for Grand Rapids citizens against sex shops - 5.27.08

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled that an ordinance restricting sexually-oriented businesses is constitutional, upholding a lower court’s decision in the case. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents a group of local citizens wishing to protect their families from the harmful secondary effects of such businesses. read more...



ADF: Sharing religious views on public sidewalk is not a crime - 5.23.08

An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney has secured a settlement with city of Beaumont officials that will result in changes to an ordinance that violates the First Amendment rights of citizens wishing to publicly express their views. Under the old ordinance, two men were arrested and charged for sharing their religious views on a public sidewalk. read more...



Court affirms will of Oregon voters: marriage amendment constitutional - 5.22.08

An Oregon appeals court ruled Wednesday that Measure 36, the state’s constitutional amendment affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman, is constitutional. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding to allied attorney Kelly Clark, who defended the amendment before the court on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Coalition. read more...

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/victories/Default.aspx

[Deedee]

Not surprised that we don't see cases involving homosexual marriages in conflict with religious organizations, because the only state that allowed those marriages was Massachusetts till about a week or so ago.   

The case I was thinking about is in the article:

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Again, this is not a case where a member of the clergy was forced to perform a marriage that would compromise his/her beliefs.  Got any cases involving Protestants suing Catholic churches, or anything of that nature? Those would be better analogies.

[Dos Equis]

Again, this is not a case where a member of the clergy was forced to perform a marriage that would compromise his/her beliefs.  Got any cases involving Protestants suing Catholic churches, or anything of that nature? Those would be better analogies.

Give it some time.  The men in black only recently legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts and California. 

We are really witnessing a sea change.  The "gender identity" issue is cementing itself in our state laws.  That could be a mess.     

[Deedee]

As it exists now (at least, with some churches), that's true. Other churches have stricter, more intensive counseling sessions. Non-religious venues where you can get hitched have none.

You ain't been to some of the marriage conferences that I've attended.  .

As mentioned before, adultery is grounds for divorce. Divorce, however, has become far more frivolous than it was intended to be. Take a wild guess who's responsible for that (Hint: it ain't the religious right).

The case can also be made that the liberal left wants to take virtually every form of sexual perversion and legalize it, hardly surprising as sex and drugs tend to be the only things about which the left is actually liberal.

I'm sure there are some very interesting Christian conferences,  but obviously you attended yours after you were married, not leading up to it. 

I'm referring to divorce as Jesus defined it.. with "just-cause" being a very thin list. Accordingly, anyone who divorces outside the list is an adulterer, and anyone who marries such a person is also an adulterer. Adultery is one of the Big Ten no-nos whereas homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Yet Churches are filled with all manner of adulterers, yet doesn't seem to warrant a blip, whereas homosexuality seems to bring people out in savage droves.  Why is that?  Because it's convenient and hypocritical. 

As far as where the fault for frivolous divorce lies... am I going to blame my heathen neighbor if I decide to murder someone, or steal something as well? No one forces anyone to sin.

Btw... you sound kind of liberal with your coddling counseling measures for would-be frivolous divorcees.  You should throw the book at them! 

[Deedee]

Give it some time.  The men in black only recently legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts and California. 

We are really witnessing a sea change.  The "gender identity" issue is cementing itself in our state laws.  That could be a mess.     

Don't live in fear Beach.  Enjoy your life, and let others enjoy theirs.

[Dos Equis]

Don't live in fear Beach.  Enjoy your life, and let others enjoy theirs.

Who is living in fear?  I love my life.  I hope everyone can find happiness too.  This is a great country.   

[Straw Man]

Who is living in fear?  I love my life.  I hope everyone can find happiness too.  This is a great country.   

What do you think two people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do?

 

[Dos Equis]

What do you think two people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do?

 

   The same thing three people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do. 

[Deicide]

Don't live in fear Beach.  Enjoy your life, and let others enjoy theirs.

Beach Bum believes in talking snakes; when someone believes in such idiocy, is it any wonder they he can't let others be?

[Straw Man]

  The same thing three people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do. 

so what - I thought you said you wanted people to be happy?

How does 3 people who want to get married affect you in any way?

[Dos Equis]

so what - I thought you said you wanted people to be happy?

How does 3 people who want to get married affect you in any way?

Yes, as I said, I want everyone to be happy. 

People in an illegal polygamous marriage don't affect me.  Neither does a person who wants to marry a dog.  But society has said it does not approve.  We don't always pass laws based on whether the conduct affects everyone.  We set standards and uphold them.   

[Straw Man]

What gives a church (or religion) the authority to define marriage?

You don't need to get married in a church in order to have a valid marriage so why do we even pretend that any the opinion of any church or religion even matters.

If you want to join that religion and follow it's rule then fine

If you're not a member of that religion then their opinion on you, your actions, etc... are irrelevent.

[Dos Equis]

The state defines marriage. 

[Straw Man]

Yes, as I said, I want everyone to be happy. 

People in an illegal polygamous marriage don't affect me.  Neither does a person who wants to marry a dog.  But society has said it does not approve.  We don't always pass laws based on whether the conduct affects everyone.  We set standards and uphold them.    

yeah and eventually those standards evolve to eliminate bigotry as recently happened in California with same sex marriage

It wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal and that was somehow considered an "acceptable standard" too.

[Dos Equis]

yeah and eventually those standards evolve to eliminate bigotry as recently happened in California with same sex marriage

It wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal and that was somehow considered an "acceptable standard" too.

Race is not in the same universe with homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, and transsexuals.  It is absolutely absurd for people to call those opposed to lifestyle choices bigots.