I don't really care who you fuck, but marriage, to me, is a religious ceremony, and I don't think you can force a church to adopt something that is against its tenets.  I'm all for civil unions, though.  To me, the protections are the important thing.  If someone gay wants to get married, find a church that marries gays.  If you are married in the eyes of that church, then the state should recognize it as such.  However, I don't think the state should tell churches that they have to marry gays.  That would be unconstitutional.

Other than that, I don't really care.  Marriage sucks anyway.

He can't cum clean, because for some things there is no cure.  If it was simply a matter of the syph, it'd be no problem....

jesusluvspegging wrote:

He can't cum clean, because for some things there is no cure.  If it was simply a matter of the syph, it'd be no problem....

In fact, I've always wanted a visit from T. Pallidum. It would be a nice companion disease to my gout.

fnord wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't really care who you fuck, but marriage, to me, is a religious ceremony, and I don't think you can force a church to adopt something that is against its tenets.  I'm all for civil unions, though.  To me, the protections are the important thing.  If someone gay wants to get married, find a church that marries gays.  If you are married in the eyes of that church, then the state should recognize it as such.  However, I don't think the state should tell churches that they have to marry gays.  That would be unconstitutional.

Other than that, I don't really care.  Marriage sucks anyway.

Who are you, and what have you done with headkicker_girl?  I may not agree with many of her opinions, but I’ve never seen her engage in such shoddy reasoning.  I’ve never had reason to believe she’s an idiot, therefore, you must be an impostor.  Proposition 8 has absolutely nothing to do with regulating church rituals.  If you are headkicker_girl, please tell me where I can get some of what you are on.  It must be good stuff to mess up your reasoning ability so thoroughly.

That was just my stream of consciousness on the gay marriage issue.  The argument against calling it gay "marriage" is that "marriage" implies a religious commitment, which is behind these ballot measures that call for defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman.  They don't have a problem with the term "civil union."

Taint wrote:

I voted for it but I'm opposed to marriage in general. The state shouldn't be in the relationship business but if it must, then make all legally recognized relationships civil unions and let churches perform marriages as they see fit.

And, for the record, Fnord is right. If Prop 8 were to lose - I'm not holding my breath - no religious organizations would be forced to perform marriages against their beliefs. Nor should they be expected to, just as they shouldn't be able to force their beliefs about "acceptable" relationships on the majority of people.

I know that Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion.  I was thinking down the line ...some gay couple will want to get married in the Catholic Church and when denied they will sue the Catholic Church claiming that their rights have been violated, based on the definition of marriage, if the term "marriage" also applies to same sex couples.

fnord wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Taint wrote:

I voted for it but I'm opposed to marriage in general. The state shouldn't be in the relationship business but if it must, then make all legally recognized relationships civil unions and let churches perform marriages as they see fit.

And, for the record, Fnord is right. If Prop 8 were to lose - I'm not holding my breath - no religious organizations would be forced to perform marriages against their beliefs. Nor should they be expected to, just as they shouldn't be able to force their beliefs about "acceptable" relationships on the majority of people.

I know that Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion.  I was thinking down the line ...some gay couple will want to get married in the Catholic Church and when denied they will sue the Catholic Church claiming that their rights have been violated, based on the definition of marriage, if the term "marriage" also applies to same sex couples.

The Catholic Church makes you sign and notarize paperwork that you understand Catholic doctrine about what constitutes a valid marriage and that you are eligible to marry in the Catholic Church.  I have yet to hear of a divorced person successfully sueing for being denied the right to marry in the Catholic Church.  Few if any Orthodox Jewish rabbis will perform a marriage between a Jew and a Gentile.  Again, have you heard of a successful suit?  I doubt any self-hating gay couple who wants to have some pedophile priest perform their wedding would be successful in forcing the matter.

Geesh, I must be off my game today.  My point is that this would be another reason to challenge the law.  Of course it wouldn't be successful, which is why all the attempts at banning abortion have failed...the laws are either too vague or simply not enforceable. 

And trust me, some gay couple would sue the Catholic Church.  When you've got loser guys suing bars over ladies night, it's not a stretch that some douchebag would try to make a point over the definition of marriage and their civil rights.

Bottom line: pass or not pass, the issue is far from settled and will continue to be tied up in the courts for years.

fnord wrote:

Such a suit would never make it to first base.  As an Episcopalian, I’m not eligible to take communion in the Catholic Church.  If I wanted a Catholic communion cracker and sued, any judge would throw the suit out without a preliminary hearing.  If the communion rail isn’t a public accommodation that must admit all comers, then a church wedding certainly can’t be considered a civil right.  If you just dislike the idea of gay church weddings, be honest and admit it.  Don’t hide behind the idea that churches and ministers need protection from being forced to do things they don’t want to do.  They legally refuse the sacraments of communion, marriage, baptism, ordination, confirmation, confession, and extreme unction to anyone for whatever reasons they please.  I once saw a Catholic priest refuse to baptize a dying newborn because he was illegitimate.  Another priest performed the rite, but the law cannot force clergy to perform religious rites on demand.

I'm actually indifferent, but I've seen so many stupid lawsuits that I just anticipate them. 

The examples that you give are distinguishable because they are not legally protected rights.  If marriage is defined as between any two persons, regardless of sex, it creates a legally recognizable right.  If an entity that performs marriages refuses to perform a marriage on a particular group, the case could be made that that particular group's civil rights are being violated.  That is the crux of constritutional law.  No one has a right to a baptism or communion because the state has not stepped into that arena. 

I've been to a Jewish lesbian wedding.  They're still together.  Unfortunately, in Illinois it's not legal.

In a hundred years, homosexuality will be seen like any other genetic vagary, blue eyes or brown...preference for thousand island or ranch, high street or up with people. It's just another flavor people come in, and to restrict what that particular flavor of person can do or have is just incredibly retarded. I know so many gay couples who are far more married-and it means so much more to them-than many straight people, who am I and who is our society to say you can have this...but you over there, you can't?

Weddings are gay anyway, why not open the doors to let everyone be who they are? My daughter has been taught that God made all of us, and some of us love boys, and some of us love girls, and it's not a big deal. She doesn't have a problem with that truth-I don't know why so many grown ups freak the fuck out over that.

Emmeran wrote:

What's the real issue in my eyes:  Defining marriage to be between a man and a woman is the same as defining hetero-sex to be between a man and a woman, that's just what it is. 


OK - I've ranted - Flame Away!!!!

Marriage as we know it is a fairly recent innovation.  Marriage used to involve the transfer of title to female property from her father to her new owner.  You will notice that the biblical commandment about adultery only applies to married women.  A married man who screwed a woman who wasn’t married wasn’t considered an adulterer; only married women could commit adultery.  In many parts of the world, a man may have several female properties; do you consider this valid marriage?

Having been a bridesmaid in several weddings, both for my hipster gay guy friends and also for my college sorority.junior league esque gal pals, I have to say, hands down, gay weddings are SO much more fun than your standard straight couple wedding. Better food, better outfits, better liquor, better music. Plus I got to wear a slinky black armani number for my bridesmaid outfit for Dave and Greg's affair, compared to the hideous taffeta crap most of my girlfriends come up with. (who needs another pale yellow and kelly green themed wedding? I certainly don't.) And hearing an Etta James type singing "At Last" for the first dance between the groom and groom brought a tear to my eye, as opposed to the lamer than lame Reo Speedwagon tune the DJ came up with for the last hetero church sanctioned shack up I was a guest for...

Last edited by icangetyouatoe (2008-11-04 19:10:03)

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Having been a bridesmaid in several weddings, both for my hipster gay guy friends and also for my college sorority.junior league esque gal pals, I have to say, hands down, gay weddings are SO much more fun than your standard straight couple wedding. Better food, better outfits, better liquor, better music. Plus I got to wear a slinky black armani number for my bridesmaid outfit for Dave and Greg's affair, compared to the hideous taffeta crap most of my girlfriends come up with. (who needs another pale yellow and kelly green themed wedding? I certainly don't.) And hearing an Etta James type singing "At Last" for the first dance between the groom and groom brought a tear to my eye, as opposed to the lamer than lame Reo Speedwagon tune the DJ came up with for the last hetero church sanctioned shack up I was a guest for...

Traditional Italian wedding receptions are fun too.  Kinda like a gay wedding with pasta.

Emmeran wrote:

The lawsuits will be fun also.  While marriage isn't technically taught in school it won't be long before some militant fudge-packer takes issue with the fact that 99% of books in the school library mention normal marriage and none refer to alternative marriages.  Bang - lawsuit followed by introduction of books written to intentionally support their cause, followed closely by midnight school library bombings or some such.

Just what the fuck do you think Bert and Ernie are?  About one-fifth of the books in my K classroom library feature those rump rangers.  The truth is, religious righties are the ones who want explicit attention paid to the status of relationships in children's books.  When most of my kids have no fucking clue just what the hell a "traditional" relationship is, anyway, they wouldn't even notice in any case.

whiskytangofoxtrot wrote:

Just what the fuck do you think Bert and Ernie are?  About one-fifth of the books in my K classroom library feature those rump rangers.  The truth is, religious righties are the ones who want explicit attention paid to the status of relationships in children's books.  When most of my kids have no fucking clue just what the hell a "traditional" relationship is, anyway, they wouldn't even notice in any case.

I didn't say I would file suit, I said the extremist of either cause would.  I'm just a besotted country boy, I could give a flying fuck as long as I get the pussy I want.

Emmeran wrote:

I'm just a besotted country boy, I could give a flying fuck as long as I get the pussy I want.

With 95% of the vote counted (9 am CST), Prop 8 was up by 400,000 votes.

And San Fran's Prop. K (legalization of prostitution) lost by 16%.

Last edited by AladdinSane (2008-11-05 10:03:15)

opsec wrote:

From a libertarian point of view, the State shouldn't be validating Church rituals.  Contracts are contracts, religious ceremony aside.  If the law allows a contract between two people which grants property or legal rights,  then any two people should be able to enter into that contract.

Fnord, no need to hunger.

You know, I'm an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church.  I can consecrate those for ya.

opsec wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

opsec wrote:

Fnord, no need to hunger.

You know, I'm an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church.  I can consecrate those for ya.

Free Ordination?!.  That damned Bob charged me $20!

For a while they were charging five bucks, but I got mine for free around 1998-99.  Regardless of their current going rates, I can ordain people for free.

I keep meaning to send in the 25$ for my Doctor of Divinity.

Emmeran wrote:

The PG version???  I'm very disappointed

Only be-cause I didn't feel that the last line worked quite as well in the second version.

Bigcat wrote:

As a Catholic,  For a gay couple wanting to be married in the Church, they would need to be actual members confirmed by the church. Completeing rite of initiation classes amongst other things. Do do these things, you must be pretty serious. I think they would understand that the marriage would not be valid (or allowable). Much the same way that you don't take communion with an  unconfessed sin on you. You can still go get the wafer but it means nothing and is even sacrelige(sp?) so you don't do it.

My point is, that is a pretty elaborate scam just for a lawsuit. I don't think it could be won.

As a Catholic, I like to bugger young children and believe in magick.

As a former Catholic, I'm rather upset that my backsliding no longer enjoys the safety net of purgatory.  Like social security and medicare, I feel cheated.

fnord wrote:

These are proper Catholic crackers.  Jesus, thanks for the offer to consecrate them, however, if I ever decide to be a whiney bitch and sue the Catholic Church, I need a Catholic priest to deny me a consecrated Catholic cracker.

Hey, it's "My body, My choice."

Last I checked, the Bible Thumpers won this one.

opsec wrote:

As a former Catholic, I'm rather upset that my backsliding no longer enjoys the safety net of purgatory.  Like social security and medicare, I feel cheated.

That's why I am sticking with it.