Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bingbang said:
Well if that is the case, every state that isn’t overwhelmingly populated by evangelicals will legalize gay marriage in the next 10-15 years.
Click to expand...
Of course! Only backward, inbred morons are opposed to gay marriage. The rest of the enlightened world accepts it with open arms. :rolleyes:
It is just a matter of time. And I don’t see why you guys really care. You don’t have to recognize it as a marriage just as the church doesn’t recognize all sorts of marriages. So why do you care what the state says is a marriage and what it does not, because obviously the church and many of its followers are quick to call lots of legal marriages invalid. So why not do the same with gay marriages and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
See above. As United States v Bob Jones established, the Catholic Church could lose tax exempt status for banning gay marriage among its members, or not performing them for couples.

It be no different from a White Identity church not being recognized for denying interracial marriages.

Next up: claiming homosexual acts as immoral will be considered “hate speech”.

Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.
 
bingbang said:
Polygamy is something that could be legalized if people really want to get it legalized. Technically people don’t have to be married but could be living as if they were in polygamous relationships. That is between consenting adults.

Pedophilia and bestiality will never be legalized because they involve a party that cannot make decisions for themselves. What two consenting adults do is different.
Click to expand...
Animals have been granted human rights. A minor can get married with parental consent. The age varies from state to state.

When will the country realize there is no compelling state interest from setting some arbitrary age for anyone to enter a legal contract with parental consent??
 
scipio337 said:
Of course! Only backward, inbred morons are opposed to gay marriage. The rest of the enlightened world accepts it with open arms. :rolleyes:

See above. As United States v Bob Jones established, the Catholic Church could lose tax exempt status for banning gay marriage among its members, or not performing them for couples.

It be no different from a White Identity church not being recognized for denying interracial marriages.

Next up: claiming homosexual acts as immoral will be considered “hate speech”.

Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.
Click to expand...
If the church loses its tax exempt status, so be it. I don’t really know if I agree that churches should get tax exemption unless it is for some sort of charity.
 
scipio337 said:
See above. As United States v Bob Jones established, the Catholic Church could lose tax exempt status for banning gay marriage among its members, or not performing them for couples.
Click to expand...
I doubt that would happen. The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government can strip tax exempt status but it never said that it must. Even if the Catholic Church was faced with that choice, so what? Continue refusing same-sex marriage ceremonies and just render unto Ceaser.
 
scipio337 said:
Animals have been granted human rights. A minor can get married with parental consent. The age varies from state to state.

When will the country realize there is no compelling state interest from setting some arbitrary age for anyone to enter a legal contract with parental consent??
Click to expand...
Marriage is now meaningless with all the innovation that is being forced upon the institution. Already the pro-gay lobby is arguing the superiority of the pro-paligamy position, because gay relationships have already been outted as being non-exclusive. So now not only is marriage not between one woman, and one man, but soon it won’t even be one individual to one individual. I’m sure one of the last things to go is the need for legal divorous.

If you want, you marry into a group of 10 or more people… If you want out, you just leave. Marriage has no meaning. If that’s the life style you want, why do you want marriage?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I doubt that would happen. The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government can strip tax exempt status but it never said that it must. Even if the Catholic Church was faced with that choice, so what? Continue refusing same-sex marriage ceremonies and just render unto Ceaser.
Click to expand...
There is no legal reason why it wouldn’t happen.
 
scipio337 said:
When will the country realize there is no compelling state interest from setting some arbitrary age for anyone to enter a legal contract with parental consent??
Click to expand...
In the U.S., the lowest age of consent is 16. Except for NAMBLA, no one is suggesting lower the age of consent.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
In the U.S., the lowest age of consent is 16. Except for NAMBLA, no one is suggesting lower the age of consent.
Click to expand...
If you’re speaking of the ability to marry, then the lowest age is not 16 but 12… Ironically the lowest age for sexuality may well be 16, but one can be married at 12. In fact, just such a situation happend in, beleive it or not, California.

This ruleing proves exactly how arbratrary all of this is.
 
scipio337 said:
I would consider it religious persecution, and a violation of established “Free Exercise” precedent.
Click to expand...
How does paying taxes restrict the Catholic Church from performing exclusively opposite-sex marriage ceremonies? I don’t recall any Catholic doctrine or cannon law which states that having tax-exempt status is part of the Catholic religion. In fact, didn’t Jesus say, “Render unto Caesar…”
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
How does paying taxes restrict the Catholic Church from performing exclusively opposite-sex marriage ceremonies? I don’t recall any Catholic doctrine or cannon law which states that having tax-exempt status is part of the Catholic religion.
Click to expand...
It is a requirement for the Church to continue operations, including funnaling billions of dollars into the poor, needy and other causes. The Catholic Church is the single largest non-profit charity. Reason enough that the tax exempt status should be maintained.
 
crazzeto said:
It is a requirement for the Church to continue operations, including funnaling billions of dollars into the poor, needy and other causes. The Catholic Church is the single largest non-profit charity. Reason enough that the tax exempt status should be maintained.
Click to expand...
I believe this issue was brought before Jesus by the Pharises; to which he replied: “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” Additionally, performing charitable works does not require the expenditure of billions of dollars. Indeed, neither Jesus or the Diciples or any of the early Christians spent billions of dollars or denars for that matter.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I believe this issue was brought before Jesus by the Pharises; to which he replied: “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” Additionally, performing charitable works does not require the expenditure of billions of dollars. Indeed, neither Jesus or the Diciples or any of the early Christians spent billions of dollars.
Click to expand...
The scripture doesn’t apply, the fact of the matter is that the CC does funnel billions into Charitable works. They do so with an efficientcy that certainly the government will never be able to approch, and frankly which few if any other charities can achieve.

In the story you cite, Christ is teaching about the goods associated with living by the rules set forth by earthly authority. Those rules however, should not be unjustly balanced against the Church for refusing to do something she can not do.

The constitution of the nation requires freedom of religion, not seperation of Church and state and certainly not freedom from religion. No Church should be forced, legally, to perform a gay marriage ceremony. This strikes at the very heart of the US constitution.

Again, this judge ignored all the legalites of the matter, and instead focused on his own desires as a homosexual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top