Then why did some Califonians push for same sex marriage for a decade after they had same sex domestic partnerships with the same protections?Same things straight people want.
courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdfOffering a legal relationship called “marriage” to opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to “domestic partnerships” impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships ***equal dignity ***and respect.
Straight married couples don’t want their unions to be recognized and treated with dignity and respect? They want to be married. Like straight couples. You think most straight couples marry for the tax bennies and insurance?Then why did some Califonians push for same sex marriage for a decade after they had same sex domestic partnerships with the same protections?
A hint:.
This is one of those “the sky is a falling” posts. Maybe in Vegas where wedding chapels are businesses. No evidence at all this could or would be a threat to a church.To get to the next logical step. Filing lawsuits against churches that refuse to “marry” them.
Can you tell me, with 100% assurance that it will never happen. If not, I stand by my original statement.This is one of those “the sky is a falling” posts. Maybe in Vegas where wedding chapels are businesses. No evidence at all this could or would be a threat to a church.
I noticed you never answered the question.Straight married couples don’t want their unions to be recognized and treated with dignity and respect? They want to be married. Like straight couples. You think most straight couples marry for the tax bennies and insurance?
Like I said, *They want what straight people want.
*
Did you ever think Catholic orphanages would be forced to shut down due to not adopting children to same sex couples, or that Catholic institutions would be forced to pay for contraception and abortofacient drugs?This is one of those “the sky is a falling” posts. Maybe in Vegas where wedding chapels are businesses. No evidence at all this could or would be a threat to a church.
Can I tell you someone won’t sue? No, of course not, all kinds of people file lawsuits, including those that cannot be won for a variety of reasons.Can you tell me, with 100% assurance that it will never happen. If not, I stand by my original statement.
Yeah, well, not giving you the answer in some form you want to dictate, really doesn’t equate to not answering.I noticed you never answered the question. .
Mark my words, it will happen, and some judge WILL rule in their favor. :sad_yes:Can I tell you someone won’t sue? No, of course not, all kinds of people file lawsuits, including those that cannot be won for a variety of reasons.
Will the Supreme Court ever find against churches in this matter?
Never. Not in this country. Freedom of religion is the religion of the US.
I doubt any lower court would, either.
They weren’t forced to shut down at all. They were denied government funding for their operations. They shut down because the faithful don’t give them enough money to operate and protect the poor children from the evil SS couples. So, essentially, YOU forced them to shut down.Did you ever think Catholic orphanages would be forced to shut down due to not adopting children to same sex couples…
Not the Church. And they aren’t, BTW. They can opt for insurance coverage that doesn’t include this in the plan. Individuals can contact the insurance companies on their own for those benefits. The burden is on the sinner.or that Catholic institutions would be forced to pay for contraception and abortofacient drugs?
SCOTUS will not uphold.Mark my words, it will happen, and some judge WILL rule in their favor. :sad_yes:
Depends on who the judges are. I bet there is at least 1 or 2 that would vote to uphold it now.SCOTUS will not uphold.
You make an interesting observation. As long as we’re redefining marriage as between two consenting adults, does this definition include marriage between a parent and their adult child? Between a father and adult son?Why a lifetime commitment? Why shouldn’t marriage licenses be like a driver’s license, something one must periodically renew (or else let it lapse)? Why not marry for four years at a time, like a presidential term? Or why not say that the marriage lasts only as long as the couple remains in love? Aside from the assumption of children (who in turn beget grandchildren), why value a long commitment? Why is one ten-year marriage better than three three-and-a-half year marriages? When marriage is redefined as being about the sexual / emotional satisfaction of the partners (and obtaining a few benefits from the government), there’s no reason why the length of the commitment should be a factor.
(I oppose same-sex marriage. I’m here wondering why I hear so many advocates for same-sex marriage talk about the importance of lifelong commitments—what’s so important about them?)
There was one in California too.Depends on who the judges are. I bet there is at least 1 or 2 that would vote to uphold it now.
Uh, no. Straight people want to marry a member of the opposite and have conjugal relations which may result in pregnancy. Gay couples want the opposite of that. Further, they want the opposite of that to be called the same thing. It’s not the same thing.Like I said, *They want what straight people want.
*
If what I said here isn’t true then why aren’t civil unions sufficient. Especially if they offer the same protection under the law.To get to the next logical step. Filing lawsuits against churches that refuse to “marry” them.
So they would still be operating if there weren’t same sex laws in Illinois, MA and DC? Not so.They weren’t forced to shut down at all. They were denied government funding for their operations. They shut down because the faithful don’t give them enough money to operate and protect the poor children from the evil SS couples. So, essentially, YOU forced them to shut down.
Once we’ve established “sameness” in the realm of marriage, how long before the first public accomodation lawsuits are filed against churches of any denominiation?Remember, Catholic charities is not the Church. Neither are hospitals or universities.
The bishops (unanimously) disagree with you.Not the Church. And they aren’t, BTW. They can opt for insurance coverage that doesn’t include this in the plan. Individuals can contact the insurance companies on their own for those benefits. The burden is on the sinner.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Twelve-Things-Everyone-Should-Know-About-the-Contraceptive-Mandate.pdfIt is now clear that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage; and almost all individuals who pay premiums (whether enrolled in an individual plan or an employer plan) have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. Only organizations identified as “religious” (to be defined by later regulation) may qualify for the “accommodation.’
I’m sorry if I didn’t stipulate that I wanted a clear answer, as opposed to an empty platitude.Yeah, well, not giving you the answer in some form you want to dictate, really doesn’t equate to not answering.
They want what straight people want.
CA FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5
Full CA law here:…297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
I think same-sex advocates would argue against those cases but it’s not clear on what grounds. Bachelor friends might marry for tax purposes with no pretense of being in love and no talk about eagerness to adopt. (Of course, there are heterosexual marriages of convenience, but they are seen as that, a sort of gaming the system.)You make an interesting observation. As long as we’re redefining marriage as between two consenting adults, does this definition include marriage between a parent and their adult child? Between a father and adult son?