 sj |
||
|
||
US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
|
|
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:36 PM Good! Lets keep them lawsuits a-comin' y'all! |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:25 PM Hood County, Texas, couple received marriage license after suing county clerk. DALLAS A gay couple has received a marriage license after filing a federal lawsuit against a North Texas county clerk who previously cited her religious opposition to gay marriage in denying the license. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:45 AM Would civil union not be a better way out of the inheritance issues ...(and elsewhere) suggesting marriage and civil rights give more rights is wordplay In a way, yes, but it would need a much bigger shift of attitude than we have seen so far. There are a lot of people whose choose not to marry because of its historical associations or because of the huge costs that weddings now incur. In many cases the couple do not consider the inheritance implications of that. So I would like to see a civil union for anybody - gay, straight, siblings who share houses, good friends with a flat in common and so on - that is entirely about taxation and inheritance arrangements and could be altered several times a year if appropriate with no massive costs and be sufficiently mundane that it never reaches the level of a social event. Simultaneously, I would like to see a marriage that is much more permanent social arrangement and broadly what we regard, socially speaking, as a marriage now. And we can keep all that separate from the hoo-hah of a wedding as well. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:51 PM Even bigots can behave honorably in certain circumstances. Thank God for honorable bigots. Ya know, it might be a better deal if they weren't fusking bigots in the first instance. Why apologize for them in their bigiotry? Jaysus. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 05 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM Pete, these reluctant clerks are fighting for discrimination, Rosa Parks was fighting against it. Big difference. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Jul 15 - 03:36 PM Seems mud elf having admitted his bias deletes opposing posts, even though not off topic!. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 05 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM Big Gay Wedding held on Capitol steps celebrates marriage equalityAustin American Statesman: For native Texans Kaye Draper and Abigail McNeely, being married on the south steps of the Texas State Capitol on the Fourth of July was something they never thought would occur. "It's something we didn't know was ever gonna happen in our lifetime," Draper said. Draper said she and her wife had a commitment ceremony 26 years ago and have been together for 29 years. "So I say, we married before God 26 years ago and we married, finally, with the validation of the United States and State of Texas today," McNeely said with tears in her eyes. The couple was wed at the Big Gay Wedding celebration held at the Capitol on Saturday afternoon. "We now pronounce you married. Please kiss," said Lenore Shefman, event organizer and an Austin attorney, to the applauding crowd. About 50 couples took part in the wedding ceremony as friends, families and supporters watched. Bubbles and confetti filled the air as the crowd of about 300 cheered and clapped, taking pictures of the happy couples kissing. People passed out flowers to the couples as they waited after the ceremony to have their marriage licenses signed by Shefman and Jodi Flint who both officiated. "It doesn't matter, they can go. We waited a long time," said Rob Bennet, letting another couple go before him and his husband to have their marriage license signed. This was a sentiment shared by many during the day's festivities. People were patient, smiling and overjoyed to finally be joined in matrimony after years of waiting. [snip] ☛ The event meant "legal recognition that we matter like anybody else," Bennet said. He never thought this day would come to Texas. Follow the link to read the entire article. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:35 AM Suggesting civil union AND marriage provide more rights to gay than straight couples is simply word play. Civil union (and Domestic Partnership, another marriage-lite sop offered in a few states) was a poor compromise and probably still exists for business purposes for whoever chooses to use it, gay or straight. Marriage is marriage. And as of now, one size fits all. Suggesting health issues should be a consideration in marriage between gay partners is also a specious argument, in the face of the history of most of the U.S. states that back in the day required both partners to pass a blood test before applying for a marriage license, but almost all of those requirements have been dropped by the states. Few have such a tests now but when they were in place they were in place to reveal STDs. Why? Were tests required to alert an innocent partner to the misbehavior of an intended mate? Were they there to protect the progeny of such a marriage, to avoid infecting a child at birth? Were health departments requiring them simply to track sexual activity? It seems most likely they were in place for convoluted reasons - because sanctimonious individuals wanted to pry into the private lives of strangers. That is why "health" and "marriage" were uncoupled. And is why such a false equivalence argument is, as I say, specious. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Lighter Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:36 AM They would be expressing far more bigotry by self-righteously refusing to comply with the law. Even bigots can behave honorably in certain circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:06 AM D.MG...would Civil Union not have been a better way out of the taxation and inheritance issue.....In the UK all these problems were neatly tidied up by Civil Union, which is still in place for homosexuals, but not for heterosexuals. Of course, to have real equality, Civil Union would have to be extended to heterosexual couples who did not want traditional marriage. So at the moment in the UK homosexuals have more civil rights than heterosexuals. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Lighter Date: 04 Jul 15 - 10:20 AM > They are elected officials who are responsible for carrying out the tasks of the office. Which is why resignation, rather than defiance of the law, is the honorable and difficult course for them. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jul 15 - 09:10 AM Nonsense about this thread being of no concern to straight people - we all have loved ones who are gay who are now being treated fairly in this arena. But this thread is not about bashing out old arguments, so please refrain from deflecting this conversation from the topic - the nationwide legalization of marriage between same-sex couples in the US. With all respect to Joe - who is reporting only about a church, not pounding the thread with doctrine - I don't give a rat's ass what your church says - no one's church is in any way threatened or impacted - it is the state, via county clerks, that issues the marriage licences that we are discussing here. They are elected officials who are responsible for carrying out the tasks of the office. A few posts in opposition to the Supreme Court decision remain in the thread (as incorrect as they are), but most were deleted. Those who support the decision but troll through the thread to attack other participants have been removed. It is dismaying to see those who support this mudelf's political beliefs behaving so badly - and thus illustrating Grouch Marx' remark that he didn't want to belong to any club that would have him. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 04 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM To PH Jim...and others, I am not a homosexual, but I am a member of society and this legislation impacts severely upon society, with moral decisions to be made in the workplace, the redefinition of traditional marriage, the redefinition of monogamy, the "open" relationship question, health issues.....etc etc. The vast majority of the population don't have a clue about the negative sides of homosexuality, being fed a diet of happy clappy...its all about love nonsense by the media. This issue is certainly not "all about love" and as someone who has been married for 50 years, I can tell you that no marriage is "all about love"........it's about a thousand and one things all equally important. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 04 Jul 15 - 02:28 AM Let me slightly rephrase that: What relationships the law chooses to recognise for tax purposes is very much "of Caesar". I want to phrase it that way round because it better reflects that it is not really the law 'authorising' these relationships; they exist and get their authority from the couple themselves. Instead, it is the law recognising what is already there. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 04 Jul 15 - 02:16 AM One of the complications of discussions like this is that marriage is not one single thing. There are at least three quite separable aspects: the relationship between the partners, one to another; the relationship of the partnership to the social context and the relationship of the partnership to the national bureaucratic system of taxation, inheritance and all that. It is often said Christ said nothing about homosexuality but to my mind he did comment on that last aspect of gay marriage, albeit in a wider context. That is often translated as "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's". How relationships interact with tax law and the rest seems to me to be very much 'of Caesar'. But more generally this third aspect is both crucial and deadly dull. Gay or straight, friends would normally rejoice on hearing news of a marriage; they could be forgiven if they glazed over to hear announcements about changes of taxation status and inheritance mechanisms. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jul 15 - 12:46 AM It seems that young Catholic priests in the U.S. are capitalizing on the Supreme Court decision. I learned long ago never to trust a priest under the age of 40. Since John Paul II came along in 1978, the majority of young priests have been horribly conservative. My Boss the Nun said she almost walked out of Mass last weekend because the young priest's sermon was so anti-gay. We've had a very young (age 26) Filipino priest in our parish, ordained just two years. I've noticed some harshness in his sermons occasionally over the last two years, but he went overboard last weekend. He posted on Facebook that the decision was a "dark day for America," and I hear that's what he preached and the first Mass he celebrated last weekend. Of course, I challenged his Facebook posts. I said that sexual conduct should be an individual moral decision determined by conscience, not governed by a court of law. I said that although his approach may be well-intentioned, his statements would serve only to encourage the anger of those who hate homosexuals. I told him that if his campaign motivated a father to beat or disown a homosexual child, or if it drove a homosexual teenage to suicide, the guilt would be on the conscience of the priest. He did not like what I had to say, and eventually blocked me from his Facebook page. He's going to a new assignment, working with college students and at a Catholic girls' high school, and I'm tempted to write to the bishop and I see potential problems with his rigid moral stance and his immature ideas about sexuality. The priest insists that he must uphold Church teaching against all those who would question or distort it, but I think there are ways to present Church teachings in a more positive and rational manner. I sure hope he learns his lesson before he does any serious harm. Our pastor, an Irish-born priest about my age, is on vacation in Ireland. I don't think our young priest would have gotten away with his campaign if the pastor had been around. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Jul 15 - 08:12 PM Never been consulted? Why, in that case, we should have a referendum on the ingredients of Cumberland sausages, on the rights and wrongs of penalty shoot-outs, on whether Alex Salmond should grow a beard, etc. You really don't understand democracy, do you? As for the millions who you say "oppose" the legislation, well I haven't heard much from them. A couple of dozen vociferous types at best. As for rushing it through, gay people have existed since Adam were a lad. It's taken us a paltry couple of million years to get gay marriage. Blimey, that's way too bloody fast for me. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: PHJim Date: 03 Jul 15 - 07:35 PM akenation - If you are heterosexual, this does not concern you and you should have no say since it's none of your business. It has no effect on your life. If it offends you, then that's your hang up. . . Get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Vashta Nerada Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:49 PM Those millions need to get over themselves and move forward. This is now settled law in the United States of America. Happy Fourth of July to all. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Paul Burke Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:44 PM In the UK, a fair majority support equality for same-sex marriage. Discussion of attitudes from three years ago shows that how the question is framed is crucial- UK people in general choose the most "generous" interpretation, which is why some leading questions have led to the limited answer desired. In Britain (mostly) the Gay question is dead. They are people, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM This does not only apply to Christians, or people of faith, there are millions of people who oppose this legislation and have never been consulted on the issue. The legislation has been rushed through in the UK, without being properly debated. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM Christians are being driven out of their jobs Absolute BS. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:44 PM Considering that separation of church and state is a basic tenet of our nation it should follow that people who elevate what they perceive to be their religion's laws above the law of the land be disqualified from being employed in our government. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,Stim Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:30 PM I have respect for anybody who walks away from a job because they feel that they cannot longer do it, for whatever reason. I don't think much of anybody that feels they're entitled to hold onto a job even after they've decided they no longer want to do what it requires. "The Bible made me do it" is not an excuse that works for me. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:16 PM Me, above. Damn these disappearing cookies! |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:13 PM Not in my view. If I had a job to uphold the law, and the law changed in a way I didn't agree with, it seems perfectly fair that I might choose to leave the job for my own piece of mind. But that is not "being driven out off office for my beliefs". And it has happened many times in the past, such as pacifists or others objecting to specific wars/actions. No one claimed the governments acted the way they did to drive pacifists from their jobs. It is also not unknown for ministers to leave governments because they disagree with proposed policy, but it rarely regarded as the minister being driven out of office for their beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,And I am sure this is on topic.. Date: 03 Jul 15 - 11:29 AM The examples cited by symbol above, demonstrate that Christians are being driven out of their jobs, not for a hate crime, but for biblical convictions. So much for same sex"marriage" only effecting those who want to avail themselves of it. Their job description has effectively been altered to facilitate the violation of conscience. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 02 Jul 15 - 11:23 PM All things considered, though, there aren't many of these stories, though two more come to light: A Mississippi Circuit County Clerk sent out an all-cap letter of resignation to the County Supervisors. "The Supreme Court's decision violates my core values as a Christian," Barnette wrote to the county's Board of Supervisors. "My final authority is the Bible. I cannot in all good conscience issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under my name because the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary to God's plan and purpose for marriage and family." Her replacement was swiftly chosen and is issuing licenses. In Arkansas, the Cleburne County Clerk resigned: "It is definitely a moral conviction for me," Guffey said. "I didn't announce anything publicly or on social media or anything because I didn't want my decision to be seen as hateful. I know some people will look at it like that, but this wasn't easy. It wasn't a decision I made lightly. And I do not hate anybody." |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 02 Jul 15 - 11:03 PM A couple of tidbits: ✔Entire County Clerk's Office resigns in Decatur, Tennessee. ✔The ACLU in Kentucky is filing a lawsuit on behalf of four couples (two of them same-sex) because the County Clerk has refused to issue ANY licenses. In a statement, ACLU Cooperating Attorney Laura Landenwich said, "Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, father and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs." |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 02 Jul 15 - 11:57 AM the mod got me yet again. the thought police are out again. creation believer denied right of reply,
[note- the last few deleted posts were for going totally off-topic and for complaining about those deletions-not for being a creation believer---mudelf] And this mudelf just deleted the next nine posts. All of you, you know who you are. Take it out in the alley, we don't want your bickering here. Consider this a carefully moderated thread and off-topic posts will be deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 02 Jul 15 - 08:56 AM I heard this last week but this is the first detailed description of the *OTHER* Supreme Court marriage decision: Kerry v. Din, to do with Americans wanting to marry non-citizens and bring them to the U.S. This is the heart-crushing decision that didn't have much light shone on it. The case, Kerry v. Din, involves an American citizen, Fauzia Din, who married an Afghani man, Kanishka Berashk. Din petitioned for a visa for Berashk, but the consular officer in Pakistan denied it, citing supposed "terrorist activities." However, the officer provided no proof or other explanation. (Berashk was a payroll clerk in the Afghan government before the U.S. invasion, but even this wasn't cited.) read the rest on the site. This story has a libertarian spin, so there may be other versions interpreting the decision out there, but the bottom line is that there is still no recourse for spouses if the consular staff says "no." |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,The good looking Musket Date: 02 Jul 15 - 04:03 AM Over here in Blighty, we did have a case where a registrar refused to carry out their duty and I don't recall the details but like individual pharmacists who don't like dispensing morning after pills, it is the organisation who has to provide, not the individual. If an organisation (local government for registrars etc) allows their staff to embarrass the people they serve by refusing service for discriminatory reasons it is the local government (council over here) breaking the law. They can terminate employment but a compromise is usually available where workload is shared out. Someone else steps in and life goes on. Easy. Given time for creationists to evolve, such matters will be irrelevant soon. The so called "Christian" marriage has altered far more over the years anyway as the inbuilt misogyny has been quietly dropped. Obeying, dowry & chattel are as much a traditional Christian interpretation as any, but don't let hypocrisy get in the way of bigotry eh? If nothing else, this whole debate merely reinforces the idea that if your faith precludes decency, respect and consideration for others, it is your faith that needs reviewing, not members of your community wishing the same services and rights we can all expect. The indignation many here have shown towards those who oppose the rights of others is heartening to read. Fair play to you. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Date: 01 Jul 15 - 09:54 PM An overview of how states are responding from CNN. If you let the video run the second one (as of now) is Jeffrey Toobin explaining how it works in counties - individuals might not have to perform marriages for gay couples, but all counties have to make it available to gay couples. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 01 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM Slate.com's The Gay Marriage Map: Each state's legal status on gay marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Donuel Date: 30 Jun 15 - 10:53 PM Try not to upset Scalia. He's very fragile right now. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,Stim Date: 30 Jun 15 - 11:32 AM Not sure if she should go to jail (though it would be nice), But if you refuse to do their job, for what ever reason, you shouldn't have the job. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: michaelr Date: 30 Jun 15 - 02:56 AM Tonight's Daily Show with Jon Stewart isn't up on Youtube just yet, but it will be. Check it out as he skewers Scalia by showing him to be a complete hypocrite. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 15 - 07:05 PM Well, then, let's get Katy in jail for violating the law of the land, and not before time. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 29 Jun 15 - 06:47 PM Another story from Texas: Hood County Clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses Katie Lang won't be issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Hood County. Lang, the county clerk there, said she won't issue the documents — despite last week's Supreme Court landmark ruling that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry in all 50 states — because it goes against her religious beliefs. Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion Sunday that officials can deny marriage licenses if they have religious objections. But he did warn in his non-binding opinion that those who refuse to issue licenses could face fines or lawsuits. "It's my religious liberty, my belief in traditional marriage," she said Monday. "Nobody has tried to get one, nobody has called about them ... other than reporters." Lang's decision came as Denton County's clerk began to issue the licenses in spite of her belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And Collin County began to issue the licenses as well, following the lead set last week by Tarrant and Dallas counties — and other counties across the state. Officials in a few other local counties, including Wise and Johnson, said Monday they are still waiting on software companies to update the forms. Statewide, Bastrop, Buleson, Jackson and Ector counties also were still declining to issue licenses. Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article25777396.html |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 15 - 12:51 PM Now, here's another profeessional idiot holding forth. 320 million, Jackass? Over 60% of that 320 million SUPPORT gay marriage, and close to 60% support "Obamacare". He also neatly skipped around the fact that for 150 years (still??), Southern churches & clergy promoted a Biblical justification for Slavery and Negro inferiority. Monday, Jun 29, 2015 09:22 AM EST Ted Cruz insists "religious liberty" is different from bigotry — but refuses to say how "Bigotry is wrong," he said, before telling NBC he'd dismantle the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage decision. Monday on NBC's "Today," Texas senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz stood by his remarks that last Thursday and Friday represented "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's histoy," telling Savannah Guthrie the Supreme Court's decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage amount to "five unelected lawyers saying the views of 320 million Americans don't matter." Cruz argued that the Court's decisions were on par with 9/11 and Dred Scott, saying that on "two days, back to back, the majority of Supreme Court justices violated their judicial oath" by "forcing millions of people into this failed law" — the Affordable Care Act — on Thursday and "throwing out the marriage laws of all fifty states" on Friday. uthrie noted that Cruz said he would support Texas clerks who would refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds, then asked him if he would support a clerk who refused to issue a license to an interracial couple on similar grounds. "There's no religious backing on that," Cruz said, ignoring the fact that religious objections played a critical role in Loving v. Virginia. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 15 - 12:21 PM Good- then sue the livin' crap outa them! Where do I contribute to the fund to prosecute these idiots. Those same county clerks can also rob banks if choose to...... |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 29 Jun 15 - 10:56 AM According to the Texas Tribune Attorney General Ken Paxton says county clerks can deny licenses but if they do, they should expect to be sued over it. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 15 - 10:46 AM my point is that a substantial number of avowed evangelicals share a measure of ability, with the Joe Offers, to see the Bible in cultural context 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: frogprince Date: 29 Jun 15 - 10:42 AM "Evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are effectively synonymous for a large segment of American Christianity, but by no means universally so. At least a few million Americans identify as evangelical, believe in the divinity of Jesus and his role in salvation, but do not subscribe to the blanket literalism of fundamentalism with it's inevitable disparagement of science and history. The realism of the whole concept of salvation by blood sacrifice is questionable to say the least, but it isn't belief content held in the face of overwhelming objective physical evidence to the contrary. I guess my point is that a substantial number of avowed evangelicals share a measure of ability, with the Joe Offers, to see the Bible in cultural context, and let some of it be a background to their thinking rather than rules carved in stone. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:42 AM I don't think that "evangelicals" and "reality" can be used in the same sentance. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Spleen Cringe Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:33 AM This article from the NY Times shows that even amongst the evangelical wings, things are not as clear cut as we'd maybe like to paint them. The fact that there is a little bit of doubt and dissent is encouraging. http://nytimes.com/2015/06/29/us/with-same-sex-decision-evangelical-churches-address-new-reality.html?_r=0 |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Jun 15 - 07:19 AM Dunno, Michael. Complicated innit. I hear your side. To the substantive. I shall try for a third time to make my very reasonable point, in the hope that a moderator who clearly doesn't think that people outside the US should be heard on this issue will be satisfied at last. A court ruling cannot be the end of the matter. Court rulings do not change hearts and minds. Continuing open debate may help in that. That should include everyone with an interest in the topic, not just US citizens, until equality for gay people is achieved everywhere in the world. Good work, USA, but there's a big other world out there. Including a few backwoodsmen in Northern Ireland. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: michaelr Date: 29 Jun 15 - 01:55 AM Steve Shaw, did I answer your question? |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Jun 15 - 07:53 PM This decision is another small step for man. Just to point out that the ruling applies to lesbians too. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 28 Jun 15 - 06:56 PM Huckabee has always been a findagelical ass, whatever else he may be. Bring on the lawsuits -and hjeavy penalties - for those who "resist" and they'll be talking out of the other side of their mouths. Lotta prople from Huckabee's part of the world have historically resisted, and still resist, the 13th, 14th & 15th Ammendments. |
| Share Thread: |