"They just want the right to marry the person they love!!!"

[makattak]

Ok, maybe just the "right" to force you to treat them the way they want to be treated:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/proposed-law-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

City in Kansas is getting ahead of itself. They aren't supposed to reveal the next step until everyone has been convinced that the current step (i.e. government-endorsed "marriages") is all the gay marriage supporters want.

As I have said in every argument about gay marriage: "marriage" is not the end game. The homosexual lobby is interested in FORCING people to accept their lifestyle and to outlaw any mention that it is wrong (specifically those that believe it to be sinful, but they don't really care about the sin part, just that someone, somewhere may disapprove of their lifestyle.)

And, to avoid any argument about the source of the article, here's the FAQ put out by the city itself:

http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf

[roo_ster]

Who would have though it would go that far?  Nobody, but nobody, warned of such possible consequences, I am sure.

[AJ Dual]

What I always say about BOTH sides in this. Instead of whining, hat in hand, for legislation or court cases to go "your way", DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Gays, you want to be married? Then BE MARRIED. File married on your IRS forms. Clog your employers and any other bureaucracies, private and .gov with joint filings of... whatever it is. If enough of you do it, they can't all arrest you. It would clog the tax courts for a hundred years. (not that I'd mind) You actually get barred from your partner's room because you're not "next of kin", then get a couple hundred gays or sympathizers to storm the damn hospital and let you in the room.

Same for any churches that are forced to host a gay wedding by such an ill-conceived law. The congregation blocks access. Human shield. Etc.

Get arrested, prison? So what?  Human shield those folks then. Start shooting. I dunno... (both sides) this is YOUR problem, NOT MINE.

It becomes MY PROBLEM because in all of this, the parties concerned both go and play tug-o-war over our tarbaby government, which only gets stretched further, and becomes more powerful no matter who's "winning".

[Perd Hapley]

Why do you say that about marriage, and not other issues? Why is direct action so appropriate to that area?

Oh, and the number of same-sex couples is probably arrestable. Not really that many of them.

[wmenorr67]

Maybe since Westboro Baptist is just up the road in Topeka, wouldn't it be just to force them to have to perform these.

[Nick1911]

The-OMG-gays-are-destroying-our-chirstian-social-values! aside; either private discrimination is cool, or it's not.  I'd be happy if we could just pick one or the other.

As it stands, if this church refused to marry an interracial couple, they would be in hot legal water.  How is this different?  What classes of people should the law protect from discrimination of private organizations?  What shouldn't it?  Why?  Are the rules different for a church then any other private business?  Why?

[makattak]

The-OMG-gays-are-destroying-our-chirstian-social-values! aside; either private discrimination is cool, or it's not.  I'd be happy if we could just pick one or the other.

As it stands, if this church refused to marry an interracial couple, they would be in hot legal water.  How is this different?  What classes of people should the law protect from discrimination of private organizations?  What shouldn't it?  Why?  Are the rules different for a church then any other private business? Why?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's why. I'll allow others to explain to you how behavior is different from an immutable characteristic like race. I'll even let others explain how expanding government control is an odd preference for so-called "libertarians".

[Nick1911]

That's why. I'll allow others to explain to you how behavior is different from an immutable characteristic like race. I'll even let others explain how expanding government control is an odd preference for so-called "libertarians".

So, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?

[MechAg94]

Maybe since Westboro Baptist is just up the road in Topeka, wouldn't it be just to force them to have to perform these.

Not really.  Any enjoyment would be hollow and would be nothing compared to the bad precedent that would set.  

[makattak]

So, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?

Are there individuals who have been gay who are no longer? Are there individuals who were heterosexual and turned gay?

Now, try replacing the word "gay" with "black" and "heterosexual" with "white". See if the answers come up differently.

[Tallpine]

Are the rules different for a church then any other private business?

Why the heck would anyone want to have anything to do with a church if they don't believe in the same stuff

I don't have any use for churches anymore, but they have a right to believe how they wish and hold to their own standards.

[Ron]

Too bad we don't have any constitutional protection for the right to associate with whom we choose or not associate with whom we choose.

[AJ Dual]

Why do you say that about marriage, and not other issues? Why is direct action so appropriate to that area?

Oh, and the number of same-sex couples is probably arrestable. Not really that many of them.

I do think that, and believe that about other areas too. Maybe even practice it after a fashion.

However, those areas aren't germane to to this thread, which is about those crusading for same-sex marriage, and conversely, a threat that someone may try to pass laws or ordinances forcing churches who disagree with same-sex marriage on moral grounds to host them against their will. I do think the parallels are a little closer though. The gay marriage movement at least likes to equate themselves with the Civil Rights Movement, or actually as just another phase or continuation of it. So IMO, it does have even more bearing.

If they really believe same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue for them and it's that important, then "get on the wrong seat of the bus", "have a sit-in at the straights-only lunch counter", "brave the dogs and fire-hoses" etc., or at least metaphorically speaking, and do so in the areas that impact same-sex marriage, or the churches being threatened with being forced to perform same-sex marriages.

I myself may or may not be doing that very same thing about CCW, taxes, phosphate dish detergent... or any other number of issues that are dear to me. However, getting into specifics on an open forum about it is probably not wise.

The corollary to life in a Republic and how it "defends the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority" is that we also don't fall all over ourselves for every last minority group desire or complaint either. We live in a nation that got it's start in a "war of treason" with at least 100,000 deaths, either direct or indirect, all sides, over a three cent tax on tea, where private property was destroyed and dumped into the ocean. (obviously, I simplify...) And in that context of our founding, if the complaint is that important to that minority group, well, some civil disobedience (and the consequences), or even bloodshed isn't that "big a deal", or at least it shouldn't be.

[Perd Hapley]

either private discrimination is cool, or it's not.  I'd be happy if we could just pick one or the other.

As it stands, if this church refused to marry an interracial couple, they would be in hot legal water.  How is this different?  What classes of people should the law protect from discrimination of private organizations?  What shouldn't it?  Why?  Are the rules different for a church then any other private business?  Why?

Private groups/churches/businesses should be perfectly free to discriminate against anyone for any reason, or without giving any reason at all. Then issues like this would go away. In fact, it would take away one of the arguments against same-sex marriage, if there were no reason to fear that churches would be coerced as in this bill.


I've been to churches where my fellow Christians did not allow me to take communion, because I hadn't professed my agreement with all of the requisite beliefs (the physical presence of Christ, or whatever). Every person or (non-governmental) organization should be free to discriminate in just the same, nit-picky way. It's called freedom.

[MicroBalrog]

If they really believe same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue for them and it's that important, then "get on the wrong seat of the bus", "have a sit-in at the straights-only lunch counter", "brave the dogs and fire-hoses" etc., or at least metaphorically speaking, and do so in the areas that impact same-sex marriage, or the churches being threatened with being forced to perform same-sex marriages.

No churches are being made to perform same-sex marriages. They might be prohibited from discriminating against TEH GHEY in the facilities they rent to the general public, if these ordnances ever pass.

The corollary to life in a Republic and how it "defends the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority" is that we also don't fall all over ourselves for every last minority group desire or complaint either. We live in a nation that got it's start in a "war of treason" with at least 100,000 deaths, either direct or indirect, all sides, over a three cent tax on tea, where private property was destroyed and dumped into the ocean. (obviously, I simplify...) And in that context of our founding, if the complaint is that important to that minority group, well, some civil disobedience (and the consequences), or even bloodshed isn't that "big a deal", or at least it shouldn't be.

But AJDual. We have jobs. You can't possibly expect people with jobs to be doing something as nasty as protesting.

[De Selby]

How many people read the ordnance before commenting on forcing churches to have gay marriages?   The linked document specifically says it dies not apply to private associations.

This is not that different from existing law in many places.  Also, I have no idea why the fact that sexual orientation is not the same as race should matter in these discussions. 

So what if it is a choice?

[MechAg94]

How many people read the ordnance before commenting on forcing churches to have gay marriages?   The linked document specifically says it dies not apply to private associations.

This is not that different from existing law in many places.  Also, I have no idea why the fact that sexual orientation is not the same as race should matter in these discussions.  

So what if it is a choice?

Did you read it?  Please provide a link because all I saw was a FAQ.  

It adds "sexual orientation and gender identity the protected classes already in place".  It would also apply to any Church or religious group who open services to the general public or rent out facilities to the general public.  It does not specifically call out "marriages", but how it could be used in the regard is pretty easy to figure out.  

[seeker_two]

Sounds like a lot of churches in Hutchinson, Kansas are about to become private clubs whose facilities are available to "members" only....

[erictank]

Are there individuals who have been gay who are no longer? Are there individuals who were heterosexual and turned gay?

Now, try replacing the word "gay" with "black" and "heterosexual" with "white". See if the answers come up differently.

Re: first example ("gay" then "not") - two words.

Michael Jackson.

I believe that's one individual, or was. There may be others, I don't know.

Since gays don't reproduce with other gays but don't seem to be going away, I'd say that argues strongly for a powerful (if not strictly-speaking "dominant") genetic component. IOW, it's apparently *NOT* a "lifestyle choice," as far as I can tell.

[makattak]

Re: first example ("gay" then "not") - two words.

Michael Jackson.

I believe that's one individual, or was. There may be others, I don't know.

Since gays don't reproduce with other gays but don't seem to be going away, I'd say that argues strongly for a powerful (if not strictly-speaking "dominant") genetic component. IOW, it's apparently *NOT* a "lifestyle choice," as far as I can tell.

... that's completely illogical. If gays DID reproduce with other gays and more gays resulted, that would argue for a genetic component.

If gays AREN'T reproducing or if gays aren't reproducing gays, that would suggest that genetics is NOT determinant.

[MicroBalrog]

Neither are people born with their religion - is it legal under current US law to discriminate on a religious basis?

[makattak]

Neither are people born with their religion - is it legal under current US law to discriminate on a religious basis?

... are you asking if churches can discriminate based on someone's religion?

[De Selby]

... are you asking if churches can discriminate based on someone's religion?

Good point - depending on their activities, they cannot.

I'm still wondering how choice is relevant to this issue.  Can someone articulate how it matters?

[MicroBalrog]

... are you asking if churches can discriminate based on someone's religion?

Is it legal for a restaurant owner or for any other regular employer to discriminate based on religion?

[erictank]

... that's completely illogical. If gays DID reproduce with other gays and more gays resulted, that would argue for a genetic component.

If gays AREN'T reproducing or if gays aren't reproducing gays, that would suggest that genetics is NOT determinant.

Buried in our genetic code, AS A SPECIES. If it wasn't there, if it was "nurture instead of nature", it WOULD die off.  It hasn't. There MUST (in this layman's opinion) be a genetic component, and a relatively strong one, given that 1) the gay population stays roughly stable, as far as I've heard, and 2) straight couples at least occasionally have children who turn out to be gay. I'm pretty sure that straight parents generally don't aspire for their kids to become a member of a persecuted group like that, and make every effort to raise them to become such. Also pretty sure that they do not, by and large, "turn them gay" via mistreatment or some such nonsense.

Me, I'm just puzzled as to why the whole thing is such a big deal to so many. So Joe wants to marry Jim, or Karen wants to marry Kimberly.  So what?  Persecuting any of them for that, attempting to infringe on their liberties, is just as wrong as wrongful persecution and infringement against any other group or individual.

Should churches be FORCED to marry them?  IMO, no, no more than I should be forced to... attend a football game, or something similarly-inane. Though why they'd WANT, say, the Catholic Church to conduct a ceremony for them is beyond me.  Should they be ABLE to get married, after finding someone to conduct the ceremony (and to the best of my knowledge there are such individuals and organizations out there, to whom sexual orientation is not especially relevant)?  Yes, and that marriage should be respected in exactly the same manner as a straight marriage.  Granted, we need to get the government out of STRAIGHT marriages, too, but if we have to suffer their interference in the one, the other needs to be covered by the same blanket.