But in all those countries the same basic players have assured everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here
1. Somebody will
always sue. You'll get lawsuits for not performing gay weddings, you'll get lawsuits for performing them. The government will get sued for not issuing marriage licenses, etc...
2. Do you have citations that people are being forced to perform weddings? Worst I see is people suing to get to hold their wedding in their church.
3. No real word as to whether they've been successful.
As dogmush said, it's not like they're the Borg. Just like us, there's a variety of people and viewpoints.
I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses.
Churches, other than the Catholic, don't really issue them. They'll record that they performed the wedding, and in most states a priest can sign the marriage certificate attesting that they are now married, just like a justice of the peace, county clerk, or whatever.
As I said before, you get married in a church, you get a civil union from the government. That the latter ended up being called 'marriage' as well just muddies up the waters.
Well, nothing except biology and human practice going back to the dawn of history. I am reminded that a problem with progressivism, libertarianism, and other utopian creeds is that they are at war with both nature and reality.
Biology, human practice, dawn of history? You do realize that gays have been around since then, right? They've never been the majority outside of a few cultures(and those cultures are rather alien to our own). That many cultures actually have spots for them? Hell, biology wise they've identified homosexual pairings for just about every species that pair-bonds to begin with. Homosexual Penguins, for example. Ended up giving them an egg from a straight couple that 'weren't getting it' and were leaving the egg alone. They took very good care of that chick. Out in the wild they've caught them taking eggs from abandoned nests(predators always get a few...)
To be fair, so do libertarians, who have become the party of "What on our nihilistic agenda can we get gov't to enforce with the threat of violence?
You know, I keep seeing this sort of stuff and I'm reminded of a study - everybody likes to think that they're operating from a position of kindness, but their opponents are all operating from cruelty/evil.
I'm starting to find this sorts of vague accusations given as a reason that we must
deny rights, 'keep them down', and such to be very tiring. Here you are accusing
libertarians of wanting to use violent government action to get their way!
Please, stop with the vague attacks and strawmen. What specific part of the 'nihilistic agenda' are we attempting to get the government to enforce with violence and the threat therein?
Maybe so, but homosexual pseudomarriage is not an expanded freedom. It is an increase in intervention by gov't--in an of itself--and it has lead to the abridgment of freedom for orders of magnitude of folk more than will ever partake of its "benefits."
Hm... Okay. So how is gays not being able to enter into the same sort of contracts as a straight couple not an expanded freedom? Please explain this to me.
Also, please explaing how it's abridging your freedoms. Please be specific, but be aware that I do not consider your ability to NOT be butthurt over them getting 'married' an abridgement. You do NOT have the freedom to not be offended. And that's mostly what I've been seeing here. Now, I agree with you that the small wedding cake shop that didn't want to cater a gay wedding because of their owner/operator's beliefs shouldn't have been punished like they were. But that's a reason to pass a law protecting small businesses when they have closely held beliefs, not to ban gay weddings.
Keep in mind that literally
thousands of gay weddings happen without the gayroller coming by and generating a lawsuit. Hell, there's probably more issues with brides not showing up, just plain lousy service, scam artists, and such.
We argue that we shouldn't be held responsible for the occasional idiot. I'd argue that we need to extend them the same courtesy.
Kind of like those who, fortunately not here, tried to argue that gay marriage would harm the institution of marriage.