Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (112011)	5/27/2009 10:59:03 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 541582

I have an otherwise liberal friend who cringes at the term "gay marriage" because of the man-woman connotation and his religious upbringing, though I have seen a shift in this friend's viewpoint over the years. He has always been open to the idea of "union". Perhaps "joined" or the low brow slang "hitched" would be better. No reason a justice of the peace couldn't do that - but as it is today no one has to do anything once they get the marriage license. The marriage license would simply be renamed "partnership license". If someone wants to proceed to the church, so be it. I don't see how this undermines marriage. The applicants are joined in the eyes of the law whether or not you or she wears a dress, or if either of you says something else in front of an ordained religious figure!! <g>

To: Cogito who wrote (112011)	5/27/2009 2:35:51 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 541582

Of course, churches would be free to either sanction such marriages or not. Maybe.....maybe not. I can't speak for all, of course, but some churches are opposed to gays having equal status for two reasons. One is that gay couples will then have a legal basis for demanding that all adoption agencies place children with them. You may recall that Catholic Charities was sued in Massachusetts on the basis of adoption discrimination and was forced to shut down in that state. It was this event that spurred the Mormon Church into action in CA. Normally, it's a rather apolitical church and holds strongly to the separation of church and state. But it also wants to hold onto its ability to determine who has membership in its church and where its adoptible children go. So the other reason is that 'gay marriage' opens the door to discrimination lawsuits against any church that (1) refuses to acknowledge a gay couple as married or (2) refuses to perform the wedding ceremony. The passing of 'gay marriage' laws serves to validate the homosexual sex itself, don't you think? This cuts the legs out from under any church that continues to preach against and deny membership to gays on the basis of immorality. How can a pastor say to such a couple I don't approve of your relationship and won't perform a marriage ceremony for you without opening the door to litigation? Remember that doctors have been forced by the courts in certain states to provide fertility treatments to lesbian couples even though there were other clinics in the area that were willing to do the same treatments. In an earlier post you asked for examples of any logical reason for gay marriage as an institution to be denied. Right or wrong, fear of even more litigation is a more or less logical reason that churches were galvinized to support Prop 8 in CA and get similar ballot initiatives passed in other states.