1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
In regard to the wedding photographer issue, if the photographer unknowingly booked a gay wedding and then backed out at the last minute when it was discovered to be a gay wedding rather than a traditional wedding, then in that case I can see fault on the part of the photographer. Nobody, gay or straight, wants their photographer to back out at the last minute for obvious reasons.
However, if the gay couple solicited the photographer's service and the photographer immediately declined without making any kind of commitment, then in my opinion the gay couple is just trying to force acceptance.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
That's not liberalism. That's not tolerance. That's certainly not the much-vaunted progressive value of "diversity."
It's "the hounding of a heretic," as Andrew Sullivan aptly describes it.
In a powerful follow up post, Sullivan rightly asserts that "if we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society." Exactly.
One of these days, our proselytizers for sexual liberalism are going to look in the mirror and realize that they've become precisely what they so loathe and fear in others: narrow-minded commissars patrolling the boundaries of acceptable thought and using intimidation to enforce comprehensive social and cultural conformity.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
An interesting commentary today from a pro gay marriage writer:
What's going on isn't about law. It's about social mores and the insistence on the part of a loud, influential faction of so-called liberals that every single American not only tolerate gay marriages, but also recognize and positively affirm the legitimacy and goodness of gay marriages. The punishment for refusing to give in to this non-negotiable demand won't be jail time or other legal punishment — so again, the issue isn't the law. Rather, the punishment will be a social media–fueled witch hunt, ritual humiliation, excommunication from civilized life, and exclusion from prominent positions of power in leading industries.
what is, in fact, stridently illiberal — is the belief that every person found on the other side of the divide deserves to be ostracized from mainstream American life as punishment for deviance from The Correct Position.
I completely agree. I'm not a religious person, but it's none of my business what you decide to believe in. There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle on many issues. In my opinion, a lot of that is created by what has already been mentioned. People only like the law when it applies to them.
Grant, I would be the biggest advocate for equal rights for a civil union as for a marriage.
I do view marriage differently than you. But we both agree it should not be determined by judges or the federal government.
I wish those who favor same-sex marriage would practice the same tolerance that they preach by applying that tolerance to people of religious faith, who have been practicing the traditional definition of marriage for thousands of years.
I believe same sex marriage is not about the right or wrong issue.
But the benefits involved in a regular marriage,
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Really all that needs to be said here is "Don't Tread On Me". And that doesn't just apply to government, it applies to all individuals. You're free to hold your Christian belief that says gay marriage is wrong, but you shouldn't concern yourself with the private lives of others either.
The professor speaks again.
Whats a matter genius not working yet ?
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I think the republicans did a pretty bang up job during the Bush years of destroying things .
Oh we'll just tear those pages out of the history books
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
You got it questioner. Marriage is a state issue, though I don't agree that any level of government should be involved. But you're right about what the Constitution does actually say, therefore as far as the federal government is concerned, gays should have the equal right to marry. You could even make the case that a state ban on gay marriage could be overturned federally because it doesn't grant equality under the law.
My personal opinion is that marriage is between two consenting individuals. That eliminated the "well then can I marry my dog?" argument, unless you can get the dog to consent to marriage. The state shouldn't be involved anywhere in that private arrangement. I can counter the "where do you draw the line" issue with asking if people would be alright with the government assuming the responsibility of saying who you can and can't marry. The universal answer would be no.
Yea I forgot the republican party is perfect, BS to you too Amis.
When 10% can shut the country down because of their opinions we will continue to fail.
And that's why we no longer pledge all. to the flag in schools or have a morning prayer
Why J.Boehner can't get anything done in the house.
Because a small group of citizens are going to tell the majority what to do .
And along comes the vote.
It's not like there aren't other photographers, bakers, florists. Why would you even really one one that didn't want to serve you? only reason I can think of is to try to make it a court case.
36 minutes ago--The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider whether a New Mexico photography company had free speech grounds to refuse to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.
The company's owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who oppose gay marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of speech, the First Amendment protects them from being required to "express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs," their attorneys said in court papers. Elane Photography has previously declined requests to take nude maternity pictures and images depicting violence, its lawyers said.
I think it should be (should have been) possible to ensure that civil unions would get the same benefits of marriage and be protected from additional costs (death taxes) that those in a marriage are protected from.
I don't think that means the federal government needs to force everyone to accept a new definition of marriage.
That all said, I still believe that a marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. As a Christian, I view marriage as not a contract for legal purposes, but a covenant between a man, a woman and God.
I'm guessing that what Grant meant was that since the right to marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, it then is a civil matter, which is then a state issue.
The federal and state governments cannot deny a right that is clearly defined by the Constitution. Since same-sex marriage is not defined as a right within the Constitution, the issue is left to each individual state. It is just that simple.
But again, I don't believe that's the way it will be viewed.
Believe what you may .But as long as we have Washington being controlled by money and the lobbyists .
As long as getting re-elected is the main goal nothing will change in the long term.
Might be wrong but I don't think the Constitution deals directly with marriage .
States have been able to make their own laws regarding marriage--age, waiting period, etc, but I believe our vote for "a marriage is between one man and one woman" will be overruled Based on the constitution. Article Six reads:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Still not sure what Grant meant when he said marriage wasn't mentioned in the constitution--all I know is that, Based on the constitution, plenty of laws and decisions have been made regarding marriage. Based on the right to liberty, the right to free association, the right the pursuit of happiness, equal protection, equal rights.
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Because all this crap is pushed (no pun intended) by Democrats. Along with the welfare state and a refusal to do anything at all to reduce spending."
what does that have to do with same sex-marriages?
Grant, not sure what you're saying when you state that marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |