Well I am a card carrying conservative but like many on the right I believe anyone who wants to get married should be able to but it should be a civil ceremony and nobody should be forced to perform the ceremony if they chose not to. What people do in their own lives is between them and their maker and none of my business nor should it be the governments business.
Then we are in complete agreement on the issue. However, as this thread proves in a microcosm, not every "card carrying conservative" believes as you and I do. They want to impose their beliefs, both secular and religious, upon everyone else.
ALL weddings are civil ceremonies. No church or religion has legal standing because all marriages are civil contracts. If one wants to hold a ceremony in a church, fine but it is not legally binding until its recorded at the local county court house.
You have an unusually erroneous definition of "invade." It's not the same as "question" or "criticize", but how would you know, right? This hypersensitivity comes from some negative experience with which I have no interest.
Nothing that contravenes anything I said. You're welcome. As a strictly legal instrument, the linchpin of the Constitution is states' rights, per A5; and clearly every state has the right to limit a great many actions that may be perceived as rights. But of course it's wrongs we're talking about here, not rights. Say it ain't so. "SSM" not cognizable as a privilege under the Constitution. It is, in fact, not constitutionally cognizable as anything but an imbecility. That the feds presume to attach benefits to an imbecility is not the state's problem. People who confuse liberty with license have no business using this phrase, never mind presuming to hold forth on matters constitutional. That word doesn't mean anything like what you think it means. Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding. You understand that has nothing to do with homosexuals, right?
I know what you mean,,,If a teacher doesn’t be,Ive in interracial marriage, she shouldn’t have to teach that child (sarcasm alert)
Incorrect. While common even within a courthouse, no ceremony is required, at least in most locations. Not all marriages are civil marriages. It simply comes down to if you want legal recognition, then you need to have a civil marriage documented, or if your state or county has it, be recognized under common law marriage.
If they choose to get married I think they should be allowed to as long as nobody is forced to perform the ceremony against their will or religious beliefs.
Then there should be no problem if churches refuse to marry gay couples. I do understand that marriage is a civil contract but if gay marriage is to be legal it should only be performed by officials who choose to officiate the union. I am sure a gay couple would be able to find someone to do it without trying to force religious people or organizations to do it.
There are those on both sides who want to impose their beliefs upon everyone else in many issues. In my eyes I see only one major difference between the 2 parties and that is big government or small government.
Agreed on imposing beliefs. Both parties have become increasingly authoritarian over the past 30 years. The only difference between them is the exact nature of the rules they want to impose. I'm disgusted with both. The Republicans claim they want small government, then they vote to increase spending and the size of government.
They don't. That's the point. What they choose to do is cohabitate and call it marriage, even though that's clearly not what it is.
There are Christian and Jewish denominations that respect equality and perform marriage ceremonies accordingly. Some do not. Islam, not so enlightened yet.
Define ceremony. If it is a justice of the peace or other government official, then yes they have to perform their office regardless of thier beliefs. But outside of a government official, then, yes, I agree with you.
Sorry, but history shows you are wrong. Marriage has existed in a variety of forms and partner combinations throutthro human history, from polygyny to polyandry, same sex to opposite sex, arranged to self determined, ghost marriage to living. Here never has been and never will be one single definition of marriage except in the deranged minds of the blindly religious. Mind you not all religiousare blindly so, not even most. And the most important detail. In a country where religious FREEDOM is the rule and law, no one religious view can dominant the others. So no matter what you believe marriage to be, there are other beliefs out there. So long as it occurs between consenting adults (read as capable of providing informed consent), then it should be legal.
Correction: not as you understand and believe. There are Christians who believe differently. And while you might not believe them to be Christians, they don't necessarily believe you are a Christian either.
Except that it can't, anymore than it can legally define marriage as being between members of the same race. Because it is law, it much be free of distinction between race, religion, sex (which other cases have determined to include orientation and gender identity), country of origin, or age (as long as capable of.giving informed consent).
Even a government official doesn't have to perform the ceremony, they can quit their job, but I was talking about religious ceremonies. I am almost certain there will be some who will try to get married in a church and if refused will try to sue the church for not doing it.
They can call it whatever they want but in order to use their union in any legal way they will have to be married by law with a license and everything.
