The Sexist

Same-Sex Marriage Hits D.C. Court of Appeals Today

Today, the D.C. Court of Appeals will hear arguments over the fate of same-sex marriage in D.C.  In January, the D.C. Superior Court decided that a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman would violate the District's Human Rights Act; anti-gay-marriage activists appealed the decision.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

  • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Toysoldier

    I cannot imagine the court allowing the lawsuit to go forward, especially following what happened in California.

  • blunt

    Go ahead and let homosexuals get married. Don't bother me none. They just can't do it in a church that doesn't want them to. Better track down some judges or ship captains.

    Gotta keep that church separated from the state like aethiests (and gays) love to chant. Government can't force churches to marry homosexuals since it is obviously against their religion and would be violating the separation of church and state. It goes both ways you know. So unless non-believers who get so upset when any type of government action is done in favor of a religion and preach THE CHURCH IS SEPARATE FROM THE STATE over and over again like with a certain 10 commandments being put in front of a government building, unless they want to be oh I don't know...hypocrites...I expect to see them lined up protesting any existent or future lobbying for the government to force any un-willful church to marry gays.

    Although as I'm sure many are aware. There are many "gay rights" advocates out there that would be just fine with violating the separation of church and state policy so they can force churches to marry them and at the same time keep any other form of religion out of the government. Yes I'm sure those same "equality" advocates that protested the ten commandments monument being put in front of that building are busy at work trying to get the government to force churches to marry gays.

    So many double standard hypocrites...so little time.

  • kza

    Yea, I'm sure all those gay people that the churches are discriminating against can't wait to get married in them.

  • blunt

    @kza

    So if I told you I don't want you getting married in my house then I am discriminating against you?

    You don't own the church and neither does the government. The church is not a public establishment (separation of church and state :)). They let in who they want and a lot do let gays in.

    What they don't let them do is get married.

    And you know what? Their stance and beliefs are not discriminatory just because you disagree with them.

  • kza

    If you told me you didn't want me to get married in your house because I was gay, or black, or disabled, then yes that would be discrimination. I'm pretty sure that is the definition of it.

  • Pamo

    Their stance and beliefs are not discriminatory just because you disagree with them.

    Correct. They're discriminatory because they treat a group of people in a negative way based on a trait irrationally perceived as negative.

    Still, I wouldn't force churches to perform same-sex marriages. It's their right not to do so, even if they're wrong.

  • Kit-Kat

    Um, no one is talking about forcing churches to marry same-sex couples. The DC law specifically states that no church or religious official has to marry a same-sex couple if performing that marriage violates the church/religious official's beliefs. Same-sex couples who want to get married may do so with a civil ceremony, or they may find a religious official who is willing to perform the ceremony (and those definitely exist). So can we stop with the red herring argument?

  • blunt

    @kza

    Discrimination: Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

    As I said it is MY house and I decide what goes on in it. No one, not you, not the government, NO ONE can tell me who I can let in my own home.

    Now if I practiced the same thing in a public place then yeah it would possibly be discriminatory and illegal. But like I said it is my house. It is the same thing as a men only gym or women only spa. There is no basis of prejudice and there is no unfairness therefore no discrimination. It is just what the people who own the establishment want.

    Marrying gays goes against their religious beliefs. That may mean nothing to you or it may not but to them it is extremely important and while you have the right to criticize or disagree you have no basis for discrimination because there is no basis of prejudice or unfairness because it is a belief that is carried out in a privately owned organization. You also have no right to force them to conform to what you think is fair and the government damn sure doesn't.

    So unless you are saying that unless I let you do what you want in my house because you are gay, black, or disabled then I am somehow being discriminatory towards you just because I let the straight, Asian, or physically fit kids in to play in my house then we really have nothing else to talk about. People who think that way are in my opinion the worst kind. They complain about something that affects them calling it unfair and under the guise of "equality" they demand the government change it and care nothing about infringing on the rights of others while getting that change.

  • blunt

    @kit-kat

    I posted an opinion. I didn't challenge gay marriage at all. So there you go.

    @Pamo

    Irrational to you, not everyone but diversity is my cup of tea so good on you for the comment.

  • kza

    I don't complain, I just pointed out how you looked dumb.

  • blunt

    @kza

    Oh yeah!? Well I just pointed out how you were oh I don't know, completely wrong....dumby!! Nnnnnnyyah!!

    Pwned...

    Booyaka bitch.

  • kza

    No you didn't. You went on a tirade about gays trying to get married in churches which, in addition to having nothing to do with the this blog post, is something gays are not trying to do. Then you started explaining away discrimination by using your house as an example. And I'm the dumb one? pwnt

  • blunt

    @kza

    "No you didn't"

    Yes. I did.

    There are gays who want and have tried to be married in churches and there are even priests who agreed to marry gays and would have done so in a church but didn't and did so else where.

    What I said had plenty to do with the blog post seeing as how the blog post is in part about gay marriage. I also already said that I was just stating an opinion and not challenging gay marriage at all.

    "Then you started explaining away discrimination by using your house as an example."

    Yes because comparing what those that are in charge of the church is similar to someone deciding what goes on in their own home. Um....duh. By the way I used men only gyms and women only spas for comparisons too :).

    "And I am the dumb one"

    Yes.

    I say boooo.....ayaka.

    This is fun, after we get out of this sandbox you tripped us into you wanna go play some halo 3? You can not end a good schoolyard argument without some halo 3.

  • kza

    You're still discriminating against someone when you don't let them into your house because of sexual orientation. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not discrimination. Notice how no where on this blog does it mention gays getting married in churches that don't want them. And why are you talking about Halo? I don't even have an xbox.

  • http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist Amanda Hess

    Refusing to marry (or provide services in conjunction with the marriage of) same-sex couples is discrimination. It's only legal discrimination in D.C. because legislators included an exemption to the Human Rights Act in the marriage bill. That doesn't mean that any same-sex couples would actually want to get married in your anti-gay house, were that discrimination illegal.

    More on that here:

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/18/guide-to-gay-wedding-discrimination/

  • blunt

    @kza

    No one is discriminating against anyone for not letting them into their house for any reason. That was made clear with the mens gym, womens spa, and oh yes the my house comparisons. It is not discriminatory because it is not unfair because no one regardless of their sexual orientation or race or religion has a civil or moral right to enter another person's home.

    Do you get it? It is not unfair so it is not discrimination. By its definition :).

    "Notice how no where on this blog does it mention gays getting married in churches that don't want them"

    Sure it does, in my comment :). My comment that I said was an opinion. Also I said that since my comment had to do with gay marriage, which is what this post is about then my comment, which also has to do with some of the legalities of gay marriage has something to do with this post. May just have a tiiiiny bit to do with this post but it still does.

    Furthermore if you thought my post was pointless you didn't have to respond.

    "And why are you talking about halo"

    I thought that was made obvious when I said you can't end a good schoolyard argument without some halo 3 O_o?

    @Amanda

    Yo! Love your work!

    "Refusing to marry (or provide services in conjunction with the marriage of) same-sex couple is discrimination."

    Yeah unless churches don't want to do it. See my above comments for a broader explanation.

    "in your anti-gay house"

    My anti-gay house? What anti-gay house? You know where I live O_O? Oh no wait you mean the fake one I made for an example. I got it now...you took an example I made and made a presumption about me with it. Yeah I've seen you do that before with other people. Whatever. Still love your work o_o...

  • kza

    "It is not discriminatory because it is not unfair because no one regardless of their sexual orientation or race or religion has a civil or moral right to enter another person’s home."

    No shit. Once again I'm not saying you have to let me into your house. Try to read what I write.

  • blunt

    @kza

    Ok...let me read what you wrote again...

    "You’re still discriminating against someone when you don’t let them into your house because of sexual orientation."

    Ok..let me get the spectacles out. Yeap...mhm...mmhmm...discriminating because I don't let them in you say...ok.

    And what did you say next?

    "No shit. Once again I’m not saying you have to let me into your house. Try to read what I write."

    Yeah....got it...you are not saying I have to let you into my house.

    Right. I think I read what you wrote just fine.

    We done or what?

  • Kit-Kat

    Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

    In other words, refusing to let someone into your house because he is Asian (as opposed to because he is a jerk) is discrimination. It just happens to be legal. It is perfectly legal for private persons to discriminate, in lots of ways. It is also quite often legal for public entities, employers, etc. to discriminate. For example, you can refuse to hire someone because they are from Ohio, even if they are in all other ways the superior job candidate. You can not, however, refuse to hire someone because they are black.

    I'm actually not sure about the exemption that permits churches not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies on the grounds that it restricts their right to free exercise of their religion. There, the church is acting qua church, performing a religious ceremony (as opposed to a purely civil marriage ceremony, or where the church is acting qua employer, or provider of social services). Compelling someone to perform a religious rite against their religious objections is a tough sell for me. Civil marriage should be available to same-sex couples, and churches who want to perform same-sex weddings certainly should not be prohibited from doing so, but forcing churches to perform a religious ceremony against their beliefs is just compelling them to perform a sham.

    (That said, I doubt it's a real issue, because I can't imagine a lot of same-sex couples wanting to get married in a church that doesn't want to marry them.)

    I find it different than a religious organization refusing to provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex spouses of its employees, because there the church is acting as an employer, and is being asked only to recognize a civil status. Of course, Catholic Charities got around that one by denying all of its new employees or newly married employees spousal benefits, including health insurance, which makes the "charity" part of its name rather ironic to me, and which is one reason that CC will not be getting any of my charitable donations (there are certainly others).

  • blunt

    @kit-kat

    Hey so there is more than one definition to discrimination!? Whoda thunk? Let's get into a big philosophical argument over which one is the right one. We should take this thing back several thousands of years and gather up ancient voodoo texts on it and really grind it out. THEN we can get back to the original argument in the sandbox with kza.

    Or maybe we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

    Gay also means happy. Which meaning came first and which version is more correct? I can hear the twilight zone music picking up already.

    My original point and opinion: The church should be kept separate from the state unless the church and state mutually agree to different terms. Meaning both ways. Also I do not feel it is discriminating in this instance.

    But hold on, let me pick up my handful of sand and get ready to continue slinging.

  • kza

    Maybe if you keep talking about sand that will help. sand sand sandbox sandbox!

    You just don't get it. Just because you don't have to let someone in your house doesn't mean you can't discriminate. Is this really hard to grasp? When a church is letting everyone get married except one group and they are excluding that group because of their sexual orientation they are, say it with me, discriminating against them. And it's perfectly legal.

    /waits for blunt to comeback talking about the sandbox at his house

  • blunt

    @kza

    "Just because you don't have to let someone in your house doesn't mean you can't discriminate"

    Good thing I didn't suggest otherwise.

    "Is this really hard to grasp"

    What's hard to grasp is your unquenchable need to push your personal ideologies on me.

    "When a church is letting everyone get married except one group and they are excluding that group because of their sexual orientation they are, say it with me, discriminating against them" <------personal ideology push attempt

    Not according to "one of" (for you kit-kat cause I like you) the definitions of discrimination.

    /waits for more attempts at ideology pushing

    Oh! Almost forgot!

    /launches a handful of sand at kza from his house

  • kza

    It's the personal ideology of who? Webster, the dude who wrote the dictionary?

  • blunt

    @kza

    "It's the personal ideology of who? Webster, the dude who wrote the dictionary?"

    /front rolls under the pointless piece of sand thrown at him from above like a NINJA (Pointless pieces of sand: everything you keep saying to me)

    Honestly, do I have to copy and paste my earlier response to the whole definition thing or are you just gonna keep pushing your ideologies?

  • kza

    My ideologies haven't come up once. I could care less about gays getting married in churches.

  • blunt

    @kza

    Whatever you say.

  • noodlez

    IT SHOULD BE PUT ON THE BALLOT!!!

    THE FOLK OF DC SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THIS NOT THE FOLK THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN HAVING THIS ILLEGITIMENT BILL SIGNED INTO LAW!

  • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Toysoldier

    @blunt:

    The church is separate from the state. No person can compel any religious organization to perform an act against said religion's beliefs. If a gay couple tried to force a church to marry them, they would have no legal grounds to do so. It is doubtful anyone would try that because doing so would immediately undermine gay activists' efforts to gain support for gay marriage.

    I think the reason those who share your opinion jump to this conclusion is because in our society, particularly recently, marriage has become associated with religion. Calling it something different, like civil union, would alleviate this problem. However, rather than choosing the path of least resistance they chose to go in head first while trying to pretend marriage is not associated with religion in this country, therein giving those like you ammunition with which to attack them.

  • Chris4747

    @ Noodles.... Yes, Lets have a group of individuals decide on other peoples civil rights so that we can keep surpressing people from having the same rights as anyone else. Its amazing how discriminatory folks still are! If you want to vote on gay marriage, then I think that gays should be allowed to vote on hetro marriage! Thats only fair..... Who the hell are you to vote on something that has nothing to do with you? My marriage for instance, has no affect on you, nor would yours have any affect on me, so whats the issue? Too damn many jerks, who want to make everyone be like them, or not allow them to exist

  • noodlez

    Chris4747 GETTING MARRIED IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT! THE LAW ON THE BOOKS IN DC WAS NOT WRITTEN TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE WAY THAT THOSE THANGS TWISTED IT INTO.

    WHO THE HELL AM I? WELL IM A NATIVE WASHINGTONIAN, LIFE LONG RESIDENT OF THIS CITY. YOU I SUSPECT IS A CARPETBAGGER WHO RAN HERE TO EXPOSE THE CONTENTS OF YOUR CLOSET. WHY DONT YOU RUN ON BACK HOME AND GET MARRIED THERE!

    Chissy I WOULD WELCOME A VOTE ON MARRIAGE IF IT ALLOWS ME TO VOTE ON WHETHER HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD GET MARRIED OR NOT. THE ISSUE I HAVE IS FOLK LIKE YOURSELF RUNNING HERE TO STAKE A CLAIM HERE AND CIRCUMVENTING THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE FOR YOUR ILLEGITIMATE BENEFIT!

    IF THE FOLK OF THIS CITY VOTE TO LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE THEN I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. THE PROBLEM IS YOU KNOW THEY WONT THUS THE BACK DOOR BILL THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

    ANOTHER THING STOP THROWING WORDS AROUND LIKE "DISCRIMINATORY". JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS "ANTI" DOES NOT MAKE THEM ONE WHO DISCRIMINATES! PLUS IT DOES NOTHING FOR YOUR CAUSE.

  • Kit-Kat

    As a DC resident, I have to say there was nothing "back door" about the bill legalizing same-sex marriage. It was passed by the DC Council, which is elected by the residents of DC. There was nothing secret about it--it was passed in exactly the same way that all DC laws are passed. Perhaps you are not clear on how representative government works.

    Also, marriage is a civil right. In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court called it "one of the basic civil rights of man."

    P.S. If you don't want people to think you're a bigot, don't call gay people "thangs." Seriously.

  • kza

    Damn gays. Always trying to slip things in the backdoor.

  • noodlez

    UHH Kit-Kat PLEASE STOP TRYIN TO STOKE ME. I LEFT MY FIRE OVER AT DCist.COM. DISSECTING MY COMMENT AND QUOTING VA. LAW (OF ALL PLACES-TO THE BENEFIT OF HOMOSEXUALS) REGARDING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE IS REACHING A BIT.

    DID YOU GET A JUMP START ON THE LEGAL WEED? THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS DONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE. THAT IS WHY ITS IN COURT TODAY BECAUSE THE FOLKS OF THIS CITY WAS NOT INFORMED OR REPRESENTED IN CERTAIN WARDS OF THE CITY AS IT RELATES TO SPECIFIC COUNCILMEMBER'S VOTE AND SUPPORT FOR THIS ILLEGAL ACT.

    FYI-ALL DC LAWS ARE NOT PASSED THE WAY THEY PASSED THE GAY FREEDOM BILL.

    LIKE I SAID IM A NATIVE WASHINGTONIAN 1/2 OF MY FRIENDS ARE DEAD, 1/4 OF THEM ARE IN JAIL, 1/8 OF THEM ARE STILL STRUNG OUT. YOU THINK I GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHETHER YOU "THANGS" THINK IM A BIGOT OR NOT. CHILD PLEEZE!

    **********************************************************

    kza-THE IRONY!

  • blunt

    @toysoldiers

    Another presumption about me? Sheesh...

    Let me set something straight (no pun intended). I am not attacking gays. I could be gay for all anyone here knows. I am just pointing out what I have seen and stating my opinion. My opinion is the only thing being attacked here because any nay saying about anything about gays is automatically scorned regardless of the grounds of the nay saying. Suddenly I am anti-gay when I said no such thing and suddenly I am anti-gay marriage when I said no such thing...but whatever.

    So the whole "people like you" thinking behind any statement directed towards me is redundant and irrelevant. I really don't care if the term marriage was first spoken by someone of a Christian religion or no religion I just stated that there have been and still are those who would want and have tried to marry gays in churches and would like the government to force the issue. There are gays who are Catholic, Christian, Baptist, and whatever other denominations there are who are highly insulted by the fact that their religion (not all the people in it, but the religion itself) condemns them and the idea of them getting married.

    So let me be blunt (^_^) I feel those that want marriage inside of the church even though it is separate from the state yet advocate against other church actions using its separation from the state as a basis for that advocation are in the wrong.

    You feel me? Cause that is all I said and look at the wooooooosh of baseless accusations it brought on.

    Love your work too by the way.

  • DanceDreaming

    Blunt: No one, anywhere, is trying to force churches who don't want to to perform gay marriages via law. There are folks within the various churches attempting to convince those in power in the churches to change their rules. Much like there are Catholics currently trying to convince the Catholic church to allow female priests. But no -law- requiring them to. And no one pushing for such a law. Doing so would be dumb.

    There are plenty of right wing scare mongers -claiming- that homosexuals will push for such laws, but they are just scaremongering.

    As for your house, vis a vis discrimination, as has been explained to you, treating people differently based on the group they are from -is- discrimination. Sure, it's perfectly legal to do so. And frankly, that's a good thing. But it's still definitely discrimination.

    You can try to redefine the word all you like. But since it's a term mostly used by, and meaningful to, those who tend to be discriminated against... and is generally used by most people who have matured past the fighting in the sandbox stage to mean basically how kitkat(and the dictionary) define it, it will continue to mainly be used in that fashion.

    But even by your definition, treating someone differently based on a group classification actually -is- unfair. So... even by your more loose definition, you would be discriminating. Which would be perfectly legal. Though of questionable morality.

  • DanceDreaming

    Also: If a word has multiple accepted definitions, then if -any- of them applies, the use of the word in the context is correct. Your mention of legal weed brings an example to mind:

    Say I am standing at the top of a set of stairs, and you at the bottom. And you have been smoking something while I have not. If I were to say "I am higher than you" would I be lying?

    Not letting someone get married in your hypothetical house specifically because they are gay, when you allow others who are not gay to do so, fits a very common and widely accepted definition of discrimination. Therefor, it is discrimination. Happily, property laws give you a fair amount of freedom to say who can do what in your house, even if your decisions in that regard are unfair and based on prejudice.

    Saying that it's not discrimination because "It is just what the people who own the establishment want" is a bit ridiculous. Most(all?) cases of discrimination are situations of 'just what [someone] wants'. The people who owned/ran/made decisions about the bus lines just wanted Black people to sit in the back. The people who own certain businesses just don't want to promote women. That's a fairly basic element of discrimination.

    Finally, ye olde separation of church and state. See, that rule is there to keep the churches from forcing things onto the State, not the other way around. The State can and does force things onto churches. For instance, if I started a church today, and said that part of my religion was human sacrifice, the State would get involved. Thank goodness.

    More relevantly, quite some time ago the government came out and made polygamous marriages illegal, despite it being perfectly ok within certain religions. Now, however one may feel about polygamous marriages(personally mixed feelings but not sure they should be illegal), it was within the government's rights to have done so. Regardless of separation of church and State. It also created statutory rape laws that made sex within certain marriages of certain religions specifically illegal(and made such marriages illegal actually).

    The separation of church and State makes it so public/State institutions can't force a particular religion on anyone. Or force anyone to be a part of a religious ceremony. Hence the no praying in public schools. The State isn't allowed to show favoritism toward any particular religion. It -is- allowed to force churches to follow the laws of the land though. Hence the Catholic church being forced to give benefits to paid gay civil employees that are equal to those it offers straight ones in DC. Or for that matter restricting them from not hiring gay employees to begin with.

    Forcing churches to abide by the law, while also forcing the State to abide by the constitution, is not hypocrisy. It's perfectly rational, and fair.

    But again, I very much doubt anyone will attempt to force any church to provide any religious ceremony that is against their religion, via the law. There will be those -within- the religion who will push the religion. There will also likely be rogue priests and ministers who will break faith and perform clandestine ceremonies, especially in more decentralized churches. There likely already have been some. Strange as it may seem, many people who enter the priesthood are deeply moral individuals who care more for the teachings of Christ and the love of their fellow people then the politics of the church.

  • blunt

    @DanceDreaming

    "No one, anywhere, is trying to force churches who don’t want to perform gay marriages via law."

    Yeah let me just go ahead and take your word for it because you know what every person on the planet is currently doing.

    Not.

    See that is why I said things such as "I am sure there are" and "in my opinion" because making definitive unprovable statements like you have done is kind of...I don't know, childish? Kinda like how everyone else has been talking here. Trying to push what they think and believe as fact when it is not. A certain other group of people do this a lot. I believe they gather in sandboxes and engage in pointless bickering...:).

    "As for your house, vis a vis discrimination, as has been explained to you, treating people differently based on the group they are from -is- discrimination."

    Not if it's in my house or the church it is not. You see the my house example, something no one here seems to be able to grasp is...the church is the house and the people who own it decide what goes on in there.

    "You can redefine the word all you like"

    I didn't redefine anything. That is one of the many real definitions of the word. There is not one ultimate definition for discrimination. And the definition I stated does cover discrimination in the term (kit-kat and the dictionary) used it. It just makes me right when I say it is not discriminatory when it comes to someone's home, or land, or establishment and that is what's got so many here upset. So nice try I guess?

    "But even by your definition, treating someone differently based on a group classification actually -is- unfair. So… even by your more loose definition, you would be discriminating."

    First of all it is not "my" definition. I didn't create it I just used it. Secondly it is not unfair because as I already stated, no one has the civil or moral right to enter my home (or the church) and do what they please. Since no one automatically has this right then it is not unfair if they are not let in or say not allowed to be married in my home (or the church).

    So once again. Not unfair=not discrimination.

    "Also: If a word has multiple accepted definitions, then if -any- of them applies, the use of the word in the context is correct"

    Which is why I said to kit-kat we could get into another pointless debate over the definitions of the word and which applies or we can agree to disagree, which is why unless kit-kat is planning on coming back to debate that, I believe that is what we are doing and what you and I are gonna do unless you just wanna keep saying in so many words I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO (sandbox....O_o?)

    "You mention of legal weed"

    When did I say anything about legal weed? But to answer your question about something I didn't bring up it goes hand in hand with what I said about the different definitions of discrimination. The word high was used as a definition for being physically higher than someone like you on the stairs long before the term high was used as slang for people under the influence of drugs. So one would be right in claiming their mind is in more of an altered state while the other would be right in claiming they are physically higher but the meaning of their situations would be different, which is why there is more than one meaning, which is why only one meaning applies for each situation. So in the same fashion, gays not being allowed to be married in a church would not be victims of discrimination according to the meaning you are using because the people who own it are under no moral or legal stipulation to allow it, acording to the meaning I am using. In the situation of a home or the church, the meaning I am using is the only one that applies given the stipulations of the situation I.E. I own the home so I decide what is fair inside of it. At the same time gays not being allowed to be married in a courthouse would be victims of discrimination because the courts are owned by the government, which is owned by all people and a lot of those people happen to be gay.

    So we are both right and both wrong depending on the situation. Agree to disagree...like I said...?

    "Not letting someone get married in your hypothetical house specifically because they are gay, when you allow others who are not gay to do so, fits a very common and widely accepted definition of discrimination."

    The acceptance holds no baring over the definitions. Like I said gay also means happy but it is more accepted as a term for homosexuality but both are still correct given the situation and stipulations.

    "Saying that it’s not discrimination because “It is just what the people who own the establishment want” is a bit ridiculous"

    According to you, but anyway that is not all I said. The racial and gender based examples don't fit because those are government (state) organizations and don't fall under the same category as a comparison to someone's home, which is why the church is separate from the state.

    "Finally, ye olde separation of church and state. See, that rule is there to keep the churches from forcing things onto the State, not the other way around. The State can and does force things onto churches. For instance, if I started a church today, and said that part of my religion was human sacrifice, the State would get involved. Thank goodness"

    True enough about the human sacrifice, but none of the churches we have been talking about do that (at least not anymore). They all abide by the laws of the land yet are exempt from others (taxes for one example) because they are separate from the state.

    You can't hold sacrifices in your house or make illegal drugs but everything that you are within legal grounds of doing is up to you and no one has the civil or moral right to do it in your house if you don't want them to. So since no one has the right it is not unfair if they are not allowed. It is not discriminatory for Catholics to not allow Muslims to worship in their church with Muslim rituals and vice versa just as it is not discriminatory for Catholic churches to not allow weddings performed with Muslim traditions if they so choose. So the separation of church and state, which grants people the freedom to practice their religion as long as it is within legal grounds still stands. The government can not force churches to marry gays because it is against their religion and would go against the separation of church and state and the constitution, which allows the free practice of religion within legal parameters.

    Polygamous marriages, which were accepted a long time ago in the churches that I am referring to are kind of irrelevant. People can't get multiple marriage licences but anyone can be married to more than one person (including gays, just not in churches) if they so choose. The licence would be illegal, not the marriage. This is true for marriages of young people to older people as well. Sex with a minor is illegal and a marriage licence will not be given, however people can marry whomever they want if they get a priest. This has been the case before and after marriage licences were created. But still, these are some of the talking points I have heard and seen used in advocation for forcing the church to marry gays, which is hypocritical in my view when other church actions are opposed using the separation of church and state as a basis and for some reason I have to keep repeating this, but it is all I said.

    I never said that the government can't stop illegal actions such as sacrifice or statutory rape from occurring in churches (Yes I am well aware that I stated above that no one has the right to tell anyone what to do in their own home but that is obviously barring any illegal actions, which I am sure anyone save a nit-picking jackass can discern). I said that it is hypocritical for people to use the separation of state as a basis for protest against church actions and at the same time try and use the government to force churches to go against their religion. That is hypocritical, and in my view there is no way around that hypocrisy. If you disagree then oh well.

    "Forcing churches to abide by the law, while also forcing the State to abide by the constitution, is not hypocrisy. It’s perfectly rational, and fair"

    Forcing churches to abide by the law is fair. I never denied that. Priests and bishops or whatever can't go on a mass murdering spree behind their walls and claim they are exempt from the law because of the separation.

    What I said is, forcing those same priests to perform a ritual that is against their religion is hypocritical and that there are those who have tried and are still advocating for that to be done.

    So for hopefully the last time unless someone else wants to come out of the shadows and try and force their views of discrimination on me, we can agree to disagree.

    Because I mean honestly, all this sand is starting to itch.

  • home

    @noodlez
    If marriage is "not a civil right" then why are heterosexual couples allowed to marry? And if doesn't effect you then why are you so persistent on not allowing it to happen? I'm personally just curious at your view on it. (Don't use all caps it makes you sound mean and like you are yelling. No one likes to be yelled at. It's not necessary.)

...