Cynical Nation

I suppose that a state in New England should be the first to do this in the legislature isn't such a surprise since they really do have that whole leave me the hell along thing going.

I heard a woman from some Protect Marriage from Slavering Singletons Bent on Its Destruction (it might not have been called that) talking about it on a call in message to The Takeaway and her thing seemed to be that not only isn't marriage a right, hello, treating different people differently is okay. What don't people get about that?

I found it a less than convincing argument.

I love the phrase "alledged conservative." It seems to me that a religious conservative would have a different view than a libertarian conservative regarding gay rights. Is one, however, a real conservative while the other "alledged"?

....her thing seemed to be that not only isn't marriage a right, hello, treating different people differently is okay. What don't people get about that?" (K)


Treating people differently IS very much OK in America, K!

In America, people are treated differently ALL the time. Convicted felons and people with previous mental disabilities can’t get a license to own firearms, while the rest of us can.

People who score less well on a variety of, admittedly somewhat arbitrary, standardized exams are treated very differently – denied entry into Colleges, denied entry into Civil Service employment that is dependent upon such exams.

Favored or “protected groups” are routinely given preferences based on nothing other than their ethnicity and in some cases, gender.

Like gun right restrictions and standardized test taking, here, religions are treating people differently over the actions they choose to engage in.

The ONLY controversy over “gay marriage” involves EXACTLY the point you bring up, with regard to Churches and Synagogues.

There are, believe it or not, some very sick, anti-religious people in the U.S. These folks want to challenge Churches in court, demanding that they NOT “discriminate” against homosexuals by refusing to marrying gays in Churches and Synagogues.

Of course, that issue DOES NOT deserve its day in court. It clearly violates the 1st Amendment that guarantees the “free exercise of religion” – that is established religions have a Constitutional Right to preach what they want and to accept whom they want into its congregations.

Even a court challenge would be a direct assault on the 1st Amendment that SHOULD be met with extreme violence by even the mildest of freedom-loving Americans. Other than the foundation of ALL other Liberties (freedoms), property rights, there’s nothing more sacrosanct than the severe limitations that the Bill of Rights put on government action.

We’ve seen continual assaults on the 2nd Amendment, we don’t need, nor want an assault on the 1st Amendment.

Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage

"Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights." (Vince)


California's Proposition 8 was NOT about "equal rights."

Before Proposition 8, California's same-sex couples DID indeed have equal rights. State civil union laws had conferred the same rights that California bestows on heterosexual married couples - except the term "married."

The ONLY controversy over the term "marriage" is that it COULD be used by people who hate America's freedoms, rooted in individual liberties and revile our Constitution to use it to try and get a sympathetic court to mandate that Chrches and Synagogues marry gays, against their religious teachings and beliefs.

One thing that I'm sure we can ALL agree on is that such a ruling would effectively invalidate/void the 1st Amendment....once its PRIMARY protections for religion are gone, its SECONDARY protections, the ones protecting offensive, controversial even hate-filled speech, go with it.

THAT'S the controversy and that's what would almost certainly roil the American people (well, at least the 90+% of us who are enamored of our Constitution and the freedom and inequities those freedoms inevitably bring about) to a vigorous, potentially violent boil.

>...try and get a sympathetic court to mandate that Chrches and Synagogues marry gays, against their religious teachings and beliefs.

They may try, but I doubt such an effort would succeed, and I'd certainly oppose it, as, I think, would most Americans.

I just can't really see it as a likely outcome. I know there are instances now in which churches refuse to marry certain heterosexuals for religious reasons, so I'd expect them to have the same latitude in this case.

I'd like to hope not Barry, although that's exactky what was done (legal challenges to Churches) in Europe, where "exclusion" and "offending protected groups" takes precedence over freedom of speech and religion, BUT why else fight for "Marriage" IF Civil Unions will afford you all the rights and privileges of Marriage?

Most organized religions preach that the ACT of homosexuality is a "sin," and an "abomination", not the inclination or orientation, just the ACT.

I guess I can see where some homosexuals might have a problem with that, BUT the 1st Amendment, as written, pretty much guarantees religious organizations the right to practice their religions freely, no matter whom they may offend or exclude.

Absent any such assault on the 1st Amendment, I'd have no problems with the gays being able to call their being joined in a Civil Ceremony "Marriage."

I just don't want to see government seeking to impose its will on ANY established religion and trample the 1st Amendment in the process.

Nice try, JMK. While anyone can clearly see that it is right wingers like you trying to force THEIR religion down the throats of everyone, you attempt to make it seem as though homos are trying to force CHURCHES to marry them. Oh no, poor innocent little religion is being persecuted again!

Why don't you move to Vatican City you dumb bastard, then you could have both a dictatorship and a theocracy at the same time!

"Nice try, JMK. While anyone can clearly see that it is right wingers like you trying to force THEIR religion down the throats of everyone, you attempt to make it seem as though homos are trying to force CHURCHES to marry them...." (Barely Hanging)


As Rick James on the Chappelle Show said, "That cocaine's one hell of a drug!"

Our 1st Amendment PRIMARILY exists to protect religious freedom - that IS , organized and accepted religions being free FROM government intervention.

Without those religious protections, the entire underpinning of the 1st Amendment is lost, along with freedom of speech.

In Europe their are goofballs who've actively sought to get organized religions prosecuted for "hate crimes" for preaching that "homosexuality is sinful" and indeed to force Churches and Synagogues to Marry homosexuals.

That's ALLOWED in Europe, where the people are SUPPOSED to be servants of the government, it's NOT OK here, where government is SUPPOSED to be subservient to the people and primarily the CONSTITUTION.