See, you don't understand how the Episcopal Church operates. The Presiding Bishop can not, to a large degree, dictate at the parish level, only the Diocesan Bishop can do that and our Bishop (John Howard) has no intention of allowing same sex blessings in the Diocese. The liberals in the Diocese aren't too happy about this but that is the way things work. Until this convention parishes could reject priests and lay ministers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.
I don't believe that same sex marriage across the nation is inevitable, I believe that it is probably but that is not the same thing as being inevitable. Marriage has always been a state's rights issue and I don't think that the SCOTUS will change that anytime soon.
I am far from deluded and I don't believe many social changes be inevitable because what is a social fad today can easily be a forgotten memory tomorrow. That homosexuals should not be discriminated against in housing and employment and all other social rights I support. However, I don't see marriage as a right.
Here is a thought, why don't the movers and shakers of the gay community strive to have civil unions made the law of the land and leave marriage to religion. It would work like this, a marriage via a church would be a civil union (from a legal stand point) but a civil union would not be the same a marriage (from a religious stand point). They both would have basically the same legal standing.
Last edited by FlaGator; 08-07-2012 at 02:35 PM.
I will say it again: The only bigots I see in this whole thing are he people screaming that just because someone believes in traditional marriage they are discriminating.
This is just another way for you gays to shove your lifestyle down our throats. Well, I will say most gays. I know quite a few gays that agree with the 1st amendment and find nothing wrong with what Mr. Cathy said. It is the few that are cry baby boo hoo's about it that ruin it for the rest.
One thing we found out is just what a hate filled, bigoted, religion hating crybaby with no facts to back up his lame assed arguments Novaheart really is.
Couples in both sets are bound to each other by the law of the land and have the same rights and are under the same laws. Marriage becomes solely a religious ceremony that happens to be recognized as act that defines a civil union. If a particular religion wants to marry same sex couple then they can do so. Christians that believe they cannot morally join same sex couple in matrimony will not be legally obligated to.
Admittedly this is just a tautological difference but it puts and end to the war between both parties because each get what it wants. Christians get to keep their rite untainted and same sex marriage proponents get the equality they say they want with heterosexuals. In fact many heterosexual couples with go the civil union route instead of the religious one.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|