Christianity And Gay Marriage

[Bartmanhomer]

Do you think Christianity will accept gay marriage now it's legal in the United States?

[anunitu]

Accept,perhaps not,but law is a bit more than belief...

[faye_cat]

Christianity, or Christians? There is a huge difference between the terminology...

[B. de Corbin]

There is also a massive difference between what one Christian does and what another does.

Many Christians have long accepted gay marriage. There are Christians who are IN gay marriages.

[thalassa]

There is also a massive difference between what one Christian does and what another does.

Many Christians have long accepted gay marriage. There are Christians who are IN gay marriages.


Unlikely, but if I were ever to go back to being Christian, I would go back to the church of my childhood:

The UCC puts trying to be like Christ back into being Christian...
(http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-united-church-of-christ)

[DragonsFriend]

There are some Christian churches that have been performing same gender marriages for a long time.
Having said that I doubt that the "conservative" Christian churches will perform same gender marriages any time soon.
Either way it doesn't matter. They are finally legal and acknowledged by the state just like any other marriage.
I have performed same gender marriages and handfastings as well as multiple couple handfastings. Where love is involved the only constraints should be mental capacity and age. Age limits are one of the variables that have no hard and fast rule that can be applied across the board. The state says that if one is below the age of 18 years that you must have permission and below the age of 16 you must get court approval. Those guidelines are fair in most situations when IQs are within the "normal" range but I have known a 14 year old girl who was more prepared for marriage than the adult she was dating. They did eventually get married when she turned 18. She is in total control of their relationship. (that bothers me just a bit as I see marriages as a partnership) At the same time I am the dominant in my marriage but in all matters other than religious my wife chooses to be submissive. when we enter circle she becomes the goddess and I become the god. We are partners of equal importance in circle. There are places where TPE has no place.

[monsno_leedra]

That one is iffy I think. I actually read an interesting piece recently that legally may support Christian's and the anti-gay marriage aspect. Basically the premise was that the only federal statute that defined marriage was DOMA. Since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and found aspects to be illegal there now is no Federal statute supporting or defining marriage now. As such it undid the aspect of DOMA that took control from the States regarding defining marriage. The Supreme Court can not create or pass laws it can only define whether they are constitutional the House and Senate are the only federal agencies that can create laws and no such revamped law has been created or passed. So by legal definition it is back in the hands of each state to determine what the laws pertaining to same gender marriage, or any marriage for that matter shall be.

So all the celebrations may actually be premature as no new law was written by the Legislature to make it federally recognized. The SCOTUS ruling simply stated and determined that the existing federal law was unconstitutional and thus that aspect removed.

[MaskedOne]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't work the way they think it does but reading a SCOTUS decision ranks right up there with closely examining the tax code on the list of things I'm happier not doing tonight.

[monsno_leedra]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't work the way they think it does but reading a SCOTUS decision ranks right up there with closely examining the tax code on the list of things I'm happier not doing tonight.

Oh I agree it's like reading a booklet of instructions. Yet the constitutional fact remains SCOTUS can not make or create a law that is reserved to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President through executive orders. No such law was passed creating a federal level law which dictates how the states have to recognize marriages and those specific aspects of DOMA were found to be unconstitutional and therefor can not legally be the law of the land.

[DragonsFriend]

The supreme court ruling was that the RIGHT to marry extends to same gender couples. As a right, the states have no say in the matter.

[monsno_leedra]

The supreme court ruling was that the RIGHT to marry extends to same gender couples. As a right, the states have no say in the matter.

NO the SCOTUS ruling was that the wording of marriage being between a man and a woman was unconstitutional and denying the rights of same sex couples. By ruling it unconstitutional there is now no reading as to what makes a marriage couple in a federal statue. So it is left legally by the constitution to the states to decide. Until the law is voted upon by the House and the Senate to place a definition of the marital parties it is stripped from what is left of the DOMA law. As I stated SCOTUS can not pass or modify laws only determine if they are constitutional it is the Senate and House that create and pass laws.

[MaskedOne]

NO the SCOTUS ruling was that the wording of marriage being between a man and a woman was unconstitutional and denying the rights of same sex couples. By ruling it unconstitutional there is now no reading as to what makes a marriage couple in a federal statue. So it is left legally by the constitution to the states to decide. Until the law is voted upon by the House and the Senate to place a definition of the marital parties it is stripped from what is left of the DOMA law. As I stated SCOTUS can not pass or modify laws only determine if they are constitutional it is the Senate and House that create and pass laws.

You're aware that the decision against DOMA and the decision striking down state bans are different decisions right? You're treating them as the same and they aren't. The latter was built off a prior decision dealing with what certain clauses of the Constitution protect and the position that state bans violate rights protected by the 14th.

[monsno_leedra]

Yep aware of that but it doesn't change the fact SCOTUS is not able to write or create laws so any law or aspect of a law that is found to be unconstitutional is voided out along with any restrictions / limitations it had upon states rights and their ability to specify portions of laws not defined by federal statue. SCOTUS specifically hit the man and woman definition as being unconstitutional and restricting of individual rights. So as a law it is null and voided and can only be recreated by action in the House and Senate to modify and vote a new law to replace the voided aspect. Until that is done there is no federal statue defining what marriage is that is passed as a law of the land. With no such federal statue defining it the states are entitled to define it for themselves.

[MaskedOne]

Oh hells, that was easier to find than I expected.

The really simplistic description of what the Court did is they went to a line in the 14th that I forgot about

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Then went to state bans on same sex marriage and said, "you aren't providing equal protection under the law. Stop. Right Now!"

No creation of new law necessary.

Now one might argue that this is an expansive use of that line but Congress is guilty of far worse and don't get me started on states so everyone can live with it.

[monsno_leedra]

Sorry but yes there is for definition of marriage is defined under the individual state since there is no federal authority defining it. It's one of the reason this current issue in Kentucky is being watched for the idea that marriage and recognition of marriage is up to the state right now. So the Kentucky issue is that no marriage certificates were being issued. DOMA being found unconstitutional has left it open as to what marriage is and actually to who it is applicable to.

Can't even say legally a person is being denied a right for there is no federally defining statue of what marriage is. Until there is a federal law that the state law is in opposition to its iffy.

[Munin-Hugin]

Sorry but yes there is for definition of marriage is defined under the individual state since there is no federal authority defining it. It's one of the reason this current issue in Kentucky is being watched for the idea that marriage and recognition of marriage is up to the state right now. So the Kentucky issue is that no marriage certificates were being issued. DOMA being found unconstitutional has left it open as to what marriage is and actually to who it is applicable to.

Can't even say legally a person is being denied a right for there is no federally defining statue of what marriage is. Until there is a federal law that the state law is in opposition to its iffy.

C'mon, I'm sure that marriage is defined it some parts of Kentucky as between a man and a woman, a man and a goat, a woman and three hogs, a boy and his sister ... etc etc

[monsno_leedra]

C'mon, I'm sure that marriage is defined it some parts of Kentucky as between a man and a woman, a man and a goat, a woman and three hogs, a boy and his sister ... etc etc

Truthfully I do not know though I know they fall into the same general joke of can a husband and wife still be brother and sister..

[anunitu]

If you consider as Mask said it is a civil rights issue,and denying rights to ANYONE is not allowed....In my mind everything else is just to mess with people and things..

[monsno_leedra]

If you consider as Mask said it is a civil rights issue,and denying rights to ANYONE is not allowed....In my mind everything else is just to mess with people and things..

That's where you start getting back into the argument that marriage is not defined federally as a civil right. There is no stature on a federal level other than DOMA that defined marriage as a civil right. I realize it's stretching things but civil rights get lumped in but when defended it's based upon existing federal statues that define the civil right that is being abused or denied. DOMA existed when the state aspect was ruled in civil rights abuse and violation, once DOMA was found unconstitutional pertaining to defining marriage there was no federal statue to define civil abuse regarding marriage.

[anunitu]

If you wish gay marriage to go away...cause of legal wrangling,it means a LOT of legal time and money just to be able to say you tried to stop something that will not go away.

Waste of money and time and hardly civil if we so not acknowledge rights for everyone period.

[MaskedOne]

Sorry but yes there is for definition of marriage is defined under the individual state since there is no federal authority defining it. It's one of the reason this current issue in Kentucky is being watched for the idea that marriage and recognition of marriage is up to the state right now. So the Kentucky issue is that no marriage certificates were being issued. DOMA being found unconstitutional has left it open as to what marriage is and actually to who it is applicable to.

Can't even say legally a person is being denied a right for there is no federally defining statue of what marriage is. Until there is a federal law that the state law is in opposition to its iffy.

It doesn't have to be federally defined for that clause to apply. The line serves a very succinct purpose, states cannot legally create second class citizens. Now if a state says, hey we're getting out of the marriage business then they might get around it but they would need to stop providing marriage licenses to everyone. If they intend to provide licenses then they don't get to designate groups as inelligible without very good reason without risking a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. You're arguing as if the 14th only compels states to honor federally protected rights (which, honestly is what I thought it did a few hours ago) but it also compels the states to design and enforce laws that protect all their citizens equally. Same-Sex bans were determined to be a violation of that directive and struck down.

[monsno_leedra]

If you wish gay marriage to go away...cause of legal wrangling,it means a LOT of legal time and money just to be able to say you tried to stop something that will not go away.

Waste of money and time and hardly civil if we so not acknowledge rights for everyone period.

Myself I honestly have no support for nor hatred of same sex marriage. Figure everyone deserves the right to be screwed over in an unhappy relationship and the legal hurdles that come with divorce, etc. I say no support for simply because it is not an issue I care about.

Yet legally that is how our laws work and can be challenged. So SCOTUS supported the position but the demonstrators didn't follow up to make or push for federal laws to make it the law of the land. In the end who is at fought? Personally I see those who pushed and challenged but really don't appear to have paid attention to what they were striving for and left the field with the clock still running.

[thalassa]

Sorry but yes there is for definition of marriage is defined under the individual state since there is no federal authority defining it. It's one of the reason this current issue in Kentucky is being watched for the idea that marriage and recognition of marriage is up to the state right now. So the Kentucky issue is that no marriage certificates were being issued. DOMA being found unconstitutional has left it open as to what marriage is and actually to who it is applicable to.

Can't even say legally a person is being denied a right for there is no federally defining statue of what marriage is. Until there is a federal law that the state law is in opposition to its iffy.


No, the problem is that if I was married in Hawaii and I move to Georgia, that they have to recognize my marriage, gay or straight, and if they didn't they were denying my equal protection under the law...IE, the amendment that told the Dred Scott case to eff itself.

<----knows someone that had a hand in writing the VA federal court decision...has discussed this so much with him...its actually a banned conversation topic--by him, not me!

[monsno_leedra]

It doesn't have to be federally defined for that clause to apply. The line serves a very succinct purpose, states cannot legally create second class citizens. Now if a state says, hey we're getting out of the marriage business then they might get around it but they would need to stop providing marriage licenses to everyone. If they intend to provide licenses then they don't get to designate groups as inelligible without very good reason without risking a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. You're arguing as if the 14th only compels states to honor federally protected rights (which, honestly is what I thought it did a few hours ago) but it also compels the states to design and enforce laws that protect all their citizens equally. Same-Sex bans were determined to be a violation of that directive and struck down.

But the civil rights issues all have a federal statue that they call upon as being violated specifically. Doesn't matter if it is right to vote, right to bear arms, right to education, right to equality based upon gender or sex under right to work, etc. They all have a federal law they can identify as being violated. While DOMA existed there was a federal statue that was being violated. Once that statue was found to be unconstitutional then there really is no federal statue to be violated regarding marriage. In that regard same as the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) statue that guided the military, it wasn't until it was changed legally that the military and government could cite civil rights violations and such. Civil rights were violated under Article 14 only after something was defined at the federal level that could be legally supported as being violated.

[Medusa]

Do you think Christianity will accept gay marriage now it's legal in the United States?

Who cares? It's the law. They don't live in a Christian nation. They live in a democratic nation. Suck it up Christians.

[MaskedOne]

But the civil rights issues all have a federal statue that they call upon as being violated specifically. Doesn't matter if it is right to vote, right to bear arms, right to education, right to equality based upon gender or sex under right to work, etc. They all have a federal law they can identify as being violated. While DOMA existed there was a federal statue that was being violated. Once that statue was found to be unconstitutional then there really is no federal statue to be violated regarding marriage. In that regard same as the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) statue that guided the military, it wasn't until it was changed legally that the military and government could cite civil rights violations and such. Civil rights were violated under Article 14 only after something was defined at the federal level that could be legally supported as being violated.

Most civil rights issues can be neatly covered by various Constitutional Amendments or other Federal Laws and then shoved down the throats of unwilling states via the 14th. All told I prefer such a method because it's more clearly defined and predictable. The 14th however can apparently (I'm still getting used to this line) be used in other ways and the Court decided to apply the equal protection requirement instead of the "thou shalt not attempt to deprive US citizens of rights granted to them by the United States" requirement.

[monsno_leedra]

Most civil rights issues can be neatly covered by various Constitutional Amendments or other Federal Laws and then shoved down the throats of unwilling states via the 14th. All told I prefer such a method because it's more clearly defined and predictable. The 14th however can apparently (I'm still getting used to this line) be used in other ways and the Court decided to apply the equal protection requirement instead of the "thou shalt not attempt to deprive US citizens of rights granted to them by the United States" requirement.

Oh I don't disagree I just find the argument being used to be interesting. Figure if I can understand the method and perhaps madness behind the reasoning then it's easier to follow. A lot though will always depend upon the make up of SCOTUS as to how a law is understood or used. SCOTUS has reversed or changed other rulings applied or arrived at by earlier SCOTUS hearings so its not unheard of.

[MaskedOne]

Oh I don't disagree I just find the argument being used to be interesting. Figure if I can understand the method and perhaps madness behind the reasoning then it's easier to follow. A lot though will always depend upon the make up of SCOTUS as to how a law is understood or used. SCOTUS has reversed or changed other rulings applied or arrived at by earlier SCOTUS hearings so its not unheard of.

I'll grant that it's an interesting argument and if the 14th had been phrased a little differently, I'd potentially find it legally compelling. As is, I think using Equal Protection to protect same sex marriage will likely have strange side effects in coming years but all sorts of things that courts do have strange side effects. I don't expect these to be much more strange than several other decisions.

[DragonsFriend]

The ninth amendment assures that the rights not enumerated in the bill of rights will be equally protected as those that are.
In practice, marriage is a right. Since it is a right it is protected by the bill of rights by the 9th amendment.

[habbalah]

Myself I honestly have no support for nor hatred of same sex marriage. Figure everyone deserves the right to be screwed over in an unhappy relationship and the legal hurdles that come with divorce, etc. I say no support for simply because it is not an issue I care about.

Yet legally that is how our laws work and can be challenged. So SCOTUS supported the position but the demonstrators didn't follow up to make or push for federal laws to make it the law of the land. In the end who is at fought? Personally I see those who pushed and challenged but really don't appear to have paid attention to what they were striving for and left the field with the clock still running.

I don't see the problem from making the law of the land be "two consenting adults" rather than "one consenting man and one consenting woman". We were striving for the right to marry who we loved, but because of DOMA, it had to be fought state to state. Not until then could we push for federal law.

[MaskedOne]

I don't see the problem from making the law of the land be "two consenting adults" rather than "one consenting man and one consenting woman". We were striving for the right to marry who we loved, but because of DOMA, it had to be fought state to state. Not until then could we push for federal law.

The perceived (I just made the argument for why this worked, I'm not repeating it) issue was in methodology. The Court is empowered to do certain things and not others. It should not be allowed to overstep that authority even if we agree with what it is trying to do. Fortunately, killing the same sex bans appears to be within the legitimate authority of the Court due to the phrasing of the 14th Amendment.

[CrazyAfterlife]

Well, regardless of if they like it or not, law is law.

[Clive]

I think people altogether, regardless of religion, are becoming more and more accepting. Rome wasn't built in a day and not everyone will be accepting at first, but people sure are being tolerant, at least in that they aren't sending bombs to the Capitol Building because they're dissatisfied with the decision. A lot of people were upset when interracial marriage was made legal, too, but nowadays very few people who aren't living with an old-fashioned mindset give a damn about that. In a few decades it will be the same with same-sex marriage.

That said, I was actually displeased with SCOTUS's decision myself. I am hardly a genius when it comes to politics or martial law, but I'm of the mind that it shouldn't be a governmental decision in the first place. We didn't need their "permission," nor should anyone be allowed to say "Two consenting adults of the same sex cannot marry, because Jesus (or whatever)." I suppose it was in a way a necessary step in the right direction, but I do tend to be very leery of the Feds, especially when they start sticking their hands where they don't belong.

[DragonsFriend]

The supreme court ruling was that the marriage laws prohibiting same gender marriage were unconstitutional.
The ruling simply stated tells the states they have no power to regulate the gender of "acceptable" candidates for marriage.
There is no "law" regarding the gender of the couples. There are still unlawful acts (unconstitutional laws) that limit marriage to just two people.
I believe those laws will fall with time as well.