# Religions ongoing war on the left



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

Here we go again.  This rightwing nut legislator want's ALL marriages performed and signed off by religious clerics.  


http://news.yahoo.com/video/bill-only-allow-religious-leaders-154008116.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

So.... how close to a Theocracy do they want?   never mind.

What happens to the millions and millions of couples who were married by judges?  Would their marriages be voided?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

Speaking of crazy....   how about that Texas  (Texas again) preacher who has threatened to set himself on fire if SCOTUS passes Gay Marriage rights..  I'll bring the marshmallows.. 

http://www.newnownext.com/texas-pre...f-marriage-equality-comes-to-america/06/2015/


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

There must be something in the air in that state.  "Loco weed" maybe?  We need to rescue Jackie22.


----------



## oakapple (Jun 23, 2015)

Gay marriage is legal here, from the State's point of view, but not allowed by the Church.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

oakapple said:


> Gay marriage is legal here, from the State's point of view, but not allowed by the Church.



And that's fine... The Church has a right to not allow Gay marriage.. But they also do not want Gays to be able to be married by the State... ie.. No civil ceremonies... and that is over stepping their bounds IMO..  That is dictating policy to the State and more than steps all over the Constitution.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And that's fine... The Church has a right to not allow Gay marriage.. But they also do not want Gays to be able to be married by the State... ie.. No civil ceremonies... and that is over stepping their bounds IMO..  That is dictating policy to the State and more than steps all over the Constitution.



Yeah!  Where's our Constitution Scholar, BobF?


----------



## oakapple (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And that's fine... The Church has a right to not allow Gay marriage.. But they also do not want Gays to be able to be married by the State... ie.. No civil ceremonies... and that is over stepping their bounds IMO..  That is dictating policy to the State and more than steps all over the Constitution.


A religious group cannot dictate to the State though, even if it tries, can it?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

oakapple said:


> A religious group cannot dictate to the State though, even if it tries, can it?



No... not according to the US constitution, but that has never stopped them from trying their darnedest..  Seems only PARTS of our constitution need to be followed to the letter.... others... well.. not so much.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

Don't even get me STARTED on the infestation of ultra conservative bible pounding maniacs trying to take over this country's government.  Anyone remember 'separation of church and state' from that little document we all like to imagine that we base our lives upon?!  I always ask these self-righteous purveyors of unbridled hatred how they can claim to follow a god who allegedly loves EVERYBODY, while they are doing absolutely everything they can to encourage vicious legislation against LGBT's, immigrants, blacks and the chronically ill.

Read the bible much, guys?  I have, and I really kinda liked it.  Nothing in there about persecuting anyone who doesn't see things your way, though.  Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are the overarching reason I am an Atheist!


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 23, 2015)

> With a decision on same-sex marriage from the U.S. Supreme Court expected before the end of the month, *a lawmaker in Michigan *is proposing a bill that would require all marriages in the state be performed and signed by a religious leader.



Jim, based on your link, the evidence is very thin that religion is waging an ongoing war on the left. Can you name the churches/denominations/religions that have made representations in support of a bill to only allow marriages performed by a religious leader?

Over here a lot of Christian ministers are saying the opposite - that all marriages should be civil marriages to be legal and people may have a second marriage according to their religious beliefs if they so desire.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Jim, based on your link, the evidence is very thin that religion is waging an ongoing war on the left. Can you name the churches/denominations/religions that have made representations in support of a bill to only allow marriages performed by a religious leader?
> 
> Over here a lot of Christian ministers are saying the opposite - that all marriages should be civil marriages to be legal and people may have a second marriage according to their religious beliefs if they so desire.


Once again geography seems to be the missing bridge to understanding.  If you are asking me to do a full scale search to show you the evidence of my claim, I choose not to.  You, on the other hand, have every right to suggest I am unable to support my charge.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Dame Warrigal said:
> 
> 
> > Jim, based on your link, the evidence is very thin that religion is waging an ongoing war on the left. Can you name the churches/denominations/religions that have made representations in support of a bill to only allow marriages performed by a religious leader?
> ...


Which we do, Jim.


----------



## Glinda (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> Don't even get me STARTED on the infestation of ultra conservative bible pounding maniacs trying to take over this country's government.  Anyone remember 'separation of church and state' from that little document we all like to imagine that we base our lives upon?!  I always ask these self-righteous purveyors of unbridled hatred how they can claim to follow a god who allegedly loves EVERYBODY, while they are doing absolutely everything they can to encourage vicious legislation against *LGBT's, immigrants, blacks and the chronically ill*.
> 
> Read the bible much, guys?  I have, and I really kinda liked it.  Nothing in there about persecuting anyone who doesn't see things your way, though.  Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are the overarching reason I am an Atheist!



Great post, Truespock, except you left out a major group of people these idiots encourage vicious legislation against - a major group that is, in fact, the majority - WOMEN!


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Great post, Truespock, except you left out a major group of people these idiots encourage vicious legislation against - a major group that is, in fact, the majority - WOMEN!


DAMMIT!  I just KNEW I was leaving somebody important out.

By the way, Glinda, I have a major crush on you from your profile picture, but I let Shalimar distract me when I was here three months ago.  Wanna hang out?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

Oh dear GAWD......  not again...


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> DAMMIT!  I just KNEW I was leaving somebody important out.
> 
> By the way, Glinda, I have a major crush on you from your profile picture, but I let Shalimar distract me when I was here three months ago.  Wanna hang out?



Get in the long line of senior members Spok man.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

Yeah.... like a bunch of dogs chasing a car... with no idea what to do if they catch one...  pitiful..


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yeah.... like a bunch of dogs chasing a car... with no idea what to do if they catch one...  pitiful..



Hahahahahahaha......my kind gal....


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Hahahahahahaha......my kind gal....




I take that back... they probably would just pee on the wheels..


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh dear GAWD......  not again...


Nothing is set in stone as of yet, QS.  You have, in point of fact, seriously piqued my interest as well.  There is enough of me to go around.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Get in the long line of senior members Spok man.


Actually, Jim, I am accustomed to moving to the front of any line and I expect to become a senior member before you quite know what hit you because, you see, I really don't have anything better to do!


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> Nothing is set in stone as of yet, QS.  You have, in point of fact, seriously piqued my interest as well.  There is enough of me to go around.



Me?!    Oh no....   I'm definitely NOT one of the girls..  You wouldn't be aka Merlin would you?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

*smile*   They start early too....


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yeah.... like a bunch of dogs chasing a car... with no idea what to do if they catch one...  pitiful..


I know what to do and you'd better believe it!  Shall we let the Lady speak for herself?


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Me?!    Oh no....   I'm definitely NOT one of the girls..


Oh, crap!  THAT'S embarrassing!!  You and your freakin' unisex user name!!!


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> I know what to do and you'd better believe it!



I welcome you Spok, you're are gonna enjoy our little clambake here.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> Oh, crap!  THAT'S embarrassing!!  You and your freakin' unisex user name!!!




:lofl:     Relax... I'm female.. just not one of the girls.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Me?!    Oh no....   I'm definitely NOT one of the girls..  You wouldn't be aka Merlin would you?


No I'm not aka anything.  I use truespock exclusively everywhere I go online.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> No I'm not aka anything.  I use truespock exclusively everywhere I go online.



Ok then... if you say so.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> :lofl:     Relax... I'm female.. just not one of the girls.


JEEZ, woman, you nearly gave me a premature heart attack!  Moving on, now ...:mad-new:


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I welcome you Spok, you're are gonna enjoy our little clambake here.


Thanks, Jim. I have a sneaking hunch you're right.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

Ok Romeo, let get my thread back on subject, K??


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Ok Romeo, let get my thread back on subject, K??


Right!  Okay, then.  As I was saying before SHE walked in, I DEFINITELY believe with all my heart the extremist religious are, indeed, waging a heretofore unmatched war on the left.  While I'm not privy to information on your original premise, it certainly sounds like something they would do.  Only religious marriages legal?!  This level of pomposity can truly ONLY be found among the devout.  What's next, restricting the right to vote to the religious?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> Right!  Okay, then.  As I was saying before SHE walked in, I DEFINITELY believe with all my heart the extremist religious are, indeed, waging a heretofore unmatched war on the left.  While I'm not privy to information on your original premise, it certainly sounds like something they would do.  Only religious marriages legal?!  This level of pomposity can truly ONLY be found among the devout.  What's next, restricting the right to vote to the religious?




What is really funny is that marriage didn't start out to be a religious thing... it was a legal contract...starting when women were married off for a few goats and a cow..   Marriage is STILL a legal contract.   You can be legally married without a religious ceremony.. but you cannot be legally married without obtaining a license from the State.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 23, 2015)

Spock and QS are right on target.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 23, 2015)

truespock said:


> Nothing is set in stone as of yet, QS.  You have, in point of fact, seriously piqued my interest as well.  There is enough of me to go around.



Must be the pon farr exerting itself. Don't worry, it will go away soon and not return for another seven years :grin:


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Dame Warrigal said:
> 
> 
> > Jim, based on your link, the evidence is very thin that religion is waging an ongoing war on the left. Can you name the churches/denominations/religions that have made representations in support of a bill to only allow marriages performed by a religious leader?
> ...



I'll do more than suggest. I'll offer counter evidence to the title of this thread. From Michigan.



> *Episcopal bishop in Michigan backs same-sex marriage*
> 
> Niraj Warikoo, Detroit Free Press     1:05 p.m. EDT March 19, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 23, 2015)

Here in New Mexico, you HAVE TO have a civil license before a clergyman can perform a legal marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract, in the eyes of the state.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Here in New Mexico, you HAVE TO have a civil license before a clergyman can perform a legal marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract, in the eyes of the state.



Yes... it's that way in EVERY state..  You would not be legally married without it..religious ceremony or not.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

Sounds as if the Episcopalians may be the first Christians to really see the light.

Wouldn't Jesus be proud!


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 23, 2015)

What I don't get is that the right seems to act like any law making gay marriage legal will FORCE their clergy to perform gay marriages.  I don't see how that would be the case -- now, clergy do refuse to perform certain marriages (for instance, some refuse to marry couples one of whom has been divorced, etc., or neither of whom is of their faith, or one of whom is another faith, etc.  The right to be married doesn't mean you have the right to have particular clergy marry you.  Church and state . . . .


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 23, 2015)

In OZ the clergy only have authority to marry couples where at least one of them is an adherent of that faith. If they overstep the mark, the marriage could be declared invalid. For example a couple cannot be married by an Anglican priest if both are Buddhists. This is why priests and ministers ask questions about baptism/church attendance. It is not for their own narrow reasons but to make sure that they are able to officiate.

Over and above the legal restrictions the celebrants may have other requirements. A catholic priest would hesitate to marry a couple who declared that they are not open to the possibility of having children because openness to children is integral to the catholic concept of marriage as a sacrament. Other Christian denominations would not have the same objection because they don't see marriage as sacramental.

As people post on Facebook, it's complicated.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 23, 2015)

In Canada, it is up to individual congregations whether or not they feel comfortable marrying gay couples in their church. Even among denominations uncomfortable with gay marriage, the language is, for the most part conciliatory. Of course, in Canuckistan, same sex marriages have been legal for almost a decade, even with a conservative gov't in power for quite some time.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> In Canada, it is up to individual congregations whether or not they feel comfortable marrying gay couples in their church. Even among denominations uncomfortable with gay marriage, the language is, for the most part conciliatory. Of course, in Canuckistan, same sex marriages have been legal for almost a decade, even with a conservative gov't in power for quite some time.


Shalimar, I've been back for two days and you still haven't welcomed me home.  Memory problems, darlin'?


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Welcome back Truespock. Today is the first time I have posted in several days, due to the accidental death of a dear friend.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 24, 2015)

My condolences Shali. 
Sudden or unexpected death can be devastating.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Thank you, DW, it came as an enormous shock, at forty-nine, he was far too young to die. I am grateful he did not suffer.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 24, 2015)

Best wishes to our mermaid...:love_heart:


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Thank you so much, Ralphy.:love_heart:


----------



## Underock1 (Jun 24, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Welcome back Truespock. Today is the first time I have posted in several days, due to the accidental death of a dear friend.



I'm so sorry to hear that,Shali. I just posted to you on another thread, because you made me laugh. Life can really be a bummer sometimes. My sympathies to you.


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

My condolences, Shalimar.  It seems my attempt to tease you was ill-timed.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 24, 2015)

oakapple said:


> Gay marriage is legal here, from the State's point of view, but not allowed by the Church.



I thought it was up to each individual church whether they performed the ceremony or not?


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 24, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Welcome back Truespock. Today is the first time I have posted in several days, due to the accidental death of a dear friend.



My sincere condolences, Shali.  Hugs.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Thanks Annie.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Thanks Underock, I appreciate it your kind words.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Thank you for your condolences, Truespock.


----------

