Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

Apparently it's you having thoughts of performing sexual acts with a minor if that's what you extracted from post!

---

Huh? You're the one who brings up children and it's someone else's fault? Nobody else mentioned children. That was you. Only you. Why did you think that in a discussion that compared people who are straight with people who are gay that the question of children would be anything but a non sequitur (note the spelling)?But if it wasn't a non sequitur, then you must have had some reason for thinking of children when the discussion was about straights and gays.So please explain to us all how a discussion regarding the sex of the participants has something to do with the age of said participants?And let's not be disingenuous and pretend that you were referring to the fact that this started with a 10-year-old boy not saying the pledge.

quote:

---

quote:

---

At any rate, it would behoove you to do some research on what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the rights of children.

---

​

Would it now?

---

Yes, it would.Hint: Does your comment make any sense given the legal history of the courts concerning the rights of children?

quote:

---

There is a reason why I generally avoid conversing with you.

---

Indeed. I keep taking your comments seriously and respond to them as if you really meant to say them.

quote:

---

Your flair for the dramatic and outrageous assertions prevent you from having a decent conversation.

---

You're the one who brings up children and that's somehow my fault for calling you out on it?Let's try an experiment: Throughout this entire thread, don't mention anything about children, animals, polygamy, incest, or any other aspect of sexuality other than the comparison of gays and straights. Let's see if any "outrageous assertions" come along.You're the one who brought it up. If you didn't mean to bring it up, why did you say it?

quote:

---

Let me spell it out for you: I am FOR homosexual rights, Rrhain, as in, PRO homosexual rights.

---

But your posts indicate that you're not being exactly honest in that statement.Let's not play games.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

What I am saying is that the government should never have given the church power to legally marry people in the first place.

---

And this is the crux of your failure.They don't. The church doesn't have the legal power to marry you. That ceremony? The flowers? The candles? The incense? The breaking of the glass? The drinking of the wine? All that fuss and bother?None of it has anything to do with marriage.If you want to get married, you gotta go to the clerk. Now, the government has allowed certain members of the public such as priests, captains of ships, those who go online and pay the right fee, to act on the government's behalf, but it's still the government marrying you and the only reason these people are allowed to sign the paperwork is convenience. People like to have these ceremonies and it's just easier if the person doing it is allowed to sign the paper rather than forcing the couple to come back to the clerk's office to do it all again. But if you're not into the big display, the clerk will be happy to sign it when you're down at the courthouse filing your paperwork.The church does not have the power to legally marry people. Only the government does.

quote:

---

The government should never be able to decide who is married in the eyes of God.

---

This is the second part of your failure.The don't. Marriage has nothing to do with god. That's why atheists can get married.Marriage is a legal contract with the state, not god. Religions have decided to put up a ceremony and bless the couple in "holy matrimony," but none of that makes a couple "married."Only filing the appropriate paperwork with the county clerk will do it.

quote:

---

I just want the two separate the way it was intended.

---

Then clearly, since "marriage" is a civil contract, the only sane thing to do is to keep the entire legal framework that surrounds "marriage" and those religious groups who go into apoplexy over the thought of people with icky bits getting to file joint tax returns can come up with some new name for their religious ceremony.Hey! They already have: "Holy matrimony."So that's settled, then. Everybody already knows what "marriage" means. Nobody is confused when Jane and June say they are "married."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

To them it's like you saying that rapists be allowed to rape whomever they want.

---

So now gay people are equivalent to rapists.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.Hint: It doesn't matter that you were putting it in the mouths of someone else. You don't speak for them and there is a fundamental difference between an act of rape and a loving gay couple that makes the entire argument nonsensical.Is there a reason you immediately jumped to rape?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny.

---

Um, you're forgetting about Lawrence v. Texas which put sexual orientation up there. You cannot discriminate against gay people simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.As Scalia pointed out, Lawrence v. Texas means that same-sex marriage is a constitutional requirement.There is a case working its way in the courts against DOMA. I will be interested to see how Scalia tries to weasel out of his own statement. We know he doesn't like Lawrence v. Texas (or the Constitution, for that matter), but he claims to respect stare decisis so let's see which of his hypocritical methods will be invoked.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx responds to Rahvin:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Immediately present precisely which legal right is being trampled by the government through state recognition of marriage (any marriage, gay or otherwise), or concede that no such right is infringed, and that argument was bullshit.

---

​

The First Amendment of the Constitution, but more specifically the Establishment Clause.

​

By forcing a religion via the government to go against its own governing laws and beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

---

Right, and we certainly learned our lesson after the Loving v. Virginia decision, didn't we. I mean, all those priests were forced to marry interracial couples in complete violation of all their religious dogma. Don't you remember the great riot of '71 when 34 interracial couples stormed a church in Mobile and forced the priest there to marry them in front of the entire white congregation? I mean, the poor man's signature is so shaky on the licenses, you can tell he was scared god was going to strike him dead right there and then.Can you cite a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government started recognizing interracial marriage?Then what makes you think there would be a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government starts recognizing same-sex marriage?There are currently five states which recognize same-sex marriage. Has any church in any of those states been "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the governments there started recognizing same-sex marriage?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

If gay marriage is legalized with the proviso that no church shall be compelled to perform any gay marriage

---

Um, we didn't do this with interracial marriage. Nobody passed laws saying, "But by this, no religious institution will be forced to engage in any practices outside their customs and traditions" when interracial marriage was legalized. The Loving v. Virginia decision makes no mention of it.Why the different treatment for gays? Why would any church anywhere be afraid of anything with regard to their behaviour if the state were to recognize same-sex marriage as required by the Fourteenth Amendment?If there was no threat from interracial marriage, why is everybody apoplectic over same-sex marriage?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

Yep, for things specifically in the Constitution and its adjoinging amemndments.

---

Said the person who seems to think that the Constitution is a laundry list and has completely forgotten that the Constitution specifically and directly states that you have rights that are not enumerated and yet are still protected by the Constitution and cannot be infringed.There is no "right" listed in the Constitution that says you are allowed to sleep in a bed. Do you really think a law could withstand scrutiny that prevented you from sleeping in a bed?According to the Constitution, you don't have a right to breathe. Do you really think the SCOTUS would accept a law that regulated your access to air?

quote:

---

But what Constitutional Amendment gives ANYONE the right to marry in the first place?

---

The Ninth.You have read the Constitution, haven't you?The SCOTUS recognized this right in the Loving v. Virginia case.For the umpteenth time: Do you think that case was wrongly decided?

quote:

---

Surely the Supreme Court would have shot it down if it was agreed upon that marriage is a basic Constitutional right.

---

It did. That's why the Loving v. Virginia case was unanimously decided as it was: Marriage is a fundamental right.

quote:

---

In fact, it is the opposite, as the federal DOMA law prevents homosexual marriage being federally recognized, regardless of the state.

---

Um, you do realize that the SCOTUS cannot strike down a law all on its own, yes? The only way it can do so is for a case to be brought before it where the litigants have standing. Up until recently, there were no same-sex marriages to be found in the United States and thus there were no challenges to DOMA as nobody had standing.But now, there is a case working its way through the courts and challenging DOMA.It will be interesting to see which hypocritical argument Scalia will use to deny his own statement in his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

quote:

---

I would actually say that the 9th Amendment is more closely related to the fight for homosexual marriage because it is unenumerated

---

Ahem. If you knew this, then what on earth was the point of: If you knew that the right to marry was protected by the Ninth Amendment, why the faux attempt to proclaim intellectual curiosity and rationality?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

That's exactly what we see today, States deciding for themselves, usually by a popular of vote by the People.

---

Oh, so when the Supreme Court overturned the will of more than 70% of the People by declaring interracial marriage to be a constitutional right, they were wrong to do so?For the umpteenth time: Do you think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

quote:

---

If it is as clear cut as you allege, surely the Supreme Court would have declared that by now, no?

---

No.The Loving v. Virginia case was not decided out of the blue. Note the name of one of the litigants: Virginia. The state of Virginia was being sued. The Loving couple (yes, that was their name) were residents of Virginia but got married in DC specifically to avoid the "Racial Integrity Act" then in place in Virginia that banned interracial marriage. When they went home, they were arrested.They were sentenced to one year in prison which would be suspended for 25 years if they would leave Virginia. The trial judge proclaimed: The case was taken through the courts and eventually the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Virginia law was unconstitutional.The only way the SCOTUS could ever hear such a case is for somebody to bring the case before them. That means an interracial couple has to get married and then arrested and then convicted so that the case can enter the system and questions of constitutionality of the law can be examined. The SCOTUS can't simply decide that they want to investigate a law that has never actually been applied to anybody or caused anybody any trouble.So no, it is obvious to all but the most disingenuous observer that the SCOTUS wouldn't have had anything to say about DOMA. There hasn't been a case regarding it because there hasn't been any same-sex marriage until now.But as mentioned, there is now a case currently working its way through the court system and is sure to reach the SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see how Scalia weasels out of his own proclamation in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to acts from other states that are against the public policy of the recognizing state.

---

Indeed, but the Fourteenth Amendment points out that not all public policy is constitutionally valid. That's why Loving v. Virginia worked: The Lovings were married in DC. The Virginia statute banned recognition of interracial marriage and criminalized those who would leave the state to be married in another state.Thus, the Loving v. Virginia decision forced Virginia to recognize the interracial marriage performed in DC.If the SCOTUS is going to have any consistency, then the combination of Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas can only mean that same-sex marriage must be recognized across the country.Even Scalia knows this. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to weasel out of it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx responds to subbie:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If gay marriage is legalized with the proviso that no church shall be compelled to perform any gay marriage, would you then agree that there is no discrimination?

---

​

Without question, yes. That's the only real crux.

---

Right, and we certainly learned our lesson after the Loving v. Virginia decision, didn't we. I mean, there wasn't a single mention of churches not having to marry interracial couples if their faiths and traditions didn't allow it and thus all those priests were forced to marry interracial couples in complete violation of all their religious dogma. Don't you remember the great riot of '71 when 34 interracial couples stormed a church in Mobile and forced the priest there to marry them in front of the entire white congregation? I mean, the poor man's signature is so shaky on the licenses, you can tell he was scared god was going to strike him dead right there and then.Can you cite a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government started recognizing interracial marriage?Then what makes you think there would be a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government starts recognizing same-sex marriage?There are currently five states which recognize same-sex marriage. Has any church in any of those states been "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the governments there started recognizing same-sex marriage?If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

You know, given that there are rather militant elements in the gay rights movement

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, that's rich. That's just precious. Like there would be a gang of gay couples forcing themselves into St. Paul's Cathedral in New York City and forcing Archbishop Timothy Dolan to perform a wedding ceremony at gunpoint.We didn't do this with race. Why would we dare insult gay people with this nonsense? If you're going to write into law that churches don't have to marry gay people, then you're making it pretty clear that other couples who may violate a church's theological requirements but not with regard to sexual orientation could have standing to sue a church for not being allowed to marry in their facilities by their officials. So much for the Catholic church's squeamishness with regard to divorce. There's nothing in the divorce statues that states a church isn't required to marry divorcees if their dogma says they don't want to. The only way to prevent it is to write a law specifically encompassing it, right?Or maybe, just maybe, everybody already understands that the First Amendment still applies no matter what legal contracts the government chooses to recognize.If it was a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

iano writes:

quote:

---

You'll now no doubt agree that there is no reason to have husband/wife in a hetrosexual marriage.

---

There currently isn't. They're known as "spouses" in legal parlance. "Husband" and "wife" are social terms that refer to the sex of a particular married person. A "husband" is not "someone married to a 'wife.'" Instead, a "husband" is a "male person who is married."There is no legal distinction between a male person who is married and a female person who is married. There are no rights or responsibilities attached to your chromosomal makeup with regards to the marriage contract.Thus, your nightmare situation happened long before same-sex marriage ever happened.There are no "husbands" or "wives" in heterosexual marriage as far as the law is concerned. Only "spouses."

quote:

---

Whilst I think it is damaging for society and I would prefer that society not be damaged so

---

And this is where you would provide evidence to justify your claim.Strange how the only way to protect marriage is to prevent people from getting married.

quote:

---

I might as well object to people who aren't Christians (as defined by God) calling themselves Christians.

---

And when you can show claim, title, and deed to the word "marriage," your argument might make some sense.Instead, your argument is like this:"I might as well add, at this point, that I've no absolute objection to Jews getting married and calling it marriage, husband+wife, etc. Whilst I think it is damaging for society and I would prefer that society not be damaged so, I don't think Jews getting married in any way means they are (in the sense of their conforming to an institution set up and blessed in particular fashion by god) actually married."You seem to forget that not eveybody shares your opinion of what god thinks. And plenty of gay people get married in front of a priest and are blessed by god.

quote:

---

Some of those cultural significances might revolve around producing biological offspring

---

Which is why there is a fertility test before being allowed to get married and if no offspring is produced after five years, the marriage is automatically annuled, right?No?Hmmm...I guess marriage isn't about children, then.

quote:

---

They might also revolve around balances that can be found when men bring what men have to offer to the table and women what women have to offer.

---

Huh? And just what are these undefined "things" that are "brought" and "offered"?Hint: Same-sex relationships actually last longer than mixed-sex relationships. And what'll really bake your noodle is that gay male relationships last the longest. There's a reason it's the men who propose marriage and the women who propose divorce.

quote:

---

That a man be sexually attracted to another man doesn't make either of them a woman

---

Precisely. You act like there's something missing and yet you steadfastly refuse to define what that is.

quote:

---

When a minority grouping decides they want the world, and all it's role modelling turned upsidedown in order that they can clamber on board (and in so clambering, alter the world and it's role modelling) then they should have no reason to object to the fact of resistance.

---

"When blacks decide they want the world and all its role models turned upside down in order that they can clamber on board (and in so clambering, alter the world and its role models), then they should have no reason to object to the fact of resistance."If it's a crap argument when applied to race and a crystal clear sign of complete and utter bigotry, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation and get to be considered a voice of rationality?Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided?

quote:

---

It was 'rights' in the sense that society must take me seriously and jump through hoops to protect the notion of night having all the attributes of night (formerly called day).

---

Huh? You pretend to protest that there is anybody out there who would be confused by Jane and June calling themselves "married."Nobody had this confusion when the Lovings called themselves "married" despite the huge cultural bias against interracial marriage...running more than 70% which is more than the current cultural bias against same-sex marriage.If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

My way of seeing things considers a child to have a right to be raised by it's biological parents.

---

And thus, all adoptions are to be immediately criminalized and Jesus was the ultimate sin, being raised by that interloper Joseph.Why are you pretending to be in outrage over children? Your complaint has nothing to do with children. Don't insult us with your fake concern.

quote:

---

Gay marriage leads to gay parenting

---

And it is better children suffer than to be raised in a loving home.Please. Stop with the fake outrage. You couldn't give a tinker's dam about the children.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

That's dealing with race, not gender.

---

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?See Lawrence v. Texas.

quote:

---

That same-gender wants to marry is what is the problem, as marriage is defined as being between a man and woman.

---

"That interracial wants to marry is what is the problem, as marriage is defined as between people of the same race."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?See Lawrence v. Texas.

quote:

---

But my sole intention is that unless one wants to get around these legal pitfalls, a new amendment needs to be drafted just like they did with race.

---

Huh? The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say anything about race. And yet, it was the Fourteenth Amendment that was used to strike down miscegenation laws.If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?See Lawrence v. Texas.

quote:

---

That's because it is too ambiguous. Surely you know that to be true otherwise SCOTUS would have made it a Constitutional right by now if it were so clear cut.

---

Huh? The SCOTUS can't make proclamations out of the blue. They can only examine cases brought before them. SCOTUS is incapable of examining DOMA or any other marriage law unless and until a case is brought before them.There were no same-sex married couples until just now.There were no cases until just now.But before they can get to the SCOTUS, they have to go through the lower courts and they are only just now getting started.And since Scalia has already delcared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right (see Lawrence v. Texas), what do you think he's going to do when he actually gets his hands on the case?

quote:

---

If marriage is legally defined as a being between one man and one woman, then it isn't a matter of Equal Protection.

---

"If marriage is legally defined as between people of the same race, then it isn't a matter of Equal Protection."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?See Lawrence v. Texas.

quote:

---

You want specific cases, like Romer v Evans?

---

Um, you do realize that Romer v. Evans concluded that gay people cannot be excluded from equal protection under the law, yes?So given Loving v. Virgina, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, one has to wonder why you think there is any question regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.Especially since the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mention race or sexual orientation at all and was the basis for the decisions.

quote:

---

Are you against having it enumerated so that we never have to point to other cases by proxy?

---

Yes. The Constitution is not a laundry list and it would be a very bad thing for us to treat it as such. It would be very foolish to have to insert into the Constitution every single right that we think people should have.The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to breathe. Should it?

quote:

---

Loving v Virginia could be construed as immaterial and irrelevant on the basis that it is entirely a different perspective and qualifier altogether.

---

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?See Lawrence v. Texas.

quote:

---

Why focus on an obscure and ambiguous equal protection clause, which could very well be inclusive to just about anything because of its ambiguity, when an entirely new amendment be drafting and thus settling this nonsense once and for all?

---

Because civil rights shouldn't be subjected to popular vote. We had to do so with regard to things like slavery and suffrage because those restrictions were written into the Constitution and thus the only way to free the people was to write them out. But to depend upon the kindness of three-quarters of the population to defend and protect the rights of the minority will be very difficult and is a foolish thing to insist upon.The Constitution is not a laundry list.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Subbie, for God's sake man. I responded to everything you've said and backed it up with a reasoned response and carefully laid it all out on a table. I don't see why everyone is turning me in to the devil. I am FOR gay rights. Now Rrhain is going on about children, animals, and calling me bigoted even though I'm FOR gay rights.What exactly are you (and most everyone else for that matter) taking such exception to, because I am mystified?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yeah, cuz that's what I said, right???? You're fucking ridiculous. It's pointless to try any longer to have a normal conversation with you. I've tried but you're insistent on being smug and combative.If you'd like to have a conversation with yourself, go ahead and waste your time responding to me. Consider this notice that you're cut-off.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yeah, but one is a little more discreet than the other. I assume you don't have an upside cross burned in to your forehead or walk around with a giant billboard with neon lights flashing that you're an atheist. Two guys marrying is a tad more obvious. Obviously if you get married at a courthouse versus a church, there is no controversy. Therefore I am obviously referring to the stipulation that in the event that gay marriages are approved, that pastors are not forced to marry gay couples by federal or state law. THAT would be where Pastor Joe has to battle his conscience. Yes, if it doesn't involve pastor Joe. But pastor Joe is a justice of the peace too. And if a gay couple wanted to marry in a church to have their version of a traditional marriage, pastor Joe may be forced to do that. I don't think that is right, just like I don't think it is right for Pastor Joe to expect that everyone conforms to his beliefs about homosexuality.We are all entitled to our own opinions. No one should be forced to do things that go against their deepest convictions, regardless of whether or not I personally find them reprehensible. And this is what I want across the board. You're right there on the cusp of understanding what I want. I'm fairly sure you might even find it agreeable once you do. No, but he might be forced to marry Adam and Steve if a new law is passed. I don't think it's right. Earth, welcome to it! Oh, yes they do as ordained ministers. Pastors become accredited as an arm of the state they operate under. They shouldn't in my opinion. We are, I'm just clarifying. A courthouse is different from a church, yes. But the same people that grant both the power to marry come from the same state they operate in. So what I'm saying is, if the state may force pastors to marry gay people.I don't think that pastors should be able to legally marry anyone at all, but only to hold formal ceremonies in accordance with their religious beliefs. But I also don't think that in the event that doesn't change, that they be forced to marry gay people. Here's just one example of how it really works, not just some fantasy you believe that I have. Feel free to retract at any time.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams