First Ever Republican Senator Rob Reverses Stance, Comes Out in Favor of Gay Marriage

[bathsheba666]

Yes, churches deserve the right to not marry gross homos.

Are you making a style point here ?

So, I assume, cool hetties and homos fine ? but gross hetties and homos no go ?

How about if they turn up in Louboutins ? Would that swing it for you ?

 

[caketastydelish]

The people that say 'churches have the right not to marry homosexuals because it's against their religion' have no point.

We wouldn't allow people to go around making human sacrifices just because their religion says so. Religious people have to abide by the government rules, just like everyone else. It's not 'discrimination' against religion. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and everyone else has to follow the same rules that Christians do. I am a Christian myself but I'm tired of hearing that Christians are 'oppressed'. There's just no evidence of that actually happening.

 

[Farm Boy]

The people that say 'churches have the right not to marry homosexuals because it's against their religion' have no point.

We wouldn't allow people to go around making human sacrifices just because their religion says so. Religious people have to abide by the government rules, just like everyone else. It's not 'discrimination' against religion. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and everyone else has to follow the same rules that Christians do. I am a Christian myself but I'm tired of hearing that Christians are 'oppressed'. There's just no evidence of that actually happening.

Paragraph one is not the same thing as paragraph two. Churches do have the right not to marry homosexuals. So long as this is coupled with the legal right to be married and the availability of qualified outlets for it to be done, why on earth would you want to muck around in demanding what sacraments a religion bestows on people? This isn't human sacrifice and it isn't the era of "windows into men's souls." Now if only some churches would stfu and let a non-religious government get around to providing equal rights for all people.

 

[caketastydelish]

Why is that? I don't think a 'whites only' or 'blacks only' church should be allowed, so similarly churches should not discriminate against homosexuals.

edit: My own church is very open minded in this regard and our services are very traditional; it hasn't hurt church attendance or even the way we do things.

The church body as a whole is very open minded. Our pastor is female (something many churches won't accept) and we have a gay couple who we accept as one of our own. I know this doesn't sound like a big deal at all and it shouldn't be, but to some of these anti-female anti gay churches, it is.

 

[JollyRoger]

Churches should be allowed to discriminate so long as they give up their tax exempt status in return.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is that? I don't think a 'whites only' or 'blacks only' church should be allowed, so similarly churches should not discriminate against homosexuals.

edit: My own church is very open minded in this regard and our services are very traditional; it hasn't hurt church attendance or even the way we do things.

The church body as a whole is very open minded. Our pastor is female (something many churches won't accept) and we have a gay couple who we accept as one of our own. I know this doesn't sound like a big deal at all and it shouldn't be, but to some of these anti-female anti gay churches, it is.

Part of the challenge with having a free and open society, one which has the freedom to practice religion is you have to put up with the existence of people you don't like. Now this particular issue is a bit muddy because we have a conglomerate of churches that have thus far been pretty successful at keeping certain people from having equal rights under law. That's bad, but it's waning on gay marriage - this will be rectified.

Once that particular issue is rectified and the state recognizes and makes equally attainable homosexual marriage with all the legal rights and privileges heterosexual marriage enjoys - who are we to turn around and start mandating the sacraments(which marriage is in Christian churches, as an example) of an institution which is separate from the state. This isn't like a prohibition on sacrificing virgins to Cthulu or whatever. This is a religion not extending what it considers about the holy to something it considers wrong. Fine, I might not agree with a church that does that but you know what? That freedom of religion thing kicks in again. I can find a church that makes more sense to me. I can found a church of likeminded individuals if I so choose.

It would be a more than a little sad to see us as a society move past limiting the freedoms of some and become better for it and then simultaneously turn around and try to do the same thing(not quite the same, but similar spirited) to a different demographic. Does that make more sense?

Churches should be allowed to discriminate so long as they give up their tax exempt status in return.

Eh, if it matters that much that there are people out there you don't like that enjoy a limited swath of tax free action that right is also extended to every citizen. Go join or create a parallel tax exempt entity that preaches as you see fit.

 

[ace99]

Politicians, business leaders, athletes and other high-profile figures are racing to announce their support for gay marriage before the Supreme Court holds landmark arguments next week — an unusually broad and public push.

Follow @NBCNewsUS

Many of them have filed formal briefs with the court. Others have stayed out of the legal case but made public declarations that they said were carefully timed in hopes that they might sway the justices.

“Those kinds of things make the court feel that what they’re doing is sensible,” said Alan Morrison, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University. “It may not affect the constitutional questions, but the court does want to feel comfortable.”

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 60,000 doctors, published a policy statement saying that whether a child is raised by gay or straight parents has no effect on development.

Dr. Thomas McInerny, president of the academy, told NBC News that the policy change was in the works for two years but that the academy hurried its announcement so the policy would be available for the justices.

“We are an apolitical organization,” he said. “On the other hand, we do feel very strongly about the best interests of children.”

The court will hear arguments in two cases. One is about Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage approved by California voters in 2008. The other is about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocked federal recognition of same-sex unions.

In the final days before a Supreme Court deadline to file papers in both cases, prominent Republicans rushed to add their names to a brief arguing that gay marriage promotes the conservative values of stability and mutual obligation.

Besides former governors and members of Congress, the 131 signers of the brief included top aides in the administration of George W. Bush and senior advisers to the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney last year.

And last week, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican senator to support same-sex marriage. Portman, whom Romney considered as a running mate, said that he had had a change of heart on the matter after his son, who is 21, came out.

Portman did not sign the Republican brief before the Supreme Court but said that the upcoming arguments were a factor in his decision to go public.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state and a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, released a video last week through a gay rights group and said flatly: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.” As a candidate in 2008, she had opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions.

Her announcement came after her husband, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law as president, published an Op-Ed in The Washington Post encouraging the Supreme Court to overturn it.

“I now know that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law itself is discriminatory,” he wrote.

Morrison, from George Washington University, who filed a brief that called parts of DOMA “utterly irrational,” said that the gay rights cases may be unprecedented in drawing support from such a broad spectrum of society.

Earlier this month, more than 100 corporations, including Google, Nike and Estee Lauder, signed two briefs in support of gay marriage — arguing that blocking recognition is just not legally wrong but hurts their businesses.

Lloyd Blankfein, the head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs, told The New York Times that captains of industry “wanted to attach themselves to what may be the last great civil rights issue of our time.”

And on Monday, Rashad Evans, a mixed martial arts fighter, told the gay website Outsports that he felt a duty to support gay rights as a competitor in “a macho-type sport.”

“I have kids,” he told the site. “I don’t want them growing up in a society where they, or their friends, could be second-class citizens based on which person they fall in love with or who they want to be happy with.”

He joined a brief filed by Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and Brendon Ayanbadejo, a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.

Marc Solomon, national campaign director for the gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said that his group was pleased that the cause had drawn such broad support, particularly from the political right.

“Our side has put forth the most powerful case that could be made that America is ready,” he said. “There is no question that justices live in the real world.”

Polls show increasing public support for gay marriage. A Washington Post-ABC survey earlier this week found 58 percent for gay marriage and 36 percent opposed — a mirror image of public opinion less than a decade ago.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group opposed to same-sex marriage, said that the pediatrics academy had taken a “transparently political step” by endorsing gay marriage and had been influenced by studies produced by gay-marriage advocates.

“Which parent can a child do without — her mother or her father?” he said in a statement. “We remain confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the ability of states and the federal government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a definition that has served our nation well for hundreds of years.”

Another group opposed to gay marriage, the Traditional Values Coalition, mocked Portman’s announcement last week by publishing a hypothetical statement from a parent who came out in favor of drunken driving because her son is a drunk driver.

When the Supreme Court takes up the question Tuesday and Wednesday, most of the public statements won’t matter, said Tom Goldstein, a founder of the widely read Scotusblog, which analyzes the court.

What’s more, he said, “Some of these developments are a double-edged sword. The cases rely to some extent on the notion that homosexuals face widespread discrimination and hostility. The fact that the country is coming around so fast ironically could hurt their cause in court.”

The announcement by the pediatrics academy could matter because it speaks directly to conservatives and their concerns in the case, he said, but “what someone thinks in Hollywood couldn’t be more irrelevant.”

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-marriage-before-supreme-court-arguments?lite

 

[History_Buff]

For the record I'm >90% sure single parents already receive child benefits. I would not want that taken away. However, if we live in this crazy town world of vice taxes and seat belt laws - then yes, it makes total and utter sense and would be stupid not to provide some form of financial incentive, perhaps linked to marriage/civil unions, that provides an additional financial carrot to raising children in stable multiple parent families. Those familial units pay off for society, in bulk, over the long term.

But what you're incentivizing doesn't need an incentive. If these parents could be in good relationships, they already would be. Instead I think you're creating a Perverse Incentive that's only encouraging people stay in bad relationships - be they with abusive spouses, irresponsible parents, or just people they don't like. Not being in a relationship is not the kind of behavior us 'lib-tards' think should be sin-taxed.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Why is that? I don't think a 'whites only' or 'blacks only' church should be allowed, so similarly churches should not discriminate against homosexuals.

So the belief that the Bible says homosexuality is immoral should be outlawed? That's not an unreasonable belief if you start with the premise that the Bible is "the word" of God ( literally or somewhat less literally. )

See, this is what I don't like.

 

[caketastydelish]

So the belief that the Bible says homosexuality is immoral should be outlawed? That's not an unreasonable belief if you start with the premise that the Bible is "the word" of God ( literally or somewhat less literally. )

See, this is what I don't like.

I am a christian myself. This is how I see it:

First of all, Jesus Christ himself made it clear that 'may the first one that hasn't sinned throw the rock on the woman'. A woman was accused of adultery (if I remember correctly) and Jesus's point was you are all hypocrites to throw stones at her because everyone on earth is a sinner just like she is.

That in mind, we are in no position to judge homosexuals because we all sin regardless. I hold grudges for example, something the bible says you shouldn't do. Some members of my church are even aware of these grudges because I'm quite vocal about them. Does this mean they should deny me the right to get married just because there is something 'unchristian' about me? As I've said myself we even have a gay couple in our church that we welcome as one of our own. That's because everyone sins in some way, and we as mortals do not know which sins are the worst. God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, not us.

 

[AlpsStranger]

And that's a fine and tolerant version of Christianity, but that's not the only version.

Would it be okay if the less tolerant Christians forced you to follow their theology?

 

[caketastydelish]

And that's a fine and tolerant version of Christianity, but that's not the only version.

Would it be okay if the less tolerant Christians forced you to follow their theology?

Theology that promotes discrimination should not be tolerated in the first place.

more extreme example: I'm all for banning these so called 'religions' that promote either white supremacy or black supremacy or racism in general.

Just my opinion though, I know not everyone would agree.

 

[ace99]

And that's a fine and tolerant version of Christianity, but that's not the only version.

Would it be okay if the less tolerant Christians forced you to follow their theology?

Your inability to understand the distinction between advocating for a common good and advocating for Nazism is becoming intolerable.

 

[Old Hippy]

So the belief that the Bible says homosexuality is immoral should be outlawed? That's not an unreasonable belief if you start with the premise that the Bible is "the word" of God ( literally or somewhat less literally. )

See, this is what I don't like.

what don't you like, that civil society has not banned the bible or that society does not accept the word of god

 

[AlpsStranger]

Your inability to understand the distinction between advocating for a common good and advocating for Nazism is becoming intolerable.

Nazis? What?

That barely made any sense. I'm saying that Churches shouldn't be forced to hold gay weddings. Is that crazy now or something?

I could swear that was normal like last month.

 

[Old Hippy]

Nazis? What?

That barely made any sense. I'm saying that Churches shouldn't be forced to hold gay weddings. Is that crazy now or something?

I could swear that was normal like last month.

it's crazy that you believe anybody is actually saying that they should...

 

[AlpsStranger]

But that's what Cake was saying, wasn't it?

If not then I apologize for misunderstanding.

 

[Old Hippy]

But that's what Cake was saying, wasn't it?

If not then I apologize for misunderstanding.

not really

That in mind, we are in no position to judge homosexuals

As I've said myself we even have a gay couple in our church that we welcome as one of our own

God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, not us.

so the idea that churches could be forced to accept things was quitely slipped into the debate with your

Would it be okay if the less tolerant Christians forced you to follow their theology?

which gave you the wonderfull opportunity to defend sane thought with your defense of churches not being forced to perform gay marriages...

an idea that no one was proposing...
yet now we are pursumed to accept that some are...

 

[AlpsStranger]

Does this mean they should deny me the right to get married just because there is something 'unchristian' about me?

Theology that promotes discrimination should not be tolerated in the first place.

more extreme example: I'm all for banning these so called 'religions' that promote either white supremacy or black supremacy or racism in general.

Perhaps I "smoothed over" his white/black supremacy example to mean something it didn't.

EDIT: I hope nobody misunderstands my personal feelings about gays/gay rights, which I've been crystal clear about.

 

[Old Hippy]

Perhaps I "smoothed over" his white/black supremacy example to mean something it didn't.

hey, I not having a go at you, (well...) just that it's all too common to say reasonable things, and still have the idea put around that people want to force churches to hold gay weddings...