Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[heliochrome85]

Why do you say this? There should be no limits on age, quantity or species. Anything less is prejudice and irrational - just like the old laws against sodomy.

So now you're actually saying that gays and dogs are equal? No. One's a human being, who has rational thoughts and is able to consent to another person in a relationship. The other, is a dog, and can't do any of that. I really hate it when people like you bring up that stupid argument. Dog's are not on the same level as people. You're argument is invalid.

Age? Really? Again, it's kinda like the dog argument. Are you actually going to tell me that a 10 year old is able to make a decision like that? They barely know their multiplication tables, dude. Children don't have the mental capacity to make decisions like that. Yet again, your argument is invalid.

As for quantity, I don't really have an argument for that. I haven't ever really investigated into the legalities of having multiple spouses, so I won't even delve into that realm.

dont feed the trolls.

[Bubba1]

Wonder if they'll legalize inter-species marriage soon. Why irrationally limit marriage to humans?

Well, after creeping out most humans, Nala needs love too.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Wonder if they'll legalize inter-species marriage soon. Why irrationally limit marriage to humans?

I bet vegans would vote for that...

[audtatious]

If it's an honorable goal to strive for, is there room for justification of unequal removal of government privileges? I can appreciate the position that government shouldn't be in the position of honoring marriages, but the glaring problem is that the government is involved in those marriages. If we accept that the government is currently involved, and the option of removing that involvement across the board is not on the table, how is it possibly justifiable to say that government discrimination is acceptable?

The option of giving full recognition as a "civil union" has been offered yet denied by gay rights groups. My assumption is that the gay rights groups have some emotional need to feel their "union" needs to be called a "marriage" in order to enjoy all approvals (God, church, religion) that the word marriage brings with it (real or imaginary).

I hope you are going into divorce law because once this is opened up all over the country the number of divorces will skyrocket......at least that's what some have stated due to statistics of monogamy within the gay community.

[IBCoupe]

If ministers are currently signing off on a state (civil) document, will they be forced by the state to not discriminate and perform these marriages? Even if it violates their religious beliefs? I understand that a church could opt to no longer perform any weddings that would be recognized by the state but that's the end I would like to see achieved by eliminating all state marriage. And that's totally non-discriminatory.

That's not the case at all. A Christian Church that chooses to marry only men and women would not be forced to do otherwise. That would be a violation of First Amendment restrictions. Further, the weddings that the Church performs would not be nullified by that decision. If a Church maintains a policy that they do not marry people younger than age 18, though the age of consent is lower for marriage, the other marriages it performs are not nullified. The same would be true for a Church's decision not to marry two people of the same sex.

I hope that has alleviated your fears. There really is no good argument for state discrimination.

[IBCoupe]

The option of giving full recognition as a "civil union" has been offered yet denied by gay rights groups. My assumption is that the gay rights groups have some emotional need to feel their "union" needs to be called a "marriage" in order to enjoy all approvals (God, church, religion) that the word marriage brings with it (real or imaginary).

I hope you are going into divorce law because once this is opened up all over the country the number of divorces will skyrocket......at least that's what some have stated due to statistics of monogamy within the gay community.

There are big differences between civil unions and marriages. Here are three:

* The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
* Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
* Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

And are you really surprised that successful long-term relationships are uncommon among a group of people that have largely been denied any means to a legal mechanism for maintaining long-term relationships? Is it really that shocking that a group that hasn't been able to marry hasn't had a history of something resembling marriage? What do you bet the statistics are for monogamy and single people? And further still: what's monogamy got to do with individual rights?

[audtatious]

There are big differences between civil unions and marriages. Here are three:

* The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
* Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
* Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

Steps in the right direction vs. "have cake and eat too". Having "unions" initiated first would have made things much easier than pressing forth for a defined "marriage" change at one time. Yes, I know the word "marriage" is important to both sides. Regardless, calling them "married" will do nothing to make it acceptable to those who don't believe or follow religious text. You can call a brick a flower yet that does not make is so.

And are you really surprised that successful long-term relationships are uncommon among a group of people that have largely been denied any means to a legal mechanism for maintaining long-term relationships? Is it really that shocking that a group that hasn't been able to marry hasn't had a history of something resembling marriage? And further still: what's monogamy got to do with individual rights?

So, you are saying it takes a piece of paper and a vow for two people to stay together? That's crap.

Where did I say anything about monogamy and individual rights? You think I'm a homophobe so you are inventing things to attack?

[Bubba1]

The option of giving full recognition as a "civil union" has been offered yet denied by gay rights groups. My assumption is that the gay rights groups have some emotional need to feel their "union" needs to be called a "marriage" in order to enjoy all approvals (God, church, religion) that the word marriage brings with it (real or imaginary).

I hope you are going into divorce law because once this is opened up all over the country the number of divorces will skyrocket......at least that's what some have stated due to statistics of monogamy within the gay community.

It does seems silly to get caught up in terminology. But IMHO those worried about jump starting the economy should think more about supporting gay "wedding" ceremonies. Think about all the businesses that benefit from them: Including catering, banquet halls, tux rentals/dress shops, honeymoon trips, limo rentals, florists, diamond/gold jewelry purchases, lawyer fees (pre nups and divorce), restaurant (rehearsal dinners/out of town guests), photographers, hotels getting booked for out of town guests, invitations, showers/ bachelor/bachelorette parties and those associated costs, airlines/trains/taxis for out of town guests, gifts people buy for the couple, I could go on and on. In California alone, multiply all of that revenue by the literally thousands of gay couples that want to get hitched. That's an economic jumpstart.

[audtatious]

Silly yes, but it's what the main issue seems to be. Everything else could have easily been taken care of and ironed out.

With the way taxes are today, let the gays get screwed like the rest of us.

[IBCoupe]

Steps in the right direction vs. "have cake and eat too". Having "unions" initiated first would have made things much easier than pressing forth for a defined "marriage" change at one time. Yes, I know the word "marriage" is important to both sides. Regardless, calling them "married" will do nothing to make it acceptable to those who don't believe or follow religious text. You can call a brick a flower yet that does not make is so.

People don't need to accept it; they need to uphold the Constitution. This is why, as I've written here and elsewhere, determinations of individual rights ought not be put up to referendum. This was the fundamental flaw with Prop 8 to begin with, and it's what made this ruling inevitable.

So, you are saying it takes a piece of paper and a vow for two people to stay together? That's crap.

Where did I say anything about monogamy and individual rights? You think I'm a homophobe so you are inventing things to attack?

I'm not saying that it always does, but it helps. People stay together for many different reasons, economics often have something to do with it. Having the legal force of a state-sanctioned contract certainly can come into one's reasoning. Also: the expense of divorce. What do you suppose is the rate of break-ups among non-married couples, versus married couples? And, once again, I have to ask: what do you suppose the monogamy rates are among people who are not married? It's a fair question that calls into question the context of your statistical suggestion, and I think it deserves a bit more of a response than a deflection and dismissal.

And I said nothing that about homophobia, but it might be telling that you looked for it. I simply asked the question: what does monogamy (a topic you raised) have to do with individual rights (at the heart of the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry one another)?

[vikesfankevin1986]

First off I am for gay marriage but my wife did give me even more insight. She is a Christian that has been on mission trips and minored in theology at a catholic college. She is also bi-sexual. I asked her if she fell in love with a women, would she insist on being married or is a civic union good enough.
This is what she said...I would want to get married because it is something sacred. A civil union is a piece of paper but marriage is more than that to me, even if it's not to most people. I still want to be married under God.
I said well what if the Bible says against it?
She said Well the Bible also says don't have sex before marriage but no one pays attention to that and 99% of people wouldn't care anyways, it's no reason to make it illegal.
So I guess I take back what I said before about marriage and civil union should be seperated. I think it should soley be a discrimination thing because after all we are not a Christian nation, so our government has no right get involved in religious topics. And yes this is a religious topic, either that or it's just a case of "we don't like gays"

[IBCoupe]

It's always interesting what can turn us around.

I wouldn't however, count out the "we don't like gays" thing. My girlfriend is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. She was born and raised in China, doesn't have a religion. She just doesn't like gays.

[vikesfankevin1986]

It's always interesting what can turn us around.

I wouldn't however, count out the "we don't like gays" thing. My girlfriend is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. She was born and raised in China, doesn't have a religion. She just doesn't like gays.

That's why we will never have the "all men are created equal" and that's why racism, predjuice, and discrimination will never totally disapear. It won't happen until we invent a pill for someone to take.

[IBCoupe]

Certainly not, but that's no excuse not to have laws that are that way. We don't need a perfect indiscriminate society; just a perfectly indiscriminate body of law.

[wingFeather]

Why do you say this? There should be no limits on age, quantity or species. Anything less is prejudice and irrational - just like the old laws against sodomy.

So now you're actually saying that gays and dogs are equal? No. One's a human being, who has rational thoughts and is able to consent to another person in a relationship. The other, is a dog, and can't do any of that. I really hate it when people like you bring up that stupid argument. Dog's are not on the same level as people. You're argument is invalid.

Age? Really? Again, it's kinda like the dog argument. Are you actually going to tell me that a 10 year old is able to make a decision like that? They barely know their multiplication tables, dude. Children don't have the mental capacity to make decisions like that. Yet again, your argument is invalid.

As for quantity, I don't really have an argument for that. I haven't ever really investigated into the legalities of having multiple spouses, so I won't even delve into that realm.

Your arguments are invalid. You are biased towards humans & the government's idea of when a person is ready to marry. I've known dogs who were more rational than gays, and I've known "kids" who are more mature than senior citizens.

[wingFeather]

dont feed the trolls.

Nice first post in this section of NICO! Would read again. Welcome!

[AZhitman]

It's always interesting what can turn us around.

I wouldn't however, count out the "we don't like gays" thing. My girlfriend is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. She was born and raised in China, doesn't have a religion. She just doesn't like gays.

And that's her right. Let's be clear - One does NOT have to condone something to tolerate it.

Something I learned a LONG time ago in my church: ALL are welcome. That doesn't mean that any behavior one chooses to engage in will be accepted or condoned, but we will accept those people as our brothers and sisters in Christ and encourage them in the ways that we try to follow.

Hope that makes sense.

[AZhitman]

Certainly not, but that's no excuse not to have laws that are that way. We don't need a perfect indiscriminate society; just a perfectly indiscriminate body of law.

Great post... and I agree.

HOWEVER, that takes us down another slope that we've beat the hell out of in other threads - Our body of law may NEVER be indiscriminate, but I'm with you that it'd certainly be nice (and something to strive for).

An example of continued indiscriminate application of law? The tax code comes to mind.

[IBCoupe]

Let's be clear - One does NOT have to condone something to tolerate it.

This is absolutely key to just about every argument that's come up this week.

An example of continued indiscriminate application of law? The tax code comes to mind.

And that is a long discussion that I can't begin to address at 10:22PM. A very interesting point, but I just can't conjure up the energy for it.

[audtatious]

People don't need to accept it; they need to uphold the Constitution. This is why, as I've written here and elsewhere, determinations of individual rights ought not be put up to referendum. This was the fundamental flaw with Prop 8 to begin with, and it's what made this ruling inevitable.

Depends on what part of the Constitution needs to be upheld since sexual preference is not specifically listed. Due Process and Equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment is touted by some, although that is still open for debate as to whether sexual preference is included. Does not matter as this will eventually go to SCOTUS and gay marriage will be upheld as Constitutional. Everyone knows it will eventually come to it and pro-gay education + pro-gay TV shows and movies will ensure it happens.

So, you are saying it takes a piece of paper and a vow for two people to stay together? That's crap.

Where did I say anything about monogamy and individual rights? You think I'm a homophobe so you are inventing things to attack?

I'm not saying that it always does, but it helps. People stay together for many different reasons, economics often have something to do with it. Having the legal force of a state-sanctioned contract certainly can come into one's reasoning. Also: the expense of divorce. What do you suppose is the rate of break-ups among non-married couples, versus married couples? And, once again, I have to ask: what do you suppose the monogamy rates are among people who are not married? It's a fair question that calls into question the context of your statistical suggestion, and I think it deserves a bit more of a response than a deflection and dismissal.

In today's day and age you may be correct......but has not stopped hetero's from getting married and divorced regardless. Expense is usually not a major concern and vows really mean nothing anymore. As far as statistical suggestion there are plenty of reports stating there is a higher suicide rate, drug rate, alcohol rate, abuse, etc. among the gay community. Do a google search as there are tons of reports on the subject. Who knows, maybe those rates will drop when they feel they are socially acceptable due to marriage?......Here, let me help:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... =&gs_rfai=
http://www.google.com/search?q=gay+high ... =firefox-a
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... =&gs_rfai=

I hope they are all happy when married and pay their share of taxes since the marriage tax will be back in vogue next year.

And I said nothing that about homophobia, but it might be telling that you looked for it. I simply asked the question: what does monogamy (a topic you raised) have to do with individual rights (at the heart of the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry one another)?

I simply stated that divorce lawyers will make more bux. If more people get married then more people get divorced, right? Something to look forward to in the lawyer profession. There are reports on monogamy among gay men as well....They may be wrong, who knows anymore. It's all perception anymore.

[C-Kwik]

So, California... How's it feel to have the will of the people and the majority vote overturned by one person legislating from the bench?

How is this legislating from the bench? Judges are charged with interpretation of law. In this case, the question of constitutionality of this proposition was brought in front of the judge. This IS what the founding fathers of our nation intended such that laws could not work outside of the confines of the constitution (in order to protect us). There were plenty of propositions on the same ballot and on every ballot. This is a relatively rare circumstance due to the contentious nature of the proposition. Most laws and propositions are likely to pass or be rejected and be left at that. With the loose logic you appear to be using in that statement, we could apply this to every court decision. The Constitution provides the groundwork for the system of checks and balances, which includes the courts. It also includes the Amendments that provide the premise for this case. It might be one thing for you to make such an argument based on facts that show evidence was clearly against the plaintiffs, but from what I've read so far, it appears the defense presented a weak case, including witnesses that admitted to stating things in the past that ended up helping the plaintiff's case.

There used to be sodomy laws on the books (may be still in some states) which pretty much made anything gays do illegal so it's pretty much the same thing....Now that the barriers are being busted down that humans can marry the same gender, what about bisexuals? Why should those people not be able to marry who they want to? What if they were in love with a man AND another woman? Why should they be punished by their "bisex gene"?

Its the same dilemma that might exist for a man who loves 2 women or a woman who loves 2 men.

As a California voter, I'm one of those who voted to ban recognition of gay marriages. As I explained to our gay niece and nephew (one on my side of the family, one on my wife's) I'm against it for a different reason than that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am against the state recognizing any marriage. It should be left to the churches to perform marriages separately from a state civil union between two consenting adults. Let people get a civil union before a justice of the peace, judge, etc. and then go get married in a church if they so desire. Currently a minister performing the ceremony can sign off on a state issued marriage certificate. I believe that is wrong.

I would like to see state recognition of marriage stopped entirely and would vote that way if given the opportunity. Once one's commitment to another consenting adult is separated into civil unions (state) and marriage (church) it will probably go away as such a divisive issue.

I think the problem with that religion(s) cannot claim the rights to the word marriage. And even if it could, which one would get the rights? You can easily see where this is heading. The reality is, its just a word that represents and defines something for us when we communicate with each other. A couple's "marriage" to each other is defined only by their interaction with each other. While I can appreciate the point you make here, its simply impractical and likely technically impossible to effect without its own set of legal problems. A major sticking point being, why is a religious person priviledged to the right to call their union a marriage while a non-religious person is not? Frankly, even if religious groups tried to put something like this through, they will likely alienate a lot of non-religious heterosexuals that are against gay marriage. If this were to occur in CA at the time prop 8 passed, the polls would likely be disfavorable to church groups. Not to mention it would likely be a public image nightmare for churches.

[audtatious]

There used to be sodomy laws on the books (may be still in some states) which pretty much made anything gays do illegal so it's pretty much the same thing....Now that the barriers are being busted down that humans can marry the same gender, what about bisexuals? Why should those people not be able to marry who they want to? What if they were in love with a man AND another woman? Why should they be punished by their "bisex gene"?

Its the same dilemma that might exist for a man who loves 2 women or a woman who loves 2 men.

Absolutely. But those for gay marriage would not agree with the above being "the same" which I find quite

If the Gov "got out of" marriage all together then the gays would simply go back to attacking churches for discrimination. In fact, when gay marriages start, there will be quite a few lawsuits against any church that chooses not to perform marriage ceremonies to gays. We all know this too.

[srellim234]

That's not the case at all. A Christian Church that chooses to marry only men and women would not be forced to do otherwise. That would be a violation of First Amendment restrictions. Further, the weddings that the Church performs would not be nullified by that decision. If a Church maintains a policy that they do not marry people younger than age 18, though the age of consent is lower for marriage, the other marriages it performs are not nullified. The same would be true for a Church's decision not to marry two people of the same sex.

I hope that has alleviated your fears. There really is no good argument for state discrimination.

It doesn't alleviate my fears at all. After 50 years of observing and off and on and participating in the political process and watching the courts I don't share the same confidence you do that even the Supreme Court would see the First Amendment rights of a Christian church as trumping the right of a protected class to avoid discrimination by that church if the church is performing a civilly recognized procedure. Here in California I believe the opponents would find a sympathetic judge to introduce the challenge to to get the court initially to rule in favor of the protected class as a non-endorsement of a religion; then the appeals process through the State Supreme Court and/or Federal Courts here would side with the local ruling. By the time it got to the Supreme Court it would be a crapshoot as to whether or not it hears the case and, if it does, what the ruling would be. It depends on what the makeup of the Court is at that time.

I do agree that there is no good argument for state discrimination. That's why marriage needs to be removed from the civil dictionary and relegated to the churches.

[srellim234]

C-Kwik - The homosexual class is merely asking for the same rights as heterosexuals. That includes claiming "married" on taxes, visitation rights at hospitals, etc. If all of that were cleaned up through the process of everyone having to get a civilly recognized union, churches would be free to perform marriages as they please.

As for the privilege of calling your union a marriage, that's a totally different issue. If society deems that you are not married until you go through a private organization's procedure, so be it. You can't call yourself a college graduate until you go through the procedure. You can't call yourself a union member unless you join the union. You're not a minister until you go through the church training. There is really no legal problem.

The catch, and you've kind of identified it, is to take the word "marriage" totally off the table in the eyes of the law. Leave it to the private sector. I can already picture the "Church of the Non-Religious" setting up camp next door to the courthouse to perform weddings as people walk out the door.

[IBCoupe]

Depends on what part of the Constitution needs to be upheld since sexual preference is not specifically listed. Due Process and Equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment is touted by some, although that is still open for debate as to whether sexual preference is included. Does not matter as this will eventually go to SCOTUS and gay marriage will be upheld as Constitutional. Everyone knows it will eventually come to it and pro-gay education + pro-gay TV shows and movies will ensure it happens.

Pro-gay education, pro-gay TV shows, and the Constitution. DOMA's a clear violation of the full faith & credit clause. Between the Court's in Loving v. Virginia establishment that there is a fundamental right to get married to the person of your choosing and the holding in Lawrence v. Texas that there's a fundamental right to have gay sex, it seems only logical that the Supreme Court will follow precedence and hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a fundamental right to get married to a person of your choosing of the same sex.

In today's day and age you may be correct......but has not stopped hetero's from getting married and divorced regardless. Expense is usually not a major concern and vows really mean nothing anymore. As far as statistical suggestion there are plenty of reports stating there is a higher suicide rate, drug rate, alcohol rate, abuse, etc. among the gay community. Do a google search as there are tons of reports on the subject. Who knows, maybe those rates will drop when they feel they are socially acceptable due to marriage?

Or maybe if they're not shunned by much of society (a first step being that they're not shunned by the government). That should right there drive down most of that list.

I simply stated that divorce lawyers will make more bux. If more people get married then more people get divorced, right? Something to look forward to in the lawyer profession. There are reports on monogamy among gay men as well....They may be wrong, who knows anymore. It's all perception anymore.

And again I'll ask, what's that got to do with anything?

[IBCoupe]

It doesn't alleviate my fears at all. After 50 years of observing and off and on and participating in the political process and watching the courts I don't share the same confidence you do that even the Supreme Court would see the First Amendment rights of a Christian church as trumping the right of a protected class to avoid discrimination by that church if the church is performing a civilly recognized procedure. Here in California I believe the opponents would find a sympathetic judge to introduce the challenge to to get the court initially to rule in favor of the protected class as a non-endorsement of a religion; then the appeals process through the State Supreme Court and/or Federal Courts here would side with the local ruling. By the time it got to the Supreme Court it would be a crapshoot as to whether or not it hears the case and, if it does, what the ruling would be. It depends on what the makeup of the Court is at that time.

I really think that the fact that there was no requirement for them to go to a non gay-friendly church is going to get in the way of this kind of result.

If you can point to a Church that was forced to marry an interracial couple that they didn't want to in the wake of Loving v. Virginia I'll eat my words. It won't happen. Now, there's some interesting situations like the case that went before the Court in its last term: a religious (public) college group cannot discriminate in its membership if (1) the school has an "all-comers" policy that requires that there be no such discrimination, and (2) the group has accepted school subsidies. It's because they take money from the school that they are forced to comply, so that tax dollars do not go to discrimination.

In that light, I can imagine a court ruling that required a Church that wanted to discriminate freely to abandon its special tax status. But I can't see an injunction forcing a Church to perform a marriage it wants to in any other way.

EDIT: Upon further searching, I don't believe that there have been any Churches threatened with deprivation of their tax status over interracial marriages (or even discrimination of promotion of blacks within the order, as happened in the Mormon faith).

I do agree that there is no good argument for state discrimination. That's why marriage needs to be removed from the civil dictionary and relegated to the churches.

And if that's what Prop 8 had said, that'd be a legitimate argument. Of course, I have my doubts that Prop 8 would have passed if that's what it said.

[IBCoupe]

Absolutely. But those for gay marriage would not agree with the above being "the same" which I find quite

I don't think that's what they'd say. A person wanting to marry a man and a woman is pretty much the same as a person wanting to marry two women or two men. The people you're thinking of are Mormons. The answer was Mormons. That's who would object that a three-way marriage being different from a man marrying two women.

Absolutely. But those for gay marriage would not agree with the above being "the same" which I find quite

If the Gov "got out of" marriage all together then the gays would simply go back to attacking churches for discrimination. In fact, when gay marriages start, there will be quite a few lawsuits against any church that chooses not to perform marriage ceremonies to gays. We all know this too.

Which would, as I explained above, go nowhere.

[audtatious]

Pro-gay education, pro-gay TV shows, and the Constitution. DOMA's a clear violation of the full faith & credit clause. Between the Court's in Loving v. Virginia establishment that there is a fundamental right to get married to the person of your choosing and the holding in Lawrence v. Texas that there's a fundamental right to have gay sex, it seems only logical that the Supreme Court will follow precedence and hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a fundamental right to get married to a person of your choosing of the same sex.

Yes, the SCOTUS will eventually rule that way. Show me where a gay person does not have the same right to marry as I do today.....

Or maybe if they're not shunned by much of society (a first step being that they're not shunned by the government). That should right there drive down most of that list.

So, new protection laws for them to be put in place? Hurting peoples feelings should result in court and jail time you know.....in today's society.

And again I'll ask, what's that got to do with anything?

Forget it.

[audtatious]

I don't think that's what they'd say. A person wanting to marry a man and a woman is pretty much the same as a person wanting to marry two women or two men. The people you're thinking of are Mormons. The answer was Mormons. That's who would object that a three-way marriage being different from a man marrying two women.

I disagree that gays in general would support polygamy. Why you are bringing in the Mormons in this part of the reply is unknown as they are meaningless.

Which would, as I explained above, go nowhere.

No precedent = not going to happen? So, gay marriage is considered legal. Two gays go to the SE Baptist Church and request the pastor to marry them. Pastor does not believe in gay marriage and refuses. What happens when the two gays bring up discrimination charges against the church? Your comments about tax status are dead on. Either be forced to do what you don't believe in or lose your exemptions under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, AND be sued by the ACLU, the people wanting to get married and every gay rights organization out there. You think it goes nowhere, I see it resulting in a large scale backlash against the "establishment", or churches in this case. There are lots of people looking forward to it.

[Cold_Zero]

dont feed the trolls.

Nice first post in this section of NICO! Would read again. Welcome!

Maybe his first post to this thread, but this isn't his first post to this section. 'H-man' has been around NICO for quite some time and has been no stranger to this section. It would do you right to show some respect, since one day he may be cutting you open when you require a life saving surgery.