Now I now why you Alabama Xers are quiet.

[AUTiger1]

Does anyone even get married in a church anymore?  Normally the ONLY people who do are already members of said church. 

Everyone else gets married in wedding chapels which are designed specifically for a wedding.  Nothing else happens there. 

Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!

You really don't want RWS at your wedding do you?

[WiregrassTiger]

Does anyone even get married in a church anymore?  Normally the ONLY people who do are already members of said church. 

Everyone else gets married in wedding chapels which are designed specifically for a wedding.  Nothing else happens there. 

Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!

Not that it matters. I'm cool with it. But you do realize that this thread pertains to the gay weddings, right?

[Token]

Not that it matters. I'm cool with it. But you do realize that this thread pertains to the gay weddings, right?

Yes, but the point is to not consider them gay weddings.  They are just weddings.  You prejudiced fuck.

[Saniflush]

Yes, but the point is to not consider them gay weddings.  They are just weddings.  You prejudiced fuck.

You should treat him like you do your prisoners.

[WiregrassTiger]

Yes, but the point is to not consider them gay weddings.  They are just weddings.  You prejudiced fuck.

Just for that, I'm not coming to your gay wedding.

[Snaggletiger]

Just for that, I'm not coming to your gay wedding.

You should totally send a gift, though. 

[Token]

You should treat him like you do your prisoners.

While we are in the process of striking any and all offensive words from our vocabulary, I believe we should just accept that we shouldn't call people prisoners either.  After all, we don't have prisons for them. 

And in case anyone wants to really give a shit about what legislators are doing, Alabama legislators are going to try to backdoor a guideline that makes burglary 3rd a misdemeanor.  That's right, if someone kicks your fucking door off it's hinges and steals your shit, it's a goddamn misdemeanor.  So if we are going to get bent out of shape over bullshit laws being changed, let's focus on that.  Because unless the guy who breaks into my house and takes my belongings that I worked and paid for IS gay, I don't give a diddly fuck where he wants to stick his penis.  Or who he prefers to have on his BC/BS family plan.

[Snaggletiger]

I stuck my penis in the pickle slicer.

[Vandy Vol]

That's BS. They want MARRIAGE so they can legitimize their lifestyle. You don't hear not one wanting to compromise for legal reasons.

A quick Google search reveals a ton of fag blogs about the legal aspects of being recognized as a marital unit, so your "not one" argument holds water about as well as a gay man's ass holds shit.
 

And they WILL try to force every church they can find to marry them. The left has given them a voice and now they will not stop till you agree that Jesus was gay too!

Yes, they're trying their damndest to get married in places where they're not wanted.  Makes perfect sense.

While there may be a few who may want to try to stick it to religious organizations, I seriously doubt they make up the majority.

[Vandy Vol]

If gay marriage becomes a "right" then won't churches that refuse to marry gay people be guilty of discrimination?  You're crazy if you don't see a huge showdown coming between the LGBT agenda and religious freedom.

If you get married at a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.  If you get married anywhere else but a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.

The point here is that when you are married at a church, you aren't suddenly recognized as a legal marital unit.  Therefore, it's not the church who is conferring legal rights upon you.  So no one has to force the church to do anything in order for legal rights to be conferred upon dem butt boys and mommy part catchers.

[Vandy Vol]

Alabama legislators are going to try to backdoor a guideline that makes burglary 3rd a misdemeanor.

So the Alabama legislators are gay, too?

[GH2001]

If you get married at a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.  If you get married anywhere else but a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.

The point here is that when you are married at a church, you aren't suddenly recognized as a legal marital unit.  Therefore, it's not the church who is conferring legal rights upon you.  So no one has to force the church to do anything in order for legal rights to be conferred upon dem butt boys and mommy part catchers.

Not yet. It's the dangerous precedent that could be looming is what some fear. I have seen a few rumblings of gay couples wanting a church wedding and the church refusing and there being a big stink about it. No pun intended.

[WiregrassTiger]

A quick Google search reveals a ton of fag blogs about the legal aspects of being recognized as a marital unit, so your "not one" argument holds water about as well as a gay man's ass holds shit.
 

Yes, they're trying their damndest to get married in places where they're not wanted.  Makes perfect sense.

While there may be a few who may want to try to stick it to religious organizations, I seriously doubt they make up the majority.

The civil union would do much to squash the debate if what you say is true. A lot of the problem that a lot of people have with gay marriage is not because of the legal aspects around insurance, bequeathing estates, etc. They are fine with that. They just don't want them to use the term marriage.

Marriage is more than a legal term to many. It's biblical.

I think they are saying you can stick it up a girls butt and be married but not a boys.

If what you say is so, them I would thing the gays would be o.k. with civil unions. That makes sense to me.

But, I doubt they will.

[Vandy Vol]

Not yet. It's the dangerous precedent that could be looming is what some fear. I have seen a few rumblings of gay couples wanting a church wedding and the church refusing and there being a big stink about it.

If they grant that right, then they're morons.  Everyone will point to the bakery case, but that was based on Colorado law.  I have no clue what weird ass laws Colorado may have in regard to discrimination, and I would assume that the case will likely be overturned on appeal, unless Colorado laws are truly retarded and federal law doesn't play a part at all.

Even if it's not overturned, you're talking about a public business versus a private religious organization of which people are members, not casual customers.  So there would be an entirely different standard applied, and I would find it nigh impossible for anyone to legally force a church to marry them.

[Ogre]

If you get married at a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.  If you get married anywhere else but a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.

The point here is that when you are married at a church, you aren't suddenly recognized as a legal marital unit.  Therefore, it's not the church who is conferring legal rights upon you.  So no one has to force the church to do anything in order for legal rights to be conferred upon dem butt boys and mommy part catchers.

I'm not talking about who is conferring legal rights.  We all know that the legal rights that come with marriage are given at the point the marriage license is obtained.  What I'm talking about is the scenario where two gay people decide they want to get married at the Church at Brook Hills because it's got a huge sanctuary.  They go meet with the pastor and are told that the church doesn't perform gay wedding ceremonies.  The couple then turns around and sues the church and pastor for discrimination.  Who wins?  Do we force religious people to go against their deeply held beliefs?  Or do we uphold the constitutional right of religious freedom? 

The fight is coming. 

[Vandy Vol]

The civil union would do much to squash the debate if what you say is true. A lot of the problem that a lot of people have with gay marriage is not because of the legal aspects around insurance, bequeathing estates, etc. They are fine with that. They just don't want them to use the term marriage.

Marriage is more than a legal term to many. It's biblical.

I think they are saying you can stick it up a girls butt and be married but not a boys.

If what you say is so, them I would thing the gays would be o.k. with civil unions. That makes sense to me.

But, I doubt they will.

Although I'm sure many on here will argue that the terminology doesn't matter, the terminology is likely what upsets the sausage snackers and twat ticklers.  If your ceremony is conducted at a church, you get a "marriage license."  But you fuckers?  You get a "civil union license."  Separate but equal.  Not to mention that the government is choosing to recognize a religious ceremony in a slightly different light than a non-religious ceremony.

If "marriage" is truly a religious term and any ceremony not performed by a church is not a "marriage," then the government shouldn't be issuing "marriage licenses."  When you're married in a church and file for your gubment papers, it should be a civil union.  The church can call it a marriage and even give you a nifty "marriage license" signed by eight pound baby Jesus himself if you want, but the government should classify everything the same and confer the same rights regardless of where the ceremony took place.

[Vandy Vol]

I'm not talking about who is conferring legal rights.  We all know that the legal rights that come with marriage are given at the point the marriage license is obtained.  What I'm talking about is the scenario where two gay people decide they want to get married at the Church at Brook Hills because it's got a huge sanctuary.  They go meet with the pastor and are told that the church doesn't perform gay wedding ceremonies.  The couple then turns around and sues the church and pastor for discrimination.  Who wins?  Do we force religious people to go against their deeply held beliefs?  Or do we uphold the constitutional right of religious freedom? 

The fight is coming.

Oh, it's already here.  There is at least one case (actually, just noticed it was an internal complaint with the church, not a complaint for a lawsuit) I'm aware of where two gay church members are suing have complained to their church for refusing to perform the ceremony, but my understanding is that this is moreso based on somewhat of a breach of contract type claim, as the church had some internal guidelines that ban discrimination.

While there will certainly be lawsuits, I just don't see them forcing churches to have to marry gay people.  If they do, then I think it's the wrong decision.

[Tiger Wench]

Getting married at a church does not get you a marriage license. 

The "legally binding" part comes when the officiant has the legal authority to conduct a marriage ceremony.  Most pastors are licensed to conduct marriages.  But if a bride and groom (or two brides or two grooms, whatever) get married by a chimpanzee at the biggest church in Houston, they are still not legally married because the chimpanzee (probably) doesn't have the legal authority to marry them.  It's not location location location. 

The most compelling argument I have seen lately for calling it marriage versus civil union is for purposes of adopting children.  Only a legally married couple can adopt in some states.  So if two lesbos have a turkey baster baby, and raise it together, only the biological mom has parental rights over that child.  The other "mom" can't make medical or financial decisions related to the child, and can't have visitation rights if they split up.  Married people and biological parents have those protections under the law. Their argument is that the non-biological parent is just as much a parent as the biological one, and should have the ability to legally adopt the child and become an official parent in the eyes of the law.

I don't think you are going to have as much trouble with churches as you think.  Many churches have rules about who is allowed to marry in their church.  Mormons won't even let non-Mormons *in* their church.  I couldn't get married in a Catholic church by a priest because I am not Catholic.  So it seems to me that people can complain, but oh well.  Churches get exemptions from laws that private folks don't:

Gonzales v. O Centro (2006): Unanimous SCOTUS ruling in favor of the União do Vegetal (literally, “Union of the Plants”), who sought an exemption from federal drug laws so they could perform rituals involving the hallucinogen hoasca.

Native Americans can own and gather bald eagle feathers for use in religious ceremonies, possession of which for other people is a FELONY.  You and I can't even pick up a dead bald eagle off the side of the road.

SCOTUS has also unanimously ruled that churches can hire and fire clergy and other staff members without regard to anti-discrimination laws.  Old geezer preacher?  Fired.  Baptist guy who decides he wants to be a woman?  Done.

SO if a Baptist church doesn't allow a gay couple to get married there, oh well.

[Tiger Wench]

If they grant that right, then they're morons.  Everyone will point to the bakery case, but that was based on Colorado law.  I have no clue what weird ass laws Colorado may have in regard to discrimination, and I would assume that the case will likely be overturned on appeal, unless Colorado laws are truly retarded and federal law doesn't play a part at all.

As long as I am going all Vandy Vol on this:  I just finished reading a long article about this very issue on one of my favorite legal blogs:  overlawyered.com  The guy is a Cato Institute scholar, and a major libertarian.  Some of the articles are hilarious, others are head shakingly ridiculous.  Every now and again there will be a post that is too pedantic or "legal scholar" for me to follow, but most of them are very interesting.

The most recent bakery case there was a guy who plans to sue because a Colorado bakery wouldn't put an "anti-gay" slogan on a cake for him.  But he has no case.  linky

Colorado law bans discrimination by a wide range of businesses, but only when the discrimination is based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.” This means that a store may not specifically refuse to sell cakes to gays, or sell them to (say) Baptists. It may well mean that it may not specifically refuse to sell cakes for use in same-sex marriages, or in Baptist events. It may even mean that it may not specifically refuse to inscribe messages that identify buyers as gay (e.g., “John and Bill’s marriage”), or as Baptist (e.g., “Baptist Church Picnic”).

But nothing in the law bans discrimination based on ideology more broadly. A store can refuse to sell to someone because he’s a Nazi, or a Communist, or pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-gay-rights, or anti-gay-rights. A store can likewise refuse to inscribe cakes with Nazi, Communist, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, or anti-gay-rights messages, if it’s discriminating based on the ideology of the message, rather than the religiosity of the buyer.

[Vandy Vol]

As long as I am going all Vandy Vol on this

I'd go all Vandy Vol on you, but you don't have a penis.