Thousands in Los Angeles protest gay-marriage ban

[Flashermac]

As I said before, I'm not bothered by a marriage before a judge or magistrate. That certainly should be enough to keep gays happy. The US is supposed to have separation between church and state. Keep it that way.

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

It was about Mexican food.

 

 

What kind? Mexican peones border type, or the fancy dishes of the southern cities?

 

p.s. Can gays get married in Mexico? IF not, would this mean there will be a rush of Mexican gays to the US to get married?

 

 

 

[USVirgin]

It was about Mexican food.

 

 

What kind? Mexican peones border type' date=' or the fancy dishes of the southern cities?

 

p.s. Can gays get married in Mexico? IF not, would this mean there will be a rush of Mexican gays to the US to get married?

 

 

[/quote']

 

I was alluding to earlier Mexican food discussions as to why RY might have decided to reside in the Bay Area.

 

Meanwhile, immigration trends seem to be reversing!

 

[Steve]

I will note, that throughout American history, whether the fight was for getting the vote for women or civil rights, the fight was long and obtained over decades.

 

It shouldn't be. Justice delayed is justice denied as the saying goes.

[Steve]

As I said before, I'm not bothered by a marriage before a judge or magistrate. That certainly should be enough to keep gays happy. The US is supposed to have separation between church and state. Keep it that way.

 

 

I've heard of some pastors telling their congregation that if gays are allowed to marry, they will be forced to peform the ceremonies.

 

Impossible.

 

You can't force a rabbi to marry a non Jew or a priest to marry a non catholic, etc. Houses of worship can 'discriminate' openly on who they will marry. I had a pastor once that woudldn't marry members of his own congregation if they 1) didn't attend his marriage class and 2) if he felt that they weren't ready for marriage.

 

Just like you, I'm fervently for the separation of church and state. I don't go as far as some though. I don't see the big deal with 'In God We Trust' on the money. If we are going to be anal (no pun intended) about it, a case can be made to remove references to God in the Declaration of Independence or the bill of rights. That's another issue altogether though.

[rogueyam]

"David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public."

 

Link

 

[Steve]

The next sentence after the quote says "There has never been a court ruling on the matter, so the law is unclear, he said."

 

The article also says he's being accused of scare mongering, which I agree.

 

What the quote says doesn't happen now between faiths. It won't with gays.

 

 

Its BS and I'd dismiss it. I'd be surprised if 99% of gays would go along with that. Tehre's always one or two on the fringe of every group that may try something, but I see it as a non issue.

 

[..]

"David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public." Link

It says nothing about forcing the church to perform marriage ceremonies or sanction marriages. It only says that if they rent conference rooms to the public at large, then they cannot discriminate.

 

I have no problem with that. It should be that way. If it is open to the public, then that's everybody; if they keep it private, then they can do what they want. Why do you think differently? This is very basic "land of the free" stuff here.

 

If the churches do not want to play nice with everybody, then they can cease renting conference rooms to everyone but their own members.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Flashermac]

I remember reading through some old Grand Lodge reports and finding an embarassing incident in the 1930s for a Masonic Lodge that shared the building with the Odd Fellows and several other fraternal organisations. Seems that one of the other organisations one weekend RENTED THE BUILDING TO THE KU KLUX KLAN! Not good for the image.

 

The GL told them that what they got for sharing the building, instead of building their own.

 

 

 

 

[itsmedave]

So, I don't believe churches will be forced to marry anybody...total bullshit.

 

However, I have to disagree with my great friend and poo-bah Suadum. I think if you own a building, you absolutely have a right to decide what activities go on inside it. Which is why I believe restaurants should decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not...nobody is forced to go there.

 

Now, if they choose to allow the general public to marry in their rooms, then yes, it has to be all of the public. But, I gotta admit, I'm a little queasy on this argument too. I really do believe that private ownership is private ownership and the government should have little say in telling me what to do in my own house.

 

On the other hand...if I own a restaurant...should I be allowed to ban all midgets?