West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

1. Peg Morgan
   Member Profile

   With the WA State Senate passing the marriage equality legislation, we are anticipating the Governor to have the law on her desk very soon. We appreciate elected officials in our State Legislature and on the King County Council who have taken a stand on the side of love, equality, and justice. This is an exciting time in Washington State, and in the life of our vibrant congregation. We are proud to be a congregation which has unanimously endorsed marriage equality.

   Marriage equality is a long overdue civil right. It eliminates another form of second-class citizenship. We look forward to offering our church as a venue to spiritually and legally officiate weddings for ALL couples who commit their love to one another. And we welcome a full diversity of families.

   When confronted with an ethical or moral dilemma, many ask: “What would Jesus do?” On the issue of marriage equality, the majority of our representatives have done what we believe Jesus would have done. For that we are proud and grateful. We hope that the citizens of WA State refrain from signing the referendum signature form, which would require us to vote on the civil rights of a minority…never a good idea.

   In the meantime, our faith community remains steadfast in our stance on the side of love and justice.

   Jill Fleming, President, Board of Trustees
   Michael Armstrong, Cliff Houlihan, Melissa Lang, Candace Sullivan, Board Members
   Rev. Peg Morgan, Minister
   Rev. Mark Newton, Chaplain
   Kari Kopnick, Director of Religious Exploration for Children and Youth
   WESTSIDE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION

   Posted 3 months ago #         

2. SeekingEuros
   Member Profile

   Its about time that states passed this as no one should be denied basic civil rights. From the media, it sounds like the religious right will oppose it and seek the usual WA delay tactic - referrendum. However, in this case, I think they will be surprised that many straight people like me fully support equal rights for all.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

3. dbsea
   Member Profile

   I agree that this is past due. Religious organizations shouldn't have to recognize marriages that run counter to their beliefs but city/state/federal should. Without this right someone is not equal to others.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

4. kootchman
   Member Profile

   It is a perfect idea to use the vote. Nothing else gives the credible imprint of the endorsement of society than a majority stating its' intent to rectify discrimination. Have a greater faith in your fellow citizens. Let's be candid, we are creating a civil right heretofore denied other couples. I have no problem with that. A non Christian church trying to devine from nothing the Christian traditions is offensive. Jesus as far as we know, was observant of Jewish law, and was mum on the issue. We can expand civil rights without a "Jesus" construct woven from thin air.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

5. dbsea
   Member Profile

   This doesn't seem to be a voting issue to me. Who am I to decide this issue for someone else?

   The legislature needs to make the call. The Supreme Court can determine it's legality, or constitutionality, which they would likely do if popular vote shot this down.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

6. kgdlg
   Member Profile

   

   Thank you for posting this Peg, it means a lot to me and my family to know that your church is so vocal in support of our unions.

   Whether we like it or not, WA State has a referendum system, and when domestic partnership was last on the ballot in 09 it only passed 53/47. So we need everyone who posts here in favor to work to defeat this initiative, as it will be funded by national interests against gays and lesbians. Talk to your family, neighbors, etc. about why this law should be upheld. It is about fairness and freedom, first and foremost. And yes, about the kids. Being married sends a message to our child that we have a family just as much supported by the State as other families. We work hard to create a stable environment for her, and all we want is for that to be recognized in the same way as it is for straight married couples.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

7. kootchman
   Member Profile

   You are a citizen. The basic governing body of any civilization. It's our job to do these things. It's a more powerful statement. Nanny states giveth... and taketh... I do so much more respect the "will of the people".... it has credibility.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

8. KBear
   Member Profile

   Kootch, new laws don't "create" civil rights. They recognize them.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

9. skeeter
   Member Profile

   I prefer to have the legislature settle this. Voters are often uninformed and unaware of the consequences of their actions. There is a reason why most states don't have the initiative/referendum process. Legislators, on the other hand, generally spend the time to understand the issue and make an intelligent choice.

   Posted 3 months ago #         

10. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    I listened to a minister the other day stating that if this passes it will harm the church. WTF? How would it harm them? As long as there are people voting that way, I'd rather see this settled by the legislature. People vote for various reasons, and on something like this, their religious beliefs should have nothing to do with it. I certainly wouldn't want someone else's religious beliefs deciding something like this for my life, or anything for that matter. I don't think anyone else would, either.(including Kman)

    Posted 3 months ago #         

11. Smitty
    Member Profile

    @seekingeuros - what "basic civil rights" were being denied?

    I haven't read a ton on this, but it sounds like civil unions had every right that married people did.

    Is the term "marriage" a civil right?

    My view is that goverment should call them ALL civil rights - make everyon equal - and if you want to go to a church and get "married" then that is your choice.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

12. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    

    No one is asking for the consent of the church.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

13. dhg
    Member Profile

    

    I think Smitty means: "My view is that government should call them ALL domestic partnerships" I've heard that one before and I could get behind that. The idea is that equality means the government doesn't distinguish a difference.

    But Kootchman: It is great to have faith in the will of the people but they have failed so many times. Some people are easy to sway and if the Mormons come in with big money like they did in California, they will wage a war of lies on the air. They will scare people near to death with lies about how this means their children will be forced into same sex relationships in the school to carry forward the gay agenda. They did it in CA, they'll try to do it here.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

14. kgdlg
    Member Profile

    

    with all due respect guys, this argument that "everyone should just have civil marriage" is so tiring. and honestly, not practical in the least. i am willing to wager way more money on the majority "letting me in" to a social construct, rather than totally changing the name of it and effectively "taking it away" from the majority. folks in power really love it when you argue to take something away from them, even if just a name.

    seriously, when african-americans weren't allowed at the counter was there ever a cry that all counters should be removed? or that "we should just get rid of the back of the bus". maybe it is just semantics to you, but it is way more than that to us. it is the chance to be recognized as EQUALS to all you straights that have this thing called marriage, that by the way, does mean a ton of stuff beyond our state's domestic partnership label. the federal government does not recognize us or domestic partnership and as a result I cannot:

    -access my partner's social security if she dies.
    -obtain my partner's military benefits.
    -file taxes together.

    this is fundamentally unfair and unAmerican. the march of each state towards marriage equality (yes, calling it marriage and nothing else) will eventually turn the tide so that the federal government will have to recognize us and our relationships and families. we are tax paying citizens that deserve all the same benefits of marriage that you have. simple as that.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

15. mpento
    Member Profile

    A group of alumni, all highly established in their respective careers, got together for a visit with their old university professor. The conversation soon turned to complaints about the endless stress of work and life in general. Offering his guests coffee, the professor went into the kitchen and soon returned with a large pot of coffee and an eclectic assortment of cups: porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal – some plain, some expensive, some quite exquisite. Quietly he told them to help themselves to some fresh coffee.

    When each of his former students had a cup of coffee in hand, the old professor quietly cleared his throat and began to patiently address the small gathering. “You may have noticed that all of the nicer looking cups
    were taken up first, leaving behind the plainer and cheaper ones. While it is only natural for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is actually the source of much of your stress-related problems.”

    He continued, “Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In fact, the cup merely disguises or dresses up what we drink. What each of you really wanted was coffee, not a cup, but you instinctively went for the best cups. Then you began eyeing each other’s cups. Now consider this:

    “Life is coffee. Jobs, money, and position in society are merely cups . They are just tools to shape and contain Life, and the type of cup we have does not truly define nor change the quality of the Life we live. Often, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee that has been provided us. Enjoy your coffee!”

    Posted 3 months ago #         

16. kgdlg
    Member Profile

    

    MPento,

    thanks for the advice. if i ever die prematurely, and my partner is denied my social security income despite our longstanding committed relationship, can you call her and just remind her that she should be more focused on the "coffee" rather than the "cup"?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

17. dobro
    Member Profile

    

    I don't see what is so difficult about this. As far as the state is concerned, "marriage" is a contract between two people. They sell you a license for it and they don't care what kind of ceremony you have. To the state, once you've paid your fees,you're married. Who cares what the genders of the two people are?

    Equality under the law is what we're talking about. No religion is forced to marry anyone they don't want to. No hetero marriages are affected. If any one thinks they are, I'd be curious to see any kind of stats from Massachusetts to support that view. they've had same-sex marriage for several years now and the world has not ended.

    Equal rights under the law for all people. That's what America is supposed to be about. And no voting on people's civil rights.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

18. Smitty
    Member Profile

    dhg, yes that is what I meant, thank you.

    I think (but am not certain) that "marriage" is a religious term, so just make everyone a domestic partnership and if you want to get "married" feel free, but it does not grant you any additional benefits/rights.

    Basically, take government out of the marriage business.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

19. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    so..you are willing to give up your status of Married and it's benefits when you file taxes by becoming a domestic relationship? Or are you saying that all "domestic relationships" should have that benefit taxwise, and also be able to inherit the partners estate at death. Right now it doesn't work that way, and it doesn't other way , too. Domestic partners still aren't considered relatives, so aren't allowed in " family only" hospital rooms, etc. Would you say that needs to be changed?

    If you take gov't. out of marriage altogether, looks like the IRS will have to at least change it's paperwork :)

    Posted 3 months ago #         

20. dobro
    Member Profile

    

    the dictionary doesn't say anything about religion re: marriage...

    marriage |ˈmarij|
    noun
    1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
    • a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
    • figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
    2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.
    PHRASES
    by marriage as a result of a marriage : a distant cousin by marriage.
    in marriage as husband or wife : he asked my father for my hand in marriage.
    marriage of convenience a marriage concluded to achieve a practical purpose.
    ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry.’

    The whole religious part of marriage has zilch to do with civil union (taxes,family visitation rights,etc).

    Posted 3 months ago #         

21. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Yep Dobro... a new dictionary construct to fit a new social construct. The dictionary is hardly a legal covenant. Bet that dictionary was not so written 50 years ago. There are no civil right for same sex marriages. It is an expansion of the definition of civil rights. The over turn of same sex unions has been successful in states that "legislated" same sex marriages. Legislation can be repealed simply and effectively. The hurdle to repeal a civil right protected by a constitutional provision is much harder. Try as you might, (and lord knows our second amendment rights have withstood far more assaults for a lot longer time than "same sex" opposition, ) second amendment rights stand because it is constitutionally protected right. Washington State being a very good example Our gun laws are very liberal as a constitutionally (state) right. The states that legislated same sex civil unions had that legislation overturned with oppositional funds. If WA state is to have an enduring same sex union..it needs to be enshrined in the state constitution. That is exactly what we did in the federal case for racial discrimination, we expanded the definition of equality in the constitution. Creditors will love it though. They have two bodies to go after for bad debts, ditto IRS, et al. Nothing like being on the hook for a joint debt when or if the union goes bad! But you raise a good point about equality. SS benefits were granted surviving spouses at an earlier time, when it was assumed a single wage earner supported a wife and children. ( the Roosevelt speech, "the widow and her children clause) .. that is not true today. Maybe we should just stop survivor benefits unless there are minor children in need of protection? Be careful about those mutual tax filings.... kgdlg... it does not always work out to your benefit. And ... JAN... Obama wants to raise taxes on 200K plus individuals.... OR raise taxes on married couples at 250K... the marriage tax penalty is coming back again. Democrats are so sly... you are going to pay for this symbolism.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obamacares-marriage-penalty/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604576150332819819692.html

    Since federal tax law follows state property guidelines... two same sex persons, would see no tax increases on individual income levels of 200K or less. (unmarried) IF married, however, any combination of income over 250K. So.. if one partner makes 55K and the other 195... BAM... welcome to the world of marriage discrimination in the tax code. Married you pay higher rates on 250K of joint income...single, after 400K. The Democrats are "selling" you your equality, for about 10K a year for the duration of your "married" life so you can say "we are married".

    Posted 3 months ago #         

22. AlkiKmac
    Member Profile

    

    First, you can get married without a religious ceremony. It is a legal union, not religious, although many bring religion into it.

    Lastly, the history of marriage is beautifully presented in Elizabeth Gilbert's book "Committed". She was also the author of Eat, Pray, Love.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

23. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    what Obama or anyone else does with raising or lowering taxes has nothing to do with this conversation. The point was made that we should take the gov't. out of marriage totally, period. All unions are civil, domestic partnerships. But...gov't. uses marriage when filing tax returns. That would have to be a big change. That is what I was talking about. Nothing more.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

24. Jiggers
    Member Profile

    

    I'm still trying to figure out who's the ones that are against gay marriage.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

25. dobro
    Member Profile

    

    That's easy. Religious bigots and homophobes.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

26. Smitty
    Member Profile

    You forgot racists. There's got to be a way to fit that in somehow.....

    Posted 3 months ago #         

27. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    Smitty...you sure are fixated on racism and purported racists, aren't you?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

28. dobro
    Member Profile

    

    What other reason is there to be against equal rights for gay people besides religious bigotry or homophobia?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

29. Smitty
    Member Profile

    Jan really?

    You can't say one thing about our current President without someone in the media hinting at racism. Do you watch the news? I just thought since dobro threw out the bigot and homophobe cards he might as well go for the cycle! The "tolerant" Left is tolerant of all ideas.......as long as they agree with them.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

30. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    Smitty...explain to me what the hell Obama has to do with whether WA State okays same sex marriage or not? Why does someone, anyone, always have to throw Obama into every conversation. I don't live under a rock , for G-d's ake. Yes, I know that there are people in this world who object to Pres. Obama because he is black. It has nothing to do with this conversation, nor does race. Religion and being homophobe does, however.. If you deny that, you're the one living under a rock - lol..

    Posted 3 months ago #         

31. junctiongardenergirl
    Member Profile

    as someone who grew up being the very happy product of lesbian parents, i am so pleased to hear about the senate passing this legislation. it is definitely long overdue. i have had the unfortunate experience of being called to the emergency room when my biological mother was very ill and her partner was not allowed to see her. i can't think of a better reason why they deserve the same basic rights that my husband and i have.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

32. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootch...

    how much money do you think the religious right will spend trying to buy votes in a referendum election on same sex marriage?

    i can think of many better ways for Christians to spend their money...

    can't you?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

33. maude
    Member Profile

    

    Wow. If only my partner and I had to worry about making over $200k per year. But since we probably will never have that concern, it sure would be nice to get survivor benefits if one of us kicks it. True, it isn't the women and children clause Kootchman speaks of but my partner or I on our own would not be able to afford our home. Suppose it's a good thing we both have life insurance and we are listed as beneficiaries. Now lets hope that the laws prevail and the family of whichever of us goes first doesn't contest the will.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

34. dobro
    Member Profile

    

    "I just thought since dobro threw out the bigot and homophobe cards he might as well go for the cycle!"

    I was actually addressing the subject of the thread and answering a question that was posed. I know its tough for the wingnuts when they get knocked off their talking points but, jeez, try to focus!

    Here, try this, smitty...I asked a question in #28 that relates to the thread. Got an answer or even a relevant comment?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

35. datamuse
    Member Profile

    

    The main reason that religious institutions are involved in marriage at all is because for fairly long stretches of history, the local minister was the only person around for miles with sufficient literacy to write down that people had, in fact, gotten married.

    Well, that and forbidding their own clergy from marrying so that any lands they inherited would go to the church upon their deaths...

    Posted 3 months ago #         

36. kootchman
    Member Profile

    As they were required to do for tax purposes. Marriages were recorded long before property rights were established or inheritance was even possible... at least so for feudal Europe. Jan, it has a lot to do with Obama.... because the IRS treats property as property as defined by the states. And he be the man that is trying to bring back the marriage penalty... and with good reason. Married couples traditionally accumulate more wealth, and earn more income.. hence have more to tax. They are the most stable tax base. Larger though, is the family income of same sex couples. So are estate taxes. Health benefits are also taxed as income. It is merely a precautionary tales.... since the state has inserted itself into "marriage", rest assured it has a financial interest. Before ya head to the alter...consult a tax attorney. Unless recognized by the federal government, you may indeed have no benefits in a state that does not recognize Washington same sex marriage. They may not even recognize years of joint asset accumulation or allow the property transfer between couples without an estate tax penalty upon the death of one spouse.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all

    Posted 3 months ago #         

37. metrognome
    Member Profile

    and, 'til death do us part' was about 10 years, if you were lucky. Same sex couples accumulate more wealth than straight married couples??? On what planet??? Health benefits are taxed as income??? On what planet??? The state has 'inserted' itself into "marriage", so the state's motivator is money?? (nice pun, by the way) How about equal rights?? Now let's list the reason churches got involved in the whole marriage thing ... money ... power ... money ... money ... absolute control from cradle to grave ... money.

    And, yes, one should never make decisions based on emotion if money could be even remotely involved. Where do you come up with this bilgewater, kootchman? Maybe your only motivation in life is money, but for a lot of the rest of us, that's a ways down on the list.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

38. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    Kootch...pay attention. What I was referring to was the big paperwork change if (as someone suggested) the gov't. got out of the marriage business, and everyone was changed to being in a "domestic relationship". That was all..just a big paperwork change. I wasn't referring to tax laws, or who pays what, or who decides what, or who disagrees with Obama or congress or any of that other BS. So, no, Obama has not a damned thing to do with what I said. For cripes sake, give it a rest. Not everything is an effing conspiracy to get you to pay more than your share. What I said had absolutely nothing ..got that? NOTHING...with Obama or tax laws. Just the effing paperwork change it would mean. Good grief!

    Posted 3 months ago #         

39. kootchman
    Member Profile

    On this planet. tyypical metro..read the links and follow the threads or better yet. you can find the same information. Marriages precede church involvement by centuries. The reasons vary greatly but the underpinning of the institution is property accumulation, inheritance rights and later, taxes. As churches were also feudal constructs, marriage was documented to assign work and land, track the birth of work units (children) and form the basis for taxing output without measuring production. A wee bit o' the history of marriage... by Ms. Woodbury. Your rant against the "church" is a rant.. not much historical evidence to support your theory.

    http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/?p=1508

    What I find most interesting is, marriage was a far more liberal institution prior to state sanctioning... twas' the state that put forth the discriminations as to gender, race, class etc...

    "Marriage as we know it now is a new institution. While ‘love’ (at least among the upper classes) transformed the internal workings of marriage in the modern age, prior to the Middle Ages, marriage was a contract between two families, with no relationship to the Church or State at all. Even once the Roman Church got involved, it still had nothing to do with the State."

    Income:

    http://www.mygayweb.com/info/advertising/

    I was not even referencing your post JaN... see the threads other than your own. One of the most cited reasons for expanding marriage to same sex couples was economic parity. That parity may well involve a financial penalty. It's BS to you? Anything that points out a reality based conclusion that points to another taking by liberals is BS to you. You are in the finest tradition of WS bloggers. Fact being, I hope same sex couples do contemplate the vast array of financial penalties about to be levied against state recognized unions....

    Posted 3 months ago #         

40. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    Again...you aren't listening to what I'm saying. You're reading things into it that aren't there. I wasn't calling BS on taxes and Obama. When you said my name in your post, I guess I just assumed that you were addressing me and what I said. Gee, wonder how I misunderstood? Anyway..seems that we're having two separate conversations....since what you're talking about has nothing to do with what I was talking about.Again, I was just talking about paperwork changes.

    Oh, and I'm not a blogger (none of us here are unless we write our own "blog")...just a commentor with opinions other than yours. You're not right or wrong, I'm not right or wrong...just opinionated.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

41. sydney
    Member Profile

    

    Too late for me, I'm financially ruined because my twenty-year relationship came to an end and the home I'm living in is nominally also the property of my ex.

    Without divorce laws I was not protected. I can't afford to refi and can't get her off of my title!

    Posted 3 months ago #         

42. maude
    Member Profile

    

    metrognome, it's true. On this planet health benefits are considered taxable income for domestic partners. I was on my partners policy briefly and she had to claim the premium as income. Separate but equal.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

43. kootchman
    Member Profile

    You probably would have had to cash out your partner, or sell if you were married. Ya split the goodies acquired in marriage 50/50 down the middle. Imagine a same sex couple, where one brings dependent children into the "marriage"... and then has to maintain the dependent domicile until they are 18 or out of college. Yikes!

    Posted 3 months ago #         

44. JanS
    Member Profile

    

    We can agree on something, Kman...when I divorced, I stayed in my house for 2 years..struggling to keep up with the maintenance after a long illness right after my divorce. Eventually, he wanted me to cash or come up with his half. I decided to sell, the only home my daughter had known. It was very upsetting. But, even though technically half was his, he wouldn't even come help mow the lawn.

    Sadly, in 1997 when I sold, my mortgage payments were $615/mo..plus insurance and utilities, of course.

    Sydney..is there any way you can get your ex to sign a "quit claim"? Since your ex's name is on the title, are you getting any kind of payment in exchange? Name being on title makes one financially responsible, right? Isn't that true? Name also on the loan?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

45. sydney
    Member Profile

    

    JanS You have no idea how messed up it is. I can't even understand it. Our son grew up in our house with both of us until he joined the Marines, at least, but now I'm stuck because the house isn't worth anything. My family paid my ex a bunch of money so she wouldn't come over and kick in the door and such. The police think it's okay because her name is on the mortgage. I can't take her name off because neither of us can refinance alone, the house is underwater; I can't damage her credit by falling too far behind, et cetera.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

46. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Take her up on the deal. Stop paying the mortgage. It will take a year or more to evict you. It's a long long proces... when the creditors start hounding you.... give them your partners address and pull her back into the fray. Save the payments in safe deposit box... and if her credit standing is at risk.. she may well sign a quit claim. Then get current with your set aside. Never pay off a bully. They just come back for more. Have you seen an attorney? Take her to court, she is on the loan application too. If you are underwater why fight to keep it?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

47. HMC Rich
    Member Profile

    

    I am happy for my gay friends and relatives.

    As one of my friends stated, now the gay community can be as miserable as the rest of us.

    But the bi-sexuals out there. You need to make up your mind. You can't be married to a man and a woman at the same time. Or can you....someday?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

48. Ken
    Member Profile

    

    The history of marriage is directly descended from the long history of church and state being cozy bedfellows.

    The "Great Experiment" referred to by the founding fathers of this country was the replacement of the usual government at the time, (church, king, and aristocracy) with executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

    The catholic church has never gotten over being excluded from the US government and all other theocratic sects see the US as a the greatest target of all.

    We ignore what the Bible says about slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about women. We ignore what the Bible says about executing women on their wedding nights if they're not virgins. We ignore what the Bible says about lobster and polyester and farming and everything else. We have to learn to ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible got slavery wrong. Something as easy and obvious as slavery. Wrong. Jesus Christ: blah blah blah, sermon on the mount, you can't shut that guy up. Not a word about slavery. All the "thou shalt nots" in the Ten Commandments, blah blah blah, thou shalt not... How about thou shalt not own other people? No, the Bible explicitly endorses slavery. The easiest moral question that there is, the Bible got wrong. If the Bible got slavery wrong, what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100%.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ky5Jwi4-3o
    -- Dan Savage

    "The equal toleration of all religions...is the same as atheism. [Pope Leo XIII, "Imortale Dei"]

    "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." [Martin Luther]

    "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." [Mark Twain]

    Posted 3 months ago #         

49. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootch...

    maybe not the best plan to advise someone with an abusive partner to up the ante.

    sydney.. is arbitration a possibility?

    Posted 3 months ago #         

50. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Yea.. I forget that part. Ken, your history ... it's a tad slanted. The constitution PROTECTS religions from the powers of the state. The state must have an overwhelming interest to restrict the free exersize clause. (polgamy, human sacrifice. etc...) Warren himself expanded the protections against the state. It's been an ebb and flow...but the courts have struck down hundreds of laws where the state did not demonstrate a "compelling" interest. Particularly when the state targets a specific religious practice. You are a funny guy..when I volunteered as a tutor for CC.... 75% of my students were Muslim, The Catholic Church operates more pallative care centers for AIDS throughout the world. And while our very special liberal city government won't provide friggin drinking water to N'Ville ... who do you suppose is one of the largest providers of temp, transitional, low income, housing, and emergency women shelters? With no regard to race, creed. color. gender, ? Oh that the rest of our society would put charity in the same perspective.....and donate as much time and treasure.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.