No I'm not saying we are the only religion. I'm saying we are the only religion that is true and that is a fact.Or, God already said it. You seemed to ignore that little fact.Hilarious. I might have to adopt your tactic of ending everything by saying "fact" that way it becomes true and no one can refute me.Didn't pass anything off on anyone, you just don't like the facts.
It is not illegal to live "in sin" according to someone else's religion. That is one of the best things about this country. Most people, if not all, are living in sin in some way or another according to someone's religion, which is pretty much the very reason we have freedom of religion in this country, as a founding principle of this country, so that people are free to live their lives as they see fit, not being legally persecuted or held back because someone else's religious beliefs say they are living in sin. That is between them and God, not you nor the law.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
It has never been about the book. It's about their personal feeling. That little shudder that most straight people get when they picture two dudes making out. The difference is that a rational person shudders and thinks "I'm not into that." An irrational person thinks "...and therefore everyone doing it must be persecuted."
One of you will end up here next!
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Page 7 lists the religious exemptions to the law.
1. No member of the clergy otherwise authorized to solemnize such a ceremony is required to perform the ceremony.
2. No Religious Organization is required to provide facilities for such a ceremony if the organization routinely only allows members of the congregation to rent such facilities. If the Religious Organization offers such facilities to the general public for rental, they are acting as a public accommodation organization and as such fall under Public Accommodation laws. If they choose not to be subject to such laws, they are free to restrict the rentals.
Public Accommodation Laws:
Hawaii's Public Accommodation Law = "§489-3 Discriminatory practices prohibition. Unfair discriminatory practices that deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability are prohibited." (HI Rev Stat § 489-3 :: Discriminatory practices prohibition. :: 2011 Hawaii Revised Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia)
It is ALREADY illegal for private for profit business to deny goods and services based on sexual orientation that they supply to the public. The recognition by the State of Same-sex Civil Marriage does not change that law.
If your concern is that private for profit business may be required to provide services to homosexuals, they are ALREADY required to provide those services. Personally I'm against Public Accommodation Laws and think they should be repealed, private business owners should have the power to not sell goods or services as they see fit based on any reason whether it be along racial, gender, ancestry, sexual orientation lines, etc. Public Accommodation laws usurp the individuals property rights and rights of free association (or not non-association).
As previously pointed out, with DOMA (Section 3) not being operative, there are tax implications that need to be in place prior to January 1st.
Secondly, and I've only passed through Hawaii a couple of times, the call of a special session can be a tactical move. My understanding is that, in many states, when the Governor calls a special session that the workings of the session are limited to the purpose of the call. In other words, while in special session the Legislature can only address the subject (in this case marriage equality) which precludes some of the delay/tabling actions which might be available during a regular session.
not saying this changes your opinion just pointing out there is a valid reason.Abercrombie said he chose to call a special session rather than allow legislators to consider the issue next year in part because of implications on taxes for this year.
"There are serious, deep and wide-ranging consequences," Abercrombie said.
Abercrombie said if legislators move quickly and efficiently, the special session could last four to five days.