• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

Pretty much sums it up. Another sensationalist, much-to-do-about-nothing fabrication designed to whip the masses into a frenzy.

There is a market for a source that does nothing but debunk everything like this that gains any sort of traction at all. Left or Right. The level of misinformation that people latch onto these days is staggering.

Actually, there is such a site. It's called Snopes. I don't see anything about the nonsense allegation from the OP on Snopes, however, so it must not have gained enough traction to get their attention.
 
Nothing is too crazy for the Republicans these days. It's like they have a contest to see who can come up with the dumbest idea. the fact that this one may well be unconstitutional is just an added bonus to the lunacy.

Obamacare demonstrates that the Democrats are trying to win the contest.
 
Obamacare demonstrates that the Democrats are trying to win the contest.

No, its not even close. You folks keep up your one party war on women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and you win this hands down! May I say that as a Democrat, I'm delighted by your positions on these issues - especially the regressive stance taken by the House Republicans on immigration reform. If these guys were any dumber, they'd be libertarians.
 
So we cannot prosecute someone for effectively being an accessory to fraud if those committing the fraud are gay?

That doesn't bother me, but that a State feels it can regulate clergy....

The letter of the law potentially makes it a crime to have a religious ceremony. If they don't want to legally recognize gay marriage, fine, but if two gay people want to have a religious commitment ceremony and have a minister to do it, why should that be a crime?
 
That doesn't bother me, but that a State feels it can regulate clergy....

The letter of the law potentially makes it a crime to have a religious ceremony. If they don't want to legally recognize gay marriage, fine, but if two gay people want to have a religious commitment ceremony and have a minister to do it, why should that be a crime?

That would not be a crime because the end result of the ceremony would not be an attempt to create a legally recognized marriage. People just want to say it would be a crime to throw fuel on the fire to make dem ebil conservatifs look bad. I see this statute as being nothing more than an attempt to hold clergy responsible if they sign and file a marriage certificate of two gays at the Court as a safeguard in case two gays were able to trick the court or whoever issues the licenses into issuing the license by a cross dresser named Tracy pretending to be a girl when they are a guy or something.
 
Show me a religion that blesses homosexual unions.

They list 3 in the article. I'll give you one - United Church of Christ. Now, should a UCC church be prevented by law from performing a religious ceremony?
 
They list 3 in the article. I'll give you one - United Church of Christ. Now, should a UCC church be prevented by law from performing a religious ceremony?

I'm sorry, I thought you were going to list a religion, not a church.
 
I'm sorry, I thought you were going to list a religion, not a church.

United Church of Christ is a protestant denomination. Just like Baptists are.

I know you're trying to play games, but stop. It makes you look like a joke.

For the sake of argument, let's start the Universal Religion of the Fonz. You have the right to worship the Fonz if you want to. If the Universal Religion of the Fonz allows gay marriage, what right does the state have to stop them from performing a ceremony?
 
That would not be a crime because the end result of the ceremony would not be an attempt to create a legally recognized marriage. People just want to say it would be a crime to throw fuel on the fire to make dem ebil conservatifs look bad. I see this statute as being nothing more than an attempt to hold clergy responsible if they sign and file a marriage certificate of two gays at the Court as a safeguard in case two gays were able to trick the court or whoever issues the licenses into issuing the license by a cross dresser named Tracy pretending to be a girl when they are a guy or something.

But it doesn't say "attempt to create a legally recognized marriage," it says to "solemnize." A religious ceremony is pretty darn solemn.
 
United Church of Christ is a protestant denomination. Just like Baptists are.

I know you're trying to play games, but stop. It makes you look like a joke.

For the sake of argument, let's start the Universal Religion of the Fonz. You have the right to worship the Fonz if you want to. If the Universal Religion of the Fonz allows gay marriage, what right does the state have to stop them from performing a ceremony?

And if that same religion also allows for murder, should we turn a blind eye to that as well?
 
This OP points out another reason why government should not be in the marriage business, period.

How much evidence is needed to convince people that nothing gets better when governments of any stripe impose their concept of a business or activity that is already working fine or chooses winners and losers?

If the government eliminated all benefits and privileges associated with the government issued certificate of marriage, there would be no need for any government involvement in the institution of marriage and people would be free to enter into any legal partnerships they choose to express their love.
 
And if that same religion also allows for murder, should we turn a blind eye to that as well?

Of course, because speaking on a societal level, ass-****ing is morally equivalent to killing someone. :roll:

Garbage in, garbage out.
 
No, its not even close. You folks keep up your one party war on women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and you win this hands down! May I say that as a Democrat, I'm delighted by your positions on these issues - especially the regressive stance taken by the House Republicans on immigration reform. If these guys were any dumber, they'd be libertarians.

Libertarians are the only small government conservatives who don't believe in what you've described as the war on women, blacks, etc. Libertarians seem to be the only ones who really believe that "all men" means "all mankind", and that the purpose of government is to protect our rights.

There are authoritarians on both the right and the left.
 
But it doesn't say "attempt to create a legally recognized marriage," it says to "solemnize." A religious ceremony is pretty darn solemn.

When you have somebody prosecuted for performing a ceremony that doesn't result in an attempt to create or file a marriage certificate, let us know. Until then, it is no different than most states when it comes to theft. They have multiple theft statutes defined, but they all fall within the same petit larceny/grand larceny regimen, guns possibly being the exception in some places.
 
Back
Top Bottom