i'm gonna assume you want me to expound on my accusation of first amendment rights violations created from allowing SSM , or rather accusations by the government of discrimination if SSM isn't allowed..
Here's the religion portion of the first amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion <in other words, the gov't shall not set up a religion that everyone must follow (and/or prosecute those who do not follow)>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You know, I read your post and I'm chagrined.
If you're unwilling to keep pace with current events because you're ideological, what can I possibly post that may open your mind? Nothing. This simile is appropriate: it's like me beating my head against a brick wall. This will be my last post in this thread.
What's the very current event in question I'm referring to? The alleged IRS scandal... That the IRS is granting and not granting tax exempt status depending on the politics of the organization in question.
What if the organization in question applying for tax exempt status is a, for example, religion?
And what if that religion, trying to exercise their right of 'free exercise' under the first admendment, doesn't condone SSM?
The answer is: they're prosecuted by the government. They don't get tax exempt status because, according to the government, they discriminate when they disallow SSM. This refusal of tax exempt status by the government because the organization doesn't condone SSM is a clear violation of both parts of the religion portion of the first amendment: gov't IS establishing a gov't religion, that if not followed, will prosecute, and religions will NOT be able to freely exercise their religion.
I used to work closely with a gentleman who belongs to the Lutheran Church. This is where I was first alerted to first amendment rights violations because governments declare discrimination (and prosecute), when an organization doesn't condone SSM.
The gentleman mentioned that the synod his church belongs to doesn't condone SSM, but the synod (the Missouri Synod) is getting pressure from the Evangelical Lutheran Church Of America to condone SSM. My coworker said The Evangelical Lutheran Church Of America is already condoning gay ministers in the Lutheran Church as long as the minister doesn't outwardly conduct 'gay' activity.
The coworker went on: Lutheran Churches not in the US condone SSM. As a matter of fact, a minister of a Lutheran congregation in Canada was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing a newspaper article about his beliefs on SSM that was deemed 'disparging'. Lutheran Churches outside the US have determined that being gay is genetically predisposed (where's the proof? - ah, ideology), and distinguish between gay tendencies - not a sin, and gay behavior - depending on the circustances, maybe a sin, maybe not.
I've postulated this in other SSM threads: That members of religions that don't believe in SSM aren't allowed to follow their religion. That gov't interferes in the US as well as elsewhere.
These posters on other SSM threads post that nothing is stopping the, for example, Lutheran from practicing their religion in their own fashion. That no gov't organization (in the US) is preventing any religion their practices. Really?
What shall the non-believing-in-SSM-Lutheran do if all of the Lutheran Church, for one reason or another, condones SSM?
Go to another religion that, for the time being, doesn't believe in SSM? Yeah, posters on other SSM threads have also suggested this.
What if the Lutheran takes pride in being Lutheran? Doesn't the gov't also discriminate against the Lutheran if they are forced to go to another religion? (I'm making an analogy between the Lutheran who can't be Lutheran and the SSM couple who can't be married).
Yeah, I know some of you will say (and this is your ONLY argument for SSM) that a plurality of ideological judges once declared marriage for everyone. I want to point out that's not remotely democratic. That's not even a representative republic. It's an oligarchy. And hey, those judges, those oligarchists, were ideologues.
BTW, back in the middle 1850's The Supreme Court of the United States rendered, with its Dred Scott decision, in their opinion, a fair decision respective of property. The Dred Scott decision gave slave owners the right to reclaim former slaves no matter how long they'd been freemen in free states. One can't always say judges who render constitutional decisions use the Constitution for the basis of their decisions, neither can one say all judges are particulary bright.
You say nothing like the IRS scandal has happened in the US before?
Wrong. It's already happened.
In 2012, two women filed a law suit in New Jersey court because a Methodist Church prevented their SS civil union ceremony from being performed in a pavilion owned by said NJ Methodist Church. The pavilion had been rented out only for marriages because
it's a religious structure of that NJ Methodist Church, and SS civil unions are not recognized according to the United Methodist Church Book of Disipline.
Due to the NJ Methodist Church's refusal to rent the pavilion for SS union, New Jersey punished the NJ Methodist Church, and revoked its tax free status in NJ.
Here's an example from Boston, Massachusetts in 2006. Boston Catholic Services ran an adoption agency placing children with families. The Catholic Church announced, rather than submitting to Massachusetts' law requiring the agency place children with SSM couples, that Boston Catholic Services would be closed down because a current 2003 Vatican document described SSM adoptions as gravely 'immoral'.
Here's a secular example:
The Des Moines, Iowa Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accomodation laws because it refused to allow 'family membership' privileges to a SS FEMALE couple that received a civil union in Vermont. The city of Des Moines, Iowa forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as 'families' for membership purposes, or lose $100,000 in gov't support.
Soon afterward, the Des Moines, Iowa YMCA closed its doors.
Why are there no YMCA services in Des Moines, Iowa?
For sure, we know the organization refused to allow SS FEMALE couples 'family privileges' in the YMCA, and the local gov't punished the YMCA.
BTW, there's a YWCA in Des Moines, Iowa.
That's it. I'm done. By.
