• 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!

United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage

Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

TheNextEra said:
The end result is the same in BOTH cases. The fact you don't like it is not our problem it's YOURS. Good thing when SSM is legalized people such as yourself will have to deal with it being legal. I've put you on the list of people I will toast when that happens.
Click to expand...

I'll have to deal with what, exactly?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

mak2 said:
Animal channel porn?
Click to expand...

LOL! Like Friends? "Sharks turn you on. That's okay, I'm okay with that." Which is why you should never be afraid of just admitting to watching regular porn because its much better than having your wife/girlfriend/significant other giving you National Geographic videos for Valentine's Day because she/he thought you were getting off to animals doing something that comes natural for them.

Although, I will say that there were a lot of pics taken of the two wallabies doing it at the Australian zoo I went to while stationed on the ship, although I'm pretty sure most was for the humor of the situation rather than to be porn (hopefully anyway).
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Deuce said:
I'll have to deal with what, exactly?
Click to expand...

With SSM being legal.

EDIT: Sorry, looks like I messed up the quote that was to go to Paleocon.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

TheNextEra said:
With SSM being legal.

EDIT: Sorry, looks like I messed up the quote that was to go to Paleocon.
Click to expand...


I was a bit confused, as I cannot for the life of me conceive how two dudes getting married causes me any sort of trouble.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Jerry said:
This lawsuit is about creating a religious right to legalize marriage. The church is asking for a special right, to join church and state. If the church wants to perform illegal weddings then they can surrender their legal ability to solemnize any marriage just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

I wrote that before I actually read the lawsuit. I still have to read it a couple of more times now.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Amandi said:
Wow, I didnt know the suit was for all that. I definately support it. It is going against every law NC has that prohibits SSM.
Click to expand...
From the PDF of the complaint

http://uccfiles.com/pdf/complaint.pdf

#91
91. If a minister conducts any marriage ceremony between same-sex couples, he or she is guilty of a crime:
Click to expand...

Guess that pretty much spells out that NC is violating Religious liberty.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I have not looked it up, but it seems to me a year or so ago Fox had an outrage about Obama supposedly telling Church's they would have to have services for SSM. Oh, the outrage, the goobermitn takin over the chruchs. I have not heard a word of this yet on Fox. I will siee if I can find the outrage story.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

minnie616 said:
From the PDF of the complaint

http://uccfiles.com/pdf/complaint.pdf

#91

Guess that pretty much spells out that NC is violating Religious liberty.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, what you wrote is in the court suit not and it isnt the exact wording of the law.. The actual law could be interpreted different. I hope something good comes from the suit but we have to wait and see how everything is decided.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I'm sorry but if a religious group no longer supports the religious tenants of said group, aren't they just another religion? I'm not sure what these clowns are asking for? If they don't want to be tied to the religious guidelines of their parent religion, then don't? You can branch out brothers and sisters. Make up your own religion.. What's so difficult to understand here? We believe in Jesus, and the United Church of Jesus, but we also believe in gay marriage, so would you like to join us, or are you going to leave us on religious grounds? :)

Freaking joke.. Why is this even news and why and to whom are they suing? The NC ban doesn't prevent ANY religion from performing gay marriages. It only states that they are not recognized by the state. :)

Tim-
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Hicup said:
I'm sorry but if a religious group no longer supports the religious tenants of said group, aren't they just another religion? I'm not sure what these clowns are asking for? If they don't want to be tied to the religious guidelines of their parent religion, then don't? You can branch out brothers and sisters. Make up your own religion.. What's so difficult to understand here? We believe in Jesus, and the United Church of Jesus, but we also believe in gay marriage, so would you like to join us, or are you going to leave us on religious grounds? :)

Freaking joke.. Why is this even news and why and to whom are they suing? The NC ban doesn't prevent ANY religion from performing gay marriages. It only states that they are not recognized by the state. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

No, actually, the law says a minister can be fined for officiating at a wedding where no marriage certificate is present. This would include a same-sex marriage ceremony that the state doesn't recognize.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Hicup said:
Freaking joke.. Why is this even news and why and to whom are they suing? The NC ban doesn't prevent ANY religion from performing gay marriages. It only states that they are not recognized by the state. :)
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

Yes. It is ILLEGAL for a priest to perform a private, non-state recognized, religious ceremony of marriage between two individuals of the same sex if they also have the ability to solemnize a normal marriage.

It's making news, because the State has made a religious ceremony illegal.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Zyphlin said:
Did you read the article?

Yes. It is ILLEGAL for a priest to perform a private, non-state recognized, religious ceremony of marriage between two individuals of the same sex if they also have the ability to solemnize a normal marriage.

It's making news, because the State has made a religious ceremony illegal.
Click to expand...


Well shoot I saw the 11 plus pages and decided not to read it all.. Blushes and apologizes.. :)

Well what the hell is the state thinking? How silly a law is that?

Tim-
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

mak2 said:
I have not looked it up, but it seems to me a year or so ago Fox had an outrage about Obama supposedly telling Church's they would have to have services for SSM. Oh, the outrage, the goobermitn takin over the chruchs. I have not heard a word of this yet on Fox. I will siee if I can find the outrage story.
Click to expand...

Yeah when i said on the "demotion" thread of the gay reporter on foxnews that the network was often homophobic (whether that particular story was true or not), someone came in all "that's not true at all, i wouldn't be watching if that's true." Somehow i knew that's BS and ignored
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

mak2 said:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ould-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

"Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties."
Click to expand...

Which really isn't the same as forcing a religion to perform a wedding ceremony/service. Those facilities are being rented out already to the public. Their ministers are not being "sold"/"rented" for their services for those ceremonies. I'm pretty sure most churches do not rent out their actual churches for such events normally (at least not the general public as a whole), but rather simply other facilities that the church owns.

It's like this, can churches refuse to rent their buildings out to interracial couples or couples of a specific different religion or atheists even for such events? If not, then there is no reason that they should be allowed to refuse to rent their buildings out to same sex couples when those buildings are being offered to the public for rental for events. Don't like it, don't own buildings that you are planning on renting out to the public if any part of that "public" will come into conflict with your religious beliefs. They are free to choose to only rent their facilities to parishioners of the church, and not the general public.

Adding to this: that ordinance was overturned by the voters anyway later that year (most likely due in no small part to a lot of that misinformation in the posted article).
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

digsbe said:
The church should be able to perform SSM ceremonies, but the fact that their religion supports it doesn't mean the government should. If people don't want religion defining marriage then you have to have it both ways with it being left up to the people, not having a bias where religion is allowed to dictate government policy and recognition when it happens to be convenient for your views.
Click to expand...

No, it has to be left up to the courts to interpret the constitution. The people are way too inept and prejudiced for this
 
Zyphlin said:
Did you read the article?

Yes. It is ILLEGAL for a priest to perform a private, non-state recognized, religious ceremony of marriage between two individuals of the same sex if they also have the ability to solemnize a normal marriage.

It's making news, because the State has made a religious ceremony illegal.
Click to expand...
The article might have some credibility had they sought out objective legal advice rather than merely assuming the plaintiff's arguments and interpretation of the law are fact.

As it turns out, the doesn't work that way in NC. Nobody has been jailed or fined or sued for performing a purely religious ceremony.

The only way they would get in trouble is if they intended to perform a legal marriage ceremony without a valid marriage license.
 
danarhea said:
…The suit will ask a district court in North Carolina to strike down the state's laws barring same-sex marriages, in part because a provision that makes it a misdemeanor for clergy to perform the ceremonies violates the church's religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Discussion?

Article is here - United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
In other words, "the civic definition of marriage must conform to our religious definition, or it violates our religious freedom."

Yeah, good luck with that guys. Are you really sure you want to win that arguement?
 
Taylor said:
In other words, "the civic definition of marriage must conform to our religious definition, or it violates our religious freedom."

Yeah, good luck with that guys. Are you really sure you want to win that arguement?
Click to expand...

Actually it is a brilliant move, because they won't win on that argument at all. Which will nullify the argument the right has used for YEARS.

Then it will be a clean attack on gender discrimination and win on that argument.
 
There is nothing brilliant about this lawsuit.
 
Taylor said:
In other words, "the civic definition of marriage must conform to our religious definition, or it violates our religious freedom."

Yeah, good luck with that guys. Are you really sure you want to win that arguement?
Click to expand...

The argument is that "the civic definition must include any religious or personal definitions of marriage up to the point where the state can show that an actual state interest is being furthered or it violates religious freedom".

And yes, that is the winning argument because it is how the Constitution works.
 
roguenuke said:
The argument is that "the civic definition must include any religious or personal definitions of marriage up to the point where the state can show that an actual state interest is being furthered or it violates religious freedom".

And yes, that is the winning argument because it is how the Constitution works.
Click to expand...
No, that is a nonsensical argument. There is no logical basis for demanding that a civic definition of marriage conform to any and all other possible definitions. The government's failure to recognize the UCoC's definition in no way violates their religious freedom. They're free to define it however they wish. The state need not adopt it simply because they use the same word to define a different concept.
 
Taylor said:
No, that is a nonsensical argument. There is no logical basis for demanding that a civic definition of marriage conform to any and all other possible definitions. The government's failure to recognize the UCoC's definition in no way violates their religious freedom. They're free to define it however they wish. The state need not adopt it simply because they use the same word to define a different concept.
Click to expand...

You are twisting the argument by ignoring key words/phrases within it. You ignore this part "up to the point where the state can show that an actual state interest is being furthered or it violates religious freedom". It is right there in what you quoted.

They need to adopt it not because the UCC wishes them too, but because they have no legitimate interest being furthered by not allowing two people of the same sex from getting married and not allowing two people of the same sex from getting married can be shown to discriminate against some people. This violates the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

chromium said:
No, it has to be left up to the courts to interpret the constitution. The people are way too inept and prejudiced for this
Click to expand...

The Supreme court acts as any other court. It is an arbiter between two factions of thought. The SC uses the Constitution as judicial reasoning for their rulings. The Supreme court is not just passing down edict from the high court as to what is and what is not constitutional.

Lastly, the people are the final arbiters as to what is and is not constitutional through the amendment process.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

1750Texan said:
The Supreme court acts as any other court. It is an arbiter between two factions of thought. The SC uses the Constitution as judicial reasoning for their rulings. The Supreme court is not just passing down edict from the high court as to what is and what is not constitutional.

Lastly, the people are the final arbiters as to what is and is not constitutional through the amendment process.
Click to expand...

It's in theory possible for the people to have some input on our laws in that way, but nothing of consequence has been amended since well before i was born. Try getting 2/3 of the senate to agree on anything. The SC is far more likely to act as final arbiter of any law, thankfully.

Who can forget prop H8 for example and it's clones ranging from michigan to north carolina. **** the people, and the govt. The SC will take care of their attempts to oppress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom