• 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

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,221
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to marry gays

Speaking of ****ting all over religious freedom ... I thought the GOP was all about that, guess not when it comes to gays.

A successful effort by the Indiana Republican party, which controls the state House and Senate, to legislate the permitted, and banned, practices of Jews, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and other mainstream faiths would appear to fly smack in the face of ongoing religious right efforts to brand the civil rights of gays as a threat to religion. In fact, it is anti-gay bigots who are now threatening to throw mainstream clergy in jail for simply practicing their faith.

Granted, not the most unbiased source in the world. However, don't you think that a religion should be free to perform a religious ceremony?
 
Wow, that sounds almost too crazy to believe. Absolutely terrible if story is as described.
 
Wow, that sounds almost too crazy to believe. Absolutely terrible if story is as described.

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.
 
This story is a fabrication for a couple of reasons.

1. The law has been in effect since the late 90s. The current changes are only to classifications.
2. The violation is providing false information on the marriage license application. A clergy can perform a same sex marriage ceremony. They just can't try to have the marriage recognized by the state.

Be wary of sites that do not source the actual bill.
 
This story is a fabrication for a couple of reasons.

1. The law has been in effect since the late 90s. The current changes are only to classifications.
2. The violation is providing false information on the marriage license application. A clergy can perform a same sex marriage ceremony. They just can't try to have the marriage recognized by the state.

Be wary of sites that do not source the actual bill.



Funny how those small government, freedom loving, non fascist, non dictatorial, non tyrannical Conservatives/Christians get around, isn't it ?.....................
 
This story is a fabrication for a couple of reasons.

1. The law has been in effect since the late 90s. The current changes are only to classifications.
2. The violation is providing false information on the marriage license application. A clergy can perform a same sex marriage ceremony. They just can't try to have the marriage recognized by the state.

Be wary of sites that do not source the actual bill.



Or are you claiming that the law that was passed in "the late 90's" is part of the much ballyhooed "JudeoChristian tradition" ?...........
 
Funny how those small government, freedom loving, non fascist, non dictatorial, non tyrannical Conservatives/Christians get around, isn't it ?.....................

Eh? You lost me.

I think the OPs article was written by someone who misinterpreted the bill. I don't think it was malicious. I think they saw ill intent where there was none and they sensationalized something that was actually rather mundane. Unfortunately this misinformation is going to get a lot of gay rights activists heated under the collar and they are going to go spouting off about a non issue.
 
Religious freedom is an oxymoron.
 
Eh? You lost me.

I think the OPs article was written by someone who misinterpreted the bill. I don't think it was malicious. I think they saw ill intent where there was none and they sensationalized something that was actually rather mundane. Unfortunately this misinformation is going to get a lot of gay rights activists heated under the collar and they are going to go spouting off about a non issue.

Like I said, funny how these freedom loving people got laws defining other people's freedom passed a couple of decades ago................
 
Like I said, funny how these freedom loving people got laws defining other people's freedom passed a couple of decades ago................

A different time. That was after DOMA was passed and before a single state had same sex marriage. There is also nothing inherently evil about a state criminalizing the act of providing false information on a formal state document, even if the intent was to deter same sex couples from filing out of protest.
 
A different time. That was after DOMA was passed and before a single state had same sex marriage. There is also nothing inherently evil about a state criminalizing the act of providing false information on a formal state document, even if the intent was to deter same sex couples from filing out of protest.

If you can justify that string of malevolent criminal behavior, than anything goes...............................
 
I'm highly skeptical if any information about gay marriage from a blog that has the obvious goal of promoting gay marriage.
 
This story is a fabrication for a couple of reasons.

1. The law has been in effect since the late 90s. The current changes are only to classifications.
2. The violation is providing false information on the marriage license application. A clergy can perform a same sex marriage ceremony. They just can't try to have the marriage recognized by the state.

Be wary of sites that do not source the actual bill.

It seems the law is prejudiced by nature. What is being described is covered by fraud. We already have laws which punish that, and penalties for it. It puts fraud of gay marriage above any other fraud involving marriage applications. It is like saying gay people should be punished more for lying on a marriage application than a straight couple. But other than that it seems it doesn't make it illegal to perform an actual gay wedding, just to get it recognized by the state through lying on the application.

Well, now that DOMA is gone we will see these crazy things challenged. Given the national nature of the ACLU, gay rights organizations, and homosexuals it is only a matter of time before challenges to every state law pop up. The supreme court should have saved a lot of time and money and declared them all to be prejudiced and unconstitutional.
 
It seems the law is prejudiced by nature. What is being described is covered by fraud. We already have laws which punish that, and penalties for it. It puts fraud of gay marriage above any other fraud involving marriage applications. It is like saying gay people should be punished more for lying on a marriage application than a straight couple. But other than that it seems it doesn't make it illegal to perform an actual gay wedding, just to get it recognized by the state through lying on the application.

Well, now that DOMA is gone we will see these crazy things challenged. Given the national nature of the ACLU, gay rights organizations, and homosexuals it is only a matter of time before challenges to every state law pop up. The supreme court should have saved a lot of time and money and declared them all to be prejudiced and unconstitutional.

However the SC had ruled, there is no changing the evil nature of an evil natured people.........................
 
It seems the law is prejudiced by nature. What is being described is covered by fraud. We already have laws which punish that, and penalties for it. It puts fraud of gay marriage above any other fraud involving marriage applications. It is like saying gay people should be punished more for lying on a marriage application than a straight couple. But other than that it seems it doesn't make it illegal to perform an actual gay wedding, just to get it recognized by the state through lying on the application.

I think the penalties are actually less severe than fraud in Indiana. In fact, I believe the way the bill changed the classifications it actually lowered the penalties from what they were. Not saying that it wasn't a dick move on their part to try to deter protesting same sex couples in this fashion, but we have to remember that sodomy was still criminalized in much the country at that point in time.
 
I think the penalties are actually less severe than fraud in Indiana. In fact, I believe the way the bill changed the classifications it actually lowered the penalties from what they were. Not saying that it wasn't a dick move on their part to try to deter protesting same sex couples in this fashion, but we have to remember that sodomy was still criminalized in much the country at that point in time.

The people here have psychological problems that run very deep......................I wonder who cares ?......................
 
Why bother with facts when there's conservative bashing to do. :lol:
 
Why bother with facts when there's conservative bashing to do. :lol:

If I could wave a magic wand and fix them I would. But there are no magic wands.................................
 
If I could wave a magic wand and fix them I would. But there are no magic wands.................................

So we could be more like you?.................................
 
So we could be more like you?.................................



LOL...........good point....................I'm more liberal than you know, I believe in others right to be awful, because it means less people I have to feel guilty about not caring about.........................
 
I think the penalties are actually less severe than fraud in Indiana. In fact, I believe the way the bill changed the classifications it actually lowered the penalties from what they were. Not saying that it wasn't a dick move on their part to try to deter protesting same sex couples in this fashion, but we have to remember that sodomy was still criminalized in much the country at that point in time.


Though I cannot say how they apply it, it would seem to be a second statute to violate for a second charge on the same crime.
 
So we cannot prosecute someone for effectively being an accessory to fraud if those committing the fraud are gay?
 
So we cannot prosecute someone for effectively being an accessory to fraud if those committing the fraud are gay?
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom