tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post7374198833025192630..comments2024-03-28T20:53:49.167-04:00Comments on The Adventures of Roberta X: I'll Probably Make A Complete Mess Of ThisRoberta Xhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-68497582083669775952013-08-06T08:03:44.015-04:002013-08-06T08:03:44.015-04:00And for gay marriage proponents, the sobering news...And for gay marriage proponents, the sobering news that <a href="http://www.today.com/news/gay-couples-divorce-comes-extra-costs-6C10660976" rel="nofollow">getting a divorce will cost them a lot more</a>. Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-17860402418035843382013-08-05T22:00:12.052-04:002013-08-05T22:00:12.052-04:00I'm damned if I will sit at a table with anyon...I'm damned if I will sit at a table with anyone who spreads paranoid nonsense, is why. It messes me up emotionally the same way being around Nazis and racists does. <br /><br /> I'm okay with someone being against gay people marrying one another for whatever reason (yes, even if it's cos they think it will undermine their religion); I disagree, but hey, opinions vary. I am *not* okay with pogrom-justifying sophistry.<br /><br /> There's a fight to be fought here but IMO, fighting the wrong fight is going to deepen the divides that already exist. The *real* battle lies in ensuring the First Amendment remains strong, not in some daft anti-religion homo conspiracy-theory.<br /><br /> What makes this especially painful for me is that the two main exponents of this pernicious theory I know best are people I would otherwise like. Dammit.Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-51073336087535423772013-08-05T14:28:15.993-04:002013-08-05T14:28:15.993-04:00And for this, you stopped hostessing blog meet-ups...And for this, you stopped hostessing blog meet-ups? How are the two related, for (St) Pete's sake?<br /><br />Fr. D+<br />Anglican PriestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-80278098525507691292013-08-04T11:54:47.017-04:002013-08-04T11:54:47.017-04:00??? "numerous city and state .govs that are a...??? "numerous city and state .govs that are attempting thru existing laws (discrimination) or attempting to pass new laws that would force "churches" to accept or allow gay marriages on their property."<br /><br /> Really? So far I have sen a single cite, and it is not a church per se but a shared property held by several churches and rentable for public use: essentially, a business.<br /><br /> Once again, the Bill of Rights is a very effective bar to any unit of government trying to order churches around. They *cannot* be required to perform marriages. (Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Free_exercise_of_religion" rel="nofollow">suggests lower-level fights may have to look to State constitutions</a>, most of which echo the Bill of Rights.)<br /><br /><br /> Hey, you know what they call people who "peaceably ... assemble, and ... petition the Government for a redress of grievances?" Activists.<br /><br /> Be careful what you wish for.Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-3721734896796521002013-08-04T06:38:30.028-04:002013-08-04T06:38:30.028-04:00Sorry - should have explained the "state / .g...Sorry - should have explained the "state / .gov" better...State = State .gov and .gov = the Feds. Right now there are numerous city and state .govs that are attempting thru existing laws (discrimination) or attempting to pass new laws that would force "churches" to accept or allow gay marriages on their property. And yes , their are many "religions" that perform gay marriages or ceremonies. So it goes back to my original idea - if you go to a church and request a gay marriage and the church declines on moral grounds, go find one that will... Simple.....unless that is not now and has never been the agenda in the first place..... scottWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803832704982143592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-67928654418760294282013-08-04T02:07:35.704-04:002013-08-04T02:07:35.704-04:00Well, written, it does seem that everyone feels li...Well, written, it does seem that everyone feels like 'they' are out to get 'us'. It is part of how we see the world, and the drumming against whatever we like, understand and love.<br /><br />How did the government decide it had anything to do with marriage? It all goes back to control. Oh, that was how religion got a hold on it, too.<br /><br />I know you will have some great times, and blog posts, write on!Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14794620086508373660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-42120787931472288772013-08-04T00:57:11.743-04:002013-08-04T00:57:11.743-04:00"On the other point it seems as if though the..."On the other point it seems as if though the LGBT groups/individuals will not settle for a civil union or marriage (whether performed by the state or .gov)."<br /><br /> ?? "The State" = ".gov," and aside from The State, there are some Christian (etc.) denominations that marry LGBT... people already. But no level of government has the power to *compel* any church to perform a marriage repugnant to their religion. Can't do it.<br /><br /> There is a basic, fundamental difference between a *business* and a *church* or other *religious* *body* in U.S. law.<br /><br /> There's also a difference between you (or me) acknowledging people are married to one another and thinking it's a good idea. Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-40453044806325740252013-08-03T22:51:05.864-04:002013-08-03T22:51:05.864-04:00Understand the laws -- but I said that they "...Understand the laws -- but I said that they "should have the right", not that they "have the right". The sign I was referencing was a basic "no firearms period"....So I don't go there anymore. I am just trying to say that basically to each his own. I did not attempt a scene, or call for a boycott, or try to get that group of stores on a blacklist. They don't want my business, they won't get it. On the other point it seems as if though the LGBT groups/individuals will not settle for a civil union or marriage (whether performed by the state or .gov). It keeps advancing to an end goal: That is to force people, especially Christians, to accept their lifestyle and to acknowledge its legitimacy little by little.(thats why I referenced the military). I personally don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their home. Could care less. But I will not allow anyone to force me to accept something that I don't believe in or consider wrong if it goes against my belief system and moral values. scottWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803832704982143592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-68447537319727915712013-08-03T21:49:58.816-04:002013-08-03T21:49:58.816-04:00No, Scott, under the laws as they are constituted ...No, Scott, under the laws as they are constituted in some places it is *not* the right of a business owner to kick the homos out (as long as they're well-behaved, same rule as for anyone else). In *no* place can they make you leave because of your race or ethnicity.<br /><br />In Indiana, "no guns" signs in a business open to the public (other than a sports venue) really only mean "no visible guns," as all they can do is ask you to leave if they see you have one, and you can be arrested for trespassing if you refuse.Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-34561058388666575892013-08-03T11:59:45.730-04:002013-08-03T11:59:45.730-04:00I guess my point is: A private business owner shou...I guess my point is: A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason....Such as the local chain of c-stores who have now posted "no firearms" signs in their stores. I brought up the point to the owners, they said sorry, I said ok - respect your right to refuse service and I will go elsewhere. No big deal. Simplified terms, but a simple point. I am not going around attempting to force that group of owners to allow for open or concealed carry on their property. The same goes for the baker, if it is against his moral and religious beliefs to not serve the LGBT community then so be it. It's their Right...that is until the activist, their activism, and the lawyers get involved.scottWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803832704982143592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-1381609574904549002013-08-03T11:28:11.979-04:002013-08-03T11:28:11.979-04:00Egregious Charles: I'd say it's a lousy ex...Egregious Charles: <i>I'd say it's a lousy example of how separation of Church and State *ought* to play out; it's Church resisting State in circumstances that do not allow State to prosecute Church.<br /><br />Kudos to the Catholic Church for resisting, but the fact they do resist does not legitimize the usurpation of unconstitutional power.</i><br /><br />FWIW: I have read these statements ten times, and I cannot figure out which side you're arguing for. You say "it's Church resisting State in circumstances that do not allow State to prosecute Church", but... that's a <b>good</b> thing, right? The State <b>shouldn't</b> be allowed to prosecute the Church for resisting the State's usurpation of their power to marry or divorce people in the eyes of God*.<br /><br />(*Catholic God, of course.)<br /><br />When you speak of "legitimiz[ing] the usurpation of unconstitutional power", are you talking about the State issuing divorce papers to people that were married in the Catholic Church?<br /><br />Because, of course, they aren't issuing <b>religious</b> divorce papers, they're only issuing civil ones, and sundering the civil marriage that the Catholic Priest was civilly authorized to civilly perform, simultaneously with the religious marriage he was religiously ordained to religiously perform.<br /><br />(Which, yes, is why all the State stuff should just be called "civil union"--since that's what it is--and leave the "Marriage" to whatever flavor of religion or none the couple in question prefers.)perlhaqrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920117742664645165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-77649565603225095152013-08-03T10:35:14.877-04:002013-08-03T10:35:14.877-04:00Scott , I'm not sure what you think, but the U...Scott , I'm not sure what you think, but the United States Army is not a Church; it's rather firmly on the "State" side of that wall.<br /><br /> As for "forcing churches/individuals to accept..." pull the other one, it's got bells on: *churches* cannot even be prevented from discriminating on the basis of *race.* (Also sex, ethnicity and, of course, religion.) As for individuals, all the .gov can do is keep you from initiating force against them, you're free to not accept 'em.<br /><br /> Where idiots get all bent out of shape is over "places of public accommodation," businesses open to the public. Like it or not, Federal law says if you're open to the public, you're open to <i>all</i> of the public as long as they're sanitary and well-behaved; and in some locations, state/local legislation has made explicit that LGBTQWERTYUIOP people are included. Don't like it? Don't open a place of public accommodation, write your city councillor, State legislator, U.S. Congressman.<br /><br /> We have a wall of separation between Church and State. It's there for a reason and I encourage the churchly to ram the fool notions of fools -- and fools-in-office -- right up against it. Just let's be clear about what falls on which side of it. <i>There is no right to not be all horrified by people who are Different From Us,</i> only the same strictures of civil behavior that apply to everyone. Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-75512511136380258092013-08-03T07:34:50.301-04:002013-08-03T07:34:50.301-04:00IMHO, most Christians could care less what anyone ...IMHO, most Christians could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their own home.... Could care less who gets married.....It's the idea of the State/Fed/homosexual rights groups forcing individuals/Churches/groups to "accept" an alternative lifestyle that they may not agree with....make no mistake about it, this is what its all about (ie...the US Military). scottWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803832704982143592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-50065011807880832612013-08-02T21:52:39.416-04:002013-08-02T21:52:39.416-04:00Roberta X writes...
"Show up at your local C...Roberta X writes...<br /><br />"Show up at your local Catholic church with divorce papers and your new intended, and see how far that gets you.<br />....<br />And it's a good example of how separation of Church and State plays out in this country."<br /><br />I'd say it's a lousy example of how separation of Church and State *ought* to play out; it's Church resisting State in circumstances that do not allow State to prosecute Church.<br /><br />Kudos to the Catholic Church for resisting, but the fact they do resist does not legitimize the usurpation of unconstitutional power.<br /><br />"Civil marriage and religious marriage are severable concepts..."<br /><br />Here I strongly disagree; not that they are severable, but that civil marriage is a concept with any First Amendment legitimacy; it aligns with many churches but not many others. It's as illegitimate as defining "civil prayer" in a way that would exclude prayers to Mary or saints. (BTW I'm Protestant and do not believe in praying to Mary or saints.) And if you don't think there's an argument to be made for a pressing government need to define prayer, well, there were plenty of bright statesmen who argued against freedom of religion all over Europe.EgregiousCharlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-60821134166772050662013-08-02T12:53:25.893-04:002013-08-02T12:53:25.893-04:00Yeah, like I say, the concept of "church"...Yeah, like I say, the concept of "church" is somewhat nebulous. Or rather, multipartite; the word can refer to a number of different things, from just the physical building itself, all the way to the congregation, through the entire religion. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" comes to mind.<br /><br />True, they only wanted the building, but it's private property owned not simply by a religious individual (though I think that should be adequate, of course, I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to property) but by an actual religious organization itself.<br /><br />If this precedent stands, I expect we can expect to see a lot of places that are owned by religions (the aforementioned LDS Church, for example) which may have previously been available for rent to the general public, taken off the rental market.perlhaqrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920117742664645165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-40759589401412513912013-08-02T08:17:23.185-04:002013-08-02T08:17:23.185-04:00Possible breaking news from the UK relating at lea...<a href="http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/" rel="nofollow"> Possible breaking news from the UK</a> relating at least tangentially to this discussion.<br /><br />TL;DR: Gay couple to sue church over gay marriage opt-out. (That's the headline, verbatim, and the text of the article seems to bear it out.)<br /><br />Caveats: (1) I'm not familiar with the source, and thus cannot comment on its reliability one way or another. (2) This being in the UK, <i>not</i> the US, the contemplated legal action may only involve the official State church.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html" rel="nofollow"> Here's the article in the Essex Chronicle</a> that seems to be the primary source for the above story.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15353148533326986159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-53714816340154574872013-08-02T04:42:25.658-04:002013-08-02T04:42:25.658-04:00Robert Fowler, you might want to check, either you...Robert Fowler, you might want to check, either you're very lucky or she's veruy deaf.<br /><br />And Bubblehead Les, "full faith and credit" is one of the reasons this old sub-marine hunter is pushing the LGBT marriage thing also. Purely selfish reasons of course; I want to wave my TN CHL license under a CHP nose my next trip out that way.rickn8orhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911803300343351338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-4032935983913618592013-08-02T00:53:20.995-04:002013-08-02T00:53:20.995-04:00" ... Civil marriage and religious marriage a..." ... Civil marriage and religious marriage are severable concepts ..."<br /><br />This. Thanx.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-79661091940914754952013-08-02T00:52:20.134-04:002013-08-02T00:52:20.134-04:00Why is the State even recognizing marriages? Isn&#...Why is the State even recognizing marriages? Isn't this a first amendment violation?<br /><br />At most, the state should only recognize cohabitation contracts, including provisions for medical power of attorney, childrearing responsibilities, and alimony/breadwinner issues.<br /><br />"Marriage" is a religious ceremony.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-29606726176038291792013-08-02T00:00:05.263-04:002013-08-02T00:00:05.263-04:00Perlhaqr, I note with interest the story cites a U...Perlhaqr, I note with interest the story cites a U. S. Supreme Court decision that rules the other way, and I wonder if the group of churches plan to appeal? --I suspect if so the case will turn on the narrow issue of "what constitutes a church for First Amendment purposes?" and I don't envy any judge that has to take it on. (Too, they appear to have been wanting only to use the *building* and not the services of any pastor from the sponsoring churches -- and that is not a distinction without difference, especially given that the building was routinely rented out for marriages by members of other denominations.)<br /><br /> For now, yeah, I have to admit, that however thinly I might slice, it is a cite of State leaning on Church and it wants sorted out. --Even the court handing down the favorable ruling didn't award any damages; this is a sign of low confidence they won't be overturned. Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-77051321686430991402013-08-01T23:49:16.835-04:002013-08-01T23:49:16.835-04:00McThag writes: "I cannot and I will go away a...McThag writes: "I cannot and I will go away and never come back for being an idiot."<br /><br /> Oh, please don't. We're all idiots here, about one thing or another.<br /><br /> It's *hard* to untangle "free exercise of religion" from the stuff the .gov *can* mess with you over. Attorneys get rich (or grow old and gray) coming up with answers that have the sole virtue of being about equally loathsome to everyone.Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-65889250286711599602013-08-01T23:45:19.572-04:002013-08-01T23:45:19.572-04:00Egregious Charles writes: "the government doe...Egregious Charles writes: "the government does in fact assert that they can dissolve the marriage, and they have pretty much all the lawyers, judges, guns, money, and jails, and also a considerable lingering legitimacy in most people's minds."<br /> Show up at your local Catholic church with divorce papers and your new intended, and see how far that gets you. Other than very special circumstances or the death of a spouse, Rome gives you one (1) marriage. You can go off and have a judge do it but the Church won't and nobody can make them. I chose the RCC simply because they're the most obvious example, there are plenty of denominations that play it the very same way -- and some will read you right out over a civil divorce.<br /><br /> It's their right. And it's a good example of how separation of Church and State plays out in this country. Civil marriage and religious marriage are severable concepts and are only ever united as a matter of convenience. It's handy that your preacher can sign your marriage license, but so can judges, etc.Roberta Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09956807794520627885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-66215377747241961722013-08-01T22:59:48.128-04:002013-08-01T22:59:48.128-04:00Kind of late to the party, and I usually hate to c...Kind of late to the party, and I usually hate to chip in with nothing more than a +1, but...yeah. <br /><br />To focus on the part of what a business can be forced to do, we have a very similar case here in Richland...a florist turned down providing flowers for a gay marriage over 'religious reasons', and are facing the same kind of law suit as the one you noted in Colorado. <br /><br />Like you, I also think a business owner should be able to cut his throat and say 'NO' to business for any reason they please...but here in Washington, the law also calls for accommodation. greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10282685892329599436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-10971847544957273702013-08-01T22:57:34.138-04:002013-08-01T22:57:34.138-04:00Well said Roberta.
Perhaps folks need to go liste...Well said Roberta.<br /><br />Perhaps folks need to go listen to Roy Zimmerman sing <a href="http://youtu.be/bja2ttzGOFM" rel="nofollow">Defenders of Marrage</a>. It pretty much sums things up.Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5837660608809488753.post-65329572215488174972013-08-01T22:09:08.427-04:002013-08-01T22:09:08.427-04:00Egregious Charles writes, "..they (the State)...Egregious Charles writes, "..they (the State) could dissolve the civil union, but could not dissolve the marriage."<br /><br />Roberta X writes, "Umm, ask your local parish priest or the pastors of any one of a number of Protestant sects. I think you will find this is already the case."<br /><br />Well that's what they believe, and I believe. However, the government does in fact assert that they can dissolve the marriage, and they have pretty much all the lawyers, judges, guns, money, and jails, and also a considerable lingering legitimacy in most people's minds. So there's a real difference if they say you are divorced from the bonds of matrimony versus if they say your civil union is cancelled.EgregiousCharlesnoreply@blogger.com