do gay rights compromise religious rights?

I see the argument that you're trying to make, Tharan. I just believe that it is a huge mistake for the government to be involved in the activities of a church.

BTW, I'm actually a member of the ACLU.

 

You have it exactly backwards. My argument is against the church being involved in the activities of the government. Churches can keep their "marriages." But the state will perform "civil unions."

Marriages performed by churches, mosques, synagogues, Temple's of Satan, or Flying Spaghetti Monster's PastaBowls should not be legally binding agreements. They are religious ceremonies. Civil Unions are the state sanctioned union of two (or more??) people. Colloquially, the population can refer to a couple any way that want to, but that has nothing to do with the Law.

Or conversely, churches can marry everyone or they can marry no one.

 

How are you going to square that with the first amendment?

 

Well, let's parse it, shall we? You like to do that, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I assume you are referring to the passage "or prohibiting the free exercise therof." As I stated earlier, this passage does not guarantee that churches can have state functions. If you had read my post, I clearly stated that "marriages" and "civil unions" should be separate entities. One is religious and one is legal. It is very simple. All these years have essentially been a mistake and now we are realizing it.

 

Umm, you said

How do you square telling them that they can either marry no one or marry everyone with the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part?

 

Ah, I see what you are talking about. Bad wording on my part.

Well, if the marriage is not a legal, state-recognized union of two taxpayers, but rather a strictly religious ceremony, then I suppose they can discriminate against anyone they wish. But if it is a state function, they cannot discriminate based on sexuality, which translates into marrying pretty much everyone not already married who desires and requests the service, or getting out of the "marriage = legal civil union" business all together.

 

Possibly, if a group of people profess to believe as one and they're not all gay.

 

First off, when you say state, I hope that you mean state as in CA, VT, or NC. If so, then I fully agree that each state has the right to define marriage as it sees fit. The rub comes when that state tries to define it for all other states, which seems to be where a lot of people are - mistakenly from my point of view - hanging their collective hats. There also is the tricky problem of federal laws relating to marriage, which will, at some point, pit disparate definitions of marriage against each other. I don't know how that one will turn out.

And marriage predates the state, so to try to go back and claim it as a state function would be a near impossibility.

 

not very articulate when you're trying to conceal your double standard, are you?

 

It has federal tax law and inheritance implications that would limit movement by couples, so federal statute is going to trump the state once it works its way through litigation. Put your money on it.