Should have that pop up every time someone goes to click on the GT link with a little disclaimer that by clicking OK you agree to this.

The campaign for LGBT rights will, unfortunately, continue until they get what they want. "Basic human rights for all."

They should allow the eccentric folk to experience the same misery as the hetero folk. From personal observation of gay and lesbian couples I noticed that they are usually insanely jealous. A state of mind that leads to horrific spats between them. Let them have their due and maybe they'll finally shut the hell up and stop acting like everyone needs to know about their eccentricity!:hmmm: We'll all get judged in the end. Until that day, we are not qualified to judge anyone.

Originally I was going to say that it hadn't happened. Then I thought I'd better look first.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-a...r-refusing-wed

In America it hasn't happened yet, but wedding-industry businesses are another story.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bl.../3059207/posts

Fascinating argument. I had never thought to make that comparison.

Well said! It would be my hope once they have all basic rights, the radical extremism in your face would fade, but I imagine it will be for decades to come and once laws are passed the "gay card" will get pulled out even when it doesn't apply to keep pushing an agenda for political power, etc...

@Ducimus

look at the similar debate that is going on in England and Wales where the Conservative government has allowed „gay marriages“ in 2012. During the law making process the Church of England, which strongly opposes same-sex legislation, pointed out that the new law must include at least a clear statement that the Church is not forced to wed gay couples in church, because of the seperation of state and church.

I have no idea what the law that got passed looks like in the end, but most likely it will happen anyway that a gay couple sues the church for refusing to wed them in church and/or the the church will sue the state for a violation of the seperation of state and church.

Then this will have to be decided on the basis of Constitutional law to settle things. Most likely the state can pass laws that allow same sex marriages, if those laws don't force churches to wed gay couples (then no hypocrisy).

If you look e.g. here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ll-not-1484855
( "Church will not be forced to marry gay couples")

and here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Coalition.html
("Church forced to conduct gay weddings").

It seems that at least one gay couple has already sued the Chruch of England in 2013 because „they are still not getting what they want“: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-a...r-refusing-wed

Besides, it seems that in Continental Europe the majority of countries have decided to go for the "civil union" option instead of gay "marriage" which would be the other option. Which is the better option, that is highly political.

Onward Kristian Quaffers
 

Good Lord! Another mistranslation of the original Hebrew: at a small Lutheran college in the frigid snow-white wasteland, we reinterpreted it to mean sittin' in the mikvah or hot-tub Nekkid, drinkin' Hamm's and raisn' Cain 'till no one actually Noah's what's goin' on!:up: Blackness is when the party's over and you gotta go to comparative religion class for three credits with a bunch of over zealous scripture spouting hardline missionary's kids...just in from proselytizing the heathens at TIMBUKTOO!:nope: Sodomites to the left, Samaritans to the right and Philistines to the rear, thump yer Bibles and march forward!:O: Let God sort 'm all out...that's His job, not ours.:yep:

That's an interesting one, as its an established church. But the US does not have establishment.
The church says its role in marriage is conducting the business on behalf of the state, that puts marriage firmly in the field of state business not religious business.

The state will always seek its pound of flesh in the form of licenses...
I see no reason whatsoever in denying the eccentric a license for a civil union.
There are enough ordained ministers with proper credentials to perform such ceremony that the churches need not get involved at all and stick to the business of herding their flocks. Instead hammering everyone with their doctrines, whether they want it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isujdfWGqss

After I posted I googled and found that case. I'd say that I agree, that church should be forced to perform gay weddings. Since it is the official government church, and that government has ruled gay marriage legal, the church should be required to perform legal weddings for the people of the country.

(Which is just one more reason why church/state separation is a good thing.)

Isn't that illegal under the Constitution?

It would be, but the story is out of the UK.

I have a lesbian friend and she and her wife got a civil union here, then went to Switzerland where a protestant priest married them. I don't know if that marriage is valid here, but it doesn't mater anyway because of their valid civil union.

If the state allows for gays to go into civil unions like straight people, for the benefits of a married couple, then getting married isn't a matter of state, just finding a liberal enough congregation. They exist, more so in a diverse place like the USA. If you live in a diehard catholic state you'll be more worried about not getting imprisoned for being gay than how to marry. If the state won't provide a civil unions for gays, then we have an equality issue.

If a civil union is available and priests willing to marry gays are allowed to do so then I'm siding with the conservatives. Anything more is looking for privileges by a loudmouth minority (the media looooooves ohhhh soooo muuuuuch). We should ignore those