(no subject)
Oct. 11th, 2008 03:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmatonakApparently, some of my fellow Californians are confused. They seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "legal gay marriage" means a pair of homos (or chick-homos) can barge into ANY CHURCH and demand to be married, and said church will have to marry those two homos in defiance of GOD'S LAW lest thugs with guns come and SHOOT EVERYONE OMG.
This is ridiculous. A church, a private association, has the right to tell any heterosexual couple seeking to marry to get bent. Any court that has held otherwise did the whole court thing wrong. Similarly, if it is against your creed to allow pairs of men or pairs of women to marry, you cannot be compelled to perform those marriages.
At this time, the rights and privileges of marriage are correctly extended to homosexual couples under the California constitution. Amending the state constitution to forbid gay marriage will not be the single worst sin ever committed, but it would be a grievous moral lapse and a completely unjust exercise of "tyranny of the majority."
That being said, I will be the first to say that specific churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies that are against their creed. That's common sense.
I am also willing to legally define marriage as being between two humans, if anyone's knickers are still in a twist about that.
This is ridiculous. A church, a private association, has the right to tell any heterosexual couple seeking to marry to get bent. Any court that has held otherwise did the whole court thing wrong. Similarly, if it is against your creed to allow pairs of men or pairs of women to marry, you cannot be compelled to perform those marriages.
At this time, the rights and privileges of marriage are correctly extended to homosexual couples under the California constitution. Amending the state constitution to forbid gay marriage will not be the single worst sin ever committed, but it would be a grievous moral lapse and a completely unjust exercise of "tyranny of the majority."
That being said, I will be the first to say that specific churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies that are against their creed. That's common sense.
I am also willing to legally define marriage as being between two humans, if anyone's knickers are still in a twist about that.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 03:12 pm (UTC)You want to know something crazy? I can understand the motivation to commit all kinds of heinous acts. You name a deadly sin, I've been tempted to it. But I just cannot wrap my head around the idea of being against gay marriage. I know the attitude is out there. It's just one of the many things I don't get at all.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 10:03 pm (UTC)