Standby terminology if US Supreme Court says same sex is legal definition

Interplanner said:

TLK re 139:
But it's not discrimination. It's practicing one's beliefs,

Click to expand...

It's both.

and mature people don't go around finding ways to get offended and take legal action when they are offended.

Click to expand...

I don't know -- the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King seemed pretty mature to me...

Mature people are pluralist and if a person doesn't want to be part of your same-sex belief (by being forced to help with your SS wedding), they are free not too.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, mature Christians should also be pluralist, and realize that even though they personally would never marry a person of the same sex, they are being quite immature by interfering with those who wish to.

It is called preserving distinctions, and apparently the SS crowd just realized there are people out there who do that, and it might offend them as SS people.

Click to expand...

So why, in the 60s, did we choose not to preserve the distinctions between "white" and "colored"?

I differ with Muslims on many points, but I don't go out of my way to embarrass or humiliate them, let alone this crass legal action stuff, unless a person is being abused or a life is in danger through honor killing etc per shari'a, as was just published in the bio of a girl who grew up that way, and was molested and told to be silent and is now on her own in college and in her 20s.

Click to expand...

Cool story, bro -- but I don't recall asking.

Back to the OP and the matter of the definition of marriage. If the distinction of MF marriage is not preserved in the ruling, other ways will be sought.

Click to expand...

The segregationists said the same thing -- If they couldn't preserve their definition of "coloreds" as inferior, other ways were sought. And they were quite creative over the decades.

...still are, from what I'm seeing.

Interplanner said:

What is your answer to all the people who are insulted that changing genders or gender options about marriage is the same thing as race?

Click to expand...

I have found that "you're wrong; get over it" sums it up nicely.

Interplanner said:

I believe MLK was very mature about these things,

Click to expand...

And yet he traveled to places where he and his kind clearly weren't wanted, and stirred up trouble for the purpose of generating attention for the trouble he stirred up. He was quite mature about it, too.

and never would have approved of same sex couples, least of all for this reason (that the racial equality template justified it).

Click to expand...

Very probable -- also very irrelevant.

Do you have reason (quotes) to believe otherwise?

Click to expand...

Nope -- but since MLK is only here as an example, and not the foundation of my argument, it doesn't matter what he may have personally thought.

What does matter is the legislation which he helped bring about -- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sex.

The law is quite clear -- if the state grants a service to one citizen because he is a man, and refuses the same service to another citizen because she is a woman, the state is in violation of federal law.

Now, you're going to say that when MLK championed Civil Rights, he never intended, nor probably never wanted it to be applied to same sex marriage 50 years later... and that is also very probable -- and also very irrelevant. The law says what it says, and should be enforced as such.

Interplanner said:

"Interfering"? Give me a break. There is nothing prohibiting SS couples from going to many other cake shops.

Click to expand...

There was nothing prohibiting colored people from sitting at other lunch counters.

They are doing what they are doing for crass political leverage.

Click to expand...

MLK received the same criticism -- he succeeded, too.

"If you burn books, you will burn people." --T. Mann

Likewise, if you insist on subjugating people's beliefs, what else will you do to them?

Click to expand...

Ask the KKK -- their beliefs have been subjugated, yet they're still around.

Interplanner said:

I have no idea what #146 means, possibly because of the "" grammar.

Click to expand...

Allow me to assist you:

http://www.talkenglish.com/Grammar/Grammar.aspx

I'm with Jindal. When a "legal committee" of 10 people defeats a bill that 65% of a population wants, the individual representative in our system takes the side of the will of the people, as did Jindal in Louisiana.

Click to expand...

How large a percentage of the population does it take to override the Constitution?

Interplanner said:

I believe MLK was very mature about these things, and never would have approved of same sex couples, least of all for this reason (that the racial equality template justified it). Do you have reason (quotes) to believe otherwise?

Click to expand...

You can believe what you wish but it is worth noting that Martin Luther King's widow, Coretta Scott King, was a long time advocate of gay rights and, in some quotes I've seen, implies that MLK would have advocated for gays as well. One of the quotes:

"I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 'We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... an inescapable network of mutuality,... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.' Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Click to expand...

She made similar quotes many times, you can find more of them here.

Maren said:

You can believe what you wish but it is worth noting that Martin Luther King's widow, Coretta Scott King, was a long time advocate of gay rights and, in some quotes I've seen, implies that MLK would have advocated for gays as well. One of the quotes:

She made similar quotes many times, you can find more of them here.

Click to expand...

And even if King were, for the sake of argument, passionately against gays, it would be irrelevant -- he was hardly the last word in civil rights... otherwise, the movement would've died when he did.

Interplanner said:

Cearbhall,
you've got the wrong end of the stick inside out. Are you unaware that the NT is clear that the marriage is validated as male-female and that homosexuality is a greater sin than say taking a couple eggs from a neighbor's frig and forgetting to restore them? My point was clearly that MF marraige alone was sacred. Therefore, if the USSC is going to use 'marry' to include an abomination, there are NT Christians who are going to look into another term to use, and to refuse to be under USSC's jurisdiction on this.

Click to expand...

It is? I've never seen that in Scripture. Could you point me in the right direction so I can read it too?

Billnew said:

If we casually throw aside peoples religious beliefs, then we have no protection of religion in this country. We are not talking of people refusing to serve a person at a restaurant because they are gay, we are talking about people refusing to join in the celebration of the anti-religious union. (predominately Christian, but Muslim also have a problem with it, maybe other religions too)

Click to expand...

You have mistaken what the 1st Amendment actually says. It does NOT "protect" religion. It cannot do so. The 1st Amendment forbids the government from doing so. What it says is that the government cannot establish any particular religion. nor prohibit any. It does not say that it is bound to "protect" any religion, except from it's own actions, regardless if those actions had a positive or negative effect on a particular religion. If your position is taken by the government, it WOULD be exercising it's power to establish a particular set of religious practices over another, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Also, protection of "religious beliefs" would arguably extend to many practices which you would, no doubt, view as profane. So, be careful what you fight for. You could possibly get it.

As a last statement, selling a wedding cake to a gay couple isn't participation in their celebration, as you have indicated. It is simply a business transaction. Participation in the celebration would entail EATING the cake, not selling it.

Interplanner said:

re the last line. ...which is exactly why it is not discrmination for a MF marriage doctrine person not to do preps for SS weddings. Do you not realize Islam is a religion with certain doctrines that approve this or disapprove that? Or perhaps you think NT Christianity approves SS marriage, which is subversion. What you wrote assumes you have control of the word marriage, which is not (yet) the case.

Click to expand...

And, what you have written assumes you have control of the word "marriage". In reality, you do not. Nor does the church, or any other religious body. Marriage was given to man, not any specific group of men, but all men. So, to whom DOES it belong now? It belongs to all men. Isn't that exactly what is meant by the word "society"?

Interplanner said:

[This didn't post, or I can't find it]

Does anyone have an alternate word for marriage if the US Supreme Court 'captures' it and says it must include same-sex couples? Ie, if they do, those concerned can destroy their "state" marriage certificates and enter into alternative ones validated by other communities, escaping the jurisdiction.

Some alternatives might be:
*to become one flesh (a bit subjective)
*to enter a monial bond. Matrimonial works so long as we are referring to biological mothers, not mothers through adoption. We wouldn't want trans-monial bonds.

Click to expand...

How about an acronym? Say: "YOMIISYA!" which would mean: "You're Only Married If I Say You Are!!" or even simpler: "GNNA" "Gays Need Not Apply" I'm picturing a whole series of laws here in the US that would be called "The Liberace Laws" kind of like the "Jim Crow Laws" only updated for the 2000's.
tulc(is drinking some great coffee!)

Interplanner said:

re not wanting 'trans-monial'
The reason MF marriage protectors would not want that term is the same as not wanting transgender practices. So long as matrimonial means a biological mother (and does not mean an adoptive mother in a SS marriage) we have the answer.

Click to expand...

What is "transgender practices"? I've never heard that phrase before. Exactly what do transgender individuals practice that cisgender individuals do not?

StephanieSomer said:

What is "transgender practices"? I've never heard that phrase before. Exactly what do transgender individuals practice that cisgender individuals do not?

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting from when I asked this question. I look forward to an answer.

Interplanner said:

Does anyone have an alternate word for marriage if the US Supreme Court 'captures' it and says it must include same-sex couples? Ie, if they do, those concerned can destroy their "state" marriage certificates and enter into alternative ones validated by other communities, escaping the jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

If you felt it's only for heterosexuals, then keep the name. I don't see the gays getting married changes anything.