Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

[TLK Valentine]

Of what institution?

Does it matter? My home state of New Jersey recognizes me as a minister authorized to preform weddings.

Do you consider same-sex marriages more blessed, or of more importance, to forgo the normal fee's?

More novel, actually -- although, since my normal fee is $1, it's not like I'm taking a major financial hit.

So there were no vows?
Then there was no marriage contract!

Wrong, and wrong -- both couples wrote their own vows, and the marriage contract was issued by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (don't ask me why those organizations are combined, or why they issue the contracts; I don't make the rules), and signed by the bride, groom, witnesses, local registrar, and of course, myself.

2 marriages does not make a majority.

And yet, they're every bit as valid as the ones in the majority.

Why, how many have you performed?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Regardless of whether or not gays are allowed to marry, they will continue to have sex.

Do you really think that my opposition to same sex marriage is going to prevent them from being together?

I have no idea how this conversation got so far out of hand, and as a result, I will publish my beliefs.

I am morally opposed to same-sex marriage, but am all in favor of civil unions with the same civil rights as marriages.

Just don't call it marriage, and don't force people and businesses who don't want to be involved in gay unions to do so.

That is my political belief. Give them the rights. Don't call it marriage. Butt out of the bedroom.

Why not call it marriage? If it quacks like a duck...

Who on Earth said gays were inferior? I certainly don't think they are. I'm in favor of giving them the same exact benefits that exist in heterosexual marriage, while simply titling it a "civil union."

The exact same benefits would include the benefit of calling it a marriage.

No, but at it's core, marriage is religious. Marriage was instituted so that in the eyes of God, two people could live together and know each other Biblically.

You may believe that, but my marriage to my partner will not include religion, even peripherally.

The government just came along and gave married people civil rights, like filing taxes together, visiting each other in the hospital, &c. I'm simply saying that we should afford gays those same right, but not call it marriage, for in sooth, marriage is a religious institution.

No, it's not.

But even if it was, you would be denying churches who believe that same-sex marriage is okay the right to call those unions "marriage." If it's a religious institution, be mindful that yours isn't the only religion out there.

 

[Zeena]

Does it matter? My home state of New Jersey recognizes me as a minister authorized to preform weddings.

I mentioned it to show a difference in the actual ceremony, or lack thereof;

A wedding ceremony is performed by a minister of God, and recognised by the church, a civil marriage is performed by a minister of State and recognised by the State.
The first, within certain religious conventions, the later within certain social conventions.

These differences matter to many people, most especially the first.

More novel, actually -- although, since my normal fee is $1, it's not like I'm taking a major financial hit.

Just to nitpick..

How can $1 be your 'normal' fee when you have ministered two marriages and one was free? The honest thing to say would be that you charged for one and not the other, no matter how nominal.

Was the other a 'straight' marriage, the one you charged a fee for?

Wrong, and wrong -- both couples wrote their own vows, and the marriage contract was issued by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (don't ask me why those organizations are combined, or why they issue the contracts; I don't make the rules), and signed by the bride, groom, witnesses, local registrar, and of course, myself.

So then how was I wrong when they took vows, even as you said?
And, as you finally admit they did vow to one another, this or that; if they break those vows can it be cause for [legal] divorce?

Or do their vows play no part in the (civil) marriage contract?

And yet, they're every bit as valid as the ones in the majority.

How so, when there can be no progeny?
Or, are us barren women to be indifferent that we cannot bare?

Why, how many have you performed?

Just the one I performed in..
Why, do I require a State licence to converse?

Heb 3:4
For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

 

[Joykins]

A marriage need not require a ceremony at all. Such marriages are limited in the locations where/when they are contracted, but they are broadly recognized.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I mentioned it to show a difference in the actual ceremony, or lack thereof;

There is no difference, insofar as the law is concerned.

Let me quote you the relevant law from my home state of NJ:

37:1-13 Authorization to solemnize marriages and civil unions.
Each judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, each judge of a federal district court, United States magistrate, judge of a municipal court, judge of the Superior Court, judge of a tax court, retired judge of the Superior Court or Tax Court, or judge of the Superior Court or Tax Court, the former County Court, the former County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, or the former County District Court who has resigned in good standing, surrogate of any county, county clerk and any mayor or the deputy mayor when authorized by the mayor, or chairman of any township committee or village president of this State, and every minister of every religion, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriage or civil union between such persons as may lawfully enter into the matrimonial relation or civil union; and every religious society, institution or organization in this State may join together in marriage or civil union such persons according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization.

A wedding ceremony is performed by a minister of God, and recognised by the church, a civil marriage is performed by a minister of State and recognised by the State.
The first, within certain religious conventions, the later within certain social conventions.

And I am a minister recognized and in good standing with my church -- so what's the problem?

These differences matter to many people, most especially the first.

Not to any people whose opinion matters, insofar as the validity of marriage is concerned.

I could've performed the wedding on the beach at Atlantic City in my bathing suit, or the beach at Gunnison in my birthday suit, and the happy couple would've been every bit as married.

So, again -- what's the problem?

Just to nitpick..

How can $1 be your 'normal' fee when you have ministered two marriages and one was free? The honest thing to say would be that you charged for one and not the other, no matter how nominal.

Actually, I charged for both ceremonies -- and those who know me know that I charge $1 for performing a ceremony, so yes, $1 is my normal fee.

Not sure where you got the idea that I didn't...

Was the other a 'straight' marriage, the one you charged a fee for?

As I said, I charged for both.

So then how was I wrong when they took vows, even as you said?

because you said that those vows included specific words -- which they did not.

And, as you finally admit they did vow to one another, this or that; if they break those vows can it be cause for [legal] divorce?

People can legally divorce for all sorts of reasons... who are we to tell them they can't?

Sometimes, things just don't work out.

Or do their vows play no part in the (civil) marriage contract?

They are optional, but unnecessary -- just as a religious official is.

All you need is the certificate.

How so, when there can be no progeny?
Or, are us barren women to be indifferent that we cannot bare?

Barren women are as entitled to marriage as anyone else -- did you somehow think they weren't?

Just the one I performed in..

Mazel tov. I take it your spouse handled the details?

Why, do I require a State licence to converse?

What you require is some knowledge on the topic on which you are conversing -- I did my research before performing my ceremonies, you see.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I was leading a hypothetical argument. I'm not really a wedding photographer.

Oh, ok, well, I’m not a wedding photographer, nature and wildlife, but have shot weddings. I have done two hetro and one homo. After dealing with the “brides” If I was a wedding photographer, I would never shoot another hetro wedding. The gay wedding purchased a larger package (I know, Ha Ha), had better food, better location, and the tip, oh my god, the tip, and I NOT and attractive dude in any way.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Credibility, a term that means less and less every day, especially with social networks and the internet. There was a time when a person’s word was their bond, but that is no longer the case today. I have had to think of how to proceed with this, but as I continued to read posts, the offender has made it easy for me to proceed. I will not name anyone by name, but some things stuck me a strange or unusual.

I am an Orthodox Jew and have followed the Orthodox traditions for the last twenty years. I was born in a semi religious Reform Jewish family and in my teens experimented with several versions of Christianity and Islam, until discovering Orthodoxy in my 20’s. I was never baptized into a Christian community (but the Mormons got close) and never renounced Judaism, so it was easy to become a Baal Teshuva, or a Jew returning to traditional Judaism.

I have an older daughter that embraced Christianity three years ago and is an active member of the Assemblies of God, and I understood the needing to find the truth during your teen years and so on. I have only mentioned my experimentations with Christianity twice on the forms; this being the second time, and have never used my experiences as a “searching Christian” to boost my Jewish credibility.

There are two ways to become Jewish, that’s it, just two. One is to be born of a Jewish mother (my way) and the second it to undergo a formal conversion. Now, there are several different flavors of Judaism, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Humanist, and Orthodoxy. Every flavor has their own idea what a formal conversion is, but the state of Israel only recognizes Orthodox conversions. Some are as simple as saying “blammo, you’re a Jew” some include circumcision but no mikveh, some have class work and mikveh but no circumcision, but the hardest, longest, strictest, and most through is the Orthodox conversion.

The Orthodox conversion begins when the prospective convert contacts an Orthodox Rabbi (from here on, Rabbi will mean an Orthodox rabbi) expressing a desire to convert. The Rabbi will sent the convert away rudely without talking to him or her, and will do this for a total of three times. The reason for this is we don’t seek converts, we don’t want them. In the past there were issues with converts actually being infiltrators to give away names to inquisitions or the convert reverting back to their old religions, thus waiting out time and resources.

After the prospective convert and the Rabbi talk, the convert is introduced to a Bet Dein, or a religious court made of other Rabbis and Torah observant and Shomer Shabbat Jewish laymen. The Bet Dein asks lots of questions such as why do you want to be Jewish and the prospective converts ideas on Jesus. Any indication that the convert might still hold Christian beliefs is an automatic disqualifier. If the prospective convert is accepted, at least a three year period ensues in which the convert lives life as a Jew, learns Hebrew, learns all the prayers, keeps a kosher home, and observes most of the Jewish laws. His progress is constantly monitored by the Bet Dein. After three years, if the prospective convert reads and speaks fluent Hebrew, follows the laws, again confirms his commitment to Torah, Judaism, the Jewish people, and holds no Christian ideas or feelings, he goes before the Bet Dein. If the entire Bet Dein agrees, the convert is circumcised and goes to the Mikveh. After the Mikveh, the person is a full Jew. If he is not ready or the Bet Dein has revisions, they can wait longer.

Now, no Orthodox Rabbi will convert a child or anyone still living with their parents unless the family is undergoing the full Orthodox conversion as well as this would do damage to the family. And the Bet Dein is very good at weeding out Christians that want to get “closer” to Jesus. Now, do converts revert back to their old faith, sometimes yes. But for a person to renounce Orthodox Judaism and embrace Christianity so close to after an Orthodox conversion would mean the convert was never sincere about their conversion or lied and the conversion would be null and void, basically it never happened.

There is a poster here that claims that he was an Orthodox Jew and “fully” understands Torah and Jewish law and such, but has been caught numerous times not understanding anything. Has made many posts how knowledgeable he is in biblical Hebrew, and the most disturbing, accusing another respected member here of being a hypocrite.

To the offender:

You, Sir, have presented yourself as a former Orthodox Jew, and that is a lie. The proof is you admitted to not being raised religious, but had a brief stint with Judaism and you have stated your age.

#1 Orthodox Judaism will not convert anyone still living with their family.

#2 The minimum period of time for Orthodox conversion is three years of intense immersion, hardly brief.

#3 Going back so quickly to Christianity after Orthodox conversion would have nullified the conversion. In other words, if you did find a corrupt Orthodox Rabbi (nullified) and he put together a corrupt Bet Dein (nullified), and they performed an illegal conversion on a young teenager (nullified), you’re insincere reasons for conversion would have nullified it.

I will not post links, but have screen shots in case they accidently get deleted.

You sir, have lied in order to “pad your resume” and sound more intelligent, but instead have tarnished the boards with lies and false accusations. Instead of sounding like a biblical scholar, you have given those that would attack religion more ammunition and just another reason to distrust all religious people as a whole.


No names of posters have been mentioned, this is just informative.

 

[Armoured]

Well, I learned something today. Cheers Aryeh!

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well, I learned something today. Cheers Aryeh!

Cheers,
I cannot stand the fact that someone would lie to such extremes in order to prove their point.

Probably going to get canned for that while the liar gets a pass, but it needed to be said, so my conscience is clear, and if I am banned well, I don’t need to be here then anyway.

 

[Armoured]

Cheers,
I cannot stand the fact that someone would lie to such extremes in order to prove their point.

Probably going to get canned for that while the liar gets a pass, but it needed to be said, so my conscience is clear, and if I am banned well, I don’t need to be here then anyway.

Well, for what it's worth, I can't even see who you're talking about.

 

[Zeena]

There is no difference, insofar as the law is concerned.

What law, civil law or the Law of Christ?
Is there no difference, even in the church where you minister?

Let me quote you the relevant law from my home state of NJ:

37:1-13 Authorization to solemnize marriages and civil unions.
Each judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, each judge of a federal district court, United States magistrate, judge of a municipal court, judge of the Superior Court, judge of a tax court, retired judge of the Superior Court or Tax Court, or judge of the Superior Court or Tax Court, the former County Court, the former County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, or the former County District Court who has resigned in good standing, surrogate of any county, county clerk and any mayor or the deputy mayor when authorized by the mayor, or chairman of any township committee or village president of this State, and every minister of every religion, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriage or civil union between such persons as may lawfully enter into the matrimonial relation or civil union; and every religious society, institution or organization in this State may join together in marriage or civil union such persons according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization.

Ok, so civil law, as I suspected, which is why I asked.
For there is (usually) a ceremonial difference!

You see, earlier in our conversation you said this;

My home state of New Jersey recognizes me as a minister authorized to preform weddings.

Leaving me to reasonably presume that you were a minister of State, rather than church.

Now you tell me you are an ordained minister of a church, which is recognised by your State as a religious institution, but you say it does not matter which one?
That's some opinion you have of your church!

And I am a minister recognized and in good standing with my church -- so what's the problem?

So then, within certain religious conventions, no?
You do understand that a marriage by a judge is performed differently than by a minister for a church? The former, being licenced to perform marriages on behalf of his State, must exercise his duty with diligence as touching civil law and societal boundaries, the later exercising his duty under ordinance of the church as touching the Law of Christ. This leads to variances within the actual ceremony or procedure. Surely we can agree that the two have different heads? One a head of State, the other of Christ?

At the very least, presumably?

Not to any people whose opinion matters, insofar as the validity of marriage is concerned.

Opinion are only moot when the holders of such fail to vote.

I could've performed the wedding on the beach at Atlantic City in my bathing suit, or the beach at Gunnison in my birthday suit, and the happy couple would've been every bit as married.

So, again -- what's the problem?

Does your church have no head?
Is it ok with them if you prance around half naked while performing a ministerial rite? Or do you even know if this is an acceptable practice?

Actually, I charged for both ceremonies -- and those who know me know that I charge $1 for performing a ceremony, so yes, $1 is my normal fee.

Not sure where you got the idea that I didn't...

As I said, I charged for both.

I got the idea from misunderstanding your speech, for you said here;

I'm an ordained minister. I've performed a wedding ceremony and a vow renewal. Not only would I happily perform a same-sex wedding if asked, but I would do it for free.

And then, after I had asked if you were giving a discount for LGBT couples;

More novel, actually -- although, since my normal fee is $1, it's not like I'm taking a major financial hit.

Which made it seems as though you had performed a free marriage for an LGBT couple.

There is no difference, insofar as the law is concerned because you said that those vows included specific words -- which they did not.

I also said that the words were irrelevant, and what mattered was the fact that vows were taken.

It is the normal, western, contract entered into, as performed by ministers.

Though there are many contracts of marriage, for the sake of brevity, this one shall suffice.

Many contracts of marriage denotes many differing contractual provisions..

There is no difference, insofar as the law is concerned.
People can legally divorce for all sorts of reasons... who are we to tell them they can't?

Civil law, for one, occasionally prevents divorce when both parties are not willing to concede defeat, to the end of maintaining the family unit.

As for the Law of Christ;

Matt 19:3-6
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Sometimes, things just don't work out.

Matt 19:7-9
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

They are optional, but unnecessary -- just as a religious official is.

All you need is the certificate.

Is this some sort of conspiracy to avoid the question of commitment to ones vows?

What if one DOES vow, are they not to held to the standard of their word?

Barren women are as entitled to marriage as anyone else

Yet, they are not able to bare children, surely this was my point?

did you somehow think they weren't?

Did you somehow think they would bare children in spite of being barren?

Mazel tov. I take it your spouse handled the details?

Why would you assume such?

No.

What you require is some knowledge on the topic on which you are conversing -- I did my research before performing my ceremonies, you see.

I thought you said you performed them on behalf of your church?

Shouldn't your church get the credit then?

 

[Queller]

I do not believe it is a civil rights issue. "Gay marriage" never should have been legalized anywhere.

Right now, my state of Indiana is fighting against having to legalize "gay marriage" because an activist judge wants to force it upon our state. I absolutely condemn this and I also absolutely and strongly condemn "gay marriage".

Are you OK with Muslims forcing their religious beliefs on you?

 

[morningstar2651]

Regardless of whether or not gays are allowed to marry, they will continue to have sex.

Do you really think that my opposition to same sex marriage is going to prevent them from being together?

I have no idea how this conversation got so far out of hand, and as a result, I will publish my beliefs.

I am morally opposed to same-sex marriage, but am all in favor of civil unions with the same civil rights as marriages.

Just don't call it marriage, and don't force people and businesses who don't want to be involved in gay unions to do so.

That is my political belief. Give them the rights. Don't call it marriage. Butt out of the bedroom.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why call it a "bird" instead of a "duck"? It's a duck. It is entirely identical in every way to a duck. We'll call it a duck!

What do gays getting married have to do with your bedroom? Are they getting married in your bedroom? Doesn't sound like the best venue for their ceremony. Does your bedroom have enough room for the family of the bride and the family of the other bride?

 

[Zeena]

Yeah, it is so much worse then now then after having the plague decimate a quarter of the population. Obviously there is no way out of this currant morass of being the richest nation on the planet.

When there is a recovery, then can we can talk?

Or will you not even recognise this recession?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

 

[Queller]

You just can't let it go, can you.

Comparing it to segregation is a slippery slope argument.

We aren't forcing gays to use different drinking fountains, different bathrooms, different schools, different theaters, levying poll taxes against them, &c.

We're allowing them the same rights and protection under the law. But we're not calling it marriage.

As for the "we wash for white people only" you're using a slippery slope argument again.

We aren't denying gays service. We aren't forcing them to sit in different sections of the restaurant. We are not doing that.

Actually that is exactly what you are saying when you say "you can't have a marriage but you can have a civil union". You are saying they aren't good enough to have a marriage, just like black people were told they weren't good enough to sit in the front of the bus.

The constitution promises that congress shall make no law denying an individual the free practice of a religion.

And if you can show a religion which requires baking cakes or taking pictures, you might have an argument.

A business is simply a collection of individuals. If Churches are not forced to marry gays, why should wedding planners, photographers, and florists? They're individuals with rights too.

And when they accept a business license from the state and operate a public accommodation, they acknowledge that their religion is not an excuse to break the law.

 

[Armoured]

Are you OK with Muslims forcing their religious beliefs on you?

Every time I talk to someone who thinks that SSM should be illegal because Christians think homosexuality is a sin, I ask if they'd be happy to see alcohol illegal because Muslims think it's a sin. The special pleading and mental gymnastics that ensue are a wonder to behold.

Assuming, of course, you don't just get crickets, which is a common response too.

 

[morningstar2651]

You mean they can't have separate but equal rights?

 

[VDMA]

Credibility, a term that means less and less every day, especially with social networks and the internet. There was a time when a person’s word was their bond, but that is no longer the case today. I have had to think of how to proceed with this, but as I continued to read posts, the offender has made it easy for me to proceed. I will not name anyone by name, but some things stuck me a strange or unusual.

I am an Orthodox Jew and have followed the Orthodox traditions for the last twenty years. I was born in a semi religious Reform Jewish family and in my teens experimented with several versions of Christianity and Islam, until discovering Orthodoxy in my 20’s. I was never baptized into a Christian community (but the Mormons got close) and never renounced Judaism, so it was easy to become a Baal Teshuva, or a Jew returning to traditional Judaism.

I have an older daughter that embraced Christianity three years ago and is an active member of the Assemblies of God, and I understood the needing to find the truth during your teen years and so on. I have only mentioned my experimentations with Christianity twice on the forms; this being the second time, and have never used my experiences as a “searching Christian” to boost my Jewish credibility.

There are two ways to become Jewish, that’s it, just two. One is to be born of a Jewish mother (my way) and the second it to undergo a formal conversion. Now, there are several different flavors of Judaism, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Humanist, and Orthodoxy. Every flavor has their own idea what a formal conversion is, but the state of Israel only recognizes Orthodox conversions. Some are as simple as saying “blammo, you’re a Jew” some include circumcision but no mikveh, some have class work and mikveh but no circumcision, but the hardest, longest, strictest, and most through is the Orthodox conversion.

The Orthodox conversion begins when the prospective convert contacts an Orthodox Rabbi (from here on, Rabbi will mean an Orthodox rabbi) expressing a desire to convert. The Rabbi will sent the convert away rudely without talking to him or her, and will do this for a total of three times. The reason for this is we don’t seek converts, we don’t want them. In the past there were issues with converts actually being infiltrators to give away names to inquisitions or the convert reverting back to their old religions, thus waiting out time and resources.

After the prospective convert and the Rabbi talk, the convert is introduced to a Bet Dein, or a religious court made of other Rabbis and Torah observant and Shomer Shabbat Jewish laymen. The Bet Dein asks lots of questions such as why do you want to be Jewish and the prospective converts ideas on Jesus. Any indication that the convert might still hold Christian beliefs is an automatic disqualifier. If the prospective convert is accepted, at least a three year period ensues in which the convert lives life as a Jew, learns Hebrew, learns all the prayers, keeps a kosher home, and observes most of the Jewish laws. His progress is constantly monitored by the Bet Dein. After three years, if the prospective convert reads and speaks fluent Hebrew, follows the laws, again confirms his commitment to Torah, Judaism, the Jewish people, and holds no Christian ideas or feelings, he goes before the Bet Dein. If the entire Bet Dein agrees, the convert is circumcised and goes to the Mikveh. After the Mikveh, the person is a full Jew. If he is not ready or the Bet Dein has revisions, they can wait longer.

Now, no Orthodox Rabbi will convert a child or anyone still living with their parents unless the family is undergoing the full Orthodox conversion as well as this would do damage to the family. And the Bet Dein is very good at weeding out Christians that want to get “closer” to Jesus. Now, do converts revert back to their old faith, sometimes yes. But for a person to renounce Orthodox Judaism and embrace Christianity so close to after an Orthodox conversion would mean the convert was never sincere about their conversion or lied and the conversion would be null and void, basically it never happened.

There is a poster here that claims that he was an Orthodox Jew and “fully” understands Torah and Jewish law and such, but has been caught numerous times not understanding anything. Has made many posts how knowledgeable he is in biblical Hebrew, and the most disturbing, accusing another respected member here of being a hypocrite.

To the offender:

You, Sir, have presented yourself as a former Orthodox Jew, and that is a lie. The proof is you admitted to not being raised religious, but had a brief stint with Judaism and you have stated your age.

#1 Orthodox Judaism will not convert anyone still living with their family.

#2 The minimum period of time for Orthodox conversion is three years of intense immersion, hardly brief.

#3 Going back so quickly to Christianity after Orthodox conversion would have nullified the conversion. In other words, if you did find a corrupt Orthodox Rabbi (nullified) and he put together a corrupt Bet Dein (nullified), and they performed an illegal conversion on a young teenager (nullified), you’re insincere reasons for conversion would have nullified it.

I will not post links, but have screen shots in case they accidently get deleted.

You sir, have lied in order to “pad your resume” and sound more intelligent, but instead have tarnished the boards with lies and false accusations. Instead of sounding like a biblical scholar, you have given those that would attack religion more ammunition and just another reason to distrust all religious people as a whole.


No names of posters have been mentioned, this is just informative.

I feel I owe an explanation, as my integrity has been questioned. Regardless of whether or not you view the conversion as nullified, it occurred, and was sincere at the time.

I was adopted at birth, my birth family not being in any way, shape, or form, Jewish.

In my adoptive family, my mother was a non-practicing Catholic, having long been turned over to Unity (a new thought organization), and my father was a non-practicing Jew (raised Hasidic, but he left at 15, and his mother left at 50). I was raised in no religion, and was not baptized.

At the age of five, I began to be highly inquisitive towards Judaism, and as a result, my father and mother began thinking about introducing me to it.

As a preschooler, I went to a inter-denominational Jewish day school run by a Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi, and as so, had a small background, and most of my friends were Jewish.

So, at five, my family took me to a synagogue, and I began attending schul, and Hebrew school. My parents discussed my predicament with the Rabbi, and the Rabbi, who had known me during his stint as the head of the school, decided to, perhaps against his own judgement, make a decision.

The Rabbi decided that, if I personally and truly wished to, he would let me study, and at 13, along with the others my age at the schul (his own son included), become a Bar Mitzvah. He reminded me that I still would not be a Jew, and that the Bar Mitzvah would not be official or standard, but that it would give me a grasp of the Jewish religion, and so forth. I was still not a Jew, but I could study.

At the age of sixteen, after ten years in Judaism, I asked the Rabbi if I could convert. He stopped talking to me, and I left. I asked again, he stopped talking to me, and I left. I asked again, he stopped talking to me, and I left.

Finally, he allowed me to convert.

Alas in your eyes, this would not have been a real conversion, as I was at a Reformed synagogue.

I apologize for any misconceptions, as throughout my life the term "orthodox" has changed.

I did not mean denominationally, but rather theologically, as in I did not deny a literal genesis, I kept kosher, tzniut, wore tzitzis, &c.

While you may call me a liar, I did not mean in any way to insinuate what I was not. I apologize.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What law, civil law or the Law of Christ?
Is there no difference, even in the church where you minister?

In case you haven't noticed, the issue is about civil rights.

Ok, so civil law, as I suspected, which is why I asked.
For there is (usually) a ceremonial difference!

And since the ceremony is optional, it's irrelevant in this case. A marriage is a marriage.

You see, earlier in our conversation you said this;
Leaving me to reasonably presume that you were a minister of State, rather than church.

I said I was an ordained minister -- of the Universal Life Church, if you insist on knowing. As the ULC is recognized by the state of New Jersey, I am authorized to perform marriages.

So... what's the problem?

Now you tell me you are an ordained minister of a church, which is recognised by your State as a religious institution, but you say it does not matter which one?


That's some opinion you have of your church!

It's not relevant to the discussion. Why, did you think it was?

So then, within certain religious conventions, no?

What does it matter? The state recognizes weddings performed by me as valid.

You do understand that a marriage by a judge is performed differently than by a minister for a church? The former, being licenced to perform marriages on behalf of his State, must exercise his duty with diligence as touching civil law and societal boundaries, the later exercising his duty under ordinance of the church as touching the Law of Christ.

And do you understand that without the marriage certificate recognized by the state, none of what either of them do means squat.

Again, the topic here is civil rights and legality -- religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Why, did you think they mattered? Are some marriages more valid than others?

This leads to variances within the actual ceremony or procedure. Surely we can agree that the two have different heads? One a head of State, the other of Christ?

Right, and when talking about civil rights and legality, guess which head does the talking?

At the very least, presumably?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Opinion are only moot when the holders of such fail to vote.

Or get outvoted, or try to vote for something unConstitutional.

Does your church have no head?
Is it ok with them if you prance around half naked while performing a ministerial rite? Or do you even know if this is an acceptable practice?

I happen to know for a fact that if I were to perform a wedding ceremony buck naked at Gunnison Beach (New Jersey's only clothing optional beach, by the way; funny story there), I would not be violating a single tenet of my church.

Why, did you think I would be?

(for the record, I wouldn't do such a thing anyway -- truth be told, I really need to hit the treadmill)

I got the idea from misunderstanding your speech, for you said here;

And then, after I had asked if you were giving a discount for LGBT couples; Which made it seems as though you had performed a free marriage for an LGBT couple.

You need to read more closely -- I said I would do it, and I would do it for free.

I also said that the words were irrelevant, and what mattered was the fact that vows were taken.

I must have missed that.

Civil law, for one, occasionally prevents divorce when both parties are not willing to concede defeat, to the end of maintaining the family unit.

Not in my state. Your results may vary.

Incidentally, what state are you from?

As for the Law of Christ;

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Is this some sort of conspiracy to avoid the question of commitment to ones vows?

What if one DOES vow, are they not to held to the standard of their word?

That's for the couple to work out... or not, if they so choose.

Yet, they are not able to bare children, surely this was my point?

Once more please, with coherence. What exactly is your point?

I thought you said you performed them on behalf of your church?

I said no such thing.

Shouldn't your church get the credit then?

It's not about credit, and it's certainly not about anyone's church -- it's their wedding day; it's all about them.

Now, what does any of this have to do with civil rights?

 

[Zeena]

And when they accept a business license from the state and operate a public accommodation, they acknowledge that their religion is not an excuse to break the law.

This sentiment is why I voted yes on this poll.

If LGBT want to identify based upon their gender preference, rather than their humanity, then there is something inherently wrong with their mindset.

This should indeed make special accommodation available to them, based upon their current identity crisis.