Let's not confuse issues

[Irondawg]

The guardianship/estate rules are distinct from this law. My simple solution is to indeed seperate church and state on this one. Create a govt. civil union that can be filed: Man/Women, Man/Man, Women/Women. Tied to one partner at a time and receives all govt. benefits of "married". Then the chruch can continue to "marry" or whatever and if some else wants to "marry" that fine and dandy too. So you have your religious, personal vows however you like then you have the govt. union document for rights/benefits in death situations.

I've read all the responses and I STILL don't understand how this law changes anything that is out there now ruling who can be denied service and for what reason. If I want to open a restaraunt and only employ/serve MSU fans, what is stopping me now?

 

[seshomoru]

What's stopping you?

Nothing, because being an MSU fan is not a protected class. Being gay isn't either in Mississippi. One of those you choose to be and is your own fault. And as for that whole civil union mess you're talking about. Again... how is that easier than just giving them equal rights as they exist now?

 

[Miss.Stake]

It sounds good in theory, and is a good idea for "let's meet in the middle on this issue" but not practical.. Marriage is a universal term, If you are going to let homosexuals join in a union with equal rights as marriage, you have to allow it to be called marriage or being married. You cannot use separate language.

 

[57stratdawg]

Why would what the church says matter? I thought we were past that.

 

[BeardoMSU]

It sounds good in theory, and is a good idea for "let's meet in the middle on this issue" but not practical.. Marriage is a universal term, If you are going to let homosexuals join in a union with equal rights as marriage, you have to allow it to be called marriage or being married. You cannot use separate language.

As in "separate but equal". BS.
Well said, Miss.Stake.

 

[BeardoMSU]

Exactly. And it's not like the Southern Baptists speak for all of Christianity. Even in Mississippi, I believe that most Episcopal churches would welcome LGBT ceremonies.

Why, you may ask? Because they're awesome.

 

[00Dawg]

The last peer-reviewed study (from a left-leaning organization, I might add) said 3% of humanity has the ability to be attracted to the same sex, and only half of that cannot be attracted to the opposite. Anyone want to stand here and tell me the current homosexual movement represents 1.5% of our population? I've got a higher percentage than that claiming to be such in my own circles, and I'm about as conservative as they come. So, my moral and religious issues with it aside, let's not pretend this is all focused on some massive underclass of oppressed people. Civil unions were an option, and they weren't acceptable to their originators because they didn't represent full societal acceptance of their ways. So here we are again...

 

[Big Sheep81]

**"Sooner or later God is gonna cut you down"**

Exactly. And it's not like the Southern Baptists speak for all of Christianity. Even in Mississippi, I believe that most Episcopal churches would welcome LGBT ceremonies.

Why, you may ask? Because they're awesome.

nm

 

[FreeDawg]

A local radio show (sports show I may add) did a whole show on this and had numerous preachers on the show to discuss it. Not a show that I normally listen to for extended periods. They went on and on about how my Christian freedoms were under attack and being taken more and more every day. Over an hour and all I got was that I was under attack. No idea what the bill was going to do differently for me in MS. That's the main thing that bothers me about this bill. I can't get the major supporters to explain to me the purpose on a personal level. I'm just told that I should do it to protect myself and I'm not sure from what.

Another major issue I have is that no matter how well intentioned anything is, what are the unintended consequences? That is very important as well. Is this bill going to empower devil worshipers as well to be able to throw satan parades through downtown Madison? I'm exaggerating slightly but you get the point.

 

[MzTerry]

As in "separate but equal". BS.
Well said, Miss.Stake.

I don't think the original poster's sticking point was whether or not it was called a marriage - call it a marriage. I think his point, and one I agree with, is that the gov't should not be able to tell the Church who they can and cannot marry or what to call a marriage in the eyes of the Church just as the Church should not define what a marriage is for the gov't. If you call yourself liberal (supposed to mean tolerant of others' ideas/ideals whatever you want to call it) and don't agree w/ that viewpoint then you are a walking example of hypocrisy.

If the church wants to marry a gay couple great, if not great - either way it is their perogative; however, the gay couple should absolutely have every single legal right a straight couple has and have it called a marriage (in the eyes of the gov't for sure, and then in the eyes of any Church that decides to recognize it).

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

This thread should be marinated in dales

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Those dang Baptists**

.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Well, you certainly got one thing right.

The last peer-reviewed study (from a left-leaning organization, I might add) said 3% of humanity has the ability to be attracted to the same sex, and only half of that cannot be attracted to the opposite. Anyone want to stand here and tell me the current homosexual movement represents 1.5% of our population? I've got a higher percentage than that claiming to be such in my own circles, and I'm about as conservative as they come. So, my moral and religious issues with it aside, let's not pretend this is all focused on some massive underclass of oppressed people. Civil unions were an option, and they weren't acceptable to their originators because they didn't represent full societal acceptance of their ways. So here we are again...

.

 

[hatfieldms]

The bill is stupid as hell...

....as well as the whole issue. Who cares if someone is gay and wants to get married? That has zero effect on me. And this whole law against serving them do to your religious beliefs is embarrassing as hell. It is against catholic religion and many others to have pre marital sex. If you own a store are you going to turn away an unmarried mom with a child because of your religious beliefs? Of course not. Then why do it because someone is gay? People need to just learn to mind their own business and work on being decent human beings instead of judging others who have different beliefs

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

....as well as the whole issue. Who cares if someone is gay and wants to get married? That has zero effect on me. And this whole law against serving them do to your religious beliefs is embarrassing as hell. It is against catholic religion and many others to have pre marital sex. If you own a store are you going to turn away an unmarried mom with a child because of your religious beliefs? Of course not. Then why do it because someone is gay? People need to just learn to mind their own business and work on being decent human beings instead of judging others who have different beliefs

That was a pretty good rant for someone who advocates people minding their own business. /Irony

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I agree. I have several friends who are gay and a couple of family members that are gay/lesbian. Do I necessarily agree with it? No. Is going to effect my life somehow? No.

In other words, I couldn't care less if someone is or isn't and if I'm running a business I don't care what you do with your life. Your money is just as good as anyone else's. Its a law for these super conservative legislators to make their super conservative constituents jump for joy.

And I'm southern baptist. Ohh the horror.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

The guardianship/estate rules are distinct from this law. My simple solution is to indeed seperate church and state on this one. Create a govt. civil union that can be filed: Man/Women, Man/Man, Women/Women. Tied to one partner at a time and receives all govt. benefits of "married". Then the chruch can continue to "marry" or whatever and if some else wants to "marry" that fine and dandy too. So you have your religious, personal vows however you like then you have the govt. union document for rights/benefits in death situations.

I've read all the responses and I STILL don't understand how this law changes anything that is out there now ruling who can be denied service and for what reason. If I want to open a restaraunt and only employ/serve MSU fans, what is stopping me now?

the reason no one on the Right wants that compromise is that they WANT govt to define marriage for everyone including churches, so they can abuse that power to force their beliefs onto others. they'd rather empower govt than see that "progressive" church down the road marrying gays.

in before the lock!