'A coming storm': Amendment may be only way to head off church-state clash over same-sex marriage

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11926 ^ | Lynn Vincent

[bnelson44]

There is no "maybe" about it. It is the only way.

[Gay State Conservative]

To consciously legislate against religious traditions . . . is really an affront to my faith," Craig Axler, leader of Reform Congregation Beth Or in Maple Glen, Pa., told reporters.

Message to Craig...the word's out! "Reform" Jews are actually atheists who occasionally like to get out on a Saturday morning.Same goes for Unitarian/Universalists on Sunday morning.

[VeritatisSplendor]

But Mr. Axler and his group, "Clergy for Fairness," weren't rallying against same-sex marriage. They were complaining that the Federal Marriage Amendment, scheduled for a June 5 vote in the U.S. Senate, "raises alarming constitutional concerns" because defining marriage as between one man and one woman would restrict the liberty of religious leaders who, like Mr. Axler, want to be able to marry same-sex couples.

Mr. Axler can marry all the same sex-couples he wants, all the polygamous, polyamorous, and pet groupings he wants, and call it marriage in his denomination - it just isn't legally recognized. Or punished. I'd call that religious liberty.

Mrs VS

[rottndog]

At the core, this really isn't a religious argument. The basic question is whether or not the people have the right, through their elected legislators, to define and set parameters by which the society will function--in this instance marriage being between one man and one woman. The people have consistently and overwhelmingly spoken on this, only to be ignored by tyrants wearing black robes.

The question is whether or not we really have a representative republic.

[Paladin2]

Gain control of the southern border first!

[Beagle8U]

This is just scare tactics... "If queer marriage is outlawed, liberals disrupt everyones Religion and the world as we know it."

All that will happen is the sodomites wont be able to indoctrinate the children into thinking it is an accepted lifestyle. Go back to your closet you freaks!

[spikeytx86]

I have been a strong opponent to the FMA from the beginning on the principal of restrained government. However at this point, the only option I can see of restraining federal power especially the judiciary is through the FMA. If we don't check the SCOTUS soon this country will be well on it's way to being ruled by a dictatorship of 9 people.

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FMA!

[Gay State Conservative]

Mr. Axler can marry all the same sex-couples he wants, all the polygamous, polyamorous, and pet groupings he wants, and call it marriage in his denomination -

That's a good point that had slipped my mind.The government does not have,and should not have,the power to prevent such an occurrence.And something tells me that Craig already knows this.

[gondramB]

>>But Mr. Axler and his group, "Clergy for Fairness," weren't rallying against same-sex marriage. They were complaining that the Federal Marriage Amendment, scheduled for a June 5 vote in the U.S. Senate, "raises alarming constitutional concerns" because defining marriage as between one man and one woman would restrict the liberty of religious leaders who, like Mr. Axler, want to be able to marry same-sex couples.<<

Nobody (I hope) is talking about restrciting religious marriage, only governmnet recognized marriage.

[MichiganConservative]

With the social respectability accorded by state-sanctioned marriage ...

How does a piece of paper issued by some bureaucrat give the bearer respectibility? Why should it? Why do people think marriage is a human right, let alone a right at all? Marriage is not a right, as it requires two people and there is no such thing as a "group right".

The only reason the state's interested in if and to whom you are married is that they have classifications for doling out the spoils of the welfare state. If the government weren't in charge of redistributing wealth in a myriad of ways, they wouldn't give a damn if you were married, single, or claim to be married to a tree stump.

When this country was founded, marriage was something that you did at a church and recorded in a family Bible. States started requiring licenses in the mid 19th century to prevent the miscegenation that the Democrats of the time disliked.

This notion of marriage as a contract between two people and the state is a load of BS. It should be rejected. If I had ever gotten married, I never would have gotten a license from the state.

The homosexuals who want to marry have a few motivations that I can see. One is they want in on the welfare state benefits. The other is that they are subversives and want to destroy Western civilization. The other is that they really believe that marriage is a right and that they are being discriminated against, regardless of the facts marriage is not a right and that you can set up civil contracts that provide for inheritance, etc.

[P-40]

Nobody (I hope) is talking about restrciting religious marriage, only governmnet recognized marriage.

From what I understand this, like all other amendments along this vein, just concerns itself with what marriages the government will recognize. You can still marry a tree if that is your thing...but the government will not pay social security benefits to the tree or its descendents...yet.

[gondramB]

>>From what I understand this, like all other amendments along this vein, just concerns itself with what marriages the government will recognize. You can still marry a tree if that is your thing...but the government will not pay social security benefits to the tree or its descendents...yet.<<

That has been my understanding too - there have been same sex religious ceremonies forever - I'm not sure why preachers would think their religious freedom would be inhibited.

[P-40]

I'm not sure why preachers would think their religious freedom would be inhibited.

I question how many actually do.

[petercooper]

How cute.

[VeritatisSplendor]

In the eighteenth century and in British common law earlier, marriage did have legal financial consequences - the wife's property became her husband's, and legitimate children inherited and illegitimate did not.

You could, of course, make various settlements and wills, within limits.

[MichiganConservative]

Was the state involved in issuing a license to the married couple in the examples you cite? From my reading, Southern states in the US started issuing marriage licenses to recognize only the marriages that they approved of - the ones that did not involve a white person and a black person.

[Jacquerie]

Southern states in the US started issuing marriage licenses to recognize only the marriages that they approved of - the ones that did not involve a white person and a black person.

Do you mean recent times? If so, which states?

[Waco]

After all this prtty well detroyed support for the church suckin up to queers, will the Fed/Guv require people to go to church, present a punch card varifing attendance, and make damn sure they put enough in the collection plate?? Woudn't surprise if it happens. The DNC will devise the law which congress will pass/shove.