Posted on 07/09/2007 12:29:45 PM PDT by bahblahbah
That is unbelievable!
You are flawed in your reasoning. This is a religiously owned facility. The minute the government tells religious organizations they have to allow homosexuals to marry at this place is the day you will be kissing your freedom goodbye. This is a favorite tactic of constitution hating liberals. They say since the public has used it over time then it has become public property. They tried this with the Dominoes Headquarters years ago. Since the building was was such a well known place, or something like that, they demanded that Dominoes be denied the right to have a nativity scene on their property since the property (as they said) was 'in effect' public property.
Intersex refers to individuals that have sexually ambiguous genitalia. It’s basically the PC term for hermaphrodite.
Well, this looks like a great test case from the strict Constitutionalist perspective. Even if the Lesbian couple win in the NJ Supreme Court, a case like this is red meat for the current US Supreme Court.
Of course, any competent person appointed to a judgeship would immediately dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds. Seeing as that type of judge isn’t appointed to judgeships in NJ, we’ll have to wait for this to enter Federal courts.
The same logic these people are using would require churches to open their doors to swinger parties if the church ever permitted any non religious function to take place.
This will start happening more and more often, especially if it is successful. And even if the lawsuit is thrown out, if it is prohibitively expensive for the Methodist Church, or extremely distracting, or gives them publicity they don’t want, it might be ragrded as successful by the gay lobby.
I wholeheartedly agree with the point. I was merely expressing surprise that this particular denomination opposes so-called “same-sex” marriage, especially here in NJ. Because that’s not the impression I was given by a very active member of a church of the same denomination in this state.
I’m now glad to hear I was given the wrong impression.
You got a problem with that?
________
Actually, in this situation, yea, I do. There are plenty of situations that would require the kind of response you predict. This isn’t one of them, IMO.
I'll agree with that as soon as the church voluntarily renounces its tax-exempt status.
Get with the program! The “compromise” position is to oppose outright same-sex “marriage” but to support civil unions. We’re told that civil unions are very, very different from marriage and thus you can support one without supporting the other.
But once civil unions are established, we’ll be told that the difference between them and marriage is in name only, so why maintain this “separate but equal” system when it’s just a pretence? The same lemmings who bought the argument that CUs and marriage are very different, will then buy this argument.
We see this same manipulation on the federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Currently, we’re told that such an amendment is unnecessary because we need to respect state’s rights, and DOMA protects the states. Nothing to worry about, we’re told, because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that there’s a “right” to same-sex “marriage”. But if the Supreme Court were to order nationwide same-sex “marriage”, crushing DOMA and state’s rights, we’d then be told that we can’t pass the constitutional amendment because it would take away rights the justices have found to be deeply imbedded in the penumbra of the Constitution.
You are absolutely right. Never give an inch.
When the courts manufacture rights out of thin air, they often elevate them above actual rights embedded in the Constitution.
Take the manufactured right to abortion as an example. Even if such a right existed, it would not follow that the taxpayers are obligated to pay for abortions. I have a right to buy a printing press and publish my political views, but that doesn’t obligate the taxpayers to buy me a printing press if I can’t afford one. Yet, four of the five judges currently sitting on the Supreme Court would rule that the taxpayers are indeed obligated to subsidize abortions. Several liberal state courts, including New Jersey’s, have ruled the same way.
When activist judges create phony rights out of thin air, they often feel compelled to elevate them to an even higher level than actual, constitutionally based rights. Constitutional or long-standing common law rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of association, legislative power of the purse, parental rights over their children, and other established and even constitutionally embedded rights thus are held to be subordinate to a new right fabricated out of thin air a month ago.
It’s how the Boy Scouts found themselves hauled into court. And while they thankfully won, it was only by a 5-4 ruling. And the Scouts are still being harassed by jurisdictions around the country. Their constitutional right to religious liberty and freedom of association is trumped in the minds of “liberals” by the newly fabricated right to commit sodomy.
TYPO correction: Make that four of the NINE judges. Duh!
It's not my reasoning, at least the way that I would decide something if I were a judge. I'd allow each religion to state what can or cannot be done with its facilities, including whatever "prejudices" they have that are based in doctrine. I'm just predicting how this whole thing is going to play out in the courts, if it ever gets back to the same NJ Supreme Court that mandated either gay marriage or civil union with the exact same set of rights.
Let's say that a church does not require one party in a marriage to be of the faith tradition of that church, but will marry any heterosexual couple who pays the necessary fees. They've now gone from becoming something that serves the needs of their own congregation, to an entity that is providing a general accommodation to the public. The way I read the NJ Supreme Court decision requiring the NJ legislature to establish either marriage for homosexuals, or civil union with 100% of the rights thereof, they put the new institution under the same protections that heterosexual marriage enjoyed.
Imagine a church that accepted people of all races into its membership, but forbade interracial marriage on doctrinal grounds. If an interracial couple who were members of this church were denied the ability to marry inside of it, they might have a claim under the civil rights laws of the state where they were residing. That's what the NJ Supreme Court did, it elevated civil union to the same status of marriage, while allowing it to be called a different name.
Actually I agree with you. This situation does not. My point is that these people will keep pushing and pushing until we reach the one event that will be the last straw.
I think it is no accident that they are suing a Church organization over this. This is, no doubt, part of their ongoing effort to set legal precedent and subvert all opposing organizations to their will. Given time they will begin to sue unfriendly churches for not allowing them to “marry” in their sanctuaries.
Eventually they will begin demanding compulsory “training” and reeducation for our children - in addition to what many children also experience in schools. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible give a brief but rather full psychology of what these deviants ultimate goals are when they demanded that Lot, “bring out these men that we may ‘know’ them.”
I’m a Christian, but when they come for my kids I’m picking up my gun.
I dare you.
Don’t you think that they meant, rights under the state? Forcing a church to allow the use of private property to perform a civil ceremony is not the same as using it to perform a marriage, because no minister is involved. If the church allows civil marriage ceremonies to be performed on the pavilion, then, I agree, a civil ceremony is a civil ceremony.
The church could, however, change their rules to allow only marriages that are performed by ministers of their own church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.