Skip to comments.
United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage
Charlotte Observer ^
| 04/28/2014
| Michael Gordon
Posted on 04/28/2014 10:29:12 AM PDT by GIdget2004
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: GIdget2004
Can’t the clergy still perform these marriages?
It’s the civil marriage that is banned,isn’t it?
.
2
posted on
04/28/2014 10:31:38 AM PDT
by
Mears
To: GIdget2004
BS they can perform “marriages” all they want, they just can’t make them legal.
3
posted on
04/28/2014 10:32:25 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: Mears
4
posted on
04/28/2014 10:33:05 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: GIdget2004
"BRAVO!"
5
posted on
04/28/2014 10:33:18 AM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
To: GIdget2004
But government forcing people to act AGAINST their religious faith is somehow constitutional?
6
posted on
04/28/2014 10:33:48 AM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: GIdget2004
7
posted on
04/28/2014 10:34:29 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
To: GIdget2004
These so-called pastors no doubt preside over failing churches and congregations of nearly zero.
They have put themselves out there for propaganda purposes only.
8
posted on
04/28/2014 10:35:33 AM PDT
by
PGR88
To: GIdget2004
Find me a religion - other than some fringe, wacko "Church of Bob" type-thing - that defines marriage as anything BUT being between one man and one woman, and I'll listen.
Until then, someone should tell these clowns to read up on their theology.
9
posted on
04/28/2014 10:35:38 AM PDT
by
wbill
To: Jim Robinson
"But government forcing people to act AGAINST their religious faith is somehow constitutional?"
Good point. If this case has merit, then it would logically follow that no one could be prosecuted for - out of religious conviction - refusing to service a gay wedding or - on another issue - for refusing to provide birth control or abortifacient (sp?) drugs under a health plan. But I doubt that the participants in this lawsuit would sign on to those implications.
To: cripplecreek
Spot on. There is no “ban”, but rather a legal definition of marriage that does not include homosexual pairings.
11
posted on
04/28/2014 10:40:09 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: wbill
"Church of Bob"
LOL Thanks, I needed that.
To: cripplecreek
Or “normal”. The real and only goal here.
13
posted on
04/28/2014 10:41:36 AM PDT
by
epluribus_2
(he had the best mom - ever.)
To: Steve_Seattle
An amicus brief in support of the so called “ban” by avowedly Christian and Jewish churches should be filed to act as a separator from those no-longer-Christian churches that support the union of Bob and Gary.
14
posted on
04/28/2014 10:43:51 AM PDT
by
Louis Foxwell
(This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
To: Army Air Corps
This should be immediately thrown out of court based on lack of standing. If this “church” wants to play house, there is nothing stopping them.
15
posted on
04/28/2014 10:45:13 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: GIdget2004
Nothing is stopping them from marrying whoever they deem suitable for marriage. But there would be no way to punish those who disagree with them. So the state needs to be involved to provide a way to punish those who disagree with them about it. I mean, they won’t even marry members of their own faith unless the state gives them permission, so the actual marriages in question must not actually be too important to them.
Freegards
16
posted on
04/28/2014 10:47:55 AM PDT
by
Ransomed
To: GIdget2004
Even if what they pretend is a religion permits gay “marriages”, state prohibitions on imitation marriages do not infringe. It’s the same as Mormon polygamy - FedGov prohibited polygamy, which LDS permitted Polygamy, with the result that Mormons could not have more than one wife at a time. I’m a very big fan of freedom of religion, but no religion has ever required gay “marriage” and only recognizing real marriages does not affect freedom of religion.
17
posted on
04/28/2014 10:49:28 AM PDT
by
Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
To: cripplecreek
It should be if the judge follows the law. But I doubt it.
To: GIdget2004
Someone just took their lamp and tossed it into the abyss.
19
posted on
04/28/2014 10:51:52 AM PDT
by
Psalm 144
(FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
To: cripplecreek
20
posted on
04/28/2014 10:52:18 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson