Gay marriage voted down in Oklahoma

[Zogash]

In saying churches may refuse a gay marriage, explain how they may not refuse it when gay marriage is legal?

Civil marriage =/= "holy matrimony". Churches have the right to refuse to marry whoever they don't want to, the state may not. Same way you can't force a die-hard Catholic priest to re-marry divorcees, while under the law they can get a new license no problem.

[Reeve]

.... Did you not read my post?

There is some talk or discussion about forcing it upon Churches and possibly other religion. I have seen such talk here in the UK. As much as I dislike the idea of them rejecting the notion of marrying anyone on the grounds of religion, they should be free to reject them on this grounds. It goes hand in hand with the anti gay marriage protesters ramblings that its against "gods" will etc or that its a marriage between a man and a woman. As much as I find any such view point sad and narrow minded they should be allowed their views. Same reason a priest should be able to refuse to marry anyone based on their religious views. If the religions leaders allow same sex marriage then they would simply arrange another priest or what not.

It would be impossible to force any such thing on a church in the US, thanks to the first amendment.

[wheelock789]

If a room of fascists that is "representing" "the people" was to vote down free speech, you'd be up in arms; yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, a great deal of MMO-Champion likely wouldn't mind. The point is that you don't get to cherry pick what rights are and are not immune from the vote; because the vote isn't always in your favour.

Please don't derail this with the second amendment. There's enough ignorance in this thread already. And besides, no rights are immune from the vote - we the people can (in theory, anyway) amend the consitution whenever we want given the appropriate majority.

[-Ethos-]

Why would anyone choose to be homosexual knowing the stigma arrayed against them?

Because we're fabulous, hunty.

[Skayth]

In all honesty, I like the fact that some states are diverse. But, what I do not like is having Representatives voting for me, rather having the people vote. Even if it is a "red" state, there are plenty of people who support gay marriage that are from them (cough me), and it would be shown in the votes.

[pucko97]

If a room of fascists that is "representing" "the people" was to vote down free speech, you'd be up in arms; yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, a great deal of MMO-Champion likely wouldn't mind. The point is that you don't get to cherry pick what rights are and are not immune from the vote; because the vote isn't always in your favour.

You know what? I don't care, if i was in charge i would simply scrap the Amendments altogether since its dumb IMO. Also freedom of speech is in the supreme law of my country and owning arms is not so I repeat: I DO NOT CARE.

[Austilias]

No, there isn't a risk. It has long been understood that rights should not be able to be voted away by a democratic majority.

Things that we consider to be rights have not always been rights; the American Constitution and the EU Declaration of Human Rights, have only come into existence quite recently. Likewise, things that some do not consider to be rights, have been rights for just as long; such as the right to bear arms. Rights are not immutable, just because they're rights.

[khalltusk]

I've never seen it brought up by proponents of same sex marriage, only as a feeble argument against it, of the possibility it might happen.

I have seen it on the news here in the uk about some possibility of it happening. I doubt it ever would though. Unless the queen demanded it. It's not a huge issue though as its something I don't think would realistically ever happen. Yes you are right its mainly the Anti group who use the fear of this as a reason to stop it (aside straight out bigotry)

[buck008]

.... Did you not read my post?

There is some talk or discussion about forcing it upon Churches and possibly other religion. I have seen such talk here in the UK. As much as I dislike the idea of them rejecting the notion of marrying anyone on the grounds of religion, they should be free to reject them on this grounds. It goes hand in hand with the anti gay marriage protesters ramblings that its against "gods" will etc or that its a marriage between a man and a woman. As much as I find any such view point sad and narrow minded they should be allowed their views. Same reason a priest should be able to refuse to marry anyone based on their religious views. If the religions leaders allow same sex marriage then they would simply arrange another priest or what not.

In the US we have an amendment that separates church from state. That doesn't just mean church stays out of politics like people interpret it now, it means government also stays the hell out of religion. Even if gay marriage was 100% legal all over the US tomorrow, the court could NOT force a religion to marry a couple contrary to its beliefs.

[Elegiac]

In all honesty, I like the fact that some states are diverse. But, what I do not like is having Representatives voting for me, rather having the people vote. Even if it is a "red" state, there are plenty of people who support gay marriage that are from them (cough me), and it would be shown in the votes.

How about...no. It's even worse putting civil rights up for a vote by referendum.

[Felya]

.... Did you not read my post?

There is some talk or discussion about forcing it upon Churches and possibly other religion. I have seen such talk here in the UK. As much as I dislike the idea of them rejecting the notion of marrying anyone on the grounds of religion, they should be free to reject them on this grounds. It goes hand in hand with the anti gay marriage protesters ramblings that its against "gods" will etc or that its a marriage between a man and a woman. As much as I find any such view point sad and narrow minded they should be allowed their views. Same reason a priest should be able to refuse to marry anyone based on their religious views. If the religions leaders allow same sex marriage then they would simply arrange another priest or what not.

Yeah, I have seen such talk, only from those who oppose gay marriage. It's a scam that you are perpetuating. It would be simple to see if you bothered to answer any question I asked, instead of pretending I didn't read. I'll ask again... How does legality of marriage change the already legal gay marriage in churches?

[Elegiac]

In the US we have an amendment that separates church from states. That doesn't just mean church stays out of politics like people interpret it now, it means government also stays the hell out of religion. Even if gay marriage was 100% legal all over the US tomorrow, the court could NOT force a religion to marry a couple contrary to its beliefs.

No, but we could always just drop the tax exempt status for churches that choose not to perform them.

[Felya]

In the US we have an amendment that separates church from states. That doesn't just mean church stays out of politics like people interpret it now, it means government also stays the hell out of religion. Even if gay marriage was 100% legal all over the US tomorrow, the court could NOT force a religion to marry a couple contrary to its beliefs.

England has a lot of turmoil when it comes to Church of England. There is a very long history...

[Elegiac]

Things that we consider to be rights have not always been rights; the American Constitution and the EU Declaration of Human Rights, have only come into existence quite recently. Likewise, things that some do not consider to be rights, have been rights for just as long; such as the right to bear arms. Rights are not immutable, just because they're rights.

Fine. So if we got rid of the protection from cruel and unusual punishment you'd be perfectly alright with that?

[BrerBear]

The only issue I take with it would be forcing a church to marry someone. I am not religious in any manner, but I respect the right for them to hold their own religious views. If a priest etc does not wish to marry a couple based on their religious views that's up to that priest. Same thing for a religion as a whole. If a religion deems that they don't support same sex marriages we should not force them to do so. It would be trampling on their religious rights. Much as I think that's a horrible reason anyway.

This is a non-issue, at least in the U.S.
Churches can already choose who they will marry. For instance, many will not marry non-members.

[vindicatorx]

In saying churches may refuse a gay marriage, explain how they may not refuse it when gay marriage is legal?

It's their property they can tell you to fuck off if they want. Just like they currently do to straight couples as well. Some churches require people who want to get married in them to be members other require you to take marriage classes. Trust me it wouldn't be an issue because as soon as it becomes legal churches will more than willing to take the gay couples money in order to have services at their church. The church rarely misses an opportunity take make as much money as it can.

[Zogash]

Yes, different animals, we are not them. I severely doubt it is genetic, but is there way to support either of the views for humans (I don't care about other animals, insects, it is totally irrelevant)

lolwut?
A: "Homosexuality is unnatural!"
B: "Well, there's countless instances of other animals being homosexual in nature."
A: "Other animals are irrelevant."
B: "Oh, so nature is irrelevant for refuting claims of unnaturality? Riiiight." *backs away slowly*

[Jaxi]

No, but we could always just drop the tax exempt status for churches that choose not to perform them.

That's going a bit far. There are a few socially liberal churches that will marry gay couples if they want, but taking democratic vengeance out on churches that choose not to is harsh.

[smelltheglove]

No, but we could always just drop the tax exempt status for churches that choose not to perform them.

i see no reason to honestly. if gay marriage is legal im happy, i feel no desire to force the practice on unwilling parties through law or taxes. i do reserve the right to say bad things about said churches though

[Reeve]

No, but we could always just drop the tax exempt status for churches that choose not to perform them.

That would be quickly struck down in the courts. It wouldn't pass the Lemon test.