Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A

[brocks]

I've never understood why the "sanctity of marriage" folks are not protesting against drive-through wedding chapels and other types of secular weddings that do not treat marriage as sacred.

I find that very difficult to believe. Among the staunchest defenders of the "sanctity of marriage" are the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, who trade in their wives for newer models as if they were cars. How can anyone be surprised that there is more than one facet to their hypocrisy? [quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/61032/webb-simpson-and-stewart-cink-show-their-support-for-chick-fil-a/36#post_752760"] Let's be honest, the push for same sex marriage isn't personal it's a financial issue. I don't hear homesexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, I hear them tout the tax breaks, health insurance coverage, life insurance, that come with being married. I'm curious what's to stop two guys or girls that are living together as roommates from going to the justice of the peace and getting hitched so they can leverage the tax breaks, health insurance and all the other benefits that come from being married? Let's just get rid of this stupid concept of marriage, remove the financial benefits of it and then the guys that want to sleep with animals won't feel excluded either. [/quote] Well, if you think marriage should be strictly for producing children, I guess we should prohibit women over 50 from getting married. And of course, outlaw contraception. And maybe make Viagra mandatory. Come to think of it, that sounds like Boehner's (heh) health plan. As for your Santorum-esque slippery slope, most people usually mention polygamy before they make the leap to bestiality. Curiously, polygamy was practiced by many of God's favorites, apparently with his blessing. Solomon, the wisest man in the world, had 700 wives. And there is nothing in any of the 613 articles of the Mosaic Law prohibiting it. I guess Paul seems to prefer monogamy, but what he really preferred was celibacy. For everybody. To him, marriage was just a way to keep men out of brothels. So what, exactly, is your preferred society? Polygamy? Marriage only among fertile couples? Paul's advice that women wear veils, and keep their traps shut in church, and wait till they get home if they have any questions about the sermon, so their husbands can explain things to them, presumably in small words?

[newtogolf]

That wasn't a comparison, it was a statement that each group will push for their rights and what makes heterosexuals, homosexuals and any other group more deserving of the financial breaks that come from marriage.  I just want to get rid of the whole concept or marriage and any financial or legal benefits, what's wrong with that?

As for the sacred bond.  I have a cousin that is gay, she and her lover flew to Hawaii and were married, so they have "sacred bond" but they are whining about the financial perks that come with marriage.  If a gay couple wants to be married they can be, not as conveniently as heterosexuals but they can attain the sacred bond if they want to.  What my cousins and her friends are fighting for are the other perks.

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

You didn't really just go to the "sleep with animals" comparison did you? Perhaps you should care a bit more.

As for not hearing homosexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, while I won't say "whining," I would say if you can't hear the wish for a sacred bond, then come listen nearer my Church. I don't know which of my homosexual friends wish to marry, but I know they are all glad that when it is legal in Illinois, they will have a Church that will welcome and celebrate their sacred union.

[newtogolf]

It was a good movie.  I may be wrong, but my information comes from my gay cousin and all her friends that spew venom toward anyone against same sex marriage.  My cousin and her lover are married (in Hawaii), they are fighting for the tax break, insurance coverage, pension, social security benefits that spouses get in heterosexual marriages.  Her friends which I see quite often feel similarly, they want the same benefits that heterosexual spouses gets today, they already have the "sacred bond" they want the perks as you correctly cite hetero couple want too.

I say ditch all the financial benefits and make it so you get married because you want to be committed to one person and have a family together.  I'd guess the number of marriages goes down as well as the divorce rate.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You just described the plot of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry."  Certainly there were people out there who saw that movie and did or tried to do exactly what you said.

I think you are wrong though.  I would have to assume the push for same sex marriage is different to everybody.  For some, it probably is financial (but that is true about hetero couple too), for others its the bond, and to others its simply about equal rights.

Oh, and that movie is pretty good.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Cathy should know as a business owner the number of opportunists out in the world that would take his words and twist them into a political or religious position that would result in a backlash on his business.

As for same sex marriage, I'm neutral, in other words I couldn't care less.  If gay couples want to endure the same legal headaches straight couple do when it comes to divorce, dividing assets, spousal support, then go for it.

Let's be honest, the push for same sex marriage isn't personal it's a financial issue.  I don't hear homesexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, I hear them tout the tax breaks, health insurance coverage, life insurance, that come with being married.  I'm curious what's to stop two guys or girls that are living together as roommates from going to the justice of the peace and getting hitched so they can leverage the tax breaks, health insurance and all the other benefits that come from being married?

Let's just get rid of this stupid concept of marriage, remove the financial benefits of it and then the guys that want to sleep with animals won't feel excluded either.

There are many legal rights and protections provided to married couples that go far beyond simply "financial benefits".  And if you think gay marriage is the same thing as sleeping with animals then you are a bigot and a moron.

[newtogolf]

Exactly and i say we get rid of all the benefits and just have couples get married because they want to be together and raise a family.  I responded to the comparison thing, funny how people who cliam to have an open mind get offended by such statements.  Sexual preference shouldn't dictate benefits of marriage was my point, sorry you're too close minded to see that.

Originally Posted by burtonda

There are many legal rights and protections provided to married couples that go far beyond simply "financial benefits".  And if you think gay marriage is the same thing as sleeping with animals then you are a bigot and a moron.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

That wasn't a comparison, it was a statement that each group will push for their rights and what makes heterosexuals, homosexuals and any other group more deserving of the financial breaks that come from marriage.  I just want to get rid of the whole concept or marriage and any financial or legal benefits, what's wrong with that?

As for the sacred bond.  I have a cousin that is gay, she and her lover flew to Hawaii and were married, so they have "sacred bond" but they are whining about the financial perks that come with marriage.  If a gay couple wants to be married they can be, not as conveniently as heterosexuals but they can attain the sacred bond if they want to.  What my cousins and her friends are fighting for are the other perks.

There are many who have ignorant views about homosexuals being more predisposed to rape, incest, child-rape, and other sex crimes. Using "sex with animals" is often their "logical" extension of what they view as homosexual behavior being deviant behavior. In your case, I'm guessing it was just an unfortunate and poor choice as an example. If you say you did not mean to evoke images that compare homosexual sex with human/animal sex, I believe you. And really? The sex with animals folks are not really a group that is likely to seek and get civil right protection, are they? Perhaps a less often used to be offensive example would have been better. Like "blue eyed couples."

As for getting rid of any benefits to marriage, would you not allow a spouse special privileges and responsibilities in a hospital? Would you eliminate current estate law that transfers property to a surviving spouse?

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

So if it has to be one or the other (limiting civil rights vs. limiting religious freedoms) then you choose limiting civil rights?  Got it.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we grant everyone civil unions and still not infringe upon the constitutional protected right to free exercise? Not one time in this thread have I said I choose to favor one group over another. I've said no favor or consideration should be given to ANYONE based on sexuality - gay or straight. The issue at hand is, non-religious people don't deem religious freedom as an inalienable right. So they're more than quick to dismiss it in favor of gay marriage. I think they're mutually exclusive. You're the one saying it's one or the other.

Quote:

You would rather protect people from a few lawsuits because they don't like gay people than allowing people equal rights.

Way to marginalize a pretty salient point and legitimate concern. What you should have said is "I would rather just do away with the constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion because it's not important to me." It's just as important. And if, for you to practice their rights, I have to give up on mine, then it's a problem. My practicing Christianity in no way limits the rights of gay couples. But if I'm a wedding photographer and I am FORCED to violate my principles and photograph a gay wedding, or face crippling fees in court, I think that's a problem.

Quote:

I can't see myself ever understanding this attitude coming from anything other than prejudice. (hateful bigot is a bit harsh, I won't go that far).

Unsure how you could come to this realization when I've articulated numerous times that I think everyone should have the same protection under the law.

Quote:

The lawsuits from people being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple sound like urban myth.

I beg to differ.

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court

Quote:

No Pastor is compelled to marry a couple if they don't want to. I know Pastors that require years of meetings and then decide if they think the couple knows what they are doing. The Catholic church as denied millions of couples at the discretion or the local Priest. I'm sure the courthouse Judge can not deny a couple any more than her or she can deny a mixed race couple (Mixed race marriage was not legal everywhere in the US until 1967). Judges are government employees and do not get to use religious freedom as an excuse to deny someone the rights their state, or the US Supreme Court, has given them.

And even if it does hold up in court, it is still taxing on both time and resources for the Church to constantly have to defend its own position. That's why, if you protect people's right to not be forced to give credence to another's sexuality (gay or straight), all this goes away.

[newtogolf]

I didn't mean to invoke those negative images, I'll agree it was a poor example.

As for the concept of marriage, it doesn't mean the same as it did.  Single people have children, married people cheat on their spouse, unmarried couples live together and more than 50% of legal marriages end in divorce.

It's really lost the sanctity it once had.  The pressing issue is the financial gains and other rights you and others have mentioned.  Instead of spouses, let everyone assign a "special person" status to anyone they choose.  That person would receive the same benefits as a spouse does today without all the hassles that we're seeing today.

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

There are many who have ignorant views about homosexuals being more predisposed to rape, incest, child-rape, and other sex crimes. Using "sex with animals" is often their "logical" extension of what they view as homosexual behavior being deviant behavior. In your case, I'm guessing it was just an unfortunate and poor choice as an example. If you say you did not mean to evoke images that compare homosexual sex with human/animal sex, I believe you. And really? The sex with animals folks are not really a group that is likely to seek and get civil right protection, are they? Perhaps a less often used to be offensive example would have been better. Like "blue eyed couples."

As for getting rid of any benefits to marriage, would you not allow a spouse special privileges and responsibilities in a hospital? Would you eliminate current estate law that transfers property to a surviving spouse?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I agree, religion has no place in politics. None(and I'm deeply religious).

Unfortunately for you, you live in a country where you have politicians who are doing their best to make the two one and the same. That's not your fault.

I'd love to know what the term " deeply religious" means. Clearly there's oneupmanship amongst the saintly types. Must be better than being merely "religious".

So often we see it used to describe a famous person with these antiquated and irrational "beliefs" based on talking snakes and logic that would confuse a four year old.

From reading your posts it would seem that a "deeply" religious person should be protected from the horrors of, for example photographing a same sex union.

You criticise me for being "closed minded", but don't cite anything specific.

Seems to me that  like so many superstitious folk ("deeply religious folk") you just get a tad uncomfortable when your "values" are called into question and you are asked to join a civilisation that has evolved since the first century.

There is nothing more absurd to me personally (that's a joke you'll understand, being a student of my grumpy posts) than Christians who masquerade as thoughtful and rational scholars when their "values" based existence rests on fantasies that are incapable of withstanding the most modest scrutiny.

You are saying that a photographer who refuses to take a job and by doing so is discriminating in an unlawful way should have some kind of protection because of his superstitions er religious beliefs.  No wonder you want politics (lawmaking) separated from religion. It would make it very convenient for the deeply religous and pious amongst us to demonstrate theur compassion against minorities, wouldn't it?  They could discriminate and be "righteous" at the same time. Sounds like a fun club to be part of!! Funny that. And you call others bigots..........

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

My practicing Christianity in no way limits the rights of gay couples.

No, but using your "religious beliefs" as an excuse to vote against allowing them to be able to get married does.

I'll defer to Shorty for the rest of it.

[Wisguy]

I'd like to share a few thoughts on this issue since some of the people voicing the strongest opinions on this topic are basing those opinions on dogma rather than rational thought.

The CFA owner, Simpson, Cink, etc... have every right to speak their minds about their beliefs.

However, doing so marks them as fools.  Why on earth would any person be dumb enough to limit their source of revenue by angering potential customers and sponsors?  They will have at least twice as many people who will shun them as will gravitate toward them for expressing their hate-filled beliefs.  If I was one of those golfer's sponsors, I would pull the endorsement and would no longer sponsor them based on a) their expression of support for bigotry; and b) being too dumb to represent my business in an appropriate light.

Those who are advocates against same-sex marriage have altogether irrational beliefs.  One of the most common rationales I heard in my state's debate over the fairly recent anti-gay marriage amendment was that same sex marriage somehow "cheapens and weakens the sacred institution of marriage."  I have two responses:  a) an "institution" that has a failure rate of 45-50% is hardly sacred; and b) if the status under the law of a couple who profess a desire to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship can somehow cheapen or weaken my marriage, then I have a cheap and weak marriage.

Guys, does the thought of kissing another man sicken you?  I have a solution - it's pretty far out, but I think even the most closed-minded of you can grasp it:

Don't kiss other men.

That's right, if the idea of getting romantically involved with someone of your own gender does not appeal to you, then don't do it.  It's very simple.  I don't like beef liver, hard boiled eggs, lima beans or anchovies and the taste of any kind of whiskey makes me gag.  So you know what?  I don't partake of those items - I stick with pizza, tacos, steaks, beer, tequila, etc....  I've never felt attracted to any guy and my life has been just fine with sticking to women without going out of my way to spew criticism and hate against those who are different from me.  Those who want to marry someone of the same gender are not trying to involve heterosexuals in any way in their love life - it shouldn't concern you any more than I should be concerned if my neighbor wants to make a stew out of lima beans and anchovies and wash it down with a glass of scotch in the privacy of his own home.

There was a guy in my dorm in college who was a very outspoken homophobe, always talking about "those *(&^*^%! fairies" etc....   Funny thing is, he came out of the closet in grad school.  I would bet my house that more than half of the most outspoken homophobes out there aren't expressing their hatred out of belief in some millennia-old religious dogma, it is because they feel guilty about their own feelings and inclinations and are trying to suppress their own homosexual attractions.  And on behalf of all intelligent, open-minded people, let me tell those of you who are inclined to criticize homosexuals or vocally oppose same-sex marriage, you are making a lot of people suspect that you are the sort of hypocrite who attempts to suppress his own homosexual leanings by being a homophobe.

I strongly support public condemnation of any form of bigotry.  I suspect that few others here have been discriminated against, but in my youth my family and I were the subject of active discrimination because our ancestors' national origins were not from north-western Europe and we did not go to the same church as our neighbors.  In the decades since then, the US has actively condemned this sort of bigotry and the result is that I have not heard a disparaging remark of the sort I heard yelled at me in my childhood in over two decades.  One cannot altogether eliminate bigotry because there will always be small, bitter, hate-filled people who look for others to target and blame, but the effects of bigotry can be eliminated if it is not tolerated.

Just because one has the Constitutional right of free speech does not mean it is a good idea or appropriate to exercise that right.  If I think some of my neighbors are less than perfect specimens, should I walk down the street and say "Jim, it's disgusting the way your gut is spilling over a foot beyond your belt and your wife is a morbidly obese sow" or "Sally, I can't decide who is more butt-ugly, you or that beady-eyed husband of yours"?  Of course not.  It is only basic decorum to keep one's opinions on purely personal matters to oneself.  Somehow homophobic bigots don't understand this concept and are hiding behind their religion as an excuse to promote their narrow-minded, intolerant beliefs.

I will conclude these comments with a quote that I hope the bible-thumper types will consider and take to heart.  It is a quote by one of the most outstanding leaders in the history of our species, a man of peace who brought about a transformation of a nation toward democracy without bloodshed, which in our most basic American democratic values should make all of us respect him highly.  The quote is:

"I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."

- Mahatma Gandhi

[brocks]

The issue at hand is, non-religious people don't deem religious freedom as an inalienable right.

That is a red herring. Religious people all through history have been extremely intolerant of other religions, and not just in the Middle Ages. The Mormons did not make the decision to migrate to Utah without some help from their Christian neighbors, and they had to renounce some important tenets of their faith in order to gain statehood. Much more recently, good Christians opposed Muslims putting up buildings. The "Ground Zero" argument was exposed when exactly the same kind of protests greeted plans for a new mosque in Tennessee. Of course I know that *you* would not be intolerant, but that doesn't mean that intolerance is a strictly non-religious trait. [quote]And if, for you to practice their rights, I have to give up on mine, then it's a problem. My practicing Christianity in no way limits the rights of gay couples. But if I'm a wedding photographer and I am FORCED to violate my principles and photograph a gay wedding, or face crippling fees in court, I think that's a problem. [/quote] That is not a restriction on the practice of your religion; it is a restriction on your business. Nobody is going to ask you, let alone force you, to participate in gay sex, they just want you to take some wedding pictures. It's part of the price of living in a society that businesses that cater to the public are not allowed to discriminate. If you happen to be an amateur photographer, nobody can force you to take pictures at a wedding. But if you go into business as a professional wedding photographer, you get a business license, and we have learned painful lessons about the inadvisability to allow public businesses to refuse to serve Jews or blacks, and the same should apply to gays.

[newtogolf]

If a bigot or racist photographer doesn't want to take photos of blacks or jews he can refuse to simply by declining the job without a reason or pricing it outrageously high.  In this economy it's stupid to turn down business from any paying customer, but it is possible to do so.

Originally Posted by brocks

That is not a restriction on the practice of your religion; it is a restriction on your business. It's part of the price of living in a society that businesses that cater to the public are not allowed to discriminate. If you happen to be an amateur photographer, nobody can force you to take pictures at a wedding. But if you go into business as a professional wedding photographer, you get a business license, and we have learned painful lessons about the inadvisability to allow public businesses to refuse to serve Jews or blacks, and the same should apply to gays.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Way to marginalize a pretty salient point and legitimate concern. What you should have said is "I would rather just do away with the constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion because it's not important to me." It's just as important. And if, for you to practice their rights, I have to give up on mine, then it's a problem. My practicing Christianity in no way limits the rights of gay couples. But if I'm a wedding photographer and I am FORCED to violate my principles and photograph a gay wedding, or face crippling fees in court, I think that's a problem.

I don't think the previous post was marginalizing as much as you think. While you do have a possibly legitimate concern, remember that we're working in the real world here, balancing issues that affect people's lives. It'd be great if your hypothetical wedding photographer could be completely free to keep to his principles, whatever they are. However, he is not living in a vacuum, he is part of the society we all share. It's not outrageous to expect that he may occasionally have to make concessions in return for a peaceful, functional society. Remember, you're arguing here that his freedom of choice not to spend an afternoon taking photographs of a couple whose union he feels is wrong is as important as their right to share the public legal recognition of their union (or marriage or whatever) and the civil and legal rights that accompany it. That seems more than a little unbalanced to me.

We've already decided that certain forms of discrimination are not ok, and that being part of a free society occasionally means we must all accept, or to some degree be a part of, something we don't like. It's reasonable to debate and discuss the limitations.

I think that you're sort of arguing cross purposes here. You seem to support gay marriage as I'd define it (not because you approve of it, but because you think the legal framework should be open to same-sex couples). However, your concern seems to be that people will be forced to take part in rituals they are not comfortable with. The latter is a separate decision. I don't think the threat of being forced to provide these services is as great as you believe.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

As for the concept of marriage, it doesn't mean the same as it did.  Single people have children, married people cheat on their spouse, unmarried couples live together and more than 50% of legal marriages end in divorce.

It's really lost the sanctity it once had.  The pressing issue is the financial gains and other rights you and others have mentioned.  Instead of spouses, let everyone assign a "special person" status to anyone they choose.  That person would receive the same benefits as a spouse does today without all the hassles that we're seeing today.

I agree with much of this, but you're dead wrong on your assumption that it used to have more sanctity. I'd argue the reverse: it used to be, if you became pregnant while single, you had no choice but to get married and stay that way, whether you were happy or not. People cheated, had kids with other people's spouses, etc, in the past just like they do now. We're just more honest and open about it now.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Seems to me that  like so many superstitious folk ("deeply religious folk") you just get a tad uncomfortable when your "values" are called into question and you are asked to join a civilisation that has evolved since the first century.

I'm not uncomfortable. I don't operate under the guise that everyone else believes as I do. I think it's you who seems to struggle with that.

Quote:

There is nothing more absurd to me personally (that's a joke you'll understand, being a student of my grumpy posts) than Christians who masquerade as thoughtful and rational scholars when their "values" based existence rests on fantasies that are incapable of withstanding the most modest scrutiny.

I think a number of Christians, like others, struggle with this daily. It's a common, and largely warranted, knock on Christians as a whole. We tend to place emphasis on the things we deem wrong and yet don't struggle with. i.e. rarely do you see Christians espousing the need to curb gluttony or divorce - but those things are explicitly outlined as wrong. But you see them harping on stuff like alcohol (which isn't even a sin) or adultery when they aren't involved in those things.

I think the core tenets of Christian values are more than capable of withstanding harsh scrutiny. The problem is, many examples of Christians today don't seem to exemplify those values. No argument there.

Quote:

You are saying that a photographer who refuses to take a job and by doing so is discriminating in an unlawful way should have some kind of protection because of his superstitions er religious beliefs.

Those "superstitions" as you are so quick to marginalize, are constitutionally protected. Your lack of respect for one's religious beliefs doesn't make them any less afforded to them under our nations laws. Whether you like it or not. Your opinions on religion do not supercede my right to practice or believe in it. Though I'm sure you wished they did.

But this perfectly underscores what I'm talking about. When people disagree, we're so quick to jump all over them and assign the worst possible traits of that person. Or openly mock their position or beliefs. Is that any way to resolve an issue? To mock someone? This is why the debate goes nowhere.

Quote:

basing those opinions on dogma rather than rational thought.

As if the two are mutually exclusive. I haven't articulated a single dogmatic position in this entire thread. I'm not whipping out Bible verses or telling you that people should go to church. I merely believe that one right shouldn't be granted in expense of another.

Quote:

Much more recently, good Christians opposed Muslims putting up buildings. The "Ground Zero" argument was exposed when exactly the same kind of protests greeted plans for a new mosque in Tennessee.

For the record, I supported the rights of that church to build a Mosque near ground zero. Ironically, however, many of the people who defended that Mosque so fervently also think it is OK to deny CFA a building permit in Chicago.

Quote:

But if you go into business as a professional wedding photographer, you get a business license, and we have learned painful lessons about the inadvisability to allow public businesses to refuse to serve Jews or blacks, and the same should apply to gays.

I think people should be allowed to have the discretion to turn down work based on a projects' subject matter . In many instances with these court cases, all the business owners have a track record of doing business with gay individuals. It was merely the subject matter of that specific thing, with which they disagreed. As I stated before, I don't think sexuality is a narrow enough topic to define guidelines for forcing one to do business. I don't think I'm any more special than anyone else in that regard. I don't think a gay minister should be legally forced to perform my marriage if he or she doesn't wish to.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

If a bigot or racist photographer doesn't want to take photos of blacks or jews he can refuse to simply by declining the job without a reason or pricing it outrageously high.  In this economy it's stupid to turn down business from any paying customer, but it is possible to do so.

That's correct.  I read the story he linked and the lawsuit came about because the photographer stated that they don't do same sex weddings.  A Hooters manager is never going to hire a flat chested ugly girl as a waitress, but he's certainly not going to tell them that's why he didn't hire them ... unless he's an idiot and wants to get sued.

Only quasi-related:  At the company I work for (civil engineering firm), several years ago when business was booming and people came in with really tiny jobs, we would just give them a really high proposal and that would drive them off.  Now?  We work for peanuts.

[brocks]

If a bigot or racist photographer doesn't want to take photos of blacks or jews he can refuse to simply by declining the job without a reason or pricing it outrageously high.  In this economy it's stupid to turn down business from any paying customer, but it is possible to do so.

I usually do a little research before I post about a subject I don't know much about, but I'll make an exception in this case. Knowing nothing about business law, I will bet my house that if you consistently quoted prices ten times as high to black couples as to white couples for essentially identical services, and were reported for it, you would find yourself in legal trouble. Not that I doubt it happens. Here is a clause from the Alabama State Constitution: "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro." Although a ruling by the US Supreme Court has made that unenforceable since 1967, Alabamans proudly retained it in their constitution. As recently as 1998, a bill to have that clause removed was defeated by the legislature. Finally, sane people managed to get a referendum for its removal on the 2000 ballot, which allowed a direct vote by the people. And it passed, although 41% of the voters wanted to retain it. And as recently as 2011, a reputable poll found that only 40% of Mississippi Republicans wanted interracial marriage to be legal. Since that is not a politically correct view, I suspect the actual numbers are a lot lower. Being an eternal optimist, I think that opponents of gay marriage will look just as silly within a decade or two. As I keep trying to explain to my 90-year old mother-in-law, they just want the option for themselves; they are not trying to make it mandatory.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

I think that you're sort of arguing cross purposes here. You seem to support gay marriage as I'd define it (not because you approve of it, but because you think the legal framework should be open to same-sex couples). However, your concern seems to be that people will be forced to take part in rituals they are not comfortable with. The latter is a separate decision. I don't think the threat of being forced to provide these services is as great as you believe.

Correct, I don't exactly "approve" of gay marriage, but I'm also not so egotistical as to think that my opinion should matter 2 cents worth when it comes to what they can and can't do. Really, I'm indifferent because it doesn't affect me. In the same token, I don't think their wishes to have a specific photographer photograph their wedding should matter 2 cents worth when it comes down to whether or not that person should accept the job.

It is as great as I believe. I've already shown legal precedent. That photographer was forced to pay like $7,000 in restitution and I think went out of business. There needs to be a reconciliation so both sides can have what they want. If the issue is truly what it's being represented as - and gay couples just want to be left alone and be allowed to marry - then conceding the point that folks don't have to violate their religious principles to participate in said marriage shouldn't be a big deal. Conversely, if Christians are truly concerned about erosion of religious freedom in this regard, then they should be more than willing to step aside if allowed the aforementioned concession.