hmm...more chess pieces being moved.......

[THE WOLFMAN]

http://nydn.us/1fJvgQ6

[funkStrat_97]

Well.....it's a matter of time to see how these GLBT gains will impact religious institutions.

[THE WOLFMAN]

Im sure there will be 'lobbying' that a church cannot "not" marry a same sex couple. Or at least they'll try.



Polygamists rights marches in 5....4...3..

[SketchMan3]

shrugs

[SavnBass]

I heard on CNN that steps were being taken to allow for the exercise of 1st amendment rights.. but we will see..

[malthumb]

Im sure there will be 'lobbying' that a church cannot "not" marry a same sex couple. Or at least they'll try.



Polygamists rights marches in 5....4...3..

Churches do not have to marry anybody they don't want to marry.  The SCOTUS ruling can and does only apply to the LEGAL aspects of marriage and the requirement that for all official business, same sex marriages be regarded no differently than traditional marriages.

Churches have the ability today to NOT perform a marriage ceremony for anyone they choose not to perform a ceremony for.  Examples...

• I live in Detroit.  One of the Winans has a large church here.  I know a couple who are members there but could not be married there because they lived together briefly before they were to get married
• I know of several churches who will not perform weddings for people outside of the denomination
• Catholic churches do not allow you to get married in the church if either party has been divorced.  Some Catholic churches also require a minimal number of pre-marital counseling sessions before allowing the wedding to take place in the church.

[berbie]

If the government(s) tried to force churches to marry people against their religious beliefs they would be acting against their own constitution as applies to the separation of church and state. They would be on a slippery slope that no thinking person would want to attempt.  Once on it,  where would it end?  The supreme court just acted to make gay marriage legal.  They didn't say that churches had to perform marriages against their tenets.

[funkStrat_97]

If the government(s) tried to force churches to marry people against their religious beliefs they would be acting against their own constitution as applies to the separation of church and state. They would be on a slippery slope that no thinking person would want to attempt.  Once on it,  where would it end?  The supreme court just acted to make gay marriage legal.  They didn't say that churches had to perform marriages against their tenets.

Besides....there are plenty of churches that will probably do this because the are pro-gay.

[SavnBass]

Well.....it's a matter of time to see how these GLBT gains will impact religious institutions.

Im sure there will be 'lobbying' that a church cannot "not" marry a same sex couple. Or at least they'll try.
Polygamists rights marches in 5....4...3..

Gay couple sues church...

This will set a precedent if it passes...

[berbie]

In England?  If my memory serves me right,  England still has the Church of England, which is what the name implies.  The official religion of England is Christianity.  I must admit that I am recalling history from many years ago,   but if that is still true,  their situation would be very different from ours(The United States).  Here, there would be some churches that would not object to gay marriage,  so there would be a choice.  I can't believe that the supreme court in this country would open the can of worms of requiring all churches to perform gay marriages.  You'd almost have to amend the constitution to clarify the matter as not being contradictory in terms(as relates to the constitution and its past interpretations relating to religion). 

[funkStrat_97]

...meanwhile, over in Kenya:

Take them; take them all if you want!

[funkStrat_97]

...meanwhile, over in Kenya:

Take them; take them all if you want!

Don't even worry about Kenya....the next "great marriage frontier" could be on our horizon soon:

Is Polygamy Next?

[SketchMan3]

Something about this thread is rubbing me the wrong way. There are way more important "chess pieces" to worry about that have nothing to do with the marriage institution

[malthumb]

Something about this thread is rubbing me the wrong way. There are way more important "chess pieces" to worry about that have nothing to do with the marriage institution

YESSIR!!

[THE WOLFMAN]

in chess, all pieces are important. even the insignificant pawn. one doesn't worry about chess pieces, but observes the movements.