GG Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I highly doubt more than 1% of the gay couples currently wishing and waiting to get married would want to get married in a Roman Catholic church. Most simply want their union to be recognized by their state and country and enjoy the same privileges that straight married couples have. So crowing about "making priests do something they don't wanna" is dumbassery. Or maybe not - religious groups are concerned about the law: As Albany inches closer to legalizing gay marriage, Orthodox Jewish and Roman Catholic leaders are sounding the alarm about what they view as a lack of legal protections in the proposed law. WSJ Piece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Or maybe not - religious groups are concerned about the law: WSJ Piece Can't read the article and didn't see it in the print version, but is most of the issue having to do w/ whether the Churches would be forced to recognize the "gay marriages" for their non-specifically religious undertakings? E.g., would any employees of Catholic Charities have to get full spousal benefits even though the Catholic Church wouldn't recognize the couple as being married? That would seem to be a legitimate point of contention as opposed to the earlier raised issues along the lines that it could force the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Can't read the article and didn't see it in the print version, but is most of the issue having to do w/ whether the Churches would be forced to recognize the "gay marriages" for their non-specifically religious undertakings? E.g., would any employees of Catholic Charities have to get full spousal benefits even though the Catholic Church wouldn't recognize the couple as being married? That would seem to be a legitimate point of contention as opposed to the earlier raised issues along the lines that it could force the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages. The religious groups' concern is that the law would allow churches, synagogues etc to deny gay marriages in their facilities, but the law would not apply to the affialiates or charitable organizations of those religions to deny services to gay couples. Thus they think there's a risk of civil action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 The religious groups' concern is that the law would allow churches, synagogues etc to deny gay marriages in their facilities, but the law would not apply to the affialiates or charitable organizations of those religions to deny services to gay couples. Thus they think there's a risk of civil action. OK, thanks for that. Taking a quick look at the text of the bill that passed the assembly (A08354-2011), it looks like things like Catholic Charities would be exempt from the law. But I'd hate to have any money on that as the text doesn't appear to be particularily well crafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 OK, thanks for that. Taking a quick look at the text of the bill that passed the assembly (A08354-2011), it looks like things like Catholic Charities would be exempt from the law. But I'd hate to have any money on that as the text doesn't appear to be particularily well crafted. And I think that's the issue, although good luck trying to parse through the usual legaleze quadruple negative. Being exempt from the law, Catholic Charities would not get the law's protection to discriminate... err, refuse services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades. How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs. This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess. I think it should be between two consenting, living human adults. I think that eliminates some of the fear mongering, that somebody will marry a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I think that eliminates some of the fear mongering, that somebody will marry a horse. Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker... No, Tom. She's a transvestite DONKEY witch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker... Well if it was John Elway it would have been ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Well if it was John Elway it would have been ok. What would they name the kids? "Mr. Ed," "Secretariat," "Smarty Jones"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Was grampa OC a democrat? I doubt it, so he probably wasn't opposing civil rights. You're just another self righteous revisionist, lyrbob. Actually, grampa OC was an elected Democrat. An elected Democrat who would be literally cracking ..lybob's, and the rest of the far-left's, heads right now. All of the good will that the labor unions/New Dealers worked and in most cases had to literally fight to create in this country has been used and abused and is now FUBAR. The concept that "the Democrats are better on the economy" is totally destroyed and with it 90% of what OC's grampa spent his whole life on. That's why it's hysterical for me to listen to people like ...lybob talk about being a Democrat. You think I'm kidding with the head cracking thing? I spent many elections standing around the fire barrel, listening to the union guys tell stories about grampa OC. NONE of them would have signed up for what the supposed Democrats are doing now. Bailing out Big Banks who turn around and put working people in the street? Allowing non-union people to get the same benefits union people do(Obamacare)? ...and about 1000 other things that have gone on since 2006? Like I said: cracking heads. Oh and OCin, that was one of the most pathetic arguments I have seen yet. Just admit that for whatever reason you do not like the idea of gay marriage. What would the rights of x gay couple in y situation be? Why the same rights that heterosexual couples have. For the last time: I have no issue with Jim and Steve touching pee pees, and I probably have more gay friends and co-workers than you do. I work in NYC and San Francisco about 30% of the time. You figure it out. Also, you have argued yourself into a circle. If I am guilty of what you routinely accuse me of...then it's physically impossible for me to even care about this, never mind actually consider the idea itself. Nice work. Either way you are full of schit, dolt. More evidence that all you can be effective at here is posting emoticons. And, I simply don't trust idiots who tell me that they have no solution, but that I shouldn't worry and/or that I'm a bad person because I dare to demand they provide a solution before I sign up for their idiot "no plan" plan. You, clearly, are one of those idiots. And I fully expect, at some point, that some yahoo is going to try to take the Catholic Church to court over the very principle that religious freedom should not trump civil rights... Because, y'know, it's not like there isn't precedent already... Apparently Zulu didn't read this. I highly doubt more than 1% of the gay couples currently wishing and waiting to get married would want to get married in a Roman Catholic church. Most simply want their union to be recognized by their state and country and enjoy the same privileges that straight married couples have. So crowing about "making priests do something they don't wanna" is dumbassery. Right, and 80% of the lawsuits the ACLU files are not based on dumbassery. You highly doubt? The Roman Catholic Church is the brass ring for these haters. As if these people haven't gone after the Boy Scouts. As if these people aren't every bit as vindictive and judgmental as the Evangelical Christians they hate. You doubt. Hysterical. And therefore: my bet still stands. If you are honestly believe that the ACLU/far-left tools will file 0 lawsuits based on this law, put your 100 naked youtube pushups where your mouth is. Otherwise: understand that all I am asking for is that some lawyers and politicians do their f'ing jobs and write rational laws prior to any changes in an effort to spare us a giant cluster F. Edited June 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Actually, grampa OC was an elected Democrat. An elected Democrat who would be literally cracking ..lybob's, and the rest of the far-left's, heads right now. All of the good will that the labor unions/New Dealers worked and in most cases had to literally fight to create in this country has been used and abused and is now FUBAR. The concept that "the Democrats are better on the economy" is totally destroyed and with it 90% of what OC's grampa spent his whole life on. That's why it's hysterical for me to listen to people like ...lybob talk about being a Democrat. You think I'm kidding with the head cracking thing? I spent many elections standing around the fire barrel, listening to the union guys tell stories about grampa OC. NONE of them would have signed up for what the supposed Democrats are doing now. Bailing out Big Banks who turn around and put working people in the street? Allowing non-union people to get the same benefits union people do(Obamacare)? ...and about 1000 other things that have gone on since 2006? Like I said: cracking heads. For the last time: I have no issue with Jim and Steve touching pee pees, and I probably have more gay friends and co-workers than you do. I work in NYC and San Francisco about 30% of the time. You figure it out. Also, you have argued yourself into a circle. If I am guilty of what you routinely accuse me of...then it's physically impossible for me to even care about this, never mind actually consider the idea itself. Nice work. Either way you are full of schit, dolt. More evidence that all you can be effective at here is posting emoticons. And, I simply don't trust idiots who tell me that they have no solution, but that I shouldn't worry and/or that I'm a bad person because I dare to demand they provide a solution before I sign up for their idiot "no plan" plan. You, clearly, are one of those idiots. Apparently Zulu didn't read this. Right, and 80% of the lawsuits the ACLU files are not based on dumbassery. You highly doubt? The Roman Catholic Church is the brass ring for these haters. As if these people haven't gone after the Boy Scouts. As if these people aren't every bit as vindictive and judgmental as the Evangelical Christians they hate. You doubt. Hysterical. And therefore: my bet still stands. If you are honestly believe that the ACLU/far-left tools will file 0 lawsuits based on this law, put your 100 naked youtube pushups where your mouth is. Otherwise: understand that all I am asking for is that some lawyers and politicians do their f'ing jobs and write rational laws prior to any changes in an effort to spare us a giant cluster F. You would have let the whole banking system collaspe? That's just stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Actually, grampa OC was an elected Democrat. An elected Democrat who would be literally cracking ..lybob's, and the rest of the far-left's, heads right now. All of the good will that the labor unions/New Dealers worked and in most cases had to literally fight to create in this country has been used and abused and is now FUBAR. The concept that "the Democrats are better on the economy" is totally destroyed and with it 90% of what OC's grampa spent his whole life on. That's why it's hysterical for me to listen to people like ...lybob talk about being a Democrat. You think I'm kidding with the head cracking thing? I spent many elections standing around the fire barrel, listening to the union guys tell stories about grampa OC. NONE of them would have signed up for what the supposed Democrats are doing now. Bailing out Big Banks who turn around and put working people in the street? Allowing non-union people to get the same benefits union people do(Obamacare)? ...and about 1000 other things that have gone on since 2006? Like I said: cracking heads. For the last time: I have no issue with Jim and Steve touching pee pees, and I probably have more gay friends and co-workers than you do. I work in NYC and San Francisco about 30% of the time. You figure it out. Also, you have argued yourself into a circle. If I am guilty of what you routinely accuse me of...then it's physically impossible for me to even care about this, never mind actually consider the idea itself. Nice work. Either way you are full of schit, dolt. More evidence that all you can be effective at here is posting emoticons. And, I simply don't trust idiots who tell me that they have no solution, but that I shouldn't worry and/or that I'm a bad person because I dare to demand they provide a solution before I sign up for their idiot "no plan" plan. You, clearly, are one of those idiots. Apparently Zulu didn't read this. Right, and 80% of the lawsuits the ACLU files are not based on dumbassery. You highly doubt? The Roman Catholic Church is the brass ring for these haters. As if these people haven't gone after the Boy Scouts. As if these people aren't every bit as vindictive and judgmental as the Evangelical Christians they hate. You doubt. Hysterical. And therefore: my bet still stands. If you are honestly believe that the ACLU/far-left tools will file 0 lawsuits based on this law, put your 100 naked youtube pushups where your mouth is. Otherwise: understand that all I am asking for is that some lawyers and politicians do their f'ing jobs and write rational laws prior to any changes in an effort to spare us a giant cluster F. I was just giving lyrbob his mandatory smackdown because of his statement that grampa OC must have been against civil rights. Afterall it was the democrats that fought the Civil Rights Act tooth and nail. We do know though, that the democrat of yesterday was far different than what passes as a democrat today. If you want to piss a liberal off all you have to say is that you are a true JFK conservative. Somehow that doesn't fit with their visions of rainbow farting unicorns, Camelot and the icon of the democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You would have let the whole banking system collaspe? That's just stupid No... No...exactly as much as no REAL Democrat would have voted yes for it without demanding a hold on all foreclosures without government oversight . We are talking Democrats here, right? Why am I explaining how Democrats do things to a Democrat? Our tax money was supposed to be used by the banks to lend to people, and get the economy moving(our problems)...NOT to be spent on what amounts to a turnaround activity(their problems). Why weren't the Democrats...who were in control of House/Senate/Presidency...riding an Obama 65% approval rating...unable to demand that the money be used as intended? You know what? Don't even bother. There is no excuse for what occurred. And a REAL Democrat knows that. No REAL Democrat would ever support Obamacare, because it puts non-union workers = union workers. But, you aren't a REAL Democrat, so you have no idea WTF I am talking about, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Our tax money was supposed to be used by the banks to lend to people, and get the economy moving(our problems) You are speaking rhetorically, I assume, and are fully aware that that was completely impossible. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 .lybob talk about being a Democrat You can't find one post where I talk about being a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You are speaking rhetorically, I assume, and are fully aware that that was completely impossible. Right? I am speaking Democrat....so...as a Democrat, remind me again why I wouldn't be treating theories as though they are solutions, please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The online NFL shop has a wide selection of jerseys in pink and other festive colors that some of you fellas might find interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) You can't find one post where I talk about being a Democrat. 1. Read your own signature, moron. 2. You know what else I can't find? Where you give us your bona fides to speak as an authority about the mortgage industry. Mine are: I managed a $30 million enterprise system of record conversion and integration project for a year, so that means knowing their whole thing, at a top 5 national mortgage company. But, even I know that there are people on this board who know the mortgage business better than I do.... EDIT: Notice how they are all ducking me on the "a Real Democrat would never support Obamacare, because a Real Democrat doesn't give away union benefits to non-union people" thing? Hysterical. I been saving it for an opportune time. Edited June 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts