No matter how hard I try, I cannot grasp the argument that somehow SSM attacks someone else’s “religious freedom.” Usually for controversial issues, I can at least understand some of the counterpoints—where the person I disagree with is coming from—but this one? This one rings about as true as the War on Christmas.
Even the LA AG knows better, though. From that cite:
So, a matter of a few weeks. Long before Mardi Gras, anyway.
There’s actually something to that. Part of marriage is that the state recognizes the partnership as legal and valid, as part of recognizing the myriad associated rights and responsibilities, and the state is simply all of us. The (claimed) impingement is that people with a (claimed) religious objection have to act officially toward same-sex married people in the same way they act toward opposite-sex marrieds.
I really hope to see the PFD show up to douse his smouldering martyrdom, as the afternoon sun upon the spray casts bright little rainbows.
I rather suspect homophobia is one of those things that has a ‘tipping point’. On one side, society largely approves of it; on the other, society largely disapproves of it. The transition period can be short.
Where I live, in Toronto, this matter has very clearly crossed the ‘tipping point’ in my lifetime. I can remember when the cops used to beat up gays, and most people approved of it. These days, the mayor is expected to head up the Pride Parade, and the city advertises itself as a mecca for gay marriages (brings in the tourist dollars).
The conservatives here have largely ceased to complain about the issue of gay marriage - it has become more or less a non-issue, at least, in this city.
I trust - and hope - the same will be the case for our friends south of the border; that this ruling just marks the tipping-point being past.
What I think they object to is they view homosexuality as a sin, so they see the government as legitimizing that sin. It would be as if the government said stealing or adultery was now legal. Their version of religion teaches they should treat homosexuals as sinners, but the government is saying they should treat them as normal people. To them, it is attacking their religious freedom since they can’t treat homosexuals as sinners as is required by their religion.
I suspect a lot of their outrage will die out quickly once they realize how boringly normal the gay couples are and then find something new to be upset about.
I’m not trying to be obtuse, I just don’t get it. There’s plenty of other married couples that don’t abide by Christian teachings.
Interracial used to be one. What about Atheists marrying? What about Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists?
The argument from the Right, seems to be largely, if not totally, from a Christian viewpoint; as marriage defined by Jehovah between a man and woman. But how can they, on one hand, deny homosexuals marriage, yet in the other be totally cool about men and women marrying under a different god—or no god at all—than the one in which they believe? If marriage is truly a religious mandate from God Himself, then how are the religious conservatives glossing over these other issues in matrimony?
I’m just not buying it. Utter and complete bullshit.
I think the problem here is that you’re trying to logically understand illogical people.
Exactly. You can’t logic a person out of position they didn’t logic themselves into.
But see? That’s just blatant cherry-picking. And believe me, I get the Fundamental Christian mindset, I was raised in such a household. Logic was never their strongpoint.
There are plenty of things that are legal, yet violate the beliefs of the faith, which never seem to become a political issue. You mention adultery, which while not necessarily wise, is perfectly legal; yet a sin for Christians.
Of course, most Christians are the best cherry-pickers I know. I’m with you too, I think this issue will eventually die down to almost a non-issue after some time. It’s just frustrating to see on a truly victorious day for those that believe in equality… y’know, like Jesus teaches…
I guess I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing some real point. I figured I wasn’t, but it doesn’t hurt to re-confirm. 
Does anybody know how long until the slippery slope we were promised kicks in? Can I marry my toaster now, or do I have to wait till like next week?
Whenever it happens, make sure you use the “bagel” setting.
Thanks, Voyager. My county clerk won’t be open for licenses and ceremonies until Monday, unlike Ingham County next door (which also happens to be where the Capitol of Michigan is located) where they will stay open tonight until every couple, gay or straight, who wants to get married has been able to do so. I think that was an incredibly magnanimous gesture by the County Clerk, Barb Byrum. My heartfelt congratulations to all who have been able to marry today in Lansing. My heart feels like it’s about to explode with joy. 
I’m ecstatic for you. If you’re truly going to be married soon, a ginormous congratulations to you and your family.
It must amuse Canadians when Americans threaten to move to Canada whenever things don’t go their way. I hope y’all are prepared for the onslaught of dumb-assery.
Within hours of the ruling being announced, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stated that state officials may withhold benefits from same sex couples if it violates their religious beliefs.
From the “unnecessary laws for the sake of political theater” category:
“GOP bill would shield TN pastors from same-sex weddings”
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/state/gop-bill-would-shield-tn-pastors-from-samesex-weddings_06229039
I can’t imagine how difficult these travails of yours have been.
It’s a lot easier to understand if you see religion as very often being simply a rationalization, a covering excuse, for behaviors and attitudes with origins in the lower part of human nature. “Guys kissing is just icky” can easily be turned into “The Lord sayeth buttsex is an abomination” and so forth, just by putting the responsibility on a deity instead of one’s own self. That turns mere hate into something positive, something one is commanded to do or think by the ultimate authority.
There are also many, *many *religious adherents who instead focus on the actual teachings of the actual prophets they purport to follow, teachings along the lines of the Sermon on the Mount, for instance. Those people are generally elated today.
Does that make any sense?
Unlike the Texas AG, who’s still spewing pus out of his face-hole:
I’m so ready for him to be convicted of the felony he committed.
I’m trying as hard as I can. Maybe some cute cat videos…