In response to:

Early Indications: SCOTUS to Punt on Gay Marriage?

EducationSuperStar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 1:02 PM
I have heard from many proponents of same-sex marriage that there is no harm to others or traditional marriage practitioners. Allow me to describe what I heard from an LA city judge who was outspokenly homosexual. He said that he could not wait until (this was in 2006) gay marriage becomes Federally legal, because when it does he knows other gay couples who will approach a pastor they felt resentment towards and ask him to marry them. When he refuses based on his religious values to not marry homosexuals they will sue him for violating their civil rights. If there is no Federal protection (1st Amendment validation) or willingness to protect pastors from having this responsibility, many people could potentially be harmed.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 2:49 PM
No one is asking for the Church to be forced to marry gay people. What is being asked is that the government not use the churches definition of marriage to define the benefits given to those who are married.

The church did not invent marriage and therefore does not have to be the route gay people go through in order to get married. Everyone claiming that gays can force a church to marry them are talking out of their butt.
EducationSuperStar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 10:34 PM
You are correct gay couples do not have to use churches, but will they? All it takes is one couple and the domino's begin to fall. By the way it is not just the churches definition... is the majority of California and the vast majority of the states' opinions.
EducationSuperStar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 1:05 PM
Far more than what same sex couples are dealing with at the moment.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 1:10 PM
I'm not too prone to warnings of ancillary harm when same-sex couples are discriminated against every day. I'm sorry that religious officials feel encroached upon and like they are no longer free to practice, but their freedom came at the expense of others for a long time. I hate to think its a zero-sum game, but if it is, it's time religion felt the pressure exerted on the rest of us.
EducationSuperStar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 1:33 PM
Good, you have validated my point then. You have made the same-sex couple argument null and void (or at least the one they are making in court). That there is no harm to others by allowing same-sex couples to marry. You are acknowledging that there is that potential, and that you don't mind that. By the way, how is the government discriminating against same-sex couples?
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 2:51 PM
By not giving them benefits that straight couples get through marriage. That is literally discrimination against same sex couples because they are at a forced disadvantage.

Like I mentioned in a previous post to the original comment, Marriage isn't chained to christian churches. There are many routes a gay couple can take to get married. You do not have to go through any religion to get married and therefore the claim that you can sue a church for not marrying you is, as you put it, null and void.
EducationSuperStar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 10:30 PM
The benefits are given to same sex couples through civil unions. That union is recognized via the government as a legitimate partnership worthy of benefits. I agree marriage is not chained to christian churches. That is not my point. The door is open for pastors to be dragged into court for practicing their religion that is my point. 99% of same sex couples probably will go through the courts or more amicable faiths, but some may try otherwise.

Kevin and Carol set the table for this week's historic proceedings, wherein the high court will take up the contentious issues of same sex marraige, states' rights, and equality under the law.  Based on initial tea leaves from the first session of oral arguments -- which, conservatives will painfully recall, can be misleading -- the justices may be inclined to avoid ruling on heart of the issue.  Tom Goldstein of the well-respected