When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

[Maisie]

It really baffles me why religious leaders are coming out in support of gay marriage. Now don't start jumping on me. I'm just saying its strange. If these people are christians surely they read their bibles.... and if they do it is clear that homosexuallity isn't acceptable. So why on earth are they completely ignoring the bible that they are supposed to be teaching and supporting gay marriage?

I also think its irritating why its always the christians who are attacked for their bigotry and discrimination yet the muslims teach against homosexuality too and nobody is attacking them.

Here is my opinion. As a christian. I believe my marriage in church was in front of God. As a christian it was important for me to get married in God's house. If a gay couple want to get married it should be in a civil ceremony and not in a church. Just as Kenny said, 'churches' beliefs must remain respected.'

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

This is my opinion. And I feel nervous posting it. Why? Because I'm sure lots of you will now always think of me as Maisie the Bigot.

 

[beebrisk]

The reason I brought it up and the thing that I find so disturbing about this whole thread is the notion that if you don't agree with changing the definition of traditional marriage you are a bigot

I don't know what to say about this. Too bad, so sad? Denying that civil law under the Constitution applies to black people equals bigotry. Denying that civil law under the Constitution applies to gay people equals bigotry. Then we hear the "gays aren't a minority" line. Yes, they are. I could give you the social science definition showing that they are. I could give you the history showing that they are. But no rational argument is going to convince people who insist on clinging to ignorance, fear, and prejudice. I finding it really amusing how people who are not affected by a society's prejudice are so sure about what prejudice is and what it isn't. I'd like to use a rolling eyes emoticon but I'll restrain myself.

Awww, go ahead. Roll those eyes! It would only serve to illustrate this: obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

 

[Maisie]

I am going to add to my comments. I have friends who are gay. Two had a civil ceremony a few years ago. Another is engaged. I do not have a problem with these civil unions. I would also have no problem in them having a marriage ceremony and referring to themselves as being married.. I don't hate gays or judge them. I just don't want the marriages to take place in my church.

 

[Imdanny]

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

Again, in the US, it is unequivocally against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any religious belief whatsoever, it is against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any belief related to conscience whatsoever, and it is against the Constitution for the government to establish, meaning to enforce in any way whatsoever, any religion doctrine.

Period. There is no "right" to get married in a church. There never will be.

 

[Maisie]

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

Again, in the US, it is unequivocally against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any religious belief whatsoever, it is against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any belief related to conscience whatsoever, and it is against the Constitution for the government to establish, meaning to enforce in any way whatsoever, any religion doctrine.

Period. There is no "right" to get married in a church. There never will be.

I don't think that people will be forced to believe in God to be allowed to get married in a church. I'm sure there are many non-religious couples who get married in church just because they think its expected of them, or the building is really pretty.

I don't know much about your constitution. Has it ever been amended or changed since it was put in place?

 

[Imdanny]

I don't know much about your constitution. Has it ever been amended or changed since it was put in place?

The part I'm referring is the Bill of Rights. It cannot be amended.

 

[TooPatient]

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

Again, in the US, it is unequivocally against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any religious belief whatsoever, it is against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any belief related to conscience whatsoever, and it is against the Constitution for the government to establish, meaning to enforce in any way whatsoever, any religion doctrine.

Period. There is no "right" to get married in a church. There never will be.

They (whoever wrote the bill) tried to force it through around here with that "right" included. I was horrified for the religious leaders. Our goverment leaders voted and as of July, same-sex marriages will be allowed. I haven't read the details to see if the "right" to be married in religious establishments by religious leaders was left in or taken out.

I think Kenny may have the right idea -- marriage will be left as something performed and recognized by religious leaders and there will be something else come about that is recognized by the government.
This solution would probably be supported by many of the people who may have hesitations.

In case there is any doubt -- I'd love to see the same benefits given to same-sex couples as are given to married couples. I can't imagine the horror of having your other half injured and be stuck in the waiting room due to some policy wording. My only concern is that the government not step in and interfere with religious beliefs. If something were proposed that would give equal rights and not mandate religious leaders perform ceremonies they don't believe in, I would be the first in line to sign my name in support.

 

[kenny]

It really baffles me why religious leaders are coming out in support of gay marriage. Now don't start jumping on me. I'm just saying its strange. If these people are christians surely they read their bibles.... and if they do it is clear that homosexuallity isn't acceptable. So why on earth are they completely ignoring the bible that they are supposed to be teaching and supporting gay marriage?

I also think its irritating why its always the christians who are attacked for their bigotry and discrimination yet the muslims teach against homosexuality too and nobody is attacking them.

Here is my opinion. As a christian. I believe my marriage in church was in front of God. As a christian it was important for me to get married in God's house. If a gay couple want to get married it should be in a civil ceremony and not in a church. Just as Kenny said, 'churches' beliefs must remain respected.'

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

This is my opinion. And I feel nervous posting it. Why? Because I'm sure lots of you will now always think of me as Maisie the Bigot.

Maisie, thank you and hugs.
It is exactly posts like this that help people like me grow.
I realize this is not a simple black and white issue and there are real and good people behind both "sides".
People's religious beliefs are important and valid to them and not to be trampled on.

After reading your sincere and heartfelt post I'm personally going to try to cool it using terms like hatred and bigot.
I will continue to argue for what I see as a human right, but really the name calling only harms the process, IMHO.

Mind you, many in the gay community will condemn what I just said.
They feel if anti-gay-marriage folks (aka pro-traditional marriage folks) are not upset and insulted and angered by screaming in their face, "bigot, hater" they will not be "forced" to confront the truth and come around.

I'm pretty sure gay marriage is just around the corner.
Orgs like NAACP and dudes like the POTUS announcing support pressures a lot of other orgs to jump the fence too.
And as has already been posted it WILL take another few generations for everyone to adjust to this.
This is a big change.
Even 149 years after the Emancipation Proclimation there is still work to be done on that equality issue.
Even though it pissed of a LOT of people [some of whom found biblical support for slavery], still, I think Abe Lincoln did the right thing.

 

[Imdanny]

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

Again, in the US, it is unequivocally against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any religious belief whatsoever, it is against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any belief related to conscience whatsoever, and it is against the Constitution for the government to establish, meaning to enforce in any way whatsoever, any religion doctrine.

Period. There is no "right" to get married in a church. There never will be.

They (whoever wrote the bill) tried to force it through around here with that "right" included. I was horrified for the religious leaders. Our goverment leaders voted and as of July, same-sex marriages will be allowed. I haven't read the details to see if the "right" to be married in religious establishments by religious leaders was left in or taken out.

Link please.

 

[Maisie]

It really baffles me why religious leaders are coming out in support of gay marriage. Now don't start jumping on me. I'm just saying its strange. If these people are christians surely they read their bibles.... and if they do it is clear that homosexuallity isn't acceptable. So why on earth are they completely ignoring the bible that they are supposed to be teaching and supporting gay marriage?

I also think its irritating why its always the christians who are attacked for their bigotry and discrimination yet the muslims teach against homosexuality too and nobody is attacking them.

Here is my opinion. As a christian. I believe my marriage in church was in front of God. As a christian it was important for me to get married in God's house. If a gay couple want to get married it should be in a civil ceremony and not in a church. Just as Kenny said, 'churches' beliefs must remain respected.'

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

This is my opinion. And I feel nervous posting it. Why? Because I'm sure lots of you will now always think of me as Maisie the Bigot.

Maisie, thank you and hugs.
It is exactly posts like this that help people like me grow.
I realize this is not a simple black and white issue and there are real and good people behind both "sides".
People's religious beliefs are important and valid to them and not to be trampled on.

After reading your sincere and heartfelt post I'm personally going to try to cool it using terms like hatred and bigot.
I will continue to argue for what I see as a human right, but really the name calling only harms the process, IMHO.

Mind you, many in the gay community will condemn what I just said.
They feel if anti-gay-marriage folks (aka pro-traditional marriage folks) are not upset and insulted and angered by screaming in their face, "bigot, hater" they will not be "forced" to confront the truth and come around.

I'm pretty sure gay marriage is just around the corner.
Orgs like NAACP and dudes like the POTUS announcing support pressures a lot of other orgs to jump the fence too.
And as has already been posted it WILL take another few generations for everyone to adjust to this.
This is a big change.
Even 149 years after the Emancipation Proclimation there is still work to be done on that equality issue.
Even though it pissed of a LOT of people [some of whom found biblical support for slavery], still, I think Abe Lincoln did the right thing.

Thank you Kenny. I appreciate your post more than you can imagine.

 

[TooPatient]

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

Again, in the US, it is unequivocally against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any religious belief whatsoever, it is against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any belief related to conscience whatsoever, and it is against the Constitution for the government to establish, meaning to enforce in any way whatsoever, any religion doctrine.

Period. There is no "right" to get married in a church. There never will be.

They (whoever wrote the bill) tried to force it through around here with that "right" included. I was horrified for the religious leaders. Our goverment leaders voted and as of July, same-sex marriages will be allowed. I haven't read the details to see if the "right" to be married in religious establishments by religious leaders was left in or taken out.

Link please.

Glad to see they modified it! Good for Washington!

Passed Bill -- this goes to the document that was actually signed.


I'm not going to keep searching for the old document. Since they made the exceptions so that religious organizations don't have to provide facilities and religious leaders don't have to perform or recognize, it doesn't matter any more.


I wish all of the couples who will benefit from this great happiness in life!

 

[Imdanny]

It really baffles me why religious leaders are coming out in support of gay marriage. Now don't start jumping on me. I'm just saying its strange. If these people are christians surely they read their bibles.... and if they do it is clear that homosexuallity isn't acceptable. So why on earth are they completely ignoring the bible that they are supposed to be teaching and supporting gay marriage?

I also think its irritating why its always the christians who are attacked for their bigotry and discrimination yet the muslims teach against homosexuality too and nobody is attacking them.

Here is my opinion. As a christian. I believe my marriage in church was in front of God. As a christian it was important for me to get married in God's house. If a gay couple want to get married it should be in a civil ceremony and not in a church. Just as Kenny said, 'churches' beliefs must remain respected.'

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

This is my opinion. And I feel nervous posting it. Why? Because I'm sure lots of you will now always think of me as Maisie the Bigot.

Maisie, I never said or implied that and I don't think it. The only thing I have said is that in the US legally requiring religious institutions to perform same sex marriages is an impossibility because of how religious freedom works according to our Constitution. Nobody in the US posting in this thread has given me any link proving that this has been proposed let alone defeated, let alone that it could ever become law.

People who fear this here can study this issue in depth, as I have, and if they still insist on claiming that this is a realistic concern, then they are fear mongering, pure and simple. Nobody in the gay community here has ever proposed legally requiring religious institutions to perform same sex marriages. Nor would they. But even if they did, it would be a complete and utter non-starter because our Constitution is unequivocal about this and our federal judiciary would never entertain such an idea.

Those of you who want to argue with me on this point who live in the US, save my time and yours and just give me a link proving what you are saying, otherwise I don't want to be bothered refuting what should be obvious again and again. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Nobody in my community has ever, not even once, sought to legally require religious institutions to perform same sex marriages.

I hope that you see what I'm saying, Maisie. I believe that you have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. We all have this right as human beings.

This is what I think about when I think of your name (other than what a sweet, wonderful person you are, and what a good friend you've been to me).

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/elite-baby-names.140584/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/elite-baby-names.140584/page-3[/URL]

 

[Pandora II]

Maisie, I think you would agree that most vicars don't think that women should be stoned for adultery anymore? Yet that is required in the bible (also the Koran).

Certainly the Church of England (and many other Christian denominations) do not regard the Bible as being something that should be followed to the letter - most consider it open to interpretation and that much should be discarded. I am presuming that you eat prawns and bacon and wear clothes of mixed fibres? If so then you are disobeying a law in the bible.

My MIL and her husband are both CofE vicars and in favour of gay marriage and in favour of gay bishops.


Unlike most of continental Europe, in the UK we don't require a civil marriage service as well as a religious one. You can have a secular ceremony performed by a Registar, or a religious wedding performed by a priest (which will include a short bit for legal purposes).

If you are a heterosexual couple and have a secular ceremony you call it a wedding and you are 'married', if you are a gay couple then you have an almost identical ceremony but it is called a 'civil partnership' and you can't say you are married (although many gay couples do say both wedding and married to describe their union).

In my opinion this does denigrate their union and makes it appear second-class. No-one is campaigning for churches or any other religious institution to be forced to conduct weddings, they are campaigning for the right of gay couples to be awarded the same respect and equality in terms of recognition and description of their union that hetero couples are. I think individual priests should be free to conduct marriage ceremonies for gay couples if they wish, if they don't want to, well for now so be it.

 

[Maisie]

I hope that you see what I'm saying, Maisie. I believe that you have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. We all have this right as human beings.

This is what I think about when I think of your name (other than what a sweet, wonderful person you are, and what a good friend you've been to me).

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/elite-baby-names.140584/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/elite-baby-names.140584/page-3[/URL]

Hehe, thanks Danny. I hadn't seen that thread.

 

[Maisie]

Maisie, I think you would agree that most vicars don't think that women should be stoned for adultery anymore? Yet that is required in the bible (also the Koran).

Certainly the Church of England (and many other Christian denominations) do not regard the Bible as being something that should be followed to the letter - most consider it open to interpretation and that much should be discarded. I am presuming that you eat prawns and bacon and wear clothes of mixed fibres? If so then you are disobeying a law in the bible.

My MIL and her husband are both CofE vicars and in favour of gay marriage and in favour of gay bishops.


Unlike most of continental Europe, in the UK we don't require a civil marriage service as well as a religious one. You can have a secular ceremony performed by a Registar, or a religious wedding performed by a priest (which will include a short bit for legal purposes).

If you are a heterosexual couple and have a secular ceremony you call it a wedding and you are 'married', if you are a gay couple then you have an almost identical ceremony but it is called a 'civil partnership' and you can't say you are married (although many gay couples do say both wedding and married to describe their union).

In my opinion this does denigrate their union and makes it appear second-class. No-one is campaigning for churches or any other religious institution to be forced to conduct weddings, they are campaigning for the right of gay couples to be awarded the same respect and equality in terms of recognition and description of their union that hetero couples are. I think individual priests should be free to conduct marriage ceremonies for gay couples if they wish, if they don't want to, well for now so be it.

Pandora, I would love to get into this discussion with you. We aren't allowed to discuss religion and I think I pushed my luck posting what I did about being a christian. If Ella would allow it I will respond.

 

[Maria D]

If you are a heterosexual couple and have a secular ceremony you call it a wedding and you are 'married', if you are a gay couple then you have an almost identical ceremony but it is called a 'civil partnership' and you can't say you are married (although many gay couples do say both wedding and married to describe their union).

In my opinion this does denigrate their union and makes it appear second-class.

Totally agree with Pandora's (and everyone else who expressed the same) opinion on this. Separate can never be equal, in my mind. I'm wondering if in the UK a heterosexual couple can choose to have a civil partnership? This is something that the state of Illinois began to allow last June. Many of the opposite sex couples that have opted for it (instead of traditional marriage) cite solidarity with gay couples.

 

[Maisie]

If you are a heterosexual couple and have a secular ceremony you call it a wedding and you are 'married', if you are a gay couple then you have an almost identical ceremony but it is called a 'civil partnership' and you can't say you are married (although many gay couples do say both wedding and married to describe their union).

In my opinion this does denigrate their union and makes it appear second-class.

Totally agree with Pandora's (and everyone else who expressed the same) opinion on this. Separate can never be equal, in my mind. I'm wondering if in the UK a heterosexual couple can choose to have a civil partnership? This is something that the state of Illinois began to allow last June. Many of the opposite sex couples that have opted for it (instead of traditional marriage) cite solidarity with gay couples.

It would appear not....

Eligibility

Each party to the civil partnership must be of the same sex and be at least 16 years of age. Anyone below 18 years of age will usually need parental consent, except in Scotland where such consent is not required. Furthermore, the parties to the proposed partnership must not be within the prohibited degrees of relationship specified in part 1 of schedule 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act (paragraph 3 was not brought into force [4] following a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights against similar provisions for marriage).[5] Any party who is already in a marriage or a civil partnership is ineligible to register.

 

[HollyS]

This is what I can see happening in the future. Gay couples will be given the right to get married ANYWHERE they wish. This will include churches and other religous buildings. I see Pastors/Vicars/Imams/Rabbi's etc being forced into the situation where they have to choose between their religious convictions and obeying the law. They will most likely have to leave their job which will leave the churches leaderless or with a leader who is happy to ignore the teaching of their religious books which to me is selling out.

Again, in the US, it is unequivocally against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any religious belief whatsoever, it is against the Constitution for the government to force any individual to have any belief related to conscience whatsoever, and it is against the Constitution for the government to establish, meaning to enforce in any way whatsoever, any religion doctrine.

Period. There is no "right" to get married in a church. There never will be.

Churches will not be forced by the passing of laws to marry same sex couples. You're probably correct on this score.

However, public opinion and cultural pressure will eventually move church denominations into either taking a hard line stand against, or capitulating toward, celebrating SSM within their churches. It is inevitable. And that is why you will have such opposition from the congregants of various religious institutions. Westboro Baptist aside, most Christians don't hate you, and many don't want to keep civil rights out of your reach. But if the tenets of the Christian faith (or other faiths) are at odds with same sex relationships, then you should not be married by its clergy or within its walls. And, yet, you will be. Some day.

SSM can be mandated into submission, but never universally accepted by everyone - - federal law or not.

 

[ericad]

I have a solution.

Let's define "Marriage" as simply the LEGAL union of two people. Federally legal, and applicable to all people, both opposite and same sex. If you want to be recognized as legally married in the eyes of the government, you'll need a "Marriage" certificate, and everyone is included.

Then, let's create something new and call it "Spiritual Union" and this will be for those who wish to have their marriages recognized by the churches and temples of whatever faith they practice. These institutions, like any religious group, can exclude or include anyone they want. Gays and Atheists need not apply for those groups who wish to exclude them.

To be both legally and spiritually united, you'd have to have both. If all you care about is one or the other, just get that one.

THERE. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[kenny]

Erica, that sounds like a workable solution but I really really really expect ... like it or not, gay marriage is right around the corner but the next battle will be language.

BOTH sides will want the traditional term "marriage".
What something is called can mean a great deal.

 

[justginger]

I completely agree, Erica, and that was exactly what I was trying to convey in my previous post. MARRIAGE would be the legal status, but we need a whole new term for what you become when you take part in a religious, church ceremony. Semantics can be extremely tricky.

 

[gem_anemone]

Isn't it always the way?? The ones who are first to call everyone else "intolerant" or "bigoted" are the ones who won't stop for even a moment to consider anyone else's viewpoint and can seemingly defend their own only with snark, contempt and ad-homonyms. Doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument, that's for sure.

Actually if you notice in a previous page, I am not so intolerant of intolerance (can that exist?) as I specifically asked for the other viewpoint. To this day I've never HEARD a reasonable, compelling, non-exclusive, secular argument against gay marriage. I'm still waiting for it as I would truly be interested in hearing it.

 

[ericad]

Erica, that sounds like a workable solution but I really really really expect ... like it or not, gay marriage is right around the corner but the next battle will be language.

BOTH sides will want the traditional term "marriage".
What something is called can mean a great deal.

If religious groups want the word "marriage" that's fine by me, as long as the government sends me a form allowing my husband and I to convert our status from "married" to "legally united" (or whatever it would be called.) Because if "Civil Union" is good enough for my gay brothers and sisters, it's good enough for us. And if "marriage" is tied to religion and spirituality then, as an athiest, it's not the right group for me.

 

[kenny]

I see your point Erica.
Thanks for the support!

 

[Pandora II]

Kenny, the current battle in the UK is entirely over language.

My husband and I are 'married', we cannot be 'civil partnered'. Our next-door neighbours are 'civil partnered' and currently cannot be 'married'.

The majority of those protesting that the term 'marriage' cannot be used are doing so for religious reasons or because they hold some incredibly tight and intolerant definition of what a marriage is. As an atheist who had a secular wedding, I strongly object to their presumed ownership of the term.

 

[Imdanny]

The day I stopped feeling the least bit uncomfortable thinking that I could one day be "married" is the day a straight friend of mine posted in a discussion much like this one and said, "My husband and I have a MARRIAGE and we were married by a judge".

I for one refuse to support or cater to people who don't understand freedom of religion. YOU have your religious views and I will have mine.

Erica, I don't know what they put in the water in Seattle but how I wish more people were like you in speaking out for liberal values while making NO apology. Right on.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

The day I stopped feeling the least bit uncomfortable thinking that I could one day be "married" is the day a straight friend of mine posted in a discussion much like this one and said, "My husband and I have a MARRIAGE and we were married by a judge".

I for one refuse to support or cater to people who don't understand freedom of religion. YOU have your religious views and I will have mine.

Erica, I don't know what they put in the water in Seattle but how I wish more people were like you in speaking out for liberal values while making NO apology. Right on.

Danny- In the same vein my friend once said "Sure we're married. But God wasn't invited to the wedding."

 

[HollyS]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.

 

[ericad]

Erica, I don't know what they put in the water in Seattle but how I wish more people were like you in speaking out for liberal values while making NO apology. Right on.

Weeeeelllllll, I'm not technically a Seattleite. I was born and raised near San Francisco, though I find that liberal Seattle suits us very well (I love the Pacific Northwest in general) But that's a very kind compliment - thank you!

 

[Imdanny]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.