North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

I believe if you look closely enough, you'll find just as much hypocrisy on your end. Such as wanting all to recognize something they do not believe in as valid, which is how the Christian community would see legalized gay-marriage. So, you can't argue on both sides. If you truly want equality, you need to be arguing for the Marriage Law to end, not to be amended.

You can't expect everybody to see things the way you do, especially when you continue to spill hateful words and names their way. You'll never be taken seriously. Example, Fred Phelps. Nobody, including a large part of the Christian community, takes him and his group seriously. Until you recognize that you cannot force others, through your insults, to see and believe as you do, the issues will never be solved. That's a big part of a lot of these social issues. Both sides trying to force the other to see things the way they do, when everybody should have the right to their beliefs without ridicule.

The best thing to do is to end the marriage law completely. Nobody receives tax benefits, which of course would suck for married people, but ahh well...you'll adjust. Nobody is considered legally married, because marriage will be given back to the religious institution - where it was born from in the first place. The only caveat will be that everybody will be free to put whoever they wish on their insurance. It would no longer be a need for husbands and wives, since there would be no such thing, legally.

The legal system would be free of so many divorce cases, and those splitting up their "marriage" would not be forced to lose half of what they have earned over the years. Of course, you'd still need the legal system for custody of children, but divorce could be a lot less of a mess without the legal system in place (sorry for those here who are divorce lawyers.)

Finally, gays could come up with their own version of marriage if they so choose. Just like religious people would still continue to get married via a priest or pastor conducting the service. Religious people and others who are against homosexuality would no longer need to worry about ridicule from the PC "Lefties" who call them bigots for believing what the bible says. It would be none of your business. Just like gays being happily married would be none of the business of the religious right.

No harm no foul, one could go quietly observing his/her right-winged conservative ways, you could go on quietly hating religious people. :)

The difference that you seem to be missing, is marriage isn't forcing a single thing on the churches. It is creating more freedom for the individuals to make decisions, while others are trying to constrict freedom. The amount of time and money taken up by gay marriage is beyond crazy to me. Let them get married so that they can be viewed legally as one for things like healthcare, next-of-kin, etc type decisions. It doesn't affect anyone in a negative manner if we do this. If this went live today, no one here (unless you're a gay person that gets married) has their life changed.

Most gay couples, and many non-gay couples, couldn't give half a shit if the 'church recognizes' their marriage. It's about the legal ramifications around not being married that matters; if this happens, non-gay couples need to have their title to the government changed as well. It is about fairness and consistency.

The church doesn't have to recognize marriage. Call it something else if you like -- as long as it fills the legal roles of a typical marriage. Your argument should have 0 credibility or influence on this decision because the church, and their values, should not be weighed or factored in when it comes to making governmental decisions. No Christians are being forced to do anything, they're just trying to force others from having something.

LMAO!

Watch this vid.
Vante exec makes video of himself harrasing a Chic Fil A employee.
His boss sees it and fires him.
What an idiot!

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8)

First class douche bag. It's one thing if you want to stand on the side and protest, but berating middle class workers who are trying to make a living isn't the way to go. They don't make company policy, they don't donate the money to the hate groups. Common man!!

Glad he got fired. I would say that backfired big time on him.

What an a-hole


Without a doubt!I will tell you though he wasn't even close to being as big an rear end as some customers have been for other reasons,if you have ever worked in the food business the public can be down right stupid.:)

You have never been to a BBQ to raise money for a church which feeds the poor. People pack churches every week and they pass a tray to make donations. Hell just 3 months back we had over 500 people waiting in lines to buy food and beer to help the poor. Having a golf event on Sept 7 which will have around 140 golfers at $100 a man to raise money for the poor. I could a 100 pages on people gathering to help rais money for the poor so you can quit waiting. Maybe you should try joing an organization that helps the poor and you would actually see what people do to help them.


Still waiting NC?

I've said this before and I'll say it again - remove the term "marriage contract" from the government's dictionary. Instead, the only thing anyone can get from the govt. is a State sanctioned civil union performed by a government official and ending the authority of religious officers to provide the State's sanction to such conracts. Such a union would permit individuals to receive the benefits of the traditional marriage contract while ending the government's involvement in the right of various churches to define their own requirements for the marriage sacrament.

Believe it or not, the marriage contract was not originally a religious issue but an enforceable contract at law related to, but not the same thing as, the religious sacrament of "marriage". Back when women were essentially considered property and/or were unable to hold title, enter into contracts and had other similar restrictions on their existence as a legal entity, breaking off a marriage contract (i.e. terminating the contract on some basis other than fraud or other legally recognized basis for terminating a contract) had tangible legal damages. Whereas, the marriage sacrament actually encouraged people - man or woman - to break off an engagement if, upon reflection, they discovered that they could not live up to the sacrament's requirements (fidelity, love and honor, etc.). Such a termination, if believed by the priest/reverend, etc. to be authentic and the right course, carried no religious santion - even if legal penalties were incurred. i.e. It may have been illegal to break the contract, but it was not a sin to do so.

Eventually, in our civil society, as women began to be viewed differently under the law, they gained more individual rights under the marriage contract and, in fact, became a party to the contract in their own right [Originally, the woman's father, not the woman herself, was the contracting party - it's that women as chattel thing again - and it was he (or the woman's brothers) who was (were) entitled to the "benefit of the bargain" if the groom broke of the engagement].

B/c the evolution of marriage as a sacrament within religion developed in conjuction to its development as the legally binding contract, the concepts of marriage contract and the sacrament of marriage got intermingled to such a point that, now, religious officers (priests, reverends etc.) are actually officers of the State. When such individuals sign a marriage license, and in addition to completing the religious sacramental rite, these religious officers convey the rights and liabilities of a governmentally sanctioned marriage contract. Essentially, every religious officer is empowered by the State to act as an officer of the State similar to a Justice of the Peace. I believe this to be both wrong in principle and wrong as a violation of the Constitution's brilliantly insightful stricture requiring separation of Church and State

While the values of the sacrament, being timeless in their own way, have remained essentially the same, the marriage contract has evolved considerable since women were considered chattel.

I would suggest that, historically, the government is a party to such a contract b/c they are bound by law to give certain benefits to other parties to the contract and these benefits cannot exist without a duly authorized govt. official (be it a sanctioned church official or a Justice of the Peace) approving the contract. Obviously, the legal rights of the parties and, in fact the parties themselves (i.e. the woman individually rather than some other family member) have consistently been modified to recognize the changing legal principles governing our civil society. I see no legal road block to further modification of this form of contract such that is consistent with the Constitutional requirement of equal rights regardless of race, religion or gender.

"Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, render unto God that which is God's." By the laws' of Ceaser, we are all entitled to enter into legally binding contracts which are not inherently illegal (i.e. a contract to kill someone). IMHO, the best and most efficient way to delineate the separation of Church and State on this issue is to use the appropriate, legally neutral language entering into such a contract for all individuals regardless of race, creed, or gender. Just like the coin bearing Ceasar's image, a contract legally binding two people to each other for the tangible, material requirements of pooling of resources, incurring and sharing long term expenses & benefits (both personal and legal), tax considerations and all other consequential legal remafications of such a contract should require only the tangible, material sanction of the State - not the intangible, spiritual sanction of God.

As to Chic-a-fil, my biggest issue is that everyone is entitled to their opinion -to me Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are pretty high on my list of "Yes. This is important." Chic-a-fil's choice to exercise those rights as they see fit should be respected. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a right to say it and legally act upon it.

To be clear, and in my opinion, God doesn't care with whom we sleep - just that we keep the two great commandments (Love God above all others and love they neighbor as thyself). That's my opinion and I to the extent my church feels differently, I will work to change that. At the same time, I also firmly believe each and everyone of us is entitled to speak their mind and state their opinions - no matter how offensive others find it. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are all equally important rights. Chic-a-fil wants to incorporate their religious beliefs into their business plan - fine. People wish to protest that decision, also fine. To me, it's all just confusing and distorting the underlying substantive issue.

Respecting and defining the Constitutional requiring the Separation of Church and State as it applies to the marriage contract would go a long way to furthering everyone's freedom of religion and freedom of speech on this issue. As such, rather than (IMHO) unconstitutionally granting the legal benefits of the marriage contract to some and not others based on their gender, do away with the legally confusing marriage contract and replace with civil unions for all. Then, let churches regulate the sacrament of marriage as they see fit.

The brilliant men behind the Constitution created an evolving document with timeless truths - separation of Church & State being one of them. In concert with that brilliant intention, it is time to evolve and to separate the "rite" of marriage from the "right" of marriage.

I posted this on facebook the other day and the message applies greatly here.

http://i.imgur.com/KJQDa.jpg

Most of the religious conservatives don't want the government to interfere in their lives, but have no problem insisting it does so in other people's lives. Irony. Hypocritical. Asinine.Actually the message doesn't apply. The choice the woman is about to make affects more than just her (Child & father). Again, another issue that should be decided at the state and not federal level.

Actually the message doesn't apply. The choice the woman is about to make affects more than just her (Child & father). Again, another issue that should be decided at the state and not federal level.

The message stands. It doesn't affect the guy with the picket sign that knows nothing about her situation.

I said it's a shame they can't "go out of their way" to help the homeless like this. If I'm wrong about that, can you please show me where any lines were 3 hours long or cars backed up for miles just to help out the homeless and needy? I'll pull up a chair and wait on this...

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/292319_10150927580966642_629690956_n.jpg
There are millions of Christians who spend many more hours.....per week.....actually working helping others.

Now let's talk about donations. In one division, of one charity, of one specific faith, specifically Catholic Charities of NY, annual donations for individuals and businesses were over $ 16M in a year. At let's say an average pay rate of $ 17 / hr. after taxes, that would equate to over 940,000 hours of work/pay that were donated.

Let's not be obtuse here, Christians donate a great deal to help others and much more than the non-religious. Can I quantify that, not without more time than I'm willing to put into this discussion, but I can guarantee you can't come up with anything to refute that statement.

I'll be patiently waiting :)

I feel like in 10-15 years we'll look back and say wow, I can't believe gay marriage was actually a big deal.

I feel like in 10-15 years we'll look back and say wow, I can't gay marriage was actually a big deal.

yup, hopefully be saying as i share a phillip morris premo blend spliff