Give me a break. “A church would cease to exist if it didn’t have a tax exempt status”? Huh? Well, I guess all the major religions in the world wouldn’t exist because we know all of them have had tax exempt status throughout human history.

The guy in the video uses the same flawed logic that politicians use (yes, including democrats) who play the whole semantic game with “marriage” and “civil partnerships”. the only difference between them is that civil partnerships would give couples the same legal rights as hetero couples.

Give you a perfect example that’s similar: When Sarah Palin was questioned about her knowledge and qualifications (leadership, etc) for office, those were completely legitimate and valid issues to bring up. When a big deal was made about her clothing expenses, yes that was sexist and invalid (no one has ever questioned male candidates about their clothing expenses).

I’m disappointed the gentleman in the video didn’t go to the old “men marrying goats” argument. Of course we all know if gays are allowed to march in St. Pats parade (excuse me, people willing to identify themselves as gay in the St. Pats parade), then of course they will naturally be showing their packages, bare behinds, bare breasts, etc. As a non-drinking irishman whose attended plenty of these events, I know that this behaviour is saved for after the parade at the local pubs, where it belongs.

no gator? its delicious!

but i never hear of gator eating in north/central florida, you in northwest, or south?

be fair though, we dont just have oranges, we make a mighty fine carambola fruit

Most of the video was full of straw man arguments

True enough. But give him time.

Tax exempt status being dropped=infringing on church’s rights? /// Tax exempt statuses are priveledges. By that definition, the government has infringed on the big corporation’s rights.

Did you see the pics at Zombietime?

Also,I agree, however unless the law specifies the protection directly, it makes churches vulnerable. Yes the law may be on it’s side, but the fact is litigation would cost the churches millions. Like any entity that deals with finances, litigation for frivolous lawsuits drains its coffers and limits available funds for other things, for most religious organizations that would be charities.

Living in the San Fransisco bay area I am all to aware of the Gay pride parades (there are 3 near my home in the course of a month) and other events like The Folsom street fair and “up your alley”. And I have to agree there is not so much “pride” going on, as there is gratuitous sex and a “if you don’t like it, tough” attitude every where.

Oddly enough I never heard of FSF until photos were spread around online. Pretty disgusting it would appear and I do not understand how it is considered legally permissable. A similiar event indoors might be protected, but in public?

I would prefer gay marriage were legal, however I think as long as there is no protection for churches from prosecution if they choose not to perform a same sex marriage, then civil partnerships should be the alternative.

There is: the First Amendment. To job folks’ memories and make things clear, I have no problems restaing such in the legislation like a couple of New England states did when they legalized SSM.

As someone who has twice been married in a Catholic Church (to two different people), I have to disagree with you on that point. One must first go through a lengthy annulment process by providing a written explanation about their marriage and divorce, as well as testimony from several witnesses before the annulment is approved by the diocese. Then they can be married by the Catholic Church again.

Indeed. Yet a Catholic obtaining solely a civil divorce without also a grant of annulment by the clergy would not be allowed to remarry in the Church.

I don’t think churches would lose their tax-exempt status by disallowing re-marriage in their church since there aren’t specific laws allowing divorced people to remarry (that I’m aware of), but I can definitely see churches losing tax exempt status or being subject to crippling legal fees in the future if they don’t abide by same sex marriage laws.

Thanks to Roe v. Wade abortion is considered to be a fundamental right, ditto for marriage via Loving v. Virginia. Considering the Catholic Church’s views on both, the penalties it imposes upon its members for transgressing its views on them and how inflexible it is towards those who wish to partake in its sacraments without also abiding by said views, when has the Church been in danger of losing its tax-exempt status because of all this? No. They rightly hold that “pesky” First Amendment up as a shield against outside interference. There is nothing to suggest that a refusal to allow SSM being performed in its churches would not likewise treated the same.

Living in the San Fransisco bay area I am all to aware of the Gay pride parades (there are 3 near my home in the course of a month) and other events like The Folsom street fair and “up your alley”. And I have to agree there is not so much “pride” going on, as there is gratuitous sex and a “if you don’t like it, tough” attitude every where.

My argument to my friends has always been that if the overall gay community wants acceptance they need to stop showing how different it is and start showing how similar it is to the rest of the country. I was in San Fran a few years ago during Halloween, I saw two very large, very hairy gentlemen in black southern belle type out fits twirling through a crosswalk. Funny, yes. Good way to get people to side with you? Not so much.

I would prefer gay marriage were legal, however I think as long as there is no protection for churches from prosecution if they choose not to perform a same sex marriage, then civil partnerships should be the alternative.

As someone who has twice been married in a Catholic Church (to two different people), I have to disagree with you on that point. One must first go through a lengthy annulment process by providing a written explanation about their marriage and divorce, as well as testimony from several witnesses before the annulment is approved by the diocese. Then they can be married by the Catholic Church again.

I don’t think churches would lose their tax-exempt status by disallowing re-marriage in their church since there aren’t specific laws allowing divorced people to remarry (that I’m aware of), but I can definitely see churches losing tax exempt status or being subject to crippling legal fees in the future if they don’t abide by same sex marriage laws.

However, I think gays should have the same opportunity to marry, divorce and remarry as often as us heteros do!

Also, you don’t want a raunchy pride-parade with leatherdaddy has-beens parading down your street? You want family-values-type fully mainstreamed boring gay couples instead? Want to move gays out of the Castro and into Mayberry? Gay marriage is the best way there.

I know ’cause I’m in one. You’d think conservatives would want that.

Not at the retirement home. The Snowbirds from up North go to a all you can eat buffet, one person gets the food and splits it. Then they dump what they can in her purse, stiff the wait staff and leave driving over the parking brick with their left turn signal on. Later they wax, amongst their friends, about the good deal they got and how they screwed the restaurant.

Otherwise, we do have oranges. Some folks ’round here love gator, but I’ve yet to have it. They’ll swerve to run over the gator, whack it’s tail off and head off down the road.