I'm not sure i understand the argument you are pressing.
the "right to an abortion" and the "right to gay mariage" are not things that exist in the constitution, explicitly or by implication.
Abortion involves what is arguably another LIFE, and therefore something (someone) ELSE that is protected by the constitution. Gay marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue that, in theory is something SEPERATE from government in total ... if it is seperate from the law, at the very least it should be outside of the perogative of the FEDERAL government ... i'm not sure about if it is something up to the state or not (ok, i personaly don't think it is) ... IMHO, it should be left up to the church ... but i certainly agree that it shouldn't be left to the Federal Government to decide ...
as far as your "right" to sodomy in the bedroom, or whatever it is you please ... well, that is where i draw a line with Dr. Pauls proposed legislation, because that is personal choice, and a "pursuit of happiness" issue, as far as i can tell ... because i'm not sure where in the law one is to interpret any perogative of government PERIOD to regulate.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND where you are going off about the constitution and giving away rights explicit within it to the state to destroy? I never said ANYTHING about that. If you can show me where in my arguments i have suggested that the state has the right to trample your constitutional rights, then by all means continue. As far as i understand it, the 10th ammendment expressly attributes ALL rights not SPECIFICALY assigned to FEDERAL government to the people themselves, and the state governments they form.
???
Let me know how you want to further this debate.
I am WAY drunk. HAPPY NEW YEARS ALL!
Way too much opinion presented as fact here
the "right to an abortion" and the "right to gay mariage" are not things that exist in the constitution, explicitly or by implication.
The Supreme court doesn't agree with you, and they are the ones who rule on these things.
Gay Marriage isn't just a religious issue as the state has a hand in it. Should they? I don't know.
Paul wrote a bill that doesn't let the Supreme Court rule on cases involving part of the 1st and 14th amendments.
I know it will probably never be passed anyway(The constitution does not give the legislative branch any power over the judicial at all). I was just pointing out that giving the states the power to ignore parts of the constitution can be bad. Abortions would still happen, Gay people would still exist, and there still would be non-belivers and other religions no matter the state, there would just be many more unhappy people, and more people in jail.
Maybe some states would throw in laws to prevent bi-racial marriages, masturbation, and eating certain things on certain days also You just never know I guess.
Edit:
I don't really want to debate, I just can't stop myself sometimes, heh.
"Gay marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue...IMHO, it should be left up to the church..."
it's these sorts of pronouncements by dr. drifting that show his true colors, and they're not rainbow-colored, obviously...
if he were gay, i'm pretty sure he'd want laws in place allowing him the same rights as straight people, and he wouldn't be satisfied with "leaving it up to the church." :rolleyes: doesn't that kind of assume that all gays are church-goers??
but, alas, he's common, though he likes to paint himself as a real intellectual renegade. many people have simplistic views such as these, based on what they think are "moral values" but which are really just signs of lazy thinking. so long as they are not personally affected by a situation, they are satisfied with slapping some lame set of rules on an issue and walking away. abortion is another example. does anyone really believe that if one of these people got someone preggers by mistake (it DOES happen, contrary to their insistance that that's impossible), that they wouldn't be frantically searching the phone book for listings under "women's clinic"??? you bet your ass they would. but if things go as planned, they'd have a damn hard time finding one. better head for the coat closet and a nice shiny hanger.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Hopefully the Supreme court would strike down any law down that infringes on constitutional rights.
The same question applies to states also.
The Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. If Ron Paul were President he would, with that law, tell them they have no right deciding on the matters within. As an individual you have much more political recourse locally than you could ever hope to have federally, and if your state enacted a law you did not agree with than you are more capable of action against it. The Supreme Court is just as capable of upholding bad law within their jurisdication than striking down a good law, look where the Supreme Court left Florida voters in 2000. The way I see it, narrowing the perview of the federal government is a good thing, and narrowing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a good thing as well. The State courts will still serve you.
"Gay marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue...IMHO, it should be left up to the church..."
it's these sorts of pronouncements by dr. drifting that show his true colors, and they're not rainbow-colored, obviously...
if he were gay, i'm pretty sure he'd want laws in place allowing him the same rights as straight people, and he wouldn't be satisfied with "leaving it up to the church." :rolleyes: doesn't that kind of assume that all gays are church-goers??
I don't know for sure but I think you misunderstand what DBTS is saying.
Ron Paul believes the federal government should not create social policy. This includes things like gay marriage, he believes it is not up to the government to define such things.
I don't know for sure but I think you misunderstand what DBTS is saying.
Ron Paul believes the federal government should not create social policy. This includes things like gay marriage, he believes it is not up to the government to define such things.
no, i understand what ron paul means (since i don't think drifting has a batphone to the candidate), but the problem is that churches don't make laws, which protect against discrimination or enforce the rights of same-sex partners in terms of insurance, property rights, etc., and THOSE are the concerns of the majority of gay couples who want gay marriage and/or civil union to be legal and recognized by the law. whether "the church" (as if there's only one...) approves or performs such rituals or not is really the main concern.
i understand the concept of letting the states decide these things for themselves, but the fact is that the federal government needs to oversee certain rights that individual states may not be inclined to protect.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Gay marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue...IMHO, it should be left up to the church..."
it's these sorts of pronouncements by dr. drifting that show his true colors, and they're not rainbow-colored, obviously...
if he were gay, i'm pretty sure he'd want laws in place allowing him the same rights as straight people, and he wouldn't be satisfied with "leaving it up to the church." :rolleyes: doesn't that kind of assume that all gays are church-goers??
Look.
I'm sick of this shit. (you sure do like to cast out assumption about people whom you don't know at all!)
I make comments based on PRINCIPLE, not some lame ass PC-SENTIMENT ...
I used to wear "freedom rings" in high school, and i hung with the "freaks". I'd say about 50% of my true friends were self-proclaimed homosexuals and another good percentage were "bi-sexual" most of the rest were "gay-friendly", whatever the hell that means ...
I AM NOT SOME FUCKING BIGOT.
But people who bandy about the term "marriage" and insist that "gays" have the same right to it as "straight" folk are missing the boat. "Marriage", in its purest historical form, is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.
Let me say that again with the proper emphasis, RELIGIOUS institution ...
I fully support the right of gay folk to a union, and to whatever legal recognition that entitles them under law (as far as insurance, or whatever the fuck) ...
... but i think it is a load of PC-BULLSHIT to insist that they be given the label "Marriage", when that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony.
Should we pass laws forcing the catholic church to baptize homosexuals? How about a federal law mandating homsexual priesthood? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN RELIGION?
Remember "SEPERATION" of church and state?
I'd prefer NEITHER government have a hand in it, to be honest, as i've said it is a RELIGIOUS function.
The state\government got involved over concerns about INCEST primarily. The government, back in the last century, thought it knew better than you WHO should be allowed to marry based on GENETIC concerns.
????????????????????????????????????????????????
I think that is bad precedent, and i think allowing government to intervene in religious ceremonies is STUPID.
If you want to set up some sort of state sponsored "civil union" (New Hampshire tonight at MIDNIGHT, look it up) ... go ahead ...
... but why should government force the hand of religon?
REMEMBER THIS PIECE OF THE FIRST AMMENDMENT? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Feel free to argue away the religous sanctity of "marriage" if you want, but you do so at your own disservice.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Look.
I'm sick of this shit. (you sure do like to cast out assumption about people whom you don't know at all!)
I make comments based on PRINCIPLE, not some lame ass PC-SENTIMENT ...
I used to wear "freedom rings" in high school, and i hung with the "freaks". I'd say about 50% of my true friends were self-proclaimed homosexuals and another good percentage were "bi-sexual" most of the rest were "gay-friendly", whatever the hell that means ...
I AM NOT SOME FUCKING BIGOT.
But people who bandy about the term "marriage" and insist that "gays" have the same right to it as "straight" folk are missing the boat. "Marriage", in its purest historical form, is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.
Let me say that again with the proper emphasis, RELIGIOUS institution ...
I fully support the right of gay folk to a union, and to whatever legal recognition that entitles them under law (as far as insurance, or whatever the fuck) ...
... but i think it is a load of PC-BULLSHIT to insist that they be given the label "Marriage", when that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony.
Should we pass laws forcing the catholic church to baptize homosexuals? How about a federal law mandating homsexual priesthood? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN RELIGION?
Remember "SEPERATION" of church and state?
I'd prefer NEITHER government have a hand in it, to be honest, as i've said it is a RELIGIOUS function.
The state\government got involved over concerns about INCEST primarily. The government, back in the last century, thought it knew better than you WHO should be allowed to marry based on GENETIC concerns.
????????????????????????????????????????????????
I think that is bad precedent, and i think allowing government to intervene in religious ceremonies is STUPID.
If you want to set up some sort of state sponsored "civil union" (New Hampshire tonight at MIDNIGHT, look it up) ... go ahead ...
... but why should government force the hand of religon?
REMEMBER THIS PIECE OF THE FIRST AMMENDMENT? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Feel free to argue away the religous sanctity of "marriage" if you want, but you do so at your own disservice.
congratulations on the "some of my best friends are gay" thing, that's swell.
but drifting, you're ignoring the issues that only government can protect. churches can condone the union or not, i don't give a rat's ass and neither should the government- state or federal. the union and all that it implies needs to be protected under the law, just like there are laws protecting hetero couples who enter into the institution of marriage, whether it's performed in a church or not.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
congratulations on the "some of my best friends are gay" thing, that's swell.
but drifting, you're ignoring the issues that only government can protect. churches can condone the union or not, i don't give a rat's ass and neither should the government- state or federal. the union and all that it implies needs to be protected under the law, just like there are laws protecting hetero couples who enter into the institution of marriage, whether it's performed in a church or not.
Yeah.
And my boss at work is black, too.
:rolleyes:
if you're gonna try to paint me as a bigot, and you CLEARLY WERE trying to do that,
i'm going to respond with some form of assertion that i'm not.
Then you intend to belittle me for that rebuttal?
What do you want, pictures of me in bed with another man?
:rolleyes:
And no,
you are ignoring the real issue, which is that "marriage" is suppoed to be a religious function, that society has perverted.
i do not accept the "agnosti-fication" of "marriage".
What other religious functions would you have the state assume?
BTW - i can feel some argument coming that it is silly and backwards of me to argue against state-run marriage, because that IS the way it is.
By that logic, it is silly and backwards to argue against the federal reserve, or against the income tax, or against the patriot act, or federal involvement in education, or ANY other currently "accepted" law that goes against good judgement (and strict interpretation of the constitution!), only by argument that it currently stands so it must be proper. :(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The noninterferance of state in religious matters and the equal protection clause, both of which are mentioned specifically.
So the FEDERAL government should step in to protect your equality in RELIGIOUS affairs?
What about the 1st ammendment and "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW"?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So the FEDERAL government should step in to protect your equality in RELIGIOUS affairs?
What about the 1st ammendment and "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW"?
Yes, the Supreme Court should deem any LAW unconstitutional that violates peoples constitutional rights.
If a church tells me I'm not allowed in because I have brown eyes, fine. The state sure as hell can't make a law saying I have to go to church on Sunday regardless of my religious views though, which would be completely possible under this law.
So the FEDERAL government should step in to protect your equality in RELIGIOUS affairs?
What about the 1st ammendment and "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW"?
At the risk of putting words into sweetpotato's mouth, I'll suggest that he/she is saying that right now the government has marriage. Therefore, it should allow same sex marriage.
At the risk of putting words into your mouth, I will suggest that you are saying that marriage is a religious institution and therefore, the government should not recognize it at all, gay or straight.
Perhaps that can clear it up...
My take is that if the government wants to get out of marriage alltoghether, that is fine. But as long as it recognizes marriage or something like it, it should do so for homo and hetero. Calling marriage for the latter and not the former marginalizes the former. You can call it "PC" until you're blue in the face, but it props one up and puts one down. If you are arguing that the government-recognized union be Marriage for hetero and not for homo, because, as you say, "when that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony", then it almost seems as if YOU are the PC one...trying to protect religions from this infiltration.
I am married and my wife and I are agnostics. It was not a religious ceremony. I actually disagree with your statement that "that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony." It's a secular label that we give people in a culture with no national religion. Saying that gays can be "married" is no more an establishment of religion than allowing a heterosexual agnostic couple to be "married" by a judge. Until the state does not "marry" people than "gay marriage" is not thrusting anything on religion.
Again, if you are additionally suggesting that the government should stop sponsoring "marriage" at all, then I am on board.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Again, if you are additionally suggesting that the government should stop sponsoring "marriage" at all, then I am on board.
Bingo.
And no disrespect to you and your wife, because i think taking vows of commitment is truly commendable.
But it doesn't change the fact that marriage was an institution bread out of religion... this is true yes? ... it was the recognition of a man and a woman in union as witnessed by GOD?
True, secular society has co-opted it, but i honestly believe that ALL people who don't value the term as a religious bond should go get a "civil union" instead.
Maybe that would help end the debate.
Then, if gays want to get married they can go bitch at the church and quit wasting their breath on a public debate that will probably end up costing everyone tax dollars to settle.
Bottom line for me:
Marriage = Based in relgion.
Me = not religious (or gay, lol)
and if i wanted to pledge my union to a woman, i would not be seeking to do so in the confines of an institution based out of a reglion i didn't accept.
BTW, lots of my gay friends feel the same way as me ... not recognizing catholicism or christianity as being of merit, they have specificaly stated that they would never seek to have their "sacred love" recognized by what they view as an illegitimate institution.
Again, if there are (and there are) homosexuals who find validity in religion, it is THEIR fight with their CHURCH to get that recognition.
Again, imho.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
Way too much opinion presented as fact here
The Supreme court doesn't agree with you, and they are the ones who rule on these things.
Gay Marriage isn't just a religious issue as the state has a hand in it. Should they? I don't know.
Paul wrote a bill that doesn't let the Supreme Court rule on cases involving part of the 1st and 14th amendments.
I know it will probably never be passed anyway(The constitution does not give the legislative branch any power over the judicial at all). I was just pointing out that giving the states the power to ignore parts of the constitution can be bad. Abortions would still happen, Gay people would still exist, and there still would be non-belivers and other religions no matter the state, there would just be many more unhappy people, and more people in jail.
Maybe some states would throw in laws to prevent bi-racial marriages, masturbation, and eating certain things on certain days also
Edit:
I don't really want to debate, I just can't stop myself sometimes, heh.
Happy New Year all.
it's these sorts of pronouncements by dr. drifting that show his true colors, and they're not rainbow-colored, obviously...
if he were gay, i'm pretty sure he'd want laws in place allowing him the same rights as straight people, and he wouldn't be satisfied with "leaving it up to the church." :rolleyes: doesn't that kind of assume that all gays are church-goers??
but, alas, he's common, though he likes to paint himself as a real intellectual renegade.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
The Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. If Ron Paul were President he would, with that law, tell them they have no right deciding on the matters within. As an individual you have much more political recourse locally than you could ever hope to have federally, and if your state enacted a law you did not agree with than you are more capable of action against it. The Supreme Court is just as capable of upholding bad law within their jurisdication than striking down a good law, look where the Supreme Court left Florida voters in 2000. The way I see it, narrowing the perview of the federal government is a good thing, and narrowing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a good thing as well. The State courts will still serve you.
You got to spend it all
I don't know for sure but I think you misunderstand what DBTS is saying.
Ron Paul believes the federal government should not create social policy. This includes things like gay marriage, he believes it is not up to the government to define such things.
You got to spend it all
no, i understand what ron paul means (since i don't think drifting has a batphone to the candidate), but the problem is that churches don't make laws, which protect against discrimination or enforce the rights of same-sex partners in terms of insurance, property rights, etc., and THOSE are the concerns of the majority of gay couples who want gay marriage and/or civil union to be legal and recognized by the law. whether "the church" (as if there's only one...) approves or performs such rituals or not is really the main concern.
i understand the concept of letting the states decide these things for themselves, but the fact is that the federal government needs to oversee certain rights that individual states may not be inclined to protect.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Look.
I'm sick of this shit. (you sure do like to cast out assumption about people whom you don't know at all!)
I make comments based on PRINCIPLE, not some lame ass PC-SENTIMENT ...
I used to wear "freedom rings" in high school, and i hung with the "freaks". I'd say about 50% of my true friends were self-proclaimed homosexuals and another good percentage were "bi-sexual" most of the rest were "gay-friendly", whatever the hell that means ...
I AM NOT SOME FUCKING BIGOT.
But people who bandy about the term "marriage" and insist that "gays" have the same right to it as "straight" folk are missing the boat. "Marriage", in its purest historical form, is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.
Let me say that again with the proper emphasis, RELIGIOUS institution ...
I fully support the right of gay folk to a union, and to whatever legal recognition that entitles them under law (as far as insurance, or whatever the fuck) ...
... but i think it is a load of PC-BULLSHIT to insist that they be given the label "Marriage", when that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony.
Should we pass laws forcing the catholic church to baptize homosexuals? How about a federal law mandating homsexual priesthood? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN RELIGION?
Remember "SEPERATION" of church and state?
I'd prefer NEITHER government have a hand in it, to be honest, as i've said it is a RELIGIOUS function.
The state\government got involved over concerns about INCEST primarily. The government, back in the last century, thought it knew better than you WHO should be allowed to marry based on GENETIC concerns.
????????????????????????????????????????????????
I think that is bad precedent, and i think allowing government to intervene in religious ceremonies is STUPID.
If you want to set up some sort of state sponsored "civil union" (New Hampshire tonight at MIDNIGHT, look it up) ... go ahead ...
... but why should government force the hand of religon?
REMEMBER THIS PIECE OF THE FIRST AMMENDMENT?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Feel free to argue away the religous sanctity of "marriage" if you want, but you do so at your own disservice.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Please cite something specific.
I believe 90% of my post is disclaimed with things like "i believe" or "arguably".
Let me ask this again, directly:
What "RIGHTS" held explicitly within the constitution, does Ron Paul's bill seek to "destroy"?
I await an articulate answer, so that proper discussion can begin.
Thanks.
And happy new years day!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
congratulations on the "some of my best friends are gay" thing, that's swell.
but drifting, you're ignoring the issues that only government can protect. churches can condone the union or not, i don't give a rat's ass and neither should the government- state or federal. the union and all that it implies needs to be protected under the law, just like there are laws protecting hetero couples who enter into the institution of marriage, whether it's performed in a church or not.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Yeah.
And my boss at work is black, too.
:rolleyes:
if you're gonna try to paint me as a bigot, and you CLEARLY WERE trying to do that,
i'm going to respond with some form of assertion that i'm not.
Then you intend to belittle me for that rebuttal?
What do you want, pictures of me in bed with another man?
:rolleyes:
And no,
you are ignoring the real issue, which is that "marriage" is suppoed to be a religious function, that society has perverted.
i do not accept the "agnosti-fication" of "marriage".
What other religious functions would you have the state assume?
BTW - i can feel some argument coming that it is silly and backwards of me to argue against state-run marriage, because that IS the way it is.
By that logic, it is silly and backwards to argue against the federal reserve, or against the income tax, or against the patriot act, or federal involvement in education, or ANY other currently "accepted" law that goes against good judgement (and strict interpretation of the constitution!), only by argument that it currently stands so it must be proper. :(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Noninterferance through noninterferance...?
You got to spend it all
So the FEDERAL government should step in to protect your equality in RELIGIOUS affairs?
What about the 1st ammendment and "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW"?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Yes, the Supreme Court should deem any LAW unconstitutional that violates peoples constitutional rights.
If a church tells me I'm not allowed in because I have brown eyes, fine. The state sure as hell can't make a law saying I have to go to church on Sunday regardless of my religious views though, which would be completely possible under this law.
At the risk of putting words into sweetpotato's mouth, I'll suggest that he/she is saying that right now the government has marriage. Therefore, it should allow same sex marriage.
At the risk of putting words into your mouth, I will suggest that you are saying that marriage is a religious institution and therefore, the government should not recognize it at all, gay or straight.
Perhaps that can clear it up...
My take is that if the government wants to get out of marriage alltoghether, that is fine. But as long as it recognizes marriage or something like it, it should do so for homo and hetero. Calling marriage for the latter and not the former marginalizes the former. You can call it "PC" until you're blue in the face, but it props one up and puts one down. If you are arguing that the government-recognized union be Marriage for hetero and not for homo, because, as you say, "when that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony", then it almost seems as if YOU are the PC one...trying to protect religions from this infiltration.
I am married and my wife and I are agnostics. It was not a religious ceremony. I actually disagree with your statement that "that is fundamentaly a RELGIOUS ceremony." It's a secular label that we give people in a culture with no national religion. Saying that gays can be "married" is no more an establishment of religion than allowing a heterosexual agnostic couple to be "married" by a judge. Until the state does not "marry" people than "gay marriage" is not thrusting anything on religion.
Again, if you are additionally suggesting that the government should stop sponsoring "marriage" at all, then I am on board.
Bingo.
And no disrespect to you and your wife, because i think taking vows of commitment is truly commendable.
But it doesn't change the fact that marriage was an institution bread out of religion... this is true yes? ... it was the recognition of a man and a woman in union as witnessed by GOD?
True, secular society has co-opted it, but i honestly believe that ALL people who don't value the term as a religious bond should go get a "civil union" instead.
Maybe that would help end the debate.
Then, if gays want to get married they can go bitch at the church and quit wasting their breath on a public debate that will probably end up costing everyone tax dollars to settle.
Bottom line for me:
Marriage = Based in relgion.
Me = not religious (or gay, lol)
and if i wanted to pledge my union to a woman, i would not be seeking to do so in the confines of an institution based out of a reglion i didn't accept.
BTW, lots of my gay friends feel the same way as me ... not recognizing catholicism or christianity as being of merit, they have specificaly stated that they would never seek to have their "sacred love" recognized by what they view as an illegitimate institution.
Again, if there are (and there are) homosexuals who find validity in religion, it is THEIR fight with their CHURCH to get that recognition.
Again, imho.
If I opened it now would you not understand?