Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

shruikan2553

Have they ever explained why Catholics can't just follow catholic rules and non catholic marriages can do what they want? I'm not a catholic so I can't see why their view on marriage should matter to me.

ShooterSF

^^^
No surprise there. The church has always felt a child should be raised by a mother and father even if it means imprisoning single parents and selling their child to the highest bidding family in the U.S.

PopePalpatine

No, no, no, you see, them sluts women had a choice between the laundries and homelessness! :rolleyes:

MrPudding

Some good news.

First quote in my signature applies.

MrP

TheChizler

MrPudding wrote: »

Some good news.

First quote in my signature applies.

MrP

The DUP MLA Paul Givan said he was "deeply disappointed" that the church had ended its relationship with the adoption provider and said that such a circumstance demonstrates the need for a conscious clause in Northern Ireland.

"This decision by the Catholic Church is another reminder that our laws do not make provision for those with perfectly legitimate religious beliefs," he said.

"Equality of opportunity for Catholics to access adoption services from their own church is being denied as a result of our laws.

What kind of mental somersaults do you have to perform to come out with that?

'The anti-discriminatory law is discriminating against us because we now can't discriminate'.

MrPudding

TheChizler wrote: »

What kind of mental somersaults do you have to perform to come out with that?

'The anti-discriminatory law is discriminating against us because we now can't discriminate'.

Indeed. I also like the implication that catholics somehow no longer have access to adoption services... Typical NI religious bullsh1t. Where you shop, what football team you support, who you vote for all dictated by what religion you are.

MrP

swampgas

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Have they ever explained why Catholics can't just follow catholic rules and non catholic marriages can do what they want? I'm not a catholic so I can't see why their view on marriage should matter to me.

There was a time when they could say "the church's position is this, now obey, just because we say so". Now that people don't fear the church like they did in the past, they have to pretend that their opposition isn't really based on religion at all. So they think they can extend it to everyone.

So when we see stuff like this:

“The view of marriage as being between man and a woman and for life, that’s not something which is particular to Catholics and Christians. There are people of all kinds of other religious beliefs, and of none, who believe in that”

... it's simply an attempt to hide their dogma-based opposition behind a smoke-screen of supposedly reasonable and non-religious concerns.

The same happened in the abortion debate at the Oireachtas hearings. All sorts of waffle about "Natural Law", and not single priest or bishop brave enough to argue from a serious theological position.

To be honest, they must know they have lost, when they know that nobody seems to care about doctrine any more.

fisgon

You have the bizarre situation that a DUP member is supporting the catholic church...and is talking about a "truly tolerant society". "Tolerant" here, meaning, of course, tolerant of everyone except gay people.


"This decision by the Catholic Church is another reminder that our laws do not make provision for those with perfectly legitimate religious beliefs," he said.

"Equality of opportunity for Catholics to access adoption services from their own church is being denied as a result of our laws.

"Just as with Ashers Bakery, the Catholic Church should not have to act in violation of its deeply held religious beliefs. A truly tolerant society should be capable of making space to accommodate difference in our community."

PopePalpatine

I guess it's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". *sigh*

Brian Shanahan

TheChizler wrote: »

What kind of mental somersaults do you have to perform to come out with that?

'The anti-discriminatory law is discriminating against us because we now can't discriminate'.

And I love that its a DUP stooge coming out with the tirade: "Dem's maybe dirty Taigs who kiss the popes rear, but dey got religion, even if it is the wrong one and dey will burn in hell for such an abomination, and so dey got rights to discriminate against the gheys, just not as many rights as us, the true children of Jebus!"

The Black Oil

The auld balance machine is getting a bit fired up today. Irish Times, BAI, etc.

aloyisious

Going back to the cake issue, DUP MLA seek's conscience clause in equality law. http://goo.gl/rBnYUG.


Next thing is they'll find they had good lifelong buddies in the shinners..

Delirium

http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

On phone so can't easily quote from link.

EDIT:

Over the weekend, Republicans in the Michigan Statehouse passed a “license to discriminate” bill that would give just about anyone the right to refuse service to LGBT people if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

The broadly written Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow, for example, an EMT to refuse emergency treatment to a gay person or a pharmacist to refuse to refill HIV medication, because God decreed gays and lesbians should be put to death.

The measure is similar to one in Arizona that even right-wing governor Jan Brewer thought went too far and vetoed.

As The New Civil Rights Movement points out, the act is so broad it would let a Catholic high school refuse to hire a Muslim janitor, and a DMV clerk deny a new driver’s license to someone who is divorced.

Terrible stuff altogether, to protect religious discrimination on such a potentially large scale.

PopePalpatine

I'd love it if the 59 bigoted failed abortions who supported that bill get denied medical treatment the next time they go to hospital. :mad:

eviltwin

SW wrote: »

http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

On phone so can't easily quote from link.

Oh my god, that is actually disgusting :eek: How can that ever be allowed to happen??

TheChizler

SW wrote: »

http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

On phone so can't easily quote from link.

EDIT:



Terrible stuff altogether, to protect religious discrimination on such a potentially large scale.

Surely that will make it to the Supreme Court at some stage and they'll be told where to go?

Zillah

TheChizler wrote: »

Surely that will make it to the Supreme Court at some stage and they'll be told where to go?

The senate might block it (republican controlled so who knows? Senators tend to be a little more level headed), and if not the governor could veto it, and if not it will be challenged in court and crushed there (100% guaranteed). This kite aint gonna fly.

MrPudding

TheChizler wrote: »

Surely that will make it to the Supreme Court at some stage and they'll be told where to go?

I don't think it will make it out of the state, let alone to the Supreme Court. If the legislature don't stop it then the state courts might. If they don't then I am sure the state federal court will sort it quick smart.

MrP

TheChizler

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think it will make it out of the state, let alone to the Supreme Court. If the legislature don't stop it then the state courts might. If they don't then I am sure the state federal court will sort it quick smart.

MrP

In my half asleep state I thought it had already happened!

As an aside, and blatantly stolen from AH, but http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1232-paedophiles-set-to-pose-as-gays-to-marry-and-adopt-kids.

Mad ramblings of some blogger posing as a newspaper or a Poe?

Delirium

TheChizler wrote: »

In my half asleep state I thought it had already happened!

As an aside, and blatantly stolen from AH, but http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1232-paedophiles-set-to-pose-as-gays-to-marry-and-adopt-kids.

Mad ramblings of some blogger posing as a newspaper or a Poe?

All posts are submitted by Michael McGrath. The linked article definitely reads as the mad ramblings of a homophobe.

Nodin

SW wrote: »

All posts are submitted by Michael McGrath. The linked article definitely reads as the mad ramblings of a homophobe.

From the discussion linked in this post it would seem he is a full time head the ball.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93394907&postcount=81

Brian Shanahan

Zillah wrote: »

The senate might block it (republican controlled so who knows? Senators tend to be a little more level headed), and if not the governor could veto it, and if not it will be challenged in court and crushed there (100% guaranteed). This kite aint gonna fly.

State senates are often worse than the houses of representatives beneath them. And it is very rare that you get one that is better.

States tend to consistently return majorities for the same party election after election, due to small size of electorates, political appointees holding electorally powerful positions and the ease with which state districts can be gerrymandered.

obplayer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

State senates are often worse than the houses of representatives beneath them. And it is very rare that you get one that is better.

States tend to consistently return majorities for the same party election after election, due to small size of electorates, political appointees holding electorally powerful positions and the ease with which state districts can be gerrymandered.

Can't see how it would get past the Supreme Court though. If it does then America is truly f**ked.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Can't see how it would get past the Supreme Court though. If it does then America is truly f**ked.

Even if passed by the other house and signed by the Governor - both of which are in doubt - it won't get past the Supreme Court.

Ironically, this system increases the incentive for cynical populist politicians to play to the homophobes and bigots in the audience, voting for legislation which they know will never take effect and would be disastrous in operation if it did. You can't assume that the politicians who voted for this thought it would be a good law, or even a tolerable one. They just thought they could increase their support in certain quarters by makign this highly offensive gesture to gays.

Ironically, in the same week as this travesty, the Michigan house also passed a non-discrimination Bill which forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Definitely a case of talking out of both sides of their mouths.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if passed by the other house and signed by the Governor - both of which are in doubt - it won't get past the Supreme Court.

Ironically, this system increases the incentive for cynical populist politicians to play to the homophobes and bigots in the audience, voting for legislation which they know will never take effect and would be disastrous in operation if it did. You can't assume that the politicians who voted for this thought it would be a good law, or even a tolerable one. They just thought they could increase their support in certain quarters by makign this highly offensive gesture to gays.

Ironically, in the same week as this travesty, the Michigan house also passed a non-discrimination Bill which forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Definitely a case of talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Which I suppose leaves us with one more question. How can something like this ever get even this close to law? What is wrong with the people who proposed and supported it?

MrPudding

obplayer wrote: »

Which I suppose leaves us with one more question. How can something like this ever get even this close to law? What is wrong with the people who proposed and supported it?

It's exactly a Peregrinus says, likely most of the people that voted for it did so simply to pander to a certain element of the electorate. There is a possibility that the person that actually proposed it believes it is good law, but there is probably a reasonable chance that even they didn't and simply did it or votes, I. The k owl edge it would make it into the books.

MrP

Peregrinus

Much as I dislike being fair, in fairness I should say that this law isn't explicitly sold as anti-gay, or anti-anything else. Those who object that the law could allow emergency paramedics to refuse treatment to gays are not actually saying either that the law mentions paramedics or gays - it doesn't- or that there are any paremedics out there who want to refuse treatment to gays. They just mention this as an example of how widely the law is written; it could even cover (they say) this frankly unlikely scenario.

And, in fact, while it could cover a lot, it probably couldn't cover this. The US has laws in place which explicitly require medics to provide emergency medical treatment to anyone who needs it, and I seriously doubt whether, even if passed, the courts would interpret this law as trumping that one.

The dog-whistle being blown here isn't so much anti-gay as pro-religious freedom. (And who doesn't like freedom?) The legislators who have thought about this law know that it's objectionable and unworkable, but that doesn't bother them, because they know it's never going to be put to work. All that matters to them is that they are recorded as having voted for more Freedom!!! Which is why, on the same weekend, they can also vote in favour of a civil rights law which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. (Because who doesn't hate discrimination?) We're for Freedom!!! We're for Civil Rights!!! It's the American Way!

Before we get too high on our high horses, we should reflect that this isn't a phenomenon confined to American politics. In parliamentary democracies like our own opposition parties routinely vote against laws which they know to be good laws, and which they have no intention of repealing when they come to power, and routinely bring forward ill-thought out and unworkable proposals for legislation, safe in the knowledge that they will never see the statute-book.

Brian Shanahan

obplayer wrote: »

Can't see how it would get past the Supreme Court though. If it does then America is truly f**ked.

I wouldn't be sure on that. Remember this is the Supreme that Ronnie Raygun and Daddy and Baby Shrub packed with right-wingers. This is the Supreme that reinterpreted a clayse which said "you should only have a gun if you're part of a government militia" to mean "guns for everbody, no matter how violent and murderous they are"

Links234

Peregrinus wrote: »

or that there are any paremedics out there who want to refuse treatment to gays. They just mention this as an example of how widely the law is written; it could even cover (they say) this frankly unlikely scenario.

There was a pretty famous case in America where a transgender woman was left to bleed to death because the paramedics stood around laughing and didn't want to touch her. It's unlikely but things like this have happened and have cost lives in the past.

On mobile atm so can't link details, but google Tyra Hunter.

Brian Shanahan

To move slightly away from gay marriage for a minute, anybody working to try and get the ban from gay men donating blood lifted?

I just read this article (pertaining to the equivalent ban in the US) and it got me thinking.