• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Historic week in America!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
17,275
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Many Conservative and religious groups are seeking exemptions to the marriage equality law. Yes, there will be court cases, but it will all sort out. There is a difference between holding ones words and thoughts within, and sharing them openly. If one is in business to serve one group, the law says that they must serve all people equally.

If you care to read a synopsis of several political and religious groups' pleas, here is an article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/u...ps-seek-exemptions-after-same-sex-ruling.html

Remember, there was a time in America when no interracial marriages were legal, and people of African descent were considered 3/5 of a human. We've moved on as a country, and will continue to grow in equality.
 

TTom

Moderator
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
316
Reaction score
16
Points
678
Location
Brooklyn
We're growing up!

I must say, having read the entire thread, that the level of restraint being exercised on both sides is pretty remarkable.

There was a time when a thread like this would not have remained open more than about 15 minutes.

It is a testament to the maturity of the participants of this discussion, which is clearly controversial and which is really against the published TUG rules. that the discussion is allowed to continue.

Perhaps, TUGGERs are growing up and can now agree to disagree without becoming unpleasant. We are a part of the changing world. Let's change with it!

Thanks to you all for your input!

Tom
 

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
I am sure that there will be those who will force the issue on conservative ministers for no other reason than to make the 5 o'clock news.

There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage. Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church. Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc. Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.
 

Ken555

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
14,549
Reaction score
5,663
Points
898
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage. Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church. Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc. Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.


Exactly. A little common sense goes a long way in these types of discussions.


Sent from my iPad
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,779
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage. Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church. Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc. Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.

34 years ago two of the four in-residence priests at my Boston Catholic church refused to officiate at mine and Don's wedding because Don is Protestant. And the other two would only do it if we attended pre-cana instruction (before it became a requirement) and agreed to having only a wedding ceremony and not a Mass.

Every time I hear someone say that a religious or lay person can be forced to officiate at any type of service despite their personal beliefs, I wonder how it can be true, what it is that's different now from when I got married.

I understand somewhat the rational that business owners (florists, caterers, etc) shouldn't be able to discriminate. I don't at all understand forcing an officiant to act against his/her own beliefs regardless of the situation. Isn't that the purpose of the law, extending the right to make a decision for oneself based on personal beliefs and regardless of its inconsequential impact on others??
 

Fern Modena

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
4,660
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
Southern Nevada
The reason I said "It's only a contentious social issue if people make it one" is because the rules of this bulletin board exclude contentious social issues. It is possible to discuss the rulings of this week without nasty discourse, and being argumentative, and that is what I am/was advocating. To do otherwise is to risk getting this thread shut down.

Fern

"It's only a contentious social issue if people make it one" ?

You can say that about all contentious social issues, and yes this thread very much is, as these topics have been controversial for a long time, since the building of this country and long before.

It includes the Big Three noted in the rules: politics, religion, and controversial social issues.

One of them being states rights. Ask the founding fathers if this was a controversial issue.

I find it weird that most of America is ignoring that as an issue.

One of the things that bothers me about this all is the arrogance. Like everyone is supposed to be celebrating both decisions, and /$&@! those who aren't because that's what everyone is "supposed" to think. Guess what? Not everyone agrees, and for a variety of reasons, and that doesn't make them ignorant, cold-hearted, backwards, etc.

That is what makes it a controversial social issue.
 

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Every time I hear someone say that a religious or lay person can be forced to officiate at any type of service despite their personal beliefs, I wonder how it can be true

That's because it's not true. While all states are now legally compelled to allow gay marriage, that won't extend down to every religious figure that performs marriages. They'll still be allowed to enjoy their own personal freedom of religion. Catholic priests aren't compelled to marry Muslims and vice versa.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,611
Reaction score
19,120
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
The problem with the bakery and florist cases was that they weren't discriminating because they were gay. They were both long-time customers of the vendors and they served them knowing they were gay. The problem came in when they wanted to be of service and a part of celebrating something that is against their religions, and they saw that doing so would be a sin they, the vendors themselves, were commiting.

It wasn't that they were making a stand or discriminating because they thought the homosexuals were sinning; they saw it as they themselves would be.

In the Washington florist case, the judge who ruled against the florist said she had to take part 100 percent and give full support to all wedding party members and be there at the wedding the whole time.

This sounds more like a situation of a overzealous judge. No florist providing a service for a heterosexual couples wedding would have to participate in 100% and give full support. In many cases people pick up the flowers, they are not even delivered.

I really don't understand why someone would think that providing a service, be it a cake or flowers would somehow be supporting something against their religion. They are selling a product or service. What is the difference between selling someone cupcakes for their date night vs selling a cake for a same sex marriage? I would think that the service provider is making it something more than it is to try to prove their own point?
 

am1

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
8,084
Reaction score
1,532
Points
448
I really don't understand why someone would think that providing a service, be it a cake or flowers would somehow be supporting something against their religion. They are selling a product or service. What is the difference between selling someone cupcakes for their date night vs selling a cake for a same sex marriage? I would think that the service provider is making it something more than it is to try to prove their own point?

I would side with if people do not want to do something they should not be forced to do it. Just like in most cases if people want to do something they should be able to do it if it does not affect others negatively.

I am okay with people being for and against gay marriage if thats what they feel is right.
 

rleigh

newbie
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
169
Reaction score
17
Points
78
I second that this is a great discussion; informative too.



This sounds more like a situation of a overzealous judge. No florist providing a service for a heterosexual couples wedding would have to participate in 100% and give full support. In many cases people pick up the flowers, they are not even delivered.

I really don't understand why someone would think that providing a service, be it a cake or flowers would somehow be supporting something against their religion. They are selling a product or service. What is the difference between selling someone cupcakes for their date night vs selling a cake for a same sex marriage? I would think that the service provider is making it something more than it is to try to prove their own point?

Yes it was that judge's specific orders that had me thinking he overstepped. As for other "sins," I agree there are lots of points that can be thrown in there, ie a cake for a divorce party, etc. I think the law says they must show consistency to prove it's a true belief? Not sure. The law is sorta loophole-y and gray with these cases anyway.
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
17,275
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Yes it was that judge's specific orders that had me thinking he overstepped. As for other "sins," I agree there are lots of points that can be thrown in there, ie a cake for a divorce party, etc. I think the law says they must show consistency to prove it's a true belief? Not sure. The law is sorta loophole-y and gray with these cases anyway.

Now there is such a thing as a church being forced to marry anyone. No Catholic priest is forced to marry 2 protestants- or even one and a Catholic. See Post 55. No Mormon Bishop is forced to marry 2 Muslims. Gay or straight. No Southern Baptist is forced to marry two women.

But if someone is providing a good or service, they must provide it equally for all potential customers- not based on discrimination. In most states, for example, if someone wants to buy a (cake- or anything). The seller must sell it to them- UNLESS there is a non-discriminatory reason. They can refuse the sale if the person is filthy, smelly, demanding, drunk, or any number of reasons. But they cannot refuse the sale because the potential buyer is Black, Latino, is Polish, Nazi, or MUSLIM. (Race, creed, color, Nat'l origin or religion) In my state, the words 'or sexual orientation' have not been added to the anti-discrimination laws. Yet. We have hope that the legislature will take heed that these 3 words are important, necessary and truly the will of the people, but it's Idaho. And the wheels of Justice grind slowly.

Jim
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,611
Reaction score
19,120
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
I would side with if people do not want to do something they should not be forced to do it. Just like in most cases if people want to do something they should be able to do it if it does not affect others negatively.

I am okay with people being for and against gay marriage if thats what they feel is right.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, however if someone wishes to not do business with people for any reason they should have to disclose that when they advertise said goods or services. That way ALL potential customers can make an informed decision about who they too are willing to do business with.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
2,374
Points
448
Location
Colorado
I must say, having read the entire thread, that the level of restraint being exercised on both sides is pretty remarkable.
There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.

Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage. This is insignificant compared to the real issue. The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures. Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
17,275
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Well, it's that we are the UNITED States. It's as important for uniformity in laws as for the Constitution (Which Roberts said this law isn't about). The issue of equality HAS to be nationwide. Your marriage should be valid in Hawaii, Colorado, New Jersey and everywhere else. My Scottish marriage is valid worldwide. US and State laws have recognized marriage licenses issued and performed worldwide for hetero couples. Equality DEMANDS that the same recognition be extended to ALL married couples. The U.S. had achieved 34 states allowing all couples to marry. The Court simply added the last remaining 16 and the territories.

This is NOT a big deal. It's just marriage. Nothing to fear from people who love one another being able to marry and that marriage being recognized like any other one.

If you are hetero, and don't want to marry someone of the same sex, no worrys. No one will force you to do so.
 

geoand

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
289
Points
443
Location
Anacortes, WA
There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.

Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage. This is insignificant compared to the real issue. The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures. Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.

The Court had previously taken action in removing the ban on interracial marriages. Several States had to remove their legislation forbidding this. The current decision is no more or no less.

In fact the Court has taken action in several areas and declared laws in States as unconstitutional. Many States had to change their laws on the death penalty. Those laws were in the books but yet the Court has seen fit to tell the States they must change their laws.

Just because a law is in the books and had been there for years and at the will of the people does not make that law constitutionally sound.
 
Last edited:

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.

Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage. This is insignificant compared to the real issue. The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures. Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.

I think you're a little uninformed about the genius of how the founding fathers created our government. It's a 3 branch system (legislative, executive and judicial) and there are checks and balances where no single branch holds all the power. The Supreme Court was well within their constitutional powers to do what they did.

For the record, I actually voted against same sex marriage whenever it was put on a ballot I was voting on. It wasn't a big issue for me, but that's how I did vote. I guess I'm just not a big fan of some of the gay rights parades I've witnessed first hand.
 

Stressy

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
611
Reaction score
86
Points
388
Location
So Cal.
I don't intend to step too deeply into this discussion because I have very strong opinions about the topic. But I wanted to share this:

I have been officiating weddings for nearly ten years. I was ordained by a nondenominational church specifically so I could be available to people who wanted a nonjudgmental person to do their ceremony. I can't tell you how many couples have asked me to officiate for them because they didn't know who else to ask. Even if they didn't know what kind of ceremony they wanted, every couple had definite ideas of what they didn't want. My task was to deliver it.

I've done weddings of all types, from simple two-people-and-a-witness ceremonies to extravagant events with hundreds of people present. Some couples were particularly religious, but felt uncomfortable having a truly religious ceremony. Others were decidedly non-religious, and didn't want a stranger preaching to them at such a personal occasion. I've done both straight and gay weddings, and they are surprisingly similar events.

At the end of the day, regardless of how the couple was constructed, their political or religious leanings, or the extent of the event, it was all about joining a loving couple together in legal matrimony, to solemnize their committed personal relationship. I felt privileged to help give them the same legal rights every other married couple has.

Performing my brother's wedding on a beach in Hawaii a few weeks ago, where he finally married the love of his life, a lovely woman he has adored for thirty years, was the most emotional part of this journey for me.

Marriage is about love, not about politics.

Dave

You know how you have "read" posters for years and have never met them? You form the voice you have assigned them in your head...and you might even imagine what they look like...and this takes the form of your imagination every time you read their posts?

YOU, Sir, are one of the kindest and most gentle people I have ever "read" and no second banana is Jim. Passepartout. Keep doing your thing. Both of you!
 

laura1957

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Eastern Shore of Virginia
You know how you have "read" posters for years and have never met them? You form the voice you have assigned them in your head...and you might even imagine what they look like...and this takes the form of your imagination every time you read their posts?

YOU, Sir, are one of the kindest and most gentle people I have ever "read" and no second banana is Jim. Passepartout. Keep doing your thing. Both of you!

So true!! Certain posters I always look forward to reading.
 

laura1957

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Eastern Shore of Virginia
I think you're a little uninformed about the genius of how the founding fathers created our government. It's a 3 branch system (legislative, executive and judicial) and there are checks and balances where no single branch holds all the power. The Supreme Court was well within their constitutional powers to do what they did.

For the record, I actually voted against same sex marriage whenever it was put on a ballot I was voting on. It wasn't a big issue for me, but that's how I did vote. I guess I'm just not a big fan of some of the gay rights parades I've witnessed first hand.

I am fairly certain that I would never want to see a gay rights parade - just by what I have read/heard about them. Same way I would not want to attend the mardi gras parades I have heard about.....gay/straight - both seem a little too crazy for me :)

But I am thrilled for the couples I know who have been in love for decades...
 

Jason245

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
171
Points
173
One of the founding principles of the USA is religious liberty. It is historic when the Supreme Court treads on this.

Every citizen deserves to be treated equally under the law. "Civil Unions" grants all these legal rights.

Calling it marriage crosses the line of separation of Church and State.

There must have been a better way to achieve these historic changes.
Given your statement, you appear to have been ignorant of the prior laws. Given that all this is a mute point, I won't bother to respond in a way other than that it is all a mute point since the courts have ruled.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 

Jason245

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
171
Points
173
I think the big flaw here is that while it is legal in 36 states, how many were legalized due to the legislative process vs the judicial? Perhaps someone has definite numbers? Many of those states where it was legal is because the courts stepped in. In Ohio, it was a constitutional amendment that banned same sex marriage. It was also banned in California by a constitutional amendment before overturned by the courts. So it would have been a long time before it would have changed. I think we would have been a lot farther off than just 5-10 years before it would have been legalized in all 50 states through the legislative or democratic process.
Well start with the first one (court order) and work your way down.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 

Jason245

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
171
Points
173
From the original case arguments:

"Justice Scalia asked whether ministers would be able to refuse to marry two gay men. The answer was that it has to be worked out under state laws. He said, but that could happen ? it could happen that a minister would be forced to marry two gay men, in violation of his beliefs.

"Justice Alito asked, well then why not marry four gay men together? Why just two?"
People get married at the court house all the time. Ministers can refuse to perform services the same as Muslim imams can refuse to perform Jewish weddings if they want.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
595
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
It's always been interesting to me that although a U.S. Supreme Court decision sets precedent, the Court can only take on a case like this when an individual comes to them with an actual instance of injustice. Here are some of the human stories in the case.

Quoting from the Opinion of the Court:

Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases illustrates the urgency of the petitioners' cause from their perspective. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems "hurtful for the rest of time." He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family. The new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives.

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden.

The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top