NationStates Jolt Archive

Are Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey doing the right
thing in marrying gay couples?

I say yes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-16-gay-marriage_x.htm


Greenleaf and Sangrey were charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national debate over same-sex unions.

Each charge carries a fine of $25 to $500 or up to a year in jail. The ministers will plead not guilty at their arraignment March 22 and are prepared to go to trial, said their lawyer, Robert Gottlieb.

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

Exactly. Can you imagine the outrage if the government *forced* right wing ministers to marry gay couples and/or to ordain gays?
Persecuting these two ministers is much like that.

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

Exactly. Can you imagine the outrage if the government *forced* right wing ministers to marry gay couples and/or to ordain gays?
Persecuting these two ministers is much like that.

ah well, that's the only "religious freedom" that the right-wing Christians support: the freedom to be just like them and subscribe to their values in whatever way you think best conforms to their standards :P.

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

Exactly. Can you imagine the outrage if the government *forced* right wing ministers to marry gay couples and/or to ordain gays?
Persecuting these two ministers is much like that.

ah well, that's the only "religious freedom" that the right-wing Christians support: the freedom to be just like them and subscribe to their values in whatever way you think best conforms to their standards :P.

They just don't get what the term 'separation of church and state' is all about. (Robertson still wants to force nonChristian children in public schools to pray and read the Bible).

Basically they want the US to be a theocracy and repeal freedom.

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

Exactly. Can you imagine the outrage if the government *forced* right wing ministers to marry gay couples and/or to ordain gays?
Persecuting these two ministers is much like that.

ah well, that's the only "religious freedom" that the right-wing Christians support: the freedom to be just like them and subscribe to their values in whatever way you think best conforms to their standards :P.

They just don't get what the term 'separation of church and state' is all about. (Robertson still wants to force nonChristian children in public schools to pray and read the Bible).

[snubis]What seperation of State and Church? (and no, this hasn't been posted before. :roll: )[/isbuns]

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

Exactly. Can you imagine the outrage if the government *forced* right wing ministers to marry gay couples and/or to ordain gays?
Persecuting these two ministers is much like that.

ah well, that's the only "religious freedom" that the right-wing Christians support: the freedom to be just like them and subscribe to their values in whatever way you think best conforms to their standards :P.

They just don't get what the term 'separation of church and state' is all about. (Robertson still wants to force nonChristian children in public schools to pray and read the Bible).

[snubis]What seperation of State and Church? (and no, this hasn't been posted before. :roll: )[/isbuns]

sure, why not? or does "religious freedom" only mean the freedom of churches to refuse gay couples?

Exactly. Can you imagine the outrage if the government *forced* right wing ministers to marry gay couples and/or to ordain gays?
Persecuting these two ministers is much like that.

ah well, that's the only "religious freedom" that the right-wing Christians support: the freedom to be just like them and subscribe to their values in whatever way you think best conforms to their standards :P.

They just don't get what the term 'separation of church and state' is all about. (Robertson still wants to force nonChristian children in public schools to pray and read the Bible).

[snubis]What seperation of State and Church? (and no, this hasn't been posted before. :roll: )[/isbuns]

So far 7 out of 7 say 'yes' :D :!:

What's up with this server?
It rarely runs ok :!: :evil:

It is alarming that these ministers are being prosecuted.

"But so prosecuted they the prophets who were before you..."

Oh, that was persecuted? Same difference.

What "victims" is the state defending by this criminal prosecution?

This nation was founded, in part, as a haven for religious freedom, for freedom of conscience.

Here we have clergy of a church which recognizes this marriage being punished by the state for practicing their religion.

God save the constitution.

I predict that gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within ten years.
Those who so foolishly oppose it, why not give up now, because you are wasting your energy which could be used for something more constructive. :D

I predict that gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within ten years.
Those who so foolishly oppose it, why not give up now, because you are wasting your energy which could be used for something more constructive. :D

Greenleaf, who acknowledged performing the ceremonies in New Paltz knowing the couples did not have licenses, said she signed an affidavit for the couples and considers the ceremonies civil.
Civil marriages are the purview of the state, not the churches. The churches are free to consider people married or not independently of the state. The restriction of religious freedom here is minimal and legitimate.
That being said, I voted "Yes". It does sound like they are guilty of breaking the law. But the law is unjust, and breaking an unjust law can be appropriate.

Currently at 82% YES. Wouldn't it be great if 82% of US Citizens favored gay marriage?

Yes! Just you know...so...they can stick it to the Christians.

Why can't we just let people do as they please in "the land of the free?"

Why can't we just let people do as they please in "the land of the free?"
because gays are dirty evil bad bad bad and we can't let anybody teach children that it's okay to be gay!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Why can't we just let people do as they please in "the land of the free?"
because gays are dirty evil bad bad bad and we can't let anybody teach children that it's okay to be gay!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

They just want all the children for themselves, damn priests. :evil:

Could we call someone who opposes gay marriage an
"ENEMY of Freedom"?
hmmm..
I wonder.
That would make Kerry an Enemy of Freedom.
And what about calling those who would be against me marrying my hamster an enemy of freedom also. Actually I don't have a hamster so the question is moot, but we have to watch out for those 'slippery slopes'.

Of course letting women vote didn't lead to letting hamsters vote, but let's not confuse anyone with the facts.

How did a thread which started out concerned with (and supporting) ministers performing same-sex marriages
end up being one more anti-Christian thread?

It's no more fair to say Christian=evil than it is to say gay=evil. Give us a break.

17 out of 20 say Yes
It looks like we win :D

Where will we be in 10 years on this issue?
Any predictions :?:

here is a link to the UU site:

http://uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/040316.html

http://uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/images/040316_dsangrey.jpg

http://uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/images/040316_kgreenleaf.jpg

FYI:
I will be on vacation 3/26 to 4/5.

I may check the site when I get back to see if anything interesting is being discussed.

Bye.

CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS THE WONDERFUL Unitarian Universalist RELIGION (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30707)

I don't care, honestly I'm not gay so why should I care.

I don't care, honestly I'm not gay so why should I care.

Good question. Really, this issue isn't worth the attention that it is getting. If the right wing fundamentalists weren't so hysterical about the issue, it wouldn't be a problem.
To amend the Consitution, however, is a radical approach. Bush is using this as a wedge issue. That is so easy to see. He should be talking about Iraq and the economy. If he were more confident that the economy will improve and that the war will go better than it has, he never would have brought up the question of amending the Consitution, which is premature to say the least.

Have a nice vacation, Athine. :)
I'll bump this up now and then so it doesn't disappear.

Have a nice vacation, Athine. :)

Thanks..



I'll bump this up now and then so it doesn't disappear.

Thanks..

(or if you'd rather bump the other one instead: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30707
... either one, it doesn't matter I would just like to see uuism discussed more)

Have a nice vacation, Athine. :)

Thanks..



I'll bump this up now and then so it doesn't disappear.

Thanks..

(or if you'd rather bump the other one instead: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30707
... either one, it doesn't matter I would just like to see uuism discussed more)

I'm back.