Skip to comments.
The Wedding Crashers: Local Churches Protest Same-Sex Wedding Ban
citypages.com ^
| 11/21/07
| Jeff Severns Guntzel
Posted on 11/28/2007 1:34:26 PM PST by Froufrou
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
1
posted on
11/28/2007 1:34:27 PM PST
by
Froufrou
To: dfwgator; Arrowhead1952; Red Badger; JamesP81; LucyT; trisham; truthluva; RGVTx; RockinRight; ...
2
posted on
11/28/2007 1:37:08 PM PST
by
Froufrou
To: Froufrou
Anita Hill changed professions I see.
3
posted on
11/28/2007 1:37:14 PM PST
by
stevio
((NRA))
To: Froufrou
....such a small inconvenience compared to what same-sex couples experience," gag - cacckk-cacck!
4
posted on
11/28/2007 1:38:03 PM PST
by
ladtx
( "Never miss a good chance to shut up." - - Will Rogers)
To: Froufrou
Marriage isn’t supposed to be a business.
5
posted on
11/28/2007 1:38:31 PM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: Froufrou
“Ultimately, the three churches that passed the ban decided against making any concessions. “Seventy-five dollars for a judge and 30 minutes plus parking is such a small inconvenience compared to what same-sex couples experience,” says Lyndale’s Portwood.”
Nothing compared to what unrepentant same-sex couples will experience later on...
To: Froufrou
Marriage between one man and one woman is the cornerstone of American society.
Marriage is ordained by God, confirmed by law, and is the glue of the American family.
It is sad that the very institution, the church, that should be at the forefront of this cultural battle in defending marriage, is the very one that is advocating for the destruction of it.
I have faith in the American people that they understand and appreciate dearly the blessings of marriage and how strong marriages create strong families and strong families create a strong America.
To: stevio; ladtx; massgopguy
Although Hill was a career employee (Schedule A) and therefore had the option of remaining at the Department of Education, she testified that she followed Thomas because, "[t]he work, itself, was interesting, and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures . . . had ended." [wikipedia]
I guess marriage IS a business for the clergy!
8
posted on
11/28/2007 1:41:23 PM PST
by
Froufrou
To: Froufrou
9
posted on
11/28/2007 1:43:31 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: Froufrou
ALL churches and other religious groups should stop following orders from the government about marriage. They wouldn’t take orders from the government regarding any other religious ritual or recognition, so why this one? If a church doesn’t believe in divorce, it doesn’t recognize them just because the government declares a church member divorced. If you want to get married in the Catholic Church, the Church requires you to get permission from the government first in the form of a license. But if you later get a government-issued divorce, the Church doesn’t recognize it. How much sense does this make?
To: Froufrou
This article really needs a BARF alert after the title. SICKOs on parade.
11
posted on
11/28/2007 1:46:23 PM PST
by
Arrowhead1952
(I've been too busy for FR this weekend, because I did the things I refuse to let the invaders do.)
To: theworkersarefew; CitizenUSA; trisham
All of you: so eloquently spoken!
12
posted on
11/28/2007 1:47:31 PM PST
by
Froufrou
To: Froufrou
This is an interesting article. The word Christian is NEVER used in the article. The word Christ appears twice because it happens to be in the name of church. Obviously, secular humanism has taken over a lot of territory in this post modern era.
To: Froufrou
We're not in the wedding business; we're in the blessing business." BUZZZZZ Sorry wrong answer.
You are not in either business. God is.
14
posted on
11/28/2007 1:52:26 PM PST
by
OSHA
(Liberals will lick the boot on their necks if they think the other boot is on yours and mine.)
To: Froufrou
15
posted on
11/28/2007 1:53:01 PM PST
by
Shimmer
To: Shimmer
16
posted on
11/28/2007 1:53:59 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: theworkersarefew
It is sad that the very institution, the church, that should be at the forefront of this cultural battle in defending marriage, is the very one that is advocating for the destruction of it. Just because the sign out front says "church" doesn't mean it it one.
17
posted on
11/28/2007 1:56:30 PM PST
by
crghill
(Christianity...setting women free since 0 a.d.)
To: Froufrou
But McGowan, a straight man, nonetheless saw a subtle form of discrimination. If the church couldn't legally marry gay couples, he argued, it shouldn't marry straight ones either. This is what we have gotten out of years of "sensitivity" training and "diversity" education.
18
posted on
11/28/2007 1:56:31 PM PST
by
madprof98
("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
To: madprof98
Hey McGowan, men can’t have babies. Deal with that.
19
posted on
11/28/2007 2:03:48 PM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: Froufrou
None of the 50 or so people present in the basement that Sunday stood up to contradict McGowan's proposition.Translation: No one wanted to be labeled a "bigot" by the rest of the congregation.
I did stand up against it at a church, btw, and that's what happened to me.
On the other hand, maybe every single member of this congregation is as loopy as the guy who made the proposition.
20
posted on
11/28/2007 2:04:26 PM PST
by
Tired of Taxes
(Dad, I will always think of you.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson