Southern States Challenging Gay Marriage in Name of Religious Liberty

[Frodo]

How Southern states are now challenging gay marriage:
Lawmakers in three states pushed ahead with bills to protect the right to refuse service to same-sex couples, claiming religious liberty is at stake.

By Molly Jackson
February 20, 2016 12:48 PM

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Separate but equal marriage licenses!

[Ban my account ffs!]

[IceSpear]

I'd support this as long as we have open borders for the first few years. Let everyone choose their side. Then #buildthewall.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

oh ffs sjws, saying "bride" and "groom" on one form and having gender neutral terms on an other is the same as Jim Crow now?       

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

oh ffs sjws, saying "bride" and "groom" on one form and having gender neutral terms on an other is the same as Jim Crow now?       

Uh, yes, it literally is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

oh ffs sjws, saying "bride" and "groom" on one form and having gender neutral terms on an other is the same as Jim Crow now?      

Yes.  They find a way elsewhere.  This has cruel intentions written all over it.

[Bojack Horseman]

I'm surprised the southern states haven't changed the minimum age to get married to 150 years old or something. Remember, god is going to judge America over this! /sarcasm

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

oh ffs sjws, saying "bride" and "groom" on one form and having gender neutral terms on an other is the same as Jim Crow now?       

Yes.  They find a way elsewhere.  This has cruel intentions written all over it.

Never ceases to amaze me how little capability some people have for understanding that not everything to do with thousands of years of marriage traditions is rooted in animus for gay people.
But of course you don't give a sh**t about traditions that don't specifically cater to your personal feelings.  And so the words "bride" and "groom" are now considered hate speech when referring to a marriage between a man and a woman.  The gay rights movement has been taken over by Jacobinism, dedicated to uprooting any traditional understanding of gender as it relates to marriage by root and branch, and by power of the sword if necessary. 

If you think use of gendered language on a marriage license for different-sex couples hurts same-sex couples in such a way that has the slightest comparability to the type of systematic discrimination that actually had concrete implications for millions of blacks and other minorities in terms of the type of education they could get or where they were allowed to live, then the most generous thing I can conclude is that you are a historical illiterate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Would putting 'Bride A/Bride B' and 'Groom A/Groom B' on same-sex marriage licenses please people? Genuine question.

[7,052,770]

Would putting 'Bride A/Bride B' and 'Groom A/Groom B' on same-sex marriage licenses please people? Genuine question.

I assume it would not be inclusive to individuals outside the gender binary?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Would putting 'Bride A/Bride B' and 'Groom A/Groom B' on same-sex marriage licenses please people? Genuine question.

Seems like you could have little boxes that could be checked for "bride" and "groom" that would then appear on the license  but I have no clue who would find that offensive and who wouldn't.

[Brittain33]

Shua: think about how angry and upset this disagreement makes you feel.

Now imagine how you would feel if you were actually denied the right to marry.

[Blue3]

[Stranger in a strange land]

Just put "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on the marriage forms. Jesus Christ, how hard is that?

[afleitch]

Would putting 'Bride A/Bride B' and 'Groom A/Groom B' on same-sex marriage licenses please people? Genuine question.

Groom is simply bridegroom shortened; servant of the bride. If there's no bride there's no bridegroom. While I'm not fussed either way, I don't see why some people think marriage is challenged by changing little words.

[KingSweden]

Just put "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on the marriage forms. Jesus Christ, how hard is that?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Just put "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on the marriage forms. Jesus Christ, how hard is that?

That goes against tradition in so many ways.  When I get married, I would absolutely want it to say the words "bride and groom" because of tradition.  That's what a wedding is!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Just put "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on the marriage forms. Jesus Christ, how hard is that?

That goes against tradition in so many ways.  When I get married, I would absolutely want it to say the words "bride and groom" because of tradition.  That's what a wedding is!

As a Real Traditionalist^TM, I'll be happy as long as an exchange of property occurs and my family gains my wife's father's land.

[This account no longer in use.]

Just put "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on the marriage forms. Jesus Christ, how hard is that?

That goes against tradition in so many ways.  When I get married, I would absolutely want it to say the words "bride and groom" because of tradition.  That's what a wedding is!

Slavery was an American tradition until the 1860s.

[Joe Republic]

Just put "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on the marriage forms. Jesus Christ, how hard is that?

That goes against tradition in so many ways.  When I get married, I would absolutely want it to say the words "bride and groom" because of tradition.  That's what a wedding is!

All the problems with this logic aside, you just sign off as 'spouse 1 and 2' on the legal document that you'll eventually just file in a drawer somewhere, and then call yourselves 'bride and groom' at the wedding.  This isn't difficult.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm imagining a huge spat over who gets to be 'Spouse 1' (or 'Bride/Groom A' for that matter) and it's actually kind of an adorable mental image.

[afleitch]

For what it's worth, checking my New York marriage license, there's no reference to anything, just Mr Michael and Mr Andrew.

[Kingpoleon]

oh ffs sjws, saying "bride" and "groom" on one form and having gender neutral terms on an other is the same as Jim Crow now?       

No, it's not.

Quite frankly, I'd gladly not be served by a business so idiotic about making money or so value-oriented they don't want me. I appreciate them actually believing in their values. That, and I don't want food made by people who don't want me to buy it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

oh ffs sjws, saying "bride" and "groom" on one form and having gender neutral terms on an other is the same as Jim Crow now?      

Yes.  They find a way elsewhere.  This has cruel intentions written all over it.

Never ceases to amaze me how little capability some people have for understanding that not everything to do with thousands of years of marriage traditions is rooted in animus for gay people.
But of course you don't give a sh**t about traditions that don't specifically cater to your personal feelings.  And so the words "bride" and "groom" are now considered hate speech when referring to a marriage between a man and a woman.  The gay rights movement has been taken over by Jacobinism, dedicated to uprooting any traditional understanding of gender as it relates to marriage by root and branch, and by power of the sword if necessary.  

If you think use of gendered language on a marriage license for different-sex couples hurts same-sex couples in such a way that has the slightest comparability to the type of systematic discrimination that actually had concrete implications for millions of blacks and other minorities in terms of the type of education they could get or where they were allowed to live, then the most generous thing I can conclude is that you are a historical illiterate.

Yeah...gays were never discriminated against systematically... And I should be grateful that, in the opinion of a straight southern white guy, that Gays apparently never had it as bad as the blacks.  I guess it must be easier to tell up there on top of your pile of bullsh**t.

I'm the historically illiterate one?  Puh-lease.