View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2013, 12:01 PM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Default Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill

Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
From the article:
"Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended. While the professors expressed support for same-sex marriage, they warned careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those believers who cannot conscientiously participate in implementing the new regime. “The gain for human liberty will be severely compromised if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, used to force same-sex couples to hide their sexuality,” the law professors wrote. The professors said the challenge for any bill is to “equalize civil marriage while preserving religious control over religious marriage”, and they said SB 1 “has not yet accomplished the task.” “A bill that addresses only solemnization would do less to protect religious liberty than any other state that has enacted same-sex marriage by legislation,” the professors wrote."
You (predictably) fail to address the central question.
This situation is not new. People have had religious objections to all sorts of marriages in the past.
Interracial marriages. Other religion marriages, etc, etc...

Have we ever granted this level of protection in the past?
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post: