Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:14 AM

appleannie1943 (1,303 posts)

Missouri Bill Would Restrict Marriage To People Of Faith

The bill would define marriage as being a union that takes place only in religious institutions.

Any marriages that were to take place outside of the church, for example in a registry office, would only be recognised as “domestic unions.”

Sponsors of the bill say that the change in definition would work to protect churches and businesses against “gay encroachment.”

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/01/missouri-bill-restrict-marriage-people-faith/#6pzzoDHskgAdKVxt.99

There was a time when our SC would have said this is unconstitutional. I am not so sure that would be the case now.

7 replies, 2503 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

7 replies	Author	Time	Post
Missouri Bill Would Restrict Marriage To People Of Faith (Original post)	appleannie1943	Jan 2018	OP
So what about Unitarians	greymattermom	Jan 2018	#1
This is so obviously not constitutional,	ExciteBike66	Jan 2018	#2
Another way to force religion on others. If you're in a domestic union	sinkingfeeling	Jan 2018	#3
So tired of the fucking Xians.	stopbush	Jan 2018	#4
Seriously - they're why we can't have nice things.	Initech	Jan 2018	#7
OH FUCK THESE PEOPLE	shenmue	Jan 2018	#5
An Oklahoma state senator wanted to do this before Obergefell v. Hodges	TlalocW	Jan 2018	#6

Response to appleannie1943 (Original post)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:21 AM

greymattermom (5,722 posts)

1. So what about Unitarians

and other faiths that perform gay marriage?

Reply to this post

Response to appleannie1943 (Original post)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:22 AM

ExciteBike66 (2,017 posts)

2. This is so obviously not constitutional,

that it makes me suspect their government is trying to "starve the beast" by inviting slam-dunk lawsuits against the state.

Reply to this post

Response to appleannie1943 (Original post)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:30 AM

sinkingfeeling (47,617 posts)

3. Another way to force religion on others. If you're in a domestic union

then you will be denied all those tax breaks and other goodies handed out to married couples.

Reply to this post

Response to appleannie1943 (Original post)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:30 AM

stopbush (24,135 posts)

4. So tired of the fucking Xians.

Reply to this post

Response to stopbush (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 02:30 PM

Initech (96,380 posts)

7. Seriously - they're why we can't have nice things.

Reply to this post

Response to appleannie1943 (Original post)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 01:02 PM

shenmue (38,400 posts)

5. OH FUCK THESE PEOPLE

Reply to this post

Response to appleannie1943 (Original post)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 01:28 PM

TlalocW (14,910 posts)

6. An Oklahoma state senator wanted to do this before Obergefell v. Hodges

Thinking he was clever, etc. I kind of wish it had passed at least for a while so his name would have gone down in history as the conservative republican senator that brought gay marriage to Oklahoma as even there, there were non-Unitarian churches who were fine marrying LGBTQ peeps.

It's amazing to me the lack of foresight religious conservatives have that they can't perceive of any of the things - often unconstitutional - that they want to pass either having the opposite effect of what they wanted or coming back to bite them on the ass.

TlalocW

Reply to this post

LGBT (Group)