Missouri Bill Would Restrict Marriage To People Of Faith

[appleannie1943]

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.

[greymattermom]

1. So what about Unitarians

and other faiths that perform gay marriage?

[ExciteBike66]

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.

[sinkingfeeling]

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.

[stopbush]

4. So tired of the fucking Xians.

[Initech]

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

[shenmue]

5. OH FUCK THESE PEOPLE

[TlalocW]

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