Wed the Botkin way, because ebil persecuting gayz!

[AnywhereButHere]

These people over think stuff until they flip their brain upside down. I swear it's why they make no sense.

[Palimpsest]

Stinking hypocrites and lily-livered cowards. The Botkins are naught but craven clay-brained canker-blossoms on the face of the universe.

If you are going to take a moral stand then do so.

[alba]

Stinking hypocrites and lily-livered cowards. The Botkins are naught but craven clay-brained canker-blossoms on the face of the universe.

If you are going to take a moral stand then do so.

Can I just say these are some of the best insults I've heard since I last read any Shakespeare?

[Palimpsest]

Thanks! I usually only break out the Elizabethan insults when I am utterly filled with contempt!

[jerkit]

"This doesn't even make sense"

^ What I say nearly every time I read fundie blogs

[Jezebel]

David Botkin, on his public Facebook page:

i've read that mess three times, and I still have no idea what point he's trying to make.

No, having a pastor as a wedding officiant is not in the Bible. Then again, there are no instructions in the Bible on how to conduct a marriage ceremony at all. So a couple's declaring their vows to each other, with no officiant, is no more "Biblical" than letting the head of your church community do the honors.

I don't see "a hill to die on" here, but the boy is clearly looking for one. It must be tough, having fantasies of boldly facing persecution and possible martyrdom, when nobody is actually persecuting you.

What same-sex couples have to do with any of this is clear as mud. I think he just wanted to sneer at "sodomites," and went for it.

Yes, we did get a license...And in TN they are really picky...but then they also don't recognize sodomite "marriages" or marriages between first cousins, so maybe I don't mind the pickiness.

I'm really looking forward to the day when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Tennessee. Lots of happy Tenneseean couples will finally get to marry the one they love, and David Botkin will make a complete ass of himself in true Botkin-gasbag style.

[Howl]

I've always thought the best thing would be for everyone who wishes to get married to register with the state as domestic partners, gay, straight, whatever, you plan to live together, make medical decisions, raise kids, etc, then you are domestic partners. Anyone who wishes to have a religious ceremony may do so, but the domestic partnership is the legal part. The religious ceremony is only for the couples personal beliefs. Obviously, the particular religious institution could choose whether or not to perform ceremonies for gay couples, or divorced couples, whatever their religious convictions happen to be. Legally, everyone would have the same rights, and churches could still be bigots. Everyone wins.

Well, yes, exactly. Because what we have right now is a civil union for one group of partners: opposite sex citizens. No clergy need be involved in getting the marriage license or the ceremony itself. It is a legal arrangement conferring certain benefits; a ceremony can be performed by clergy at the option of the couple if the clergy person agrees to perform the ceremony.

Same sex couples just want this option for a civil union. REALLY, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Counting down to the day when the Supremes make their decision in June (fittingly).

Rick Santorum has come out saying that if the Supremes rule in favor of marriage equality, he will continue fighting it.

In anticipation of a Supreme court ruling for marriage equality, Texas has been trying to do an end run by creating a law that criminalizes giving a marriage license to a same sex couple, thus putting a horrible burden on county clerks or letting fundamentalist county clerks hide behind their religious beliefs. I don't think this passed, but I'm not sure. The Texas lege has been reallly busy, busy, busy passing open carry laws and continuing to destroy women's access to reproductive health care.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

Well, yes, exactly. Because what we have right now is a civil union for one group of partners: opposite sex citizens. No clergy need be involved in getting the marriage license or the ceremony itself. It is a legal arrangement conferring certain benefits; a ceremony can be performed by clergy at the option of the couple if the clergy person agrees to perform the ceremony.

Same sex couples just want this option for a civil union. REALLY, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Counting down to the day when the Supremes make their decision in June (fittingly).

Rick Santorum has come out saying that if the Supremes rule in favor of marriage equality, he will continue fighting it.

In anticipation of a Supreme court ruling for marriage equality, Texas has been trying to do an end run by creating a law that criminalizes giving a marriage license to a same sex couple, thus putting a horrible burden on county clerks or letting fundamentalist county clerks hide behind their religious beliefs. I don't think this passed, but I'm not sure. The Texas lege has been reallly busy, busy, busy passing open carry laws and continuing to destroy women's access to reproductive health care.

Right on. The legal requirements for a marriage license have never and will never be exactly identical to the requirements set out by any given church. With all the different religious practices in this country, there's no way that the law could ever perfectly reflect everyone's particular vision of marriage. So we solve that problem by butting out and making civil marriage licenses separate from religious rites. Right now there are churches that officiate same-sex weddings in states where it isn't recognized-- the couple is certainly experiencing discrimination in that they can't get a civil license, but nobody is telling the church that the ceremony is illegal.