<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: British Quakers Request Religious Freedom to Support Marriage Equality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 12:09:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Waldrop</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-47080</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Waldrop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-47080</guid>
		<description>Zeke said, &quot;No one has told conservative churches that they have to marry people they don’t want to.&quot; And this is exactly the issue. Many conservative churches have insisted, contrary to the facts, that their rights are somehow threatened by same-sex marriage, and that they will be &quot;forced&quot; to perform such marriages. 

How many times does it have to be pointed out to them that they won&#039;t be forced to perform any marriage they don&#039;t want to before they&#039;ll finally admit it? Maybe same-sex marriage will have to be legalized before those conservative churches will stop lying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zeke said, &#8220;No one has told conservative churches that they have to marry people they don’t want to.&#8221; And this is exactly the issue. Many conservative churches have insisted, contrary to the facts, that their rights are somehow threatened by same-sex marriage, and that they will be &#8220;forced&#8221; to perform such marriages. </p>
<p>How many times does it have to be pointed out to them that they won&#8217;t be forced to perform any marriage they don&#8217;t want to before they&#8217;ll finally admit it? Maybe same-sex marriage will have to be legalized before those conservative churches will stop lying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alas, a blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Open Thread, doing really neat things with sand edition</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-47064</link>
		<dc:creator>Alas, a blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Open Thread, doing really neat things with sand edition</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-47064</guid>
		<description>[...] National Organization for Marriage is right. Gay marriage IS a religious freedom issue. They’ve just identified the wrong party as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] National Organization for Marriage is right. Gay marriage IS a religious freedom issue. They’ve just identified the wrong party as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BCCanuck</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-46971</link>
		<dc:creator>BCCanuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:57:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-46971</guid>
		<description>Quakers (unformed silent service) are wonderful.

&quot;It will be interesting to see how anti-gay activists respond to this plea by devout Christians for a right to practice their faith.&quot;

Here in Canada the anti-gay activists write bitter tirades against the United Church of Canada: they call it a &quot;pseudo-Christian cult empty of biblical Christian theological content.&quot; Other LGBT-affirming faith communities fare even worse. So, what else is new?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quakers (unformed silent service) are wonderful.</p>
<p>&#8220;It will be interesting to see how anti-gay activists respond to this plea by devout Christians for a right to practice their faith.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here in Canada the anti-gay activists write bitter tirades against the United Church of Canada: they call it a &#8220;pseudo-Christian cult empty of biblical Christian theological content.&#8221; Other LGBT-affirming faith communities fare even worse. So, what else is new?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-46932</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-46932</guid>
		<description>We in the United Church of Christ have been making the point that OUR religious liberty and the religious liberty of other gay affirming churches/synagogues/temples are the ONLY faith groups that have EVER been denied &quot;freedom of religion and expression? in this whole same-sex marriage debate.

No one has told conservative churches that they have to marry people they don&#039;t want to.  They deny marriage to all kinds of couples and NO ONE has even threatened to deny them the right to do so.  But churches like mine are specifically told by the government that we can&#039;t marry certain members and certain couples in our church family.  The government is directly impinging on the expression of our religious beliefs that all people are created equal and deserving of full civil, human and spiritual equal rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We in the United Church of Christ have been making the point that OUR religious liberty and the religious liberty of other gay affirming churches/synagogues/temples are the ONLY faith groups that have EVER been denied &#8220;freedom of religion and expression? in this whole same-sex marriage debate.</p>
<p>No one has told conservative churches that they have to marry people they don&#8217;t want to.  They deny marriage to all kinds of couples and NO ONE has even threatened to deny them the right to do so.  But churches like mine are specifically told by the government that we can&#8217;t marry certain members and certain couples in our church family.  The government is directly impinging on the expression of our religious beliefs that all people are created equal and deserving of full civil, human and spiritual equal rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tavdy79</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-46928</link>
		<dc:creator>tavdy79</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:51:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-46928</guid>
		<description>The ban is on performing a civil, legal ceremony in temples, rather than a purely &lt;i&gt;religious&lt;/i&gt; ceremony. If it were on the latter the British government would be in breach of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The issue for Quakers is that by being unable to perform the &lt;i&gt;civil&lt;/i&gt; ceremony we&#039;re unable to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex ones - gay couples HAVE to have two ceremonies. Most divorcees have to have two separate ceremonies, however that decision is purely up to the religious order, it&#039;s not a legal requirement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The ban is on performing a civil, legal ceremony in temples, rather than a purely <i>religious</i> ceremony. If it were on the latter the British government would be in breach of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.</p>
<p>The issue for Quakers is that by being unable to perform the <i>civil</i> ceremony we&#8217;re unable to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex ones &#8211; gay couples HAVE to have two ceremonies. Most divorcees have to have two separate ceremonies, however that decision is purely up to the religious order, it&#8217;s not a legal requirement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-46924</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-46924</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m shaking my head in disbelief.  It amazes me that they would bar churches from conducting marriages or allowing them on their premises.  Also stunningly ironic that despite the anti-gays false claims that their freedom of religion is being violated it is actually the pro-gay churches whose freedom of religion is being violated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m shaking my head in disbelief.  It amazes me that they would bar churches from conducting marriages or allowing them on their premises.  Also stunningly ironic that despite the anti-gays false claims that their freedom of religion is being violated it is actually the pro-gay churches whose freedom of religion is being violated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Burr</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/31/13697/comment-page-1#comment-46918</link>
		<dc:creator>Burr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13697#comment-46918</guid>
		<description>Wow. That&#039;s a really odd wrinkle on things. What in the hell was the reasoning behind that? Has it really been enforced?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. That&#8217;s a really odd wrinkle on things. What in the hell was the reasoning behind that? Has it really been enforced?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
