Union Leader won't print announcement for gay wedding

[KBCraig]

I sure don't know John well enough to presume to know his thoughts, but here's what I think he meant: there were (and are) people who assume we're all in one big club together, and that everyone who is a Porcupine/Freestater/Free Grafton/whateverist is automatically cool with an "anything goes" attitude. Some one or more of those type of people made comments early on that indicated they thought John and PAC would be or should be cool with (to draw an extreme example) throwing a clothing-optional LGBT polyamorous group wedding, with orgy to follow.

Okay, maybe not that extreme, but you get the idea.

And I think John is concerned with not only being a good neighbor to the Freedom community, but a good neighbor to the existing Grafton community. It would be easy to be a clubhouse for the "anything goes" community, but this would result in the at-large community feeling excluded and offended. This would defeat the point of reaching out to all people.

Sorry for trying to speak for you, John. That's just my understanding of your nature and what you're trying to accomplish.

[Russell Kanning]

this gets more sad and funny as we go along

but the real question is if the UL will cover Dale's bachelor party

[John]

this gets more sad and funny as we go along

So much so that I am kind of tempted to let it keep going for a while before getting back to Dale's specific "yes or no question." 

[John]

Dale's bachelor party

I'm thinking that is one event that almost certainly would not be allowed at Peaceful Assembly Church. Most bachelor parties are far too wild for this place.

[John]

And I think John is concerned with not only being a good neighbor to the Freedom community, but a good neighbor to the existing Grafton community. It would be easy to be a clubhouse for the "anything goes" community, but this would result in the at-large community feeling excluded and offended. This would defeat the point of reaching out to all people.

It would be easy in some ways, and it would definitely bring in a lot more people than this boaring religion and Peace stuff --- but then John himself might be "feeling excluded or offended." 

John does not attend "anything goes" parties, has never hosted one, is not interested in hosting any, and would probably not want to be a member of a church which hosted them. There are plenty of places for "anything goes." Is it OK to have some places where, lets say, an R rated movie is unlikely to be shown? Some people still like that: is that OK? Or, should those people be "discriminated" against?

We probably have had plenty of people who would really (and regularly) enjoy "anything goes" type events attend various events here. Seems that so far everyone who has been here has had a pretty good time.

Some people hold prejudices against Peaceful Assembly Church because they think it is a "FreeStater Church." Some FreeStaters will probably never come here because it is a church at all. Some people who would ban gay marriage would despise Peaceful Assembly Church for our teachings regarding True Peace.

[John]

I assumed that  as long as "By the power vested in me by the state of New Hampshire" wasn't uttered, he would allow any wedding.

Not quite. But, this is definitely not a government church (we are not a 501c3, nor an LLC, etc., et. al.) and I'm thinking we don't want those words to be part of any religious ceremony held here.

I'm thinking that most weddings held here would in fact be religious in nature not contracts by, with, and through, and/or in the name of government. This is after all a church, not a government office.

[John]

I'm speculating wildly as I am prone to do when I have so little to go on.

Do you generally speculate towards the positive or the negative?

(A funny thing just occurred to me. I know of a local Grafton guy who has been a big time lurker on this forum for years. He's probably been speculating wildly to.)   

[John]

I'll pick this back up tomorrow but, I'm tired and want to end on this lighter note for today:

When I first read this, I missed the first use of the word "two" ...

I picture some little blue-haired old lady who's hobby is to brazenly crash weddings she hasn't been invited to... with her impressionable young grandchildren in tow, of course.  She inadvertently finds herself and the kids at the wedding of two strangers, the union of whom she does not approve, e.g. two men, two women, a black man and a white woman, a Protestant and a Catholic, a member of high society and a peasant, two people with an age difference exceeding some arbitrary number in her mind, etc.

... and was thinking (with some Monty Pythonish imagery in my head) that this wedding (regardless of what else is going on) is just too big for our church. 

OK good night, and try not to worry too much. (Except the Grafton lurker: this is way to important for you not to worry about. Isn't it?  )

[dalebert]

Do you generally speculate towards the positive or the negative?

Neither.  Toward the humorous.

[John]

 

[John]

 
I know a same sex couple here in Grafton. I have had only a few conversations with them, so I don't really know them very well. They are not part of the Freedom movement at all and might even be slow in moving towards true Peace. However, they are courteous, friendly and just plain old nice and decent neighbors an many ways. They apologetically volunteered that, at first, they had some prejudices against me because I am part of the Freedom movement. We have some things in common and some not.
They make no secret that they are a couple. The first time I met them they introduced themselves to me as such.
If they wanted to get married at Peaceful Assembly Church, I assume that we would happily arrange for that to happen. I don't tolerate that they are a couple: I accept them as a couple.

With regard to government involvement: If they decided that that is what they want or need, that would be between them and the government. That part would not happen here.

[dalebert]

Thank you, John.  It's not quite a straight-up "yes" or "no", but it answers the question.  I understand you wanting to be reserved about nailing down exactly what you'd permit in your church as I'm sure you get plenty of suggestions for things that do not seem tasteful or appropriate for the atmosphere you want there.

[John]

Well I wasn't exactly recalling a question which lends itself to a "straight-up yes or no".    Not that I was going to feel compelled to give a one-word answer if I had.  How would Jesus, or the Buddha, or Gandhi, or MLK, or so many others handle it?

As far as "nailing down exactly," you have probably noticed that some of these "Freedom people" really are "a tough crowd" to deal with. Many, when they want to be,  can be quite legalistic, argumentative, and quite intolerent of any flexibility for others to adapt to various scenarios, while at the very same time looking always to exploit any "loopholes" so as to allow maximum flexibility for themselves. I'm sure that many people reading this have seen some of the posts on this forum where various people say things like if one hasn't explicitly said that this or that is not allowed then by implication it is allowed; or, on the other hand, if one does not have an explicit "contract", then there are no "obligations." But now I'm getting close to another topic of another thread ...

Anyway, yes indeed, we have certainly gotten lots of suggestions.
I am usually able to stay positive about them - and about the people who make them - and I try to say that they are "nice" or "interesting" ideas, but that maybe there are better places than a church for such activities.

We were never thinking that our church was going to be particularly popular or everyone's favorite place. We are also very well aware that having wild parties will bring in tons of people - from many, many, many miles if wild enough - but that ain't gonna happen.

However, most of the people who's suggestions have not been adopted here have still come back for other events and have still had lots of fun here. (One "liberal" who spent several hours here one afternoon and evening is apparently not quite open-minded enough (yet) to want to come back, one "conservative Christan" who came here to let us know how we are doing things all wrong, and one "Freedom guy" who suggested a "titty bar" have not yet returned ...)

In some ways we are just a small

[Jim Johnson]

I support their decision.
I myself would also not attend a gay wedding. I don't want to encourage the behavior.

Can someone confirm or deny whether this is also the policy of the Peaceful Assembly Church, i.e. with regard to which marriages they would allow to happen there?  I feel confident that I saw a statement somewhere to that effect and thought it was this thread but I'm not seeing it now.  I wonder if I'm mistaken.

Here you go, John.

[dalebert]

I guess what I'm saying is I understand you're reluctance to give a short answer like "Yes, gay weddings are allowed here."  What I was trying to make clear is that doesn't mean any gay wedding would be allowed any more than any other wedding would be.  It depends on a lot of other stuph.  I just wanted clarity whether that alone would be an issue and I took your answer to mean "No, that alone would not be an issue (all rights reserved)."

I have a feeling that the rumor started with a misunderstanding best analogized by the following anecdote.

A guy goes up to a women he's never met before and says "Hey, you wanna go out for pizza and then screw?"  She slaps him and tosses her drink in his face and he says "What?!  You don't like pizza?"

You're afraid of appearing to sign a blank check, so to speak.  And given the pushiness of some people, I understand that.  Still I think you could have explained that a lot more succinctly and ended all the speculation, such as "No, there's not a policy against gay weddings but that should not be misinterpreted as anything goes.  When anyone wants to have a wedding or any other event here, I want to ensure it's going to be tasteful and appropriate for the worshipful atmosphere we want to maintain at the church."  Does that seem fairly well put for what you're trying to convey?