Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

[jimnyc]

Hurry up and get off the streets, it's gonna be one big "gay pride" parade today. Yek.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.

The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The four dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion explaining their views.

"But this court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

Justice Antonin Scalia said he is not concerned so much about same-sex marriage, but about "this court's threat to American democracy." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-02-52

[fj1200]

We Conservatives should embrace equal protection.

[tailfins]

This is a symptom, not the disease. God will progressively withhold his blessing from our nation. Never give up hope for a national revival.

[Perianne]

If God turns His back on us, we have nothing to complain about.

[jimnyc]

We Conservatives should embrace equal protection.

I disagree with what you see as equal protection, it's that simple, but no biggie. We've already done this dance too many times. It's done and over, and they made the decision, so now it's law and to abide by. I can deal with that. But the country is still currently swirling around the shitter and this just sped up the swirling.

[fj1200]

If God turns His back on us, we have nothing to complain about.

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle of hate.

[fj1200]

I disagree with what you see as equal protection, it's that simple, but no biggie. We've already done this dance too many times. It's done and over, and they made the decision, so now it's law and to abide by. I can deal with that. But the country is still currently swirling around the shitter and this just sped up the swirling.

That was the basis for the decision wasn't it? I'm not sure I haven't seen yet. I disagree that's why we're swirling.

[indago]

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle of hate.

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible

So, how would you go about twisting these words?

[fj1200]

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible

So, how would you go about twisting these words?

God spoke in English? Interesting. Also, what else in Leviticus is null today?

[jimnyc]

That was the basis for the decision wasn't it? I'm not sure I haven't seen yet. I disagree that's why we're swirling.

Obviously, I disagree with the decision, therefore disagree with their basis as well. I thought that was clear. :) And I knew you would disagree, but that's cool.

[Perianne]

What maybe bothers me the most is that not one justice asked me what I thought! I have all the answers for all our problems!!!! :)

[jimnyc]

What maybe bothers me the most is that not one justice asked me what I thought! I have all the answers for all our problems!!!! :)

And it was 5-4, so only one of them needed to talk to you!! :lol:

[fj1200]

Obviously, I disagree with the decision, therefore disagree with their basis as well. I thought that was clear. :) And I knew you would disagree, but that's cool.

I just wasn't sure if there was something else in the decision that I missed. :)

[jimnyc]

I just wasn't sure if there was something else in the decision that I missed. :)

It's VERY VERY long, will take me few days to fully read. If interested, here it is...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[jimnyc]

I love the dissents thus far

---

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, and all wrote separate dissents.

Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

Roberts said gay marriage supporters should celebrate, but don’t celebrate the Constitution.

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts wrote.

Scalia wrote his dissent “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,” Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-couples-have-right-to-marry-nationwide/

[jimnyc]

To add on about the 14th..

---

According to Scalia, the five justices in the majority are using the 14th Amendment in a way that was never intended by its writers. "They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since," he wrote.

Scalia pokes fun at the language the majority used in its opinion.

The majority wrote "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality."

To which Scalia responded.

Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

[Perianne]

I love the dissents thus far

---

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, and all wrote separate dissents.

Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

Roberts said gay marriage supporters should celebrate, but don’t celebrate the Constitution.

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts wrote.

Scalia wrote his dissent “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,” Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-couples-have-right-to-marry-nationwide/

After yesterday's vomit-inducing opinion by Roberts on the ACA, he has no grounds to complain about any other decisions.

Now, how long until churches are gonna be forced to perform homo marriages?

[Balu]

I am my both hands "pro". Suspect that dinosaurs had the same stage in its development. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/mosking.gif

[Noir]

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible So, how would you go about twisting these words?

0:
:D

Lets play the Levitical Law game!

You've pitched a clean ball, i strike with "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

[Perianne]

I am my both hands "pro". Suspect that dinosaurs had the same stage in its development. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/mosking.gif

Dinosaurs died out. I suspect we eventually will from debauchery.

[tailfins]

And it was 5-4, so only one of them needed to talk to you!! :lol:

Only if she talks with her hands like this:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/e/ec/Bribe.jpg

[jimnyc]

After yesterday's vomit-inducing opinion by Roberts on the ACA, he has no grounds to complain about any other decisions.

Now, how long until churches are gonna be forced to perform homo marriages?

"The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples."

[darin]

Huckabee said it best -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140610/Supreme-Court-delivers-win-gay-marriage-backers-forcing-states-authorize-sex-unions-United-States.html


'The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do – redefine marriage,' said Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher who is running for the White House.

'I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.'

'The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity,' he said. 'Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court.'





Congress and the President must act to 'check and balance' this court.

[Little-Acorn]

The problem is, marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

[jimnyc]

The problem is, marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

Yeps, same as the transgender issue and changing from one sex to another. You may call yourself the new sex, but you simply are not.

[Balu]

Dinosaurs died out. I suspect we eventually will from debauchery.
Nations with such tendencies are doomed to extinction. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/sad.gif

[fj1200]

Huckabee said it best -

Congress and the President must act to 'check and balance' this court.

Huckabee is wrong. SCOTUS didn't redefine marriage, several states did. SCOTUS just mandated equal protection.


The problem is, marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

But yet it is. Should we go back to the arranged marriages of some cultures? The women as chattel form of marriage? How about multiple wives and concubines? Just as long as we keep the man/woman thing I guess. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Nations with such tendencies are doomed to extinction. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/sad.gif

Are queer folks freely accepted over in Russia? Is marriage for them an option over there?

[Perianne]

Are queer folks freely accepted over in Russia? Is marriage for them an option over there?

I don't mean to answer for Balu, but I have read about it. Putin knows how to deal with undesirables.

[tailfins]

Huckabee is wrong. SCOTUS didn't redefine marriage, several states did. SCOTUS just mandated equal protection.



But yet it is. Should we go back to the arranged marriages of some cultures? The women as chattel form of marriage? How about multiple wives and concubines? Just as long as we keep the man/woman thing I guess. :rolleyes:

You're putting up a straw man. Have you looked up divorce rates in India? It is under two percent. Most Indian wives I have met seem rather content, knowledgeable, competent and intelligent. They will also tell you how a marriage arranged by their parents results in more stability instead of making a stupid selection based on passion.

[indago]

God spoke in English? Interesting. Also, what else in Leviticus is null today?

It would be a complete heresy, then, for any court, or government agency, to extend the Bible and demand that someone put their hand on it, and swear upon it, "So help you God", after just spitting in His face.

[Balu]

Are queer folks freely accepted over in Russia? Is marriage for them an option over there?
Nobody interfere into their private life. They have their "blue oyster" clubs. There are no their discrimination at work. But the propaganda and public demonstration of this style of life is not allowed.
These marriages are not registered in Russia.

[jimnyc]

Nobody interfere into their private life. They have their "blue oyster" clubs. There are no their discrimination at work. But the propaganda and public demonstration of this style of life is not allowed.
This marriages are not registered in Russia.

What would happen if people walked down the street like this, or were kissing on the street corner? And don't let anyone fool you, this is very normal dressing for gay folks at gay pride parades around the nation. They want to be JUST LIKE everyone else though.

http://i.imgur.com/zIirBzo.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hurry up and get off the streets, it's gonna be one big "gay pride" parade today. Yek.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.

The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The four dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion explaining their views.

"But this court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

Justice Antonin Scalia said he is not concerned so much about same-sex marriage, but about "this court's threat to American democracy." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-02-52
Yet again, we that predicted this are proven to be right. We predicted this was coming back when they took prayer out of our schools!
The new morality being forced on us is that what was once perverse is now normal!
Guess which group that is intended to defeat and destroy?--Tyr

[Noir]

It would be a complete heresy, then, for any court, or government agency, to extend the Bible and demand that someone put their hand on it, and swear upon it, "So help you God", after just spitting in His face.

Correct.
The bible should be removed altogether.
George Carlin broke down the 'bible in the court' dance many moons ago wonderfully.

[jimnyc]

Correct.
The bible should be removed altogether.
George Carlin broke down the 'bible in the court' dance many moons ago wonderfully.

Wow, remove the bible? Coming from someone who seems to want "equality" and such for others. Tsk Tsk, and then will lecture others on things of hate.

[darin]

Huckabee is wrong. SCOTUS didn't redefine marriage, several states did. SCOTUS just mandated equal protection.



But yet it is. Should we go back to the arranged marriages of some cultures? The women as chattel form of marriage? How about multiple wives and concubines? Just as long as we keep the man/woman thing I guess. :rolleyes:

Except Huckabee is spot on. SCOTUS effectively redefined the essnetial elements of marriage. SCOTUS mandated our nation now prepare for thousands and thousands of new criminals as religious leaders defy this bullshit. The fucking SCOTUS cannot MAKE LAW - and that's the deepest part of Huckabee's statement.

It's just stupid - it's sheer stupidity and foolishness and hubriss they attempt to again change the face of society. Idiots.

Other well-meaning Xtians here - STOP with the BIBLE bullshit - which is NOT a valid argument of this ruling. It just makes you seem silly. Focus on the legal ramifications.

[Noir]

Wow, remove the bible? Coming from someone who seems to want "equality" and such for others. Tsk Tsk, and then will lecture others on things of hate.

Everyone is treated equally when no one has to swear on a bible.
Probably a topic for a separate thread.

[jimnyc]

Everyone is treated equally when no one has to swear on a bible.
Probably a topic for a separate thread.

Yeah, you scoff at Perianne in another thread because of a message you didn't care for, and then preach hate to remove a religious book you don't care for. The hatred you have for Christianity literally oozes out of your pores, whether you would admit that or not.

[Balu]

What would happen if people walked down the street like this, or were kissing on the street corner? And don't let anyone fool you, this is very normal dressing for gay folks at gay pride parades around the nation. They want to be JUST LIKE everyone else though.

http://i.imgur.com/zIirBzo.jpg

It will be a good deal of work for police to protect them. And, further, if this "demonstration" is not agreed upon with local Authorities the organizers will be penalty. Those who disobey the police requirement to disperse will also be penalty.

[Perianne]

It will be a good deal of work for police to protect them. And, further, if this "demonstration" is not agreed upon with local Authorities the organizers will be penalty. Those who disobey the police requirement to disperse will also be penalty.

As it should be. Or rather, the police should not protect them at all. I have seen and read stuff on how Russians handle such behavior.

[Noir]

Yeah, you scoff at Perianne in another thread because of a message you didn't care for, and then preach hate to remove a religious book you don't care for. The hatred you have for Christianity literally oozes out of your pores, whether you would admit that or not.

Preach hate? :laugh:
I'll derail this thread no further and be on my way.

Congrats to those who will be able to marry today and hereafter who previously had no such right, should any of you gaze upon this forum. :salute:

[Balu]

As it should be. Or rather, the police should not protect them at all. I have seen and read stuff on how Russians handle such behavior.
Police acts in strict accordance with the Law. And I would not recommend anybody to disobey the demands of policemen. It may cause a good deal of problems, up to imprisonment.

[jimnyc]

Preach hate? :laugh:
I'll derail this thread no further and be on my way.

Congrats to those who will be able to marry today and hereafter who previously had no such right, should any of you gaze upon this forum. :salute:

Telling how many untold people, that they should do away with their religious book, and you don't think that's a hateful message? I do. Would you tell Muslims that they should do away with the Quran? What if I found things in your life that were meaningful to you and tell you to toss it aside as if it were useless? The sad part is that you don't even see it as a hateful message.

[darin]

I wonder if Noir preaches against Santa, too. Why should Noir have to travel the city and have santa shoved down his throat? I mean, some fictional yahoo people are effectively worshipping....just a travesty of justice! outlaw SANTA!

[jimnyc]

I wonder if Noir preaches against Santa, too. Why should Noir have to travel the city and have santa shoved down his throat? I mean, some fictional yahoo people are effectively worshipping....just a travesty of justice! outlaw SANTA!

You just haven't tried to start a thread on it yet!! LOL :lol:

[Gunny]

Preach hate? :laugh:
I'll derail this thread no further and be on my way.

Congrats to those who will be able to marry today and hereafter who previously had no such right, should any of you gaze upon this forum. :salute:

We'll see how that works in Texas, bubba. We got a state law that says it ain't happening that we ALL voted for.

[Perianne]

outlaw SANTA!

Oh, don't say that! Liberals with run with it. I like Santa.

[PixieStix]

Rules for radicals have overtaken the greatest country ever. I bet Texas won't take this crap lying down.

Government involvement for everyone. YAY! Freedom has taken a huge hit today.

Way to go radicals.

My Lord, I am glad I don't have small children. I would have to hide them.


The left will not rest until God Himself strikes us down.

[PixieStix]

Oh, don't say that! Liberals with run with it. I like Santa.

Give em a minute. They are still reveling

[PixieStix]

Wow, remove the bible? Coming from someone who seems to want "equality" and such for others. Tsk Tsk, and then will lecture others on things of hate.

They won't rest until they ban God. It really is that simple

[Voted4Reagan]

Good... now... can we move on to fixing the problems we have in this country?

[Abbey Marie]

Hooray for the Catholic Church! It takes courage to speak out these days.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11018319_10153031845271378_9223005382740505006_n.j pg?oh=58b8dee257cf092f82ee1e6a738a5c97&oe=562DBD94

[fj1200]

You're putting up a straw man. Have you looked up divorce rates in India? It is under two percent. Most Indian wives I have met seem rather content, knowledgeable, competent and intelligent. They will also tell you how a marriage arranged by their parents results in more stability instead of making a stupid selection based on passion.

Actually burning one down. ;) If you're going to go with the historical as your evidence then you should be able to accept all of the historical evidence. I'm also guessing we have some other dissimilarities with India and marriage.

[aboutime]

Now, it's time to tell them to SHUT UP, enjoy their miserable life alone, and let the rest of us get back to taking care of SAVING OUR NATION from those who HATE, LIE, and CHEAT.

If you are from the GAY community. I DO NOT CARE. You no longer have to jam your twisted way of life down my throat. Just shut up, and become common American citizens.

[indago]

The new morality being forced on us is that what was once perverse is now normal!

It's still "perverse" and abnormal in my book!

[fj1200]

Except Huckabee is spot on. SCOTUS effectively redefined the essnetial elements of marriage. SCOTUS mandated our nation now prepare for thousands and thousands of new criminals as religious leaders defy this bullshit. The fucking SCOTUS cannot MAKE LAW - and that's the deepest part of Huckabee's statement.

It's just stupid - it's sheer stupidity and foolishness and hubriss they attempt to again change the face of society. Idiots.

Other well-meaning Xtians here - STOP with the BIBLE bullshit - which is NOT a valid argument of this ruling. It just makes you seem silly. Focus on the legal ramifications.

Except that's not what he said. He did not speak to anyone forcing actions on a church official. SCOTUS didn't make any law with this more than they made law with Loving 50 years ago. There will also be any number of churches who will willingly perform the ceremony.


'The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do – redefine marriage,' said Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher who is running for the White House.

'I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.'

'The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity,' he said. 'Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court.'

I do agree however that the Bible BS is not a valid argument but you seem to be using it to make your argument.

[indago]

Just look at all this utter heresy and hypocrisy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2125UvheCQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK3EPOZpiFU

"SO HELP ME GOD"... my ass!


TAKE YOUR HAND OFF THAT BIBLE, HERETIC!

[stephanie]

This link is from Scott Walker and what said about it.

http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBkdlehf (http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBkdlehf)


There's a lot of talk about a Constitution Amendment. What ticks me off is the Supremes just walked all over WE THE PEOPLES say in this and also stepped over the STATE RIGHTS. so we'll see I guess

SNIP:

[Abbey Marie]

This link is from Scott Walker and what said about it.

(http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBkdlehf)http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBkdlehf


There's a lot of talk about a Constitution Amendment. What ticks me off is the Supremes just walked all over WE THE PEOPLES say in this and also stepped over the STATE RIGHTS. so we'll see I guess

SNIP:


http://cdn.discogs.com/f8j7sV86-NKlr5c1PRjFVEGnJOA=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb()/discogs-images/R-3436123-1368214309-9402.jpeg.jpg

[Olivia]

Gays fought long and hard for "gay marriage" as soon as they won they no longer want "gay marriage" just marriage. It's always something. :rolleyes:

[stephanie]

http://cdn.discogs.com/f8j7sV86-NKlr5c1PRjFVEGnJOA=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb()/discogs-images/R-3436123-1368214309-9402.jpeg.jpg

I'm making my way back dear. Some might not be happy hear that. :laugh::thanks:

[WiccanLiberal]

About time we settled this. This country has too many issues that truly impact us. People marrying is a red herring. And by the way, I totally support that everyone has the absolute right to be happy in a marriage with the person of their choice. I also don't believe that marriage being available to gays takes anything away from so-called traditional marriage. I have always felt that any marriage or relationship is unique in its blessings and challenges as the people involved are unique. If your marriage is a solid and supportive one, how can what anyone else does diminish the joy and content you have in it?

[stephanie]

I found this interesting. who knows what all is going to come down us over this

Fifteen reasons "marriage Equality is about Neither marriage or equality

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/15-reasons-marriage-equality-is-about-neither-marriage-nor-equality/ (http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/15-reasons-marriage-equality-is-about-neither-marriage-nor-equality/)

[gabosaurus]

About time we settled this. This country has too many issues that truly impact us. People marrying is a red herring. And by the way, I totally support that everyone has the absolute right to be happy in a marriage with the person of their choice. I also don't believe that marriage being available to gays takes anything away from so-called traditional marriage. I have always felt that any marriage or relationship is unique in its blessings and challenges as the people involved are unique. If your marriage is a solid and supportive one, how can what anyone else does diminish the joy and content you have in it?

Us liberal types have been saying this for years.
Marriage is marriage is marriage. It is two adults who love each other. Gay people or straight people. Notice I said two adults. Not children. Not animals. Not refrigerators or blowup dolls. Two consenting adults.
Too many people want to legislate morality. It is not anyone's place to dictate the beliefs of others. Not everyone shares your religious or moral beliefs.
Let people be happy.

[hjmick]

I'm making my way back dear. Some might not be happy hear that. :laugh::thanks:



Things do seem to be getting a tad nutty elsewhere...


Look at me, we don't get banned here for mentioning other boards (Jim is just that confident...), but I still won't mention...

[aboutime]

About time we settled this. This country has too many issues that truly impact us. People marrying is a red herring. And by the way, I totally support that everyone has the absolute right to be happy in a marriage with the person of their choice. I also don't believe that marriage being available to gays takes anything away from so-called traditional marriage. I have always felt that any marriage or relationship is unique in its blessings and challenges as the people involved are unique. If your marriage is a solid and supportive one, how can what anyone else does diminish the joy and content you have in it?


Totally agree W.L. I honestly have never cared what they do, or try to do, one way or another.

As long as they mind their own business, don't bother me or members of my family, and stop trying to insist that I must always agree with them. I am fine. Mind their own business is the same as "You catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar". Out of sight, out of mind...kinda thinkin!

[revelarts]

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle of hate.

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle to justify sin either.
We should be careful when we try to please men instead of God.
When we try to go with cultural trends rather than the clear teachings of God.

if we read what's there in plain language there's no mystry that homosexuality is sin.
you can no more make it morally right by making it legal than you can make abortion, kidnapping or stealing morally right by legalizing it.

it was sin yesterday and it will still be sin tommorrow.

[tailfins]

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle to justify sin either.
We should be careful when we try to please men instead of God.
When we try to go with cultural trends rather than the clear teachings of God.

if we read what's there in plain language there's no mystry that homosexuality is sin.
you can no more make it morally right by making it legal
than you can make abortion morally right.
or stealing morally right.

it was sin yesterday and it will still be sin tommorrow.

In a way, it makes me kind of glad I won't be around thirty years from now. I can imagine how Lot in the Bible felt.

[red state]

Totally agree W.L. I honestly have never cared what they do, or try to do, one way or another.

As long as they mind their own business, don't bother me or members of my family, and stop trying to insist that I must always agree with them. I am fine. Mind their own business is the same as "You catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar". Out of sight, out of mind...kinda thinkin!

At, I truly don't care about THEM and their evil, twisted and sad lil' lives BUT when they push and Push and PUSH (and will now continue to push further because THEY think they've won the war when they've only won a battle). Who here thinks that this is the end of it? REALLY?! As Tyr put it, and I've been there shouting the same thing his has over the years, THEY will stop ONLY when they have TOTAL control over us to PUSH their filth on us in every way possible.

Next will be hate speech as they have in Canada and, as NOIR put it, the Bible needs to go; for how can one justify their perversions when the map of life or guidebook contradicts their "preferred lifestyle"?

I've argued with liberals and homosexuals on where the line is and they say as long as they have equality it'll stop at homosexual marriage and bakers following their demands. I know it is a lie because they always move that thin red line. My grandchildren are very likely to see the marriage of a woman and her dog or her cat & dog but, for now, THEY say that "consent" is needed for it to be a just union. BULL$#!T....sure as I was right about their bullying, they have already mentioned and debated how intelligent and reasonable a chimp is...or a dolphin but my question to WL and AT is: Should we now deny the love that TED, TERRY, TATE and TANDY have for one another? Who are we to deny their happiness. Why does marriage have to be limited to Jane and John......or Mike and Mike....or Sue/Sherry and Brucette Jenner? That sort of thing will be next and this ruling has opened Pandora's Box where the flood gates of evil knows no boundaries.

Yeah, I do care what these WIERDO's do because it always effects the natural order of things and the well being of a once healthy Nation.

[DragonStryk72]

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." — Leviticus 20 v 13 - The Bible

So, how would you go about twisting these words?

"Since the time of st. John the Baptist, we are no longer under the Law (Leviticus), but under grace"

Christ specifically came as He did due to.the hypocrisy of the pharisees, and the fall of the Hebrews to dogmatic religion, enshrined in the Book of Leviticus. So we *could* follow Leviticus, but that would mean sitting Jesus, and what he was trying to stop.

[Abbey Marie]

Have you all been on Facebook today? I felt like if I looked back at it, I'd turn to a pillar of salt. Thank you Jim, for this refuge in a week of abominations from our gov't.

[revelarts]

In a way, it makes me kind of glad I won't be around thirty years from now. I can imagine how Lot in the Bible felt.
the only problem is we have children that are going to live in babylon here.



"Since the time of st. John the Baptist, we are no longer under the Law (Leviticus), but under grace"

Christ specifically came as He did due to.the hypocrisy of the pharisees, and the fall of the Hebrews to dogmatic religion, enshrined in the Book of Leviticus. So we *could* follow Leviticus, but that would mean sitting Jesus, and what he was trying to stop.


new testament

Romans 6
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!
We are those who have died to sin;how can we live in it any longer?...
....15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!


1 Corinthians 6
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

[Balu]

Americans,
What do you want to say about this?
As to me (personally) I will count myself the ribs of your Ambassador in Moscow should he make the similar statement. And I will be right. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

"The United States pledged to seek permission of gay marriage worldwide.

US, legalizing same-sex marriage, they decided to seek similar rights for LGBT people of other countries. This is stated in the statement of Secretary of State John Kerry."

[Jeff]

What maybe bothers me the most is that not one justice asked me what I thought! I have all the answers for all our problems!!!! :)

Perianne for President !!!! :salute::thumb::salute:

Hell anything is better than the idiot in charge

[Jeff]

Americans,
What do you want to say about this?
As to me (personally) I will count myself the ribs of your Ambassador in Moscow should he make the similar statement. And I will be right. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

"The United States pledged to seek permission of gay marriage worldwide.

US, legalizing same-sex marriage, they decided to seek similar rights for LGBT people of other countries. This is stated in the statement of Secretary of State John Kerry."

After seeing this disgusting act of BS, I think I wish to be your Comrade my little Commie buddy. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[indago]

Just look at all this utter heresy and hypocrisy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2125UvheCQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK3EPOZpiFU

"SO HELP ME GOD"... my ass!


TAKE YOUR HAND OFF THAT BIBLE, HERETIC!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

http://oi60.tinypic.com/ftzynk.jpg
DO YOU BELIEVE IN SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

[indago]

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle of hate.

NEXT (http://nambla.org/join.html)

[Rat]

Most of my views lean to the conservative side but the gay marriage debate is one where I differ. Personally I don't care if homosexuals want to marry and support their right to do it. I don't see the problem with two consenting adults taking vows. I'm fine with the Supreme Court decision and surprised it's taken this long for America to do it.

[Max R.]

This is a symptom, not the disease. God will progressively withhold his blessing from our nation. Never give up hope for a national revival.
God is all powerful and all merciful. It is my fervent belief that, unlike Pat Roberson believes, God would not punish an entire nation for the actions of a few. We are each judged by our own actions, not the actions of others.

That said, it's one thing for our government to apply our laws in accordance with the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment in this case, but it's another thing what individuals do with that law. Example, I think our present gun laws are adequate regardless of the fact what some people do with that law. The responsibility is on the person who uses the law, not on "We, the People" to be a nanny for every citizen's actions.

[jimnyc]

Most of my views lean to the conservative side but the gay marriage debate is one where I differ. Personally I don't care if homosexuals want to marry and support their right to do it. I don't see the problem with two consenting adults taking vows. I'm fine with the Supreme Court decision and surprised it's taken this long for America to do it.

I don't mind any of the above - its simply "marriage" I have an issue with. It was only 10 short years ago when the gay folks only wanted civil unions, to be granted the same rights as others in America. And then that quickly changed to overtaking a traditional custom that has been around forever. If they want to be together, that's great. Let them love, do all of the same things, and GIVE THEM all the benefits and protections. That is EXACTLY what they and their supporters wanted not that long ago.

[Max R.]

I don't mind any of the above - its simply "marriage" I have an issue with. It was only 10 short years ago when the gay folks only wanted civil unions, to be granted the same rights as others in America. And then that quickly changed to overtaking a traditional custom that has been around forever. If they want to be together, that's great. Let them love, do all of the same things, and GIVE THEM all the benefits and protections. That is EXACTLY what they and their supporters wanted not that long ago.

Gays are about 2% of any population. In the US, that comes out to over 6 million gay Americans. At best, 3 million gay couples. If only a quarter of those couples married, that's 750,000 couples. None of those 750,000 gay married couples harms my marriage in any shape, form or manner. How does their being married affect your marriage?

[jimnyc]

Gays are about 2% of any population. In the US, that comes out to over 6 million gay Americans. At best, 3 million gay couples. If only a quarter of those couples married, that's 750,000 couples. None of those 750,000 gay married couples harms my marriage in any shape, form or manner. How does their being married affect your marriage?

Because it's changing what marriage is and has always been. If you feel differently, I can respect that, but it's not going to change my feelings. I entered into a sacred tradition, of which the definition was just changed. Personally, I think that matters.

And why does it matter? It took all of about an hour after the decision and now several groups have already come out with talk about polygamy next, based on prior arguments, and the courts decision and wording.

[red state]

I don't mind any of the above - its simply "marriage" I have an issue with. It was only 10 short years ago when the gay folks only wanted civil unions, to be granted the same rights as others in America. And then that quickly changed to overtaking a traditional custom that has been around forever. If they want to be together, that's great. Let them love, do all of the same things, and GIVE THEM all the benefits and protections. That is EXACTLY what they and their supporters wanted not that long ago.

Yep, that and what I wrote yesterday to AT and WL.

THEY liberals & homosexuals will NOT stop till we are defenseless and at their TOTAL control/whims. They strive for this partly because they want everyone else and every normal person to accept their insanity, stupidity and perversions. We shall see what comes of this but, like TYR, I see a big ole FAT "told ya so" just around the corner.

[Max R.]

Because it's changing what marriage is and has always been. If you feel differently, I can respect that, but it's not going to change my feelings. I entered into a sacred tradition, of which the definition was just changed. Personally, I think that matters.

And why does it matter? It took all of about an hour after the decision and now several groups have already come out with talk about polygamy next, based on prior arguments, and the courts decision and wording.

How is it changing marriage? How is your sacred tradition changed? Aren't you still married to your wife before God?

As for polygamy, it's in the Bible. How could it be wrong?

[red state]

Because it's changing what marriage is and has always been. If you feel differently, I can respect that, but it's not going to change my feelings. I entered into a sacred tradition, of which the definition was just changed. Personally, I think that matters.

And why does it matter? It took all of about an hour after the decision and now several groups have already come out with talk about polygamy next, based on prior arguments, and the courts decision and wording.

As I've said years ago....as well as yesterday to AT and WL; it is a God Awful Pandora's Box and I am certain God is going to react GOD AWFULLY about it......possibly sooner than later. But, He is a patient God, so we shall see. In the beginning, God created JIM and JOHN....yep that'll be the next edition when they BAN the Bibles we have now.

[Max R.]

As I've said years ago....as well as yesterday to AT and WL; it is a God Awful Pandora's Box and I am certain God is going to react GOD AWFULLY about it......possibly sooner than later. But, He is a patient God, so we shall see. In the beginning, God created JIM and JOHN....yep that'll be the next edition when they BAN the Bibles we have now.
$1000 says God won't destroy 318 million people because a few gays got married.

[jimnyc]

How is it changing marriage? How is your sacred tradition changed? Aren't you still married to your wife before God?

As for polygamy, it's in the Bible. How could it be wrong?

This is my opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. I disagree with the definition being changed. I think this is bad for society. It lessens the meaning of marriage. If you disagree, I respect that, but that's my opinion. Not everything has to physically harm me, nor directly, for it to be bad for society, or for a sacred tradition/ritual.

[Max R.]

Upholding the Constitution of the United States of America is never "bad for society".

What is bad for our society is to mix Church and State. The Founders chose to keep those separate for a good reason.

[red state]

$1000 says God won't destroy 318 million people because a few gays got married.

From my standpoint.....He may have already done just that from our YEARS of allowing this and that. Remember that death comes quickly but it also comes as a slow, prolonged suffering where those dying PRAY for death to come quickly (but it doesn't). This Nation has been dying for a LONG, Long, long time and it isn't hard to see (for some). That same "SOME" sees no threat from other discussions of concern here but those topics are being proven as well. Some folks simply have to be hit by a MAC truck loudly blowing its horn before they actually see it coming.....others heard the horn from the mountain of metal miles down the road. Not a difficult thing to do or something requiring a degree in rocket science.

[Max R.]

From my standpoint.....He may have already done just that from our YEARS of allowing this and that. Remember that death comes quickly but it also comes as a slow, prolonged suffering where those dying PRAY for death to come quickly (but it doesn't). This Nation has been dying for a LONG, Long, long time and it isn't hard to see (for some). That same "SOME" sees no threat from other discussions of concern here but those topics are being proven as well. Some folks simply have to be hit by a MAC truck loudly blowing its horn before they actually see it coming.....others heard the horn from the mountain of metal miles down the road. Not a difficult thing to do or something requiring a degree in rocket science.

God and I are on pretty good terms. I do as I please and, if I f*ck up, I get smacked in the back of the head with a metaphorical "stop that".

My belief that God is all powerful, all loving and all merciful remains firm.

[jimnyc]

Upholding the Constitution of the United States of America is never "bad for society".

What is bad for our society is to mix Church and State. The Founders chose to keep those separate for a good reason.

I agree with the other justices.

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

Roberts said gay marriage supporters should celebrate, but don’t celebrate the Constitution.

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts wrote.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,” Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

[Larrymc]

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle of hate. Maybe God doesn't like his word being twisted, From Love The Sinner Hate The Sin, To if you hate the sin you must hate the sinner, or because we are called to love one another we must ignore sin when its done under the guise of love ??

[aboutime]

How bout this. Let's all stop whining, complaining, and worrying about something NONE OF US here, can change, or honestly do anything about?

The SCOTUS handed down their decisions. The gay community is happy. NOW...let it go!

There are far more important things taking place around the world than all of us worrying about whether two men, or two women are gonna get married.

Look at how many members of this forum have already admitted..they have been married several times.

All it says is. Some people get married and stay married, while others can't stay with the same partner.

Just watch. The same thing is gonna start happening to GAY MARRIAGES too!

We are all SINNERS...some people just hide it better.

[DragonStryk72]

How bout this. Let's all stop whining, complaining, and worrying about something NONE OF US here, can change, or honestly do anything about?

The SCOTUS handed down their decisions. The gay community is happy. NOW...let it go!

There are far more important things taking place around the world than all of us worrying about whether two men, or two women are gonna get married.

Look at how many members of this forum have already admitted..they have been married several times.

All it says is. Some people get married and stay married, while others can't stay with the same partner.

Just watch. The same thing is gonna start happening to GAY MARRIAGES too!

We are all SINNERS...some people just hide it better.

Weirdly, this can be good for us in the coming elections as long as the Republicans and other conservatives let it go. Think about it for a minute, every election they trot out things like gay marriage (That's been the perrenial favorite) in order to get de facto votes. That ship's sailed now, so they're going to have one less pile of bullshit with which to distract the populace.

[Abbey Marie]

How bout this. Let's all stop whining, complaining, and worrying about something NONE OF US here, can change, or honestly do anything about?

The SCOTUS handed down their decisions. The gay community is happy. NOW...let it go!

There are far more important things taking place around the world than all of us worrying about whether two men, or two women are gonna get married.

Look at how many members of this forum have already admitted..they have been married several times.

All it says is. Some people get married and stay married, while others can't stay with the same partner.

Just watch. The same thing is gonna start happening to GAY MARRIAGES too!

We are all SINNERS...some people just hide it better.

Well, aboutime, I'd say virtually every subject we "whine, complain and worry about" here, is a subject we cannot change. I guess following your logic, we should just all stop posting. Period.

[Abbey Marie]

Weirdly, this can be good for us in the coming elections as long as the Republicans and other conservatives let it go. Think about it for a minute, every election they trot out things like gay marriage (That's been the perrenial favorite) in order to get de facto votes. That ship's sailed now, so they're going to have one less pile of bullshit with which to distract the populace.

Ya think so? I predict they will bring up any Republican candidate's opposition to it in every debate and sound bite. They are more sure than ever that they are right and have America behind them.

[KitchenKitten99]

What is really scary about all this is that I feel like someone has combined "1984" with "Demolition Man" and decided to write laws and rule the courts by that combination.

However this all has to happen before we can take our country back.

Yet, the precedence that the judges set for 'marriage equality', stating if it is legal in one state, it is legal in all.

OK, then I don't need to apply for a Florida carry permit for my gun, nor a permit in any --meaning I will likely just let my current MN one expire and refuse to pay another $100 for one---because Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming do not require anything to carry.

So if it is legal in THOSE states, it is now legal in all, including DC, based on the logic of the SCOTUS, I can now carry freely without penalty and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Oh, what other freedoms can I now enjoy under that logic that before I could not due to being in MN and not another state?

Hell, why even have state boarders at all now? What is the point?

[KitchenKitten99]

Weirdly, this can be good for us in the coming elections as long as the Republicans and other conservatives let it go. Think about it for a minute, every election they trot out things like gay marriage (That's been the perrenial favorite) in order to get de facto votes. That ship's sailed now, so they're going to have one less pile of bullshit with which to distract the populace.

You do have a point.

If it does get brought up at all, a good strategy IMO, would be for the candidate just to clam up, say it was decided by SCOTUS, so nothing more to say. Don't shoot yourself in the foot in that matter. Then if they get elected, they can do and say as they feel etc.

Personally something doesn't smell right with the SCOTUS ruling to me... why do I get the gut-feeling they were bought off or threatened in some way?

[tailfins]

Well, aboutime, I'd say virtually every subject we "whine, complain and worry about" here, is a subject we cannot change. I guess following your logic, we should just all stop posting. Period.

How about meeting half-way and apply the same standard to Islam? If you REALLY want to change people falling for apostate religions, Jack Chick's leaflets are very affordable:

Regarding Salvation:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Basic%20Gospel

Regarding Islam:
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/

Regarding Mormonism:
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/mormonism/

Regarding Jehovah's Witness:
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/jw/

Regarding Catholicism:
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/

Regarding Apostate (non-KJV) Bibles:
http://www.chick.com/whykjv/

[Abbey Marie]

God spoke in English? Interesting. Also, what else in Leviticus is null today?

1. Uh, you see, the Bible has been translated into English, and this board requires we post in English. Would you prefer the post to be in in Aramaic? Greek?

2. There are references to homosexuality in the New testament also.

[revelarts]

"It’s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins"
NYTIMES OP ED (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?_r=0)
"....Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”

Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them...."They won't be happy until we all AGREE with their opinion on homosexuality.
freedom of religion doesn't count here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. Uh, you see, the Bible has been translated into English, and this board requires we post in English. Would you prefer the post to be in in Aramaic? Greek?

2. There are references to homosexuality in the New testament also.

Two great points you made. Many want to use the bible as out of context as possible to try to negate God's Holy word.
Truth is nothing ever can negate God's word or prove him to be wrong.

Many try, some even extremely clever try , but ALL fail..-Tyr

[Drummond]

What is really scary about all this is that I feel like someone has combined "1984" with "Demolition Man" and decided to write laws and rule the courts by that combination.

However this all has to happen before we can take our country back.

Yet, the precedence that the judges set for 'marriage equality', stating if it is legal in one state, it is legal in all.

OK, then I don't need to apply for a Florida carry permit for my gun, nor a permit in any --meaning I will likely just let my current MN one expire and refuse to pay another $100 for one---because Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming do not require anything to carry.

So if it is legal in THOSE states, it is now legal in all, including DC, based on the logic of the SCOTUS, I can now carry freely without penalty and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Oh, what other freedoms can I now enjoy under that logic that before I could not due to being in MN and not another state?

Hell, why even have state boarders at all now? What is the point?

On that last sentence ... I've a funny feeling that, if Obama and his mob felt they could get away with it, they'd be pushing that very argument just as far as possible.

After all ... get rid of State tiers of Governmental control, and what Government does that leave you with ?

Any good Jackboot sales on the horizon ? Free Swastikas from street corner vendors ?

[Olivia]

I disagree with what you see as equal protection, it's that simple, but no biggie. We've already done this dance too many times. It's done and over, and they made the decision, so now it's law and to abide by. I can deal with that. But the country is still currently swirling around the shitter and this just sped up the swirling.



Nope! The States who still believe marriage is between one man one woman are simply going to stop issuing marriage license. They are getting out of the marriage business. Mississippi is the first.

[indago]

Nope! The States who still believe marriage is between one man one woman are simply going to stop issuing marriage license. They are getting out of the marriage business. Mississippi is the first.

Yes, if the feds want to stick their nose into the marriage business, then let them issue marriage licenses, divorces, custody hearings, etc. Those who want to get married can try to find a federal courthouse.

[revelarts]

new testament

Romans 6
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!
We are those who have died to sin;how can we live in it any longer?...
....15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!


1 Corinthians 6
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

---------------

[revelarts]

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r124/Loralei_01/loralei_01/theo5_zpsuxsytmoe.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

new testament

Romans 6
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!
We are those who have died to sin;how can we live in it any longer?...
....15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!


1 Corinthians 6
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

---------------



Bravo!!!!! :clap:--Tyr

[KitchenKitten99]

I have been asked about the whole thing and why I am not making my FB profile pic with the rainbow overlay.

I say that if you take the actual subject matter out of both the LBGT and the ACA rulings...there is ZERO to celebrate. There is no victory.

States have lost the right to govern themselves and now we are on the verge of what will be the first modern civil war. Sucks, but it has to happen for something to give.

The shootings, confederate battle flag issue, targeting Christianity, government tyranny in the private business sector... things are getting worse. They have to get worse before they get better though.

[red state]

Well, aboutime, I'd say virtually every subject we "whine, complain and worry about" here, is a subject we cannot change. I guess following your logic, we should just all stop posting. Period.


Evil prevails when good men (or women) do nothing, say nothing and simply sing their lil' tune of "Tout ce qu'il sera, sera." NOT ME.....I, like others do not accept such things and like Texas, I doubt very seriously we'll go down without a fight when they come to force our pastors to perform ceremonies that are an abominations and perversions.

Yeah, the way I see it, those singin' the "Tout ce qu'il sera, sera." tune are the ones whining. Good post ABBEY....and excellent logic by the way.

[red state]

1. Uh, you see, the Bible has been translated into English, and this board requires we post in English. Would you prefer the post to be in in Aramaic? Greek?

2. There are references to homosexuality in the New testament also.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Abbey again. SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A FEW OF THESE:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: AND A FEW MORE WON'T HURT:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Abbey Marie]

$1000 says God won't destroy 318 million people because a few gays got married.

Lol, He won't have to- we are destroying ourselves.

[aboutime]

Well, aboutime, I'd say virtually every subject we "whine, complain and worry about" here, is a subject we cannot change. I guess following your logic, we should just all stop posting. Period.


Forgive me for the way I said it Abbey. I am fully aware of virtually every subject being the brunt of the whining here. I disagreed with the SCOTUS like most everyone else here. But...how long can we all kick a DEAD HORSE, when there are other subjects we MAY have some control over?

Honestly speaking here. What actions can any of us take RIGHT NOW, TODAY, to change what SCOTUS has done with their last two rulings? Sure, we can complain. But doesn't it get tiring, and seemingly useless to do so...knowing..Realistically, what they did is DONE?

Same as all of us have been complaining, and whining about Obama since he took office. And..WHAT have any of US...done, or what can we do...to change that?
That's all I wanted to say.

[Abbey Marie]

Forgive me for the way I said it Abbey. I am fully aware of virtually every subject being the brunt of the whining here. I disagreed with the SCOTUS like most everyone else here. But...how long can we all kick a DEAD HORSE, when there are other subjects we MAY have some control over?

Honestly speaking here. What actions can any of us take RIGHT NOW, TODAY, to change what SCOTUS has done with their last two rulings? Sure, we can complain. But doesn't it get tiring, and seemingly useless to do so...knowing..Realistically, what they did is DONE?

Same as all of us have been complaining, and whining about Obama since he took office. And..WHAT have any of US...done, or what can we do...to change that?
That's all I wanted to say.

I guess I don't think it's a dead horse or whining, if we discuss such a lightning-rod ruling the day of and the day after it came down. Or even a week later. It is a political discussion board. What else would you have us do here?

[aboutime]

I guess I don't think it's a dead horse or whining, if we discuss such a lightning-rod ruling the day of and the day after it came down. Or even a week later. It is a political discussion board. What else would you have us do here?


Doesn't really matter what I want. It's just so tiring, constantly reading, and hearing the same things, over, and over again. Much like all the fuss over Micheal Jackson's Death, the Martin shooting, Ferguson, and Baltimore. And...of course. Obama. I've been complaining, and whining about him since he took office, like everyone else. But...how many times, and how many ways can we all say THE SAME THING over, and over again?

I know. I don't have to read it. What else can you do? Other than looking at blank pages?:laugh:

[indago]

Forgive me for the way I said it Abbey. I am fully aware of virtually every subject being the brunt of the whining here. I disagreed with the SCOTUS like most everyone else here. But...how long can we all kick a DEAD HORSE, when there are other subjects we MAY have some control over?

Honestly speaking here. What actions can any of us take RIGHT NOW, TODAY, to change what SCOTUS has done with their last two rulings? Sure, we can complain. But doesn't it get tiring, and seemingly useless to do so...knowing..Realistically, what they did is DONE?

Same as all of us have been complaining, and whining about Obama since he took office. And..WHAT have any of US...done, or what can we do...to change that?
That's all I wanted to say.

We can come up with a plan to isolate faggots from society, like the lepers, so that they don't contaminate the population.

[gabosaurus]

The annual SF Pride parade is currently under way. You can watch it live if you have the Livestream app. :cool:

Today's parade is the largest in the city's history. It has a startling number of corporate sponsor, including Chipolte, Virgin America, Visa, Bank of America, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Apple, Budweiser and Hawaiian Airlines.
I was surprised at some of the floats. There was a Gay Nation of Israel, Gays of the South (with a rainbow Confederate flag), Wal-Mart, even the Boy Scouts of America.

It is what you make of it.

[Perianne]

The annual SF Pride parade is currently under way. You can watch it live if you have the Livestream app. :cool:

Today's parade is the largest in the city's history. It has a startling number of corporate sponsor, including Chipolte, Virgin America, Visa, Bank of America, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Apple, Budweiser and Hawaiian Airlines.
I was surprised at some of the floats. There was a Gay Nation of Israel, Gays of the South (with a rainbow Confederate flag), Wal-Mart, even the Boy Scouts of America.

It is what you make of it.

There are inferiors everywhere.

[gabosaurus]

God is the lone superior being. Everyone else is equally inferior.

[Balu]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Abbey again.SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A FEW OF THESE:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: AND A FEW MORE WON'T HURT:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I will assist you with Great Pleasure, should it be enough. :clap:

[aboutime]

The annual SF Pride parade is currently under way. You can watch it live if you have the Livestream app. :cool:

Today's parade is the largest in the city's history. It has a startling number of corporate sponsor, including Chipolte, Virgin America, Visa, Bank of America, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Apple, Budweiser and Hawaiian Airlines.
I was surprised at some of the floats. There was a Gay Nation of Israel, Gays of the South (with a rainbow Confederate flag), Wal-Mart, even the Boy Scouts of America.

It is what you make of it.


gabby. MONEY TALKS, and those sponsors know where, and how to get people...even Gays, to spend MONEY. No surprise with any that you listed. And, you forgot DISNEY. Where LIFE IS HAPPY ALL THE TIME, marching down Main Street....Where boys hug, and kiss boys for MICKEY.

[Max R.]

Because it's changing what marriage is and has always been. If you feel differently, I can respect that, but it's not going to change my feelings. I entered into a sacred tradition, of which the definition was just changed. Personally, I think that matters.

And why does it matter? It took all of about an hour after the decision and now several groups have already come out with talk about polygamy next, based on prior arguments, and the courts decision and wording.

Obviously we're all allowed our own feelings. As far as our government is concerned, this is strictly a matter of law, not religion, popular opinion nor personal feelings. I see little legal difference between this and mixed races marrying, an equally highly controversial topic in it's time. It wasn't that long ago that Bob Jones University had banned mixed race dating. People are free to feel and believe as they want. What they are not free to do is dictate to others how they must live, think, believe or be subject to double-standards such as Affirmative Action or gay marriage bans. It's very important that our government treat all citizens equally and that our laws are applied equally.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html
The school had justified its ban on interracial dating by saying that God created people differently for a reason.George W. Bush spoke at the school prior to South Carolina's primary. Although other candidates have spoken at BJU over the years without incident, the appearance by Bush was portrayed by political foe John McCain as an endorsement of the school's extreme beliefs, including its prohibition on interracial dating and its anti-Catholic views. Bush subsequently made it clear that he does not share the school's controversial views, and apologized for missing an opportunity to speak against bigotry during his visit to BJU

[Perianne]

God is the lone superior being. Everyone else is equally inferior.

Compared to God, yes. But we are not all equally inferior compared to each other.

[Max R.]

We can come up with a plan to isolate faggots from society, like the lepers, so that they don't contaminate the population.
It's been tried with Jews, blacks, Native Americans, Japanese and Germans (the latter during WWII). None passed the Constitutional test.

[Max R.]

Lol, He won't have to- we are destroying ourselves.
We've been doing that for over 2000 years. Over two centuries just on this side of the Atlantic alone. Human beings are enormously inefficient. You'd think we'd get it done by now. We came close to destroying ourselves in the 1960s with nuclear fire, but we even screwed that one up. I had my bags packed and everything for over a decade waiting for the end of world but it turned out to be a total waste of time.

http://media.giphy.com/media/urp8cVywl1Sk8/giphy.gif

[Max R.]

Compared to God, yes. But we are not all equally inferior compared to each other.
Agreed. Please define the qualities which make some people superior and some inferior.

[Perianne]

We've been doing that for over 2000 years. Over two centuries just on this side of the Atlantic alone. Human beings are enormously inefficient. You'd think we'd get it done by now. We came close to destroying ourselves in the 1960s with nuclear fire, but we even screwed that one up. I had my bags packed and everything for over a decade waiting for the end of world but it turned out to be a total waste of time.



Max, but you were ready in case things went bad. Bravo to you.

[Perianne]

Agreed. Please define the qualities which make some people superior and some inferior.

Perverts, rapists, murderers, thieves....people of bad quality. These people can be of any race.

[jimnyc]

Agreed. Please define the qualities which make some people superior and some inferior.

I think people that bust their asses to get ahead in life are certainly superior to folks who sit back and abuse the system and collect welfare and other handouts. They are inferior by choice.

[Perianne]

I think people that bust their asses to get ahead in life are certainly superior to folks who sit back and abuse the system and collect welfare and other handouts. They are inferior by choice.

Jim, you are genius with that definition. I think I love you. :)

[jimnyc]

Jim, you are genius with that definition. I think I love you. :)

Oh my. Can I see the boobies then?

"I kid, I kid" ---- Triumph, the insult comic dog :)

[Max R.]

I think people that bust their asses to get ahead in life are certainly superior to folks who sit back and abuse the system and collect welfare and other handouts. They are inferior by choice.
Agreed, although not always by choice. Some people are just naturally weak physically and/or mentally. My brother-in-law is such a person; he not only had adult-onset schizophrenia but when he when he was in his 30s, something major broke in his head and he ended up in the hospital with the mind of a 3 year old. My wife took care of her brother and, largely due to her efforts, helped him recover to about the level of a 14 year old. Nice guy,but even my wife can't live with him. He's in a boarding-type house we own and my wife runs. Full disability of about $700/month plus Texas covers his meds, probably about another $300/month worth of benefits.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

<tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">
Welfare Statistics



Total number of Americans on welfare
11,400,000


Total number of Americans on food stamps (http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/)
41,700,000


Total number of Americans on unemployment (http://www.statisticbrain.com/unemployment-rate-by-year/) insurance
10,200,000


Percent of the US population on welfare
4.1 %


Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment)
$131.9 billion


Welfare Demographics



Percent of recipients who are white
38.8 %


Percent of recipients who are black
39.8 %


Percent of recipients who are Hispanic
15.7 %


Percent of recipients who are Asian
2.4 %


Percent of recipients who are Other
3.3 %

</tbody>

[jimnyc]

Agreed, although not always by choice. Some people are just naturally weak physically and/or mentally. My brother-in-law is such a person; he not only had adult-onset schizophrenia but when he when he was in his 30s, something major broke in his head and he ended up in the hospital with the mind of a 3 year old. My wife took care of her brother and, largely due to her efforts, helped him recover to about the level of a 14 year old. Nice guy,but even my wife can't live with him. He's in a boarding-type house we own and my wife runs. Full disability of about $700/month plus Texas covers his meds, probably about another $300/month worth of benefits.

Those folks I don't count, certainly not your BIL. I'm speaking of folks that DON'T want jobs and sit back and collect various things as a preference to working. There are many, many folks on welfare and disability due to no fault of their own. Many eventually get back on their feet. Unfortunately, many cannot. Then there are the many that abuse the various systems, and that's the folks I reference.

[Max R.]

Perverts, rapists, murderers, thieves....people of bad quality. These people can be of any race.
Agreed on criminals, although I'd draw a difference between a person who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family and a Wall Street suit who cons people out of their savings for a sham investment.

Perversion is always an interesting topic. It wasn't that long ago that anything other than the Missionary position was considered a perversion. Cunnilingus and fellatio between a husband and wife were illegal as sodomy. I've never met a woman who considered cunnilingus a perversion.

[Max R.]

Those folks I don't count, certainly not your BIL. I'm speaking of folks that DON'T want jobs and sit back and collect various things as a preference to working. There are many, many folks on welfare and disability due to no fault of their own. Many eventually get back on their feet. Unfortunately, many cannot. Then there are the many that abuse the various systems, and that's the folks I reference.
Agreed. There are always going to be people who are weak. The good news is that we've changed our laws to minimize such mooching off of society, but even then some will try to take advantage of others.

[fj1200]

There's a lot of talk about a Constitution Amendment. What ticks me off is the Supremes just walked all over WE THE PEOPLES say in this and also stepped over the STATE RIGHTS. so we'll see I guess

Why do the people get to override the Constitution?

[tailfins]

Why do the people get to override the Constitution?

Your question has multiple facets:

One is via the amendment process. The other is political permission to ignore the Constitution.

[fj1200]

Maybe God doesn't like his words being twisted into a vehicle to justify sin either.
We should be careful when we try to please men instead of God.
When we try to go with cultural trends rather than the clear teachings of God.

if we read what's there in plain language there's no mystry that homosexuality is sin.
you can no more make it morally right by making it legal than you can make abortion, kidnapping or stealing morally right by legalizing it.

it was sin yesterday and it will still be sin tommorrow.

Hmm, I can agree with much of what you say except that you are still working under the premise of homosexuality as sin. I disagree with that because there is no "plain language" when you read the original Greek. That a translator created plain language, or tried, may not be arguable but you know that there are countless translations and if anything were plain language then we would have only one. Can you point to commentaries that agree with your view? Yes. Can I point to commentaries that agree with my view? Yes. Will there be marriages in churches? You bet and they won't be forced. I think the Presbyterians have already granted that they will perform them.

But this avoids the overall question of the thread and that we do not make laws based on religious requirements.

[Perianne]

Hmm, I can agree with much of what you say except that you are still working under the premise of homosexuality as sin. I disagree with that because there is no "plain language" when you read the original Greek. That a translator created plain language, or tried, may not be arguable but you know that there are countless translations and if anything were plain language then we would have only one. Can you point to commentaries that agree with your view? Yes. Can I point to commentaries that agree with my view? Yes. Will there be marriages in churches? You bet and they won't be forced. I think the Presbyterians have already granted that they will perform them.

But this avoids the overall question of the thread and that we do not make laws based on religious requirements.

Does not nature and common sense tell you that homosexuality is an abomination?

[fj1200]

Ya think so? I predict they will bring up any Republican candidate's opposition to it in every debate and sound bite. They are more sure than ever that they are right and have America behind them.

To which they should reply, "Decided law, let's move on."

[fj1200]

Maybe God doesn't like his word being twisted, From Love The Sinner Hate The Sin, To if you hate the sin you must hate the sinner, or because we are called to love one another we must ignore sin when its done under the guise of love ??

Two points: 1. Your premise of what is sin. 2. Your premise of legislating by religious law. :cough: Sharia :cough:

[red state]

Does not nature and common sense tell you that homosexuality is an abomination?

Or the scriptures provide in this or other threads..............with comfomation that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin (and most definitely NOT support it). This will end up being almost like forcing one to have a gun, tobacco or alcohol in their homes and/or in their churches. Bottom line: even if we allowed or had gone along with the perversion of homosexual marriage (and even relationships, which we were already conditioned to) THEY will not stop there. THEY, including the one you were responding to has NO common sense or enough intelligence to debate with. You may argue with a fence post but you'll NEVER debate with one......like a fence post, there's no brain activity and THEY certainly ignore facts presented to THEM.

[Balu]

Why do the people get to override the Constitution?
I wonder why those in the USA who prefer missionary position do not want to struggle for their Human Rights against all the others, and NEVER organize demonstrations?!
This is your ommitment, my American Partners. (Looking from Moscow Propaganda issue.)

[fj1200]

1. Uh, you see, the Bible has been translated into English, and this board requires we post in English. Would you prefer the post to be in in Aramaic? Greek?

2. There are references to homosexuality in the New testament also.

1. I don't think Jim would be opposed if Paul's exact words were quoted on this board, I don't think he was fluent in English. Are you proposing that every translation is perfect and correct and that every English translation is errorless?

2. Are there? Greek please with special attention to arsenokoites (http://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/arsenokoites.html) and malakos (http://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/malakos.html).


Two great points you made. Many want to use the bible as out of context as possible to try to negate God's Holy word.
Truth is nothing ever can negate God's word or prove him to be wrong.

Many try, some even extremely clever try , but ALL fail..-Tyr

Actually I believe the "out of context" folks are those who read only Romans 1:26-27, for example.

[fj1200]

Does not nature and common sense tell you that homosexuality is an abomination?

Nature and common sense tell me that each of us is created with differences. But the Constitution was the basis for the SCOTUS decision.

[fj1200]

THEY, including the one you were responding to has NO common sense or enough intelligence to debate with.

And it'll be my fault when I tell you that you couldn't debate your way out of a wet-paper bag. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Nature and common sense tell me that each of us is created with differences. But the Constitution was the basis for the SCOTUS decision.

If you agree with it, of course. A few other supreme court justices pointed out that the constitution had nothing to do with it. While it's now official, I still agree 100% with the minority on the bench. I think Scalia said it best when he referred to a fortune cookie, and the words Kennedy claims not even being there.

[gabosaurus]

Compared to God, yes. But we are not all equally inferior compared to each other.

God created ALL of us in his own image.
Our Father said "I am the God of all people." He did not note any exceptions.
Rich, poor, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu -- we are all God's children. No one is superior or inferior to anyone.

My opinion on gay marriage is -- why does it bother you? I believe in God the Father Almighty, but it doesn't offend me that some people do not. I am more offended by guys with trophy wives. Not to mention deadbeat dads, drunks who still have driver's licenses and people who kill animals for sport.
Truth is, it's not my job to preach to people. Government wastes too much time legislating morality.

[fj1200]

If you agree with it, of course. A few other supreme court justices pointed out that the constitution had nothing to do with it. While it's now official, I still agree 100% with the minority on the bench. I think Scalia said it best when he referred to a fortune cookie, and the words Kennedy claims not even being there.

Agree with them all you like but to win the case you'd have to argue how it was not an equal protection issue. I think it would be great if the states were more supreme but government decided to make policy based on marriage and that marriage privilege is not equally granted.

[jimnyc]

Agree with them all you like but to win the case you'd have to argue how it was not an equal protection issue. I think it would be great if the states were more supreme but government decided to make policy based on marriage and that marriage privilege is not equally granted.

Your opinion of course, and I would reply with Scalia's words.

“If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag,” Scalia wrote in a footnote. “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of [legendary former Chief Justice] John Marshall and [former Justice] Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

“Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.”

---

“Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. With each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to them ... we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence,” Scalia wrote.

[KitchenKitten99]

Agree with them all you like but to win the case you'd have to argue how it was not an equal protection issue. I think it would be great if the states were more supreme but government decided to make policy based on marriage and that marriage privilege is not equally granted.

It is not an equal protection issue because marriage is a social status change, not "Life, Liberty, and Property".

The federal government does not have any say in marriage definition because the 10th Amendment plainly states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So the issue must be left to the people and the States. Therefore the SCOTUS ruling is overreaching.

[fj1200]

Your opinion of course, and I would reply with Scalia's words.

“If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag,” Scalia wrote in a footnote. “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of [legendary former Chief Justice] John Marshall and [former Justice] Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

“Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.”

---

“Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. With each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to them ... we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence,” Scalia wrote.

Yes, yes, of course, my opinion. :rolleyes: But this didn't happen Friday it's been happening over decades.

[fj1200]

It is not an equal protection issue because marriage is a social status change, not "Life, Liberty, and Property".

The federal government does not have any say in marriage definition because the 10th Amendment plainly states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So the issue must be left to the people and the States. Therefore the SCOTUS ruling is overreaching.

Incorrect. It's an equal protection issue because the Federal Government and various states made laws based upon a definition of a relationship and granted privileges thereof where not all citizens were provided equal access. I'll be the first to line up with you to have the "marriage" and all it's benefits stricken from the Federal Register.

You can quote the 10th all day but it's practically meaningless, unfortunately, in this day and age.

[KitchenKitten99]

Incorrect. It's an equal protection issue because the Federal Government and various states made laws based upon a definition of a relationship and granted privileges thereof where not all citizens were provided equal access. I'll be the first to line up with you to have the "marriage" and all it's benefits stricken from the Federal Register.

You can quote the 10th all day but it's practically meaningless, unfortunately, in this day and age.

Again you are wrong.

A gay man in a state with a ban on same-sex marriage can STILL GET MARRIED...to the person of his choosing of opposite sex (and not one that 'identifies' as one, but genetically chromosome-wise).

The applications for a marriage license in those same states do not have any kind of litmus test to see if you are actually straight and not gay.

Therefore, the gay man still has equal opportunity and rights because a straight man in those states has no more right to marry another man than the gay man does.

This seems to escape those that say 'equal rights'.

Before same sex marriages being legal here in MN, I had the same rights as my lesbian friend Christa. I couldn't marry another woman and neither could she. If she WANTED just the benefits, why not find a gay man or some other male who wanted those same financial benefits and work together on it? I mean, lots of marriages used to be arranged this way because of family status and business, most times not 'love', which is an intangible emotion, not a legal platform.

See? Equal protection and benefits were already available. It was just pushed to legalize emotion and intangible feelings, not actually create anything 'equal'.

[jimnyc]

Another angle, and this time I agree with Rand.

---

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

Rest here - http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

[fj1200]

Again you are wrong.

...

See? Equal protection and benefits were already available. It was just pushed to legalize emotion and intangible feelings, not actually create anything 'equal'.

I'm the only one here with a SCOTUS decision on my side. :poke: Your argument is a weak one IMO as it's a government mandating a particular behavior on the part of its citizens; Definitely not a liberty argument. Made even weaker by the various states that allowed marriage to be between two of the same gender.

[fj1200]

Another angle, and this time I agree with Rand.

---

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Good for Rand though it's an argument that should have been made long ago and not when it will be characterized as sour grapes.

[Abbey Marie]

Obviously we're all allowed our own feelings. As far as our government is concerned, this is strictly a matter of law, not religion, popular opinion nor personal feelings. I see little legal difference between this and mixed races marrying, an equally highly controversial topic in it's time. It wasn't that long ago that Bob Jones University had banned mixed race dating. People are free to feel and believe as they want. What they are not free to do is dictate to others how they must live, think, believe or be subject to double-standards such as Affirmative Action or gay marriage bans. It's very important that our government treat all citizens equally and that our laws are applied equally.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html
The school had justified its ban on interracial dating by saying that God created people differently for a reason.George W. Bush spoke at the school prior to South Carolina's primary. Although other candidates have spoken at BJU over the years without incident, the appearance by Bush was portrayed by political foe John McCain as an endorsement of the school's extreme beliefs, including its prohibition on interracial dating and its anti-Catholic views. Bush subsequently made it clear that he does not share the school's controversial views, and apologized for missing an opportunity to speak against bigotry during his visit to BJU

Given your bolded statement above, where do you stand on forcing a private baker to bake a cake for a gay ceremony? How about teaching this is normal and even to be celebrated, to young children in schools?

[Abbey Marie]

We've been doing that for over 2000 years. Over two centuries just on this side of the Atlantic alone. Human beings are enormously inefficient. You'd think we'd get it done by now. We came close to destroying ourselves in the 1960s with nuclear fire, but we even screwed that one up. I had my bags packed and everything for over a decade waiting for the end of world but it turned out to be a total waste of time.

http://media.giphy.com/media/urp8cVywl1Sk8/giphy.gif


There is a difference between being destroyed from the outside, and destroying yourself from within. While the end result in either case could be depressingly similar, one would think and hope that a nation could avoid the latter rather easily.

[Abbey Marie]

1. I don't think Jim would be opposed if Paul's exact words were quoted on this board, I don't think he was fluent in English. Are you proposing that every translation is perfect and correct and that every English translation is errorless?

2. Are there? Greek please with special attention to arsenokoites (http://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/arsenokoites.html) and malakos (http://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/malakos.html).



Actually I believe the "out of context" folks are those who read only Romans 1:26-27, for example.

1. Are you proposing that the whole Bible is erroneous? Or just the parts on the sinfulness of homosexuality? Please let us know which parts are correctly translated, and which are not.

2. If you can translate Greek to English better than the scholars who translated the Bible, please do so. You might just have a best-seller on your hands. (But don't tell Gnostic Bishop).

[Abbey Marie]

Agreed, although not always by choice. Some people are just naturally weak physically and/or mentally. My brother-in-law is such a person; he not only had adult-onset schizophrenia but when he when he was in his 30s, something major broke in his head and he ended up in the hospital with the mind of a 3 year old. My wife took care of her brother and, largely due to her efforts, helped him recover to about the level of a 14 year old. Nice guy,but even my wife can't live with him. He's in a boarding-type house we own and my wife runs. Full disability of about $700/month plus Texas covers his meds, probably about another $300/month worth of benefits.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

<tbody>




Welfare Demographics



Percent of recipients who are white
38.8 %


Percent of recipients who are black
39.8 %


Percent of recipients who are Hispanic
15.7 %


Percent of recipients who are Asian
2.4 %


Percent of recipients who are Other
3.3 %

</tbody>


These appear to be percent-of-total figures. For these numbers to be meaningful, it would seem that we first need to know what percentage each racial group is of the total population. For example if blacks represent 18% of the total US population, then getting 40% of the total welfare dollars is quite disproportionate. On the other hand, if they represent 75% of the population, 40% is maybe not so bad.

[fj1200]

1. Are you proposing that the whole Bible is erroneous? Or just the parts on the sinfulness of homosexuality? Please let us know which parts are correctly translated, and which are not.

2. If you can translate Greek to English better than the scholars who translated the Bible, please do so. YOu might just have a best-seller on your hands.

1. No. I'm just not hung up on demanding that any particular English translation is true and correct and not subject to its original. Besides much of the issue is not just in the translation but the context in which it was written. I believe it to be disingenuous to grab two verses which means one thing on their own and something completely different if read in context. We are interested in the true Word of God are we not?

2. I don't think that. There are scholars translating still today and I've linked to a couple of examples. Any comment on those?

[KitchenKitten99]

I'm the only one here with a SCOTUS decision on my side. :poke: Your argument is a weak one IMO as it's a government mandating a particular behavior on the part of its citizens; Definitely not a liberty argument. Made even weaker by the various states that allowed marriage to be between two of the same gender.


You are the only one so far that seems to think what the SCOTUS did was correct, and it is not. It is overreaching and both the ACA and gay marriage rulings were made on legal interpretation leaps that even span farther than what Evel Knevel could do.

The argument is not weak because it points on logic and reasoning points without pulling anything else into it and can be applied to any other law out there. And it is also cut & dry, nothing in between. Emotions and religion of all kinds were left out because laws in place can't (though not true anymore it seems, so I should probably say laws 'shouldn't' be) based on an emotion or anything else intangible other than the fact that two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract, no matter what the gender. Add emotions and religion to it, then it becomes more gray and that is where things get sticky.

Many marriages back in the day and even now are based on that notion of society expectations and religion dictating their life choices. Such as arranged marriages which still take place in India and the Middle East. You don't get asked on a marriage license application anywhere in the world that issues them, if you like to participate in homosexual activities, swinger-type activities, or even if you are actually in love with the person you wish to marry. Why do they not ask this? Because it is irrelevant. It is not required to get 'married'. The only time the government gets involved in that level is if there is a green card at stake.

If you take the emotion and religion parts out of marriage, essentially that is what the whole thing is: a contract agreement.

Now there are already laws defining most contract agreements and what can be done with them, are valid with certain approvals via various means. Government did not invent the concept of marriage. It was a religious act before even the establishment of a real formal oversight type government existed. People didn't need a license to be married nor any other formality other than a preacher. It is only a recent concept in the last 100 years or so that the idea you had to ask the government's permission to marry and even pay them to do so.

If that is the only wish is to be bound and recognized by the government entity, why not just form an LLP or LLC under that same notion if the state that you live in does not recognize same sex 'marriages'? It is the same thing in its' base (and actually cheaper than a marriage license in MN as I found out while forming mine for my farm). You can have the ceremony and all the pomp and circumstance you want, have technically the same rights and privileges as a married couple because the taxes are seen almost the same way. It's also cheaper to dissolve the LLP/LLC than it is to get a divorce.

The health insurance benefits and death benefits stuff no longer applies because companies have changed their policies to accommodate non-married partners and even unrelated children. Death benefits with the SSA are a little trickier but you can get them legally paid to any beneficiary with the help of a lawyer, that no one can overturn. They can challenge it but unless they want to pay out more than they would get in return from SSI, my safe prediction is most won't go that far anymore.

[fj1200]

You are the only one so far that seems to think what the SCOTUS did was correct, and it is not. It is overreaching and both the ACA and gay marriage rulings were made on legal interpretation leaps that even span farther than what Evel Knevel could do.

The argument is not weak because it points on logic and reasoning points without pulling anything else into it and can be applied to any other law out there. And it is also cut & dry, nothing in between. Emotions and religion of all kinds were left out because laws in place can't (though not true anymore it seems, so I should probably say laws 'shouldn't' be) based on an emotion or anything else intangible other than the fact that two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract, no matter what the gender. Add emotions and religion to it, then it becomes more gray and that is where things get sticky.

Many marriages back in the day and even now are based on that notion of society expectations and religion dictating their life choices. Such as arranged marriages which still take place in India and the Middle East. You don't get asked on a marriage license application anywhere in the world that issues them, if you like to participate in homosexual activities, swinger-type activities, or even if you are actually in love with the person you wish to marry. Why do they not ask this? Because it is irrelevant. It is not required to get 'married'. The only time the government gets involved in that level is if there is a green card at stake.

If you take the emotion and religion parts out of marriage, essentially that is what the whole thing is: a contract agreement.

Now there are already laws defining most contract agreements and what can be done with them, are valid with certain approvals via various means. Government did not invent the concept of marriage. It was a religious act before even the establishment of a real formal oversight type government existed. People didn't need a license to be married nor any other formality other than a preacher. It is only a recent concept in the last 100 years or so that the idea you had to ask the government's permission to marry and even pay them to do so.

If that is the only wish is to be bound and recognized by the government entity, why not just form an LLP or LLC under that same notion if the state that you live in does not recognize same sex 'marriages'? It is the same thing in its' base (and actually cheaper than a marriage license in MN as I found out while forming mine for my farm). You can have the ceremony and all the pomp and circumstance you want, have technically the same rights and privileges as a married couple because the taxes are seen almost the same way. It's also cheaper to dissolve the LLP/LLC than it is to get a divorce.

The health insurance benefits and death benefits stuff no longer applies because companies have changed their policies to accommodate non-married partners and even unrelated children. Death benefits with the SSA are a little trickier but you can get them legally paid to any beneficiary with the help of a lawyer, that no one can overturn. They can challenge it but unless they want to pay out more than they would get in return from SSI, my safe prediction is most won't go that far anymore.

As Jim keeps telling me, that is your opinion. And I'm the only one arguing it here. If you want to state that SCOTUS overreaches I won't really disagree but that's been happening for 100 years.

However, your argument borders on the marriage as contract viewpoint which I do not disagree with and have been talking about for quite some time. The bottom line however is that marriage is a contract and it's a civil contract, a civil union if you will, with nothing related to religion. The civil definition of marriage is what defines legal privileges, etc. of that union. If that definition is going to be applied it needs to be applied equally. Simple as that.

[KitchenKitten99]

As Jim keeps telling me, that is your opinion. And I'm the only one arguing it here. If you want to state that SCOTUS overreaches I won't really disagree but that's been happening for 100 years.

However, your argument borders on the marriage as contract viewpoint which I do not disagree with and have been talking about for quite some time. The bottom line however is that marriage is a contract and it's a civil contract, a civil union if you will, with nothing related to religion. The civil definition of marriage is what defines legal privileges, etc. of that union. If that definition is going to be applied it needs to be applied equally. Simple as that.

Again it has always applied equally. See the argument of no one had any more rights than others point I already made. You cannot argue it because point by point, they did not.

Straight women couldn't marry each other any more than lesbian women couldn't. Therefore, we were treated equally. The argument of 'marrying the one you love' isn't enough basis for making a ruling on something like this because love is an emotion and can change at any time. It is not a tangible legal platform to base any legislation on and why zero of any of the world's marriage licenses ask if you really are in love with the person you want to marry nor do they seek for you to prove it because there is no way to do so.

The whole premise for same-sex marriages being recognized at the state level is solely an emotional one with only testimony of emotional arguments, not necessarily tangible legal platforms. You can't legislate emotions. Well, shouldn't. The idea we have the term 'hate crime' even existing in our vocabulary attributes to the forced and illogical exception to the rule.

[KitchenKitten99]

As Jim keeps telling me, that is your opinion. And I'm the only one arguing it here. If you want to state that SCOTUS overreaches I won't really disagree but that's been happening for 100 years.



Forgot to address this point.

Just because SCOTUS has been doing it for 100 years does that mean we as the people should just lay down and take it for the next 100?

That's like saying lets just let men brutally abuse their wives and children because it has been happening for even longer.

[indago]

Forgot to address this point.

Just because SCOTUS has been doing it for 100 years does that mean we as the people should just lay down and take it for the next 100?

That's like saying lets just let men brutally abuse their wives and children because it has been happening for even longer.

This point was brought up in a court case in Michigan, which I used in a draft concerning drug testing:

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Grant Fellows, delivering the opinion of the Court in the case of People v Marxhausen, 204 Mich 559 (1919), reviewing the famous case of Entick v Carrington, in which James Otis gave his most famous speech outlining the duty of resistance to tyranny and outrage toward government's claim of a right to search and seize at will, had this to say about the aforementioned rights: "That we may better understand this provision it is well we consider some of the events leading up to its adoption. Obviously we cannot within the compass of this opinion detail at length all that preceded and finally culminated in far reaching decisions by the courts of England. Attention is directed to a foot-note which will be found in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.), beginning at page 426. It will suffice to say that a practice had grown up in England of issuing so-called writs of assistance, originally by the Star Chamber and later by the secretary of state, under color of which messengers of the king entered any and all places agreeable to themselves, searched and seized such papers and evidences as their will dictated. These writs were general in their character, described no premises and named no persons to be searched. Their justification at that time was the publication of seditious libels and the end sought the suppression of these seditious utterances. The practice of issuing and serving these writs was of long standing; and the right to issue them was unassailed for many years; indeed, this was one of the reasons assigned to sustain their validity in the case to which we shall presently refer. But Lord Camden disposed of this claim in the following language: "But still it is insisted, that there has been a general submission, and no action brought to try the right. I answer, there has been a submission of guilt and poverty to power and the terror of punishment. But it would be strange doctrine to assert that all the people of this land are bound to acknowledge that to be universal law which a few criminal booksellers have been afraid to dispute.""

[bullypulpit]

After waking up next to my wife of fifteen years, I find myself to be, in no way, enjoined to go out and get gay married. I am content to remain, quite happily and heterosexually, married to my wife. The only ones worried about it are these chuckle-heads ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/marriage-equality-opponents_n_7688154.html#comments ) and their fellow travelers. They seem to be more insecure about their own relationships and gender identity than is healthy for them.

[jimnyc]

After waking up next to my wife of fifteen years, I find myself to be, in no way, enjoined to go out and get gay married. I am content to remain, quite happily and heterosexually, married to my wife. The only ones worried about it are these chuckle-heads ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/marriage-equality-opponents_n_7688154.html#comments ) and their fellow travelers. They seem to be more insecure about their own relationships and gender identity than is healthy for them.

Still with the insecure and gender identity stuff? So some is unable to simply disagree without being labeled? You seem to take issue with the hetero crowd. You shouldn't let your bisexuality cloud your judgement. :)

[fj1200]

Again it has always applied equally. See the argument of no one had any more rights than others point I already made. You cannot argue it because point by point, they did not.

Straight women couldn't marry each other any more than lesbian women couldn't. Therefore, we were treated equally. The argument of 'marrying the one you love' isn't enough basis for making a ruling on something like this because love is an emotion and can change at any time. It is not a tangible legal platform to base any legislation on and why zero of any of the world's marriage licenses ask if you really are in love with the person you want to marry nor do they seek for you to prove it because there is no way to do so.

The whole premise for same-sex marriages being recognized at the state level is solely an emotional one with only testimony of emotional arguments, not necessarily tangible legal platforms. You can't legislate emotions. Well, shouldn't. The idea we have the term 'hate crime' even existing in our vocabulary attributes to the forced and illogical exception to the rule.

Again, I understand the argument; it's just irrelevant at this point even if it ever was. On the one hand you're advocating that two consenting adults should be able to enter into a contract (where I agree) but on the other your stating that it should only be done if it's a man and woman. Individuals are joined in this country under the governmentally defined word of "marriage" and for a gay couple to enter into an LLP does absolutely nothing for inheritance rights, Social Security, adoption, etc.


The argument is not weak because it points on logic and reasoning points without pulling anything else into it and can be applied to any other law out there. And it is also cut & dry, nothing in between. Emotions and religion of all kinds were left out because laws in place can't (though not true anymore it seems, so I should probably say laws 'shouldn't' be) based on an emotion or anything else intangible other than the fact that two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract, no matter what the gender. Add emotions and religion to it, then it becomes more gray and that is where things get sticky.

I say take emotion and religion out of a state-granted privilege and call every "marriage" a civil union for governmental purposes.

[Jeff]

Still with the insecure and gender identity stuff? So some is unable to simply disagree without being labeled? You seem to take issue with the hetero crowd. You shouldn't let your bisexuality cloud your judgement. :)

Bully is Bi, hmmm I always had my suspicions. :laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

Forgot to address this point.

Just because SCOTUS has been doing it for 100 years does that mean we as the people should just lay down and take it for the next 100?

That's like saying lets just let men brutally abuse their wives and children because it has been happening for even longer.

I shouldn't have said SCOTUS has been doing it for 100 years but the foundations for them to do so has been 100+ years in the making. Justices are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate which formerly represented the State legislatures.


New Deal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) legislation is another example of expanding federal regulation overruling the state legislatures promoting their local state interests in coal, oil, corn and cotton.[46] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-46) Ure agrees, saying that not only is each Senator now free to ignore his state's interests, Senators "have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty".[47] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-47) Over the first half of the 20th century, with a popularly elected Senate confirming nominations, both Republican and Democratic, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights), overturning state laws whenever they harmed individual state citizens.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#cite_note-48)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution

footnote 48:

Kochan (2003) p.1053 Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Law_Review), analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a "statistically significant difference" in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold. Besides the Seventeenth Amendment, decline in the influence of the states also followed economic changes. Zywicki observes that interest groups of all kinds began to focus efforts on the federal government, as national issues could not be directed by influencing only a few state legislatures of with Senators of the most seniority chairing the major committees. He attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the U.S. economy on an interstate, national level. See Zywicki (1997) p.215. Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_Group) to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate's electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government. See Ure (2007) p.293

The fundamentals of Senate representation are no longer in effect.

[jimnyc]

Bully is Bi, hmmm I always had my suspicions. :laugh::laugh:

It's simply based off of his own logic.

Hey, Bully, in case you do come back to defend your sexuality.... Why haven't you come here to complain about executive orders in the past 7 years? I KNOW how much you hate them. Did you change your stance on them?

[Jeff]

It's simply based off of his own logic.

Hey, Bully, in case you do come back to defend your sexuality.... Why haven't you come here to complain about executive orders in the past 7 years? I KNOW how much you hate them. Did you change your stance on them?

Yes it is funny to see some folks that complained like hell when Bush did things, but now that Obama does them, well it is for the good of the country. :rolleyes:

[KitchenKitten99]

Again, I understand the argument; it's just irrelevant at this point even if it ever was. On the one hand you're advocating that two consenting adults should be able to enter into a contract (where I agree) but on the other your stating that it should only be done if it's a man and woman. Individuals are joined in this country under the governmentally defined word of "marriage" and for a gay couple to enter into an LLP does absolutely nothing for inheritance rights, Social Security, adoption, etc.



I say take emotion and religion out of a state-granted privilege and call every "marriage" a civil union for governmental purposes.

No the argument was on their sole campaign for equality. If that is the main 'argument' it was and technically still is invalid. They never had unequal rights, but that is what they would lead you to believe because rather than seeing their argument as solely emotional, not legal, they were able to better pull people in because no one wants to see a grown gay man have a tantrum because he didn't get his way. Although Christopher Guest does a funny impression of it...

Obviously at this point it is not even a topic of discussion any longer.

I agree that two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract regardless of sex. However that is not itself what the gay community wants. They want the emotional acceptance of the general public as well as government. Legal acceptance isn't enough or they would have just stopped at civil union and we wouldn't have had this discussion at all.

[Max R.]

Does not nature and common sense tell you that homosexuality is an abomination?

Anytime human love or lust is involved, common sense goes out the window. It's like the joke quoted below.

As for nature, homosexuality has been around since the invention of writing. Correlation? I think not since it also exists in the animal kingdom. Is it an evolutionary dead end? Yes. Is it abnormal, an anomaly or otherwise not in the mainstream of human behavior? Yes. But we're not talking about any of that, we're talking about Constitutional rights for American citizens. Which is exactly where my concern for gays begins and ends. Other than that, I don't care as long as they stay off my lawn and don't make me pay for their activities.


JOKE:
God speaks to Adam and says "I have good news and bad news, Adam."

"What's the good news, Lord?" asks Adam.

"I'm going to give you a brain so that you may be witty and entertain Eve with prose and humor. I'm also going to give you a penis so you can give her physical pleasure and children".

"Thanks, Lord! What's the bad news?"

"When I made your body I only gave you enough blood to operate one at a time.".

[Max R.]

....I agree that two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract regardless of sex. However that is not itself what the gay community wants. They want the emotional acceptance of the general public as well as government. Legal acceptance isn't enough or they would have just stopped at civil union and we wouldn't have had this discussion at all.
Civil unions don't have all the same benefits and rights as "marriage" under US law: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html
What Is a Civil Union? A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. States that have domestic partnership or civil union laws include Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois.

Of course, if Congress had pulled its collective head out of its overly broad ass and fixed Federal law, we wouldn't have had a Constitutional conflict which brings us to the present reality.

Gays can ask or even demand others accept them just like I can ask or even demand a blowjob from Heather Graham, but both are not matters of law and, therefore, won't happen.

[fj1200]

No the argument was on their sole campaign for equality. If that is the main 'argument' it was and technically still is invalid. They never had unequal rights, but that is what they would lead you to believe because rather than seeing their argument as solely emotional, not legal, they were able to better pull people in because no one wants to see a grown gay man have a tantrum because he didn't get his way. Although Christopher Guest does a funny impression of it...

Obviously at this point it is not even a topic of discussion any longer.

I agree that two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract regardless of sex. However that is not itself what the gay community wants. They want the emotional acceptance of the general public as well as government. Legal acceptance isn't enough or they would have just stopped at civil union and we wouldn't have had this discussion at all.

Despite your protestations your argument is not relevant. That would be like saying the Loving had the exact same right as you to marry a man of her own race rather than a man of her choosing. Furthermore for your argument to be valid you would have to explain the state's interest in mandating that marriage be between a man and a woman. Besides, the argument for their position is equal protection and the argument against is the 10th and the 10th is not relevant here because of Federal legislation.

As far as civil unions being acceptable they are clearly not the same equivalent as marriage in state and Federal law. I think "civil union" should be as far as the government defines relationships but that is not the reality.

[fj1200]

An interesting add on:

Ted Olson: Supreme Court never said marriage was between a man and a woman in 15 cases (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/18/ted-olson/ted-olson-supreme-court-never-said-marriage-was-be/)


There isn’t precedent for the Supreme Court justices to limit marriages to heterosexual couples only, said Olson, a Republican attorney who supports same-sex marriage and has argued 61 cases in front of the Supreme Court."

The United States Supreme Court 15 times over the last 120 years has said that ‘marriage is a fundamental right,’" Olson said.

Perkins, a fervent opponent of same-sex marriage, interrupted: "Marriage, but not same-sex marriage."

Olson continued, "Never once in any of those cases did it say that it had to be between a man and a woman. Fifteen times it said it was a matter of privacy, liberty, association, dignity and respect for the individual."

[Max R.]

An interesting add on:

Ted Olson: Supreme Court never said marriage was between a man and a woman in 15 cases (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/18/ted-olson/ted-olson-supreme-court-never-said-marriage-was-be/)
Which is why, from a Constitutional point of view, this situation was a foregone conclusion. It was only a matter of time before the right case came before SCOTUS to push it through.