Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In a few months this will all be over my little infant, so you can stop repeating what is no longer true, and isn't even true now in most of the US. What will you do then, continue to whine like a child or grow up and deal with the loss like a man?Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.
The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.
Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.
The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.
Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.
And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.
They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.
They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.
Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.
Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.
you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...
yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.
however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.
hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. yes, that is a fundamental right. A union between a man and a man is a joke, and nothing more.
The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment said:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.
They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.
Windsor v. US said:"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
And, .......................................................wait for it,................................................it doesn't.The state has no authority to dictate what constitutes a sacrament.
None.
Nada.
The state has no authority to dictate what constitutes a sacrament.
None.
Nada.
Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.
This issue has nothing to do with what goes on inside your church.The state has no authority to dictate what constitutes a sacrament.
None.
Nada.
I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...
Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.
As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.
I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...
Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.
As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.
As God's son he would have followed God's laws.
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, O men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...
Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.
As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.
As God's son he would have followed God's laws.
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, O men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
He wasn't big on following Jewish law, one of the reasons his family, and followers, thought him out of his mind at times.
I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...
Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.
As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.
As God's son he would have followed God's laws.
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, O men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...
Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.
As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.
As God's son he would have followed God's laws.
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, O men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
A celibate homosexual IS following God's laws. Homosexuality isn't a sin. Homosexual acts are.
He wasn't big on following Jewish law, one of the reasons his family, and followers, thought him out of his mind at times.
I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...
Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.
As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.
As God's son he would have followed God's laws.
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, O men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Psst...there were three Marys at the cross. His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene.
Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.
However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?
quiet, loon.
You don't want to touch it either.
Telling.
not really.
Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.
The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.
Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.
And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.
They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.
They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.
Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.
Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.
you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...
yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.
however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.
hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. yes, that is a fundamental right. A union between a man and a man is a joke, and nothing more.
there is nothing in the law that requires it to be a man and a woman. it used to require that the people be of the same race. loving got rid of those laws.
this is what I mean about you not understanding what loving said and did
In a few months this will all be over my little infant, so you can stop repeating what is no longer true, and isn't even true now in most of the US. What will you do then, continue to whine like a child or grow up and deal with the loss like a man?Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.
The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.
Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.
And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.
They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.
They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.
Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.
Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.
you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...
yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.
however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.
hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. yes, that is a fundamental right. A union between a man and a man is a joke, and nothing more.
Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.
I don't think 'venue shopping' means what you think it means. Gay marriage bans have been adjudicated at virtually every level of 6 different court districts, going all the way to the top of each district. 5 of 6 times, gay marriage bans were overturned, totally 46 different proceedings and over 75 judges.
44 times gay marriage bans lost. When 95% of all cases on a particular topic go in a specific way, that's a pretty strong indication of the weight of current precedent.
With the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And denying stays for EVERY state attempting to defend such bans.
Without exception.
So, you're going to whine like a child then...In a few months this will all be over my little infant, so you can stop repeating what is no longer true, and isn't even true now in most of the US. What will you do then, continue to whine like a child or grow up and deal with the loss like a man?As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.
The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.
Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.
And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.
They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.
They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.
Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.
Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.
you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...
yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.
however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.
hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. yes, that is a fundamental right. A union between a man and a man is a joke, and nothing more.
It will always be true whether the government admits it or not. The law and reality are often two separate things. The value of PI doesn't become 3.2 because some judge orders it.
The state has no authority to dictate what constitutes a sacrament.
None.
Nada.
Not sure I would go there since one, there were no laws then besides God's instructions, and two, Cain and Abel were fucking their younger sisters.Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.
However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?
quiet, loon.
You don't want to touch it either.
Telling.
not really.
Yes, really. You and the other ghey marriage apologists are afraid to discuss the issue because you know you look like idiots whenever you try to claim it's OK for Adam to marry Steve but not OK for Adam to marry his mother or his adult sister.
Not sure I would go there since one, there were no laws then besides God's instructions, and two, Cain and Abel were fucking their younger sisters.However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?
quiet, loon.
You don't want to touch it either.
Telling.
not really.
Yes, really. You and the other ghey marriage apologists are afraid to discuss the issue because you know you look like idiots whenever you try to claim it's OK for Adam to marry Steve but not OK for Adam to marry his mother or his adult sister.
