Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

Dear Skylar:
@IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"

NO. Personhood means legally only.

So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.

Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.

....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.

Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.

Ace has been pretty clear that he's talking about legal marriage with this statement:

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

So either Ace is speaking of the legal definition, in which my questions remain unanswered......or he's speaking of the 'spiritual definition'.

In which case do you agree that the States should be defining the 'spiritual definition' of marriage?

 

[emilynghiem]

If being gay isn't a choice, is gay marriage a choice?

Dear saveliberty:
(A) To SOME people, being gay and/or not being able to change is NOT a choice.

For OTHERS, some people CAN change and it is choice to go through that process to change (either from gay to straight or trans/bi etc etc).

(B) gay marriage is like a choice of religion.

Free exercise of religion does NOT have to EXPRESS state that it protects Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, etc. for their right to practice their beliefs.

So the choice or conviction regarding marriage does not have to be "spelled out" by govt in order to be practiced.

The problem is trying to legislate, regulate, endorse and manage "marriage and benefits" through govt, which then requires spelling out the terms.

This is why so many Constitutionalists argue that marriage, benefits, health care, and other Social Programs should NOT be run through govt. -- Because it leads to micromanaging people's personal and social choices through the federal level that requires Congress to approve funding.

Some people BELIEVE in using govt for this.
Some people DO NOT.

It even violates the beliefs of some people who are religiously oppose the "unconstitutional/unauthorized" use of govt for social programs that belong to the states or people, through charity or free market/free choice.

Two totally clashing beliefs about govt and how it should be used and what is off limits.

Why not give taxpayers a choice of which "Political Religion" to fund, by "free exercise of religion."

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

Dear Skylar:
@IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"

NO. Personhood means legally only.

So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.

Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.

....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.

Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.

Ace has been pretty clear that he's talking about legal marriage with this statement:

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

So either Ace is speaking of the legal definition, in which my questions remain unanswered......or he's speaking of the 'spiritual definition'.

In which case do you agree that the States should be defining the 'spiritual definition' of marriage?

* NO -- not unless ALL the people AGREE on marriage can govt endorse such a policy -- it would have to reflect CONSENSUS of all the people's beliefs in that state to be constitutionally equal and inclusive. Otherwise it is discrimination and the govt is imposing definitions that violate or exclude the beliefs of SOME of the public. So that's unconstitutional for govt to exclude/discriminate against anyone under that jurisdiction.

* I am agreeing with BOTH of you that the govt should NOT be defining or endorsing the "definition of marriage" because it is imposing or discriminating against people of other beliefs. The PEOPLE would have to agree; it cannot be MANDATED BY GOVT.

IndependantAce opposes Govt endorsing same sex unions as marriage.
(And I support that argument NOT to impose that through Govt because of people's religious beliefs against this.)
This is like Govt endorsing
* teaching God and Creation in schools
* right to life starting at conception, etc.
Because of members of the public who DO NOT share those beliefs, this is violating "separation of church and state."

You and I equally argue that Govt CANNOT endorse traditional marriage BUT exclude same sex marriage because that is DISCRIMINATION.

However, Skylar the solution is NOT to impose same sex marriage, either.

By the same token, NEITHER definition of marriage should be imposed. Or it's violating the beliefs of people excluded from representation, who should be equally protected.

Both sides need to consent to the laws or else they are unconstitutional by imposing beliefs in conflict with the dissenting citizens.

 

[Skylar]

This is why so many Constitutionalists argue that marriage, benefits, health care, and other Social Programs should NOT be run through govt. -- Because it leads to micromanaging people's personal and social choices through the federal level that requires Congress to approve funding.

And the 'constituionalists' would be wrong. As the government running marriage.....are the States. Read the 10th amendment on what authority the States' have. And save for certain constitutional guarantees, the authority of the State over marriage is preemptive.

Some people BELIEVE in using govt for this.
Some people DO NOT.

And the courts decided who was right. The State has the authority to regulate mariage, subject to certain constitutional guarantees.

That some disagree is legally irrelevant.

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.

What right would that be?

 

[Skylar]

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

Dear Skylar:
@IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"

NO. Personhood means legally only.

So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.

Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.

....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.

Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.

Ace has been pretty clear that he's talking about legal marriage with this statement:

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

So either Ace is speaking of the legal definition, in which my questions remain unanswered......or he's speaking of the 'spiritual definition'.

In which case do you agree that the States should be defining the 'spiritual definition' of marriage?

* NO -- not unless ALL the people AGREE on marriage can govt endorse such a policy -- it would have to reflect CONSENSUS of all the people's beliefs in that state to be constitutionally equal and inclusive.

Nope. No such consensus is necessary to enact laws. All that's necessary is a relevant majority acting in compliance with rights. You've never really understood how our system of law actually works, equating any disagreement from anyone with some legal controversy that invalidates laws.

That simply isn't the case.

Otherwise it is discrimination and the govt is imposing definitions that violate or exclude the beliefs of SOME of the public. So that's unconstitutional for govt to exclude/discriminate against anyone under that jurisdiction.

No more so than setting speed limits.

Your belief in a universal consensus is not, nor has ever been our system of laws. The relevant majority imposes their will on the minority, subject to certain constitutional guarantees.

 

[yiostheoy]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

Jesus ran around with 12 men.

There was no good reason to resurrect this thread after the SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges invoking the 14th Amendment back on 6/26/2015.

If you don't like the ruling you would need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Any amendment may be repealed. The 18th Amendment proved that.

Repealing the 14th however would be extremely difficult. Not impossible but difficult:

- all persons born or naturalized are US citizens with equal protection under the law;

- congressmen apportioned based on the population including everyone of legal voting age;

- Confederates may not be Federal elected officials;

- Federal debt is assured.



Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

 

[yiostheoy]

I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.

You must be forgetting about the 1st Amendment then, that the Federal (or State per 14th) Government(s) may not make religious laws.

Preventing same sex couples from marrying was a religious law.

Obergefell v. Hodges repealed all those laws and made future such enactments null and void.

 

[Packyderm]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Of course it isnt a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges was a tragedy...but mostly in its boldness. The Supreme Court has been crushing the states, and by extension the people, for decades. They have reached the point where they simply do not bother to hide their exercise of "raw judicial power" (Byron White) because they are dealing with a cowed (and cowardly) citizenry. In other words this group of Oligarchs does as it pleases. And liberalism pleases them most. That and power.
Though the pretense of Constitutional government had been kept up until recently they find it less necessary these days thanks to poor education,enforced federal dependence, family destruction and the success of defining deviancy down. At one time not so long ago it was pretended California had a choice for example...that the wishes of it's citizens mattered. Along came proposition 8. And along came the federal courts to overturn the will of the people. The people in state after state moved rapidly to write bans into their constitutions of a disgusting act which had never been possible in the first place. And the courts moved just as rapidly behind them to overturn the votes of the people.
As in abortion, and school prayer the unelected oligarchs disregarded not only the will of the people they rule but the Constitution as well.
Evon so the states share the blame. It is the responsibility of the governors and legislatures to defend their citizens against this sort of nonsense. And they are failing their duty. I'll leave with another quote which suggests how the real men who built this country responded to such over reaches... "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Andrew Jackson.
Get used to being ruled. Or not. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison et al chose the latter.

 

[Packyderm]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

Marriage is not a right. It is a restriction on rights.

 

[Packyderm]

I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.

You must be forgetting about the 1st Amendment then, that the Federal (or State per 14th) Government(s) may not make religious laws.

Preventing same sex couples from marrying was a religious law.

Obergefell v. Hodges repealed all those laws and made future such enactments null and void.

The first amendment does no such thing. Lets look at it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

It is called the "Establishment Clause" for a reason. Congress is forbidden to establish a national religion. It didn't forbid the states...actually the men who wrote the Constitution went home to their states and established official churches immediately in many cases. They saw no problem with it. It doesn't mention "separation" at all. That is imaginary. It doesn't mention the President nor does it mention the states or the people EXCEPT to ban Congress from legislation which PROHIBIT the people of the states from expressing their religious inclinations.
It was obviously intended to protect the states, and their citizens, from religious rulings from Washington. Not to impose Washington's religious laws on the states.

But more to the point the majority opinion in OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES did not invoke religion as a reason for overthrowing constitutional democracy did they? They used, as the brilliant Justice Scalia said, "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie". I may be wrong here but as far as I know not once does Obergefell rely on, in its ruling, the First Amendment.

When do you scummy liberals get such nonsense?

 

[WinterBorn]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Of course it isnt a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges was a tragedy...but mostly in its boldness. The Supreme Court has been crushing the states, and by extension the people, for decades. They have reached the point where they simply do not bother to hide their exercise of "raw judicial power" (Byron White) because they are dealing with a cowed (and cowardly) citizenry. In other words this group of Oligarchs does as it pleases. And liberalism pleases them most. That and power.
Though the pretense of Constitutional government had been kept up until recently they find it less necessary these days thanks to poor education,enforced federal dependence, family destruction and the success of defining deviancy down. At one time not so long ago it was pretended California had a choice for example...that the wishes of it's citizens mattered. Along came proposition 8. And along came the federal courts to overturn the will of the people. The people in state after state moved rapidly to write bans into their constitutions of a disgusting act which had never been possible in the first place. And the courts moved just as rapidly behind them to overturn the votes of the people.
As in abortion, and school prayer the unelected oligarchs disregarded not only the will of the people they rule but the Constitution as well.
Evon so the states share the blame. It is the responsibility of the governors and legislatures to defend their citizens against this sort of nonsense. And they are failing their duty. I'll leave with another quote which suggests how the real men who built this country responded to such over reaches... "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Andrew Jackson.
Get used to being ruled. Or not. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison et al chose the latter.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

I find it amusing that you mention Jefferson in the same post decrying the SCOTUS rulings on school prayer. Jefferson was most certainly not a Christian.

And to use Jackson quotes is hilarious! After the war with the British was over, Jackson jailed a senator for daring to question the ongoing marial law. When a judge ruled the senator should be released, Jackson had the judge banished from New Orleans. Andrew Jackson is NOT a man to be quoted in favor of the "average joe" or even individual rights.

 

[Packyderm]

Get your amusement where you can I suppose. I myself find it amusing that you conflate Christianity with defense of freedom.

But even so I think his religious beliefs have been misunderstood/misrepresented by irreligious liberals. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which is one of the most religious documents in history outside of papal bulls. Anyhow, we KNOW without a doubt, what his response would have been to a Supreme Court ruling that his state must marry gays. Or that kids couldn't pray in school. Or that his states abortion laws were summarily overturned. He would have shot somebody between the eyes.
He did propose a bill to disestablish the Episcopal Church as the official established church of Virginia. That bill failed in the Virginia Legislature. Not being a liberal or of a totalitarian bent Jefferson didn't run to the courts or simply ignore the law establishing the PEC. He accepted it as the will of the people.

"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots..."

Prophetic words from a man who may have entertained unorthodox ideas about Christianity but had a laser focus on the corruption of power. His fears have come to pass.

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Of course it isnt a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges was a tragedy...but mostly in its boldness. The Supreme Court has been crushing the states, and by extension the people, for decades.

So by your estimation, Interracial marriage bans should have stood? How about State gun bans?

The Supreme court defends the rights of people by limiting the power of the States when the States violate those rights. As they should since the passage of the 14th amendment. As the states have pretty regularly abused the rights of people.

They have reached the point where they simply do not bother to hide their exercise of "raw judicial power" (Byron White) because they are dealing with a cowed (and cowardly) citizenry. In other words this group of Oligarchs does as it pleases. And liberalism pleases them most. That and power.

Recognizing the right to gays is the 'group of oligarchs doing as it pleases'?

Really? You're literally arguing for the power of the States to strip people of rights......as freedom. And the court preventing the States in their attempts to strip people of rights....as tyranny.

The Court's obligation is the Supreme Law of the Land: the Constitution. When State or Federal Statutory laws conflict with the Constitution the courts have an obligation to advance the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

[Packyderm]

So by your estimation, Interracial marriage bans should have stood? How about State gun bans?

My estimation doesn't matter. What do self governing people allow to stand or fall? Isn't that the only real question? By asking this question you betray your belief in a government of men rather than of laws. And situational ethics.

The Supreme court defends the rights of people by limiting the power of the States when the States violate those rights. As they should since the passage of the 14th amendment. As the states have pretty regularly abused the rights of people.

No it doesnt. It strips them of their right to govern themselves as free citizens. And it does violence to the Constitution, our federal system of government and our history and culture.
BTW above the Supreme Court, busily "limiting the power of the states", stands the Constitution...built and crafted to limit the power of the federal governent

Recognizing the right to gays is the 'group of oligarchs doing as it pleases'?

They didn't recognize anything because it doesn't exist, didn't exist and has never existed. As admitted by the black robed social justice warriors themselves. It was invented. The majority admitted they relied on "new insight"...not the law or the Constitution or precedent. In fact they admittedly did violence to precedent, laws, custom and constitutional understanding. In their own words.

"To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question." [majority opinion OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES]

“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that haslong been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[majority opinion OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES]

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, hasdeferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[majority opinion OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES]
[/quote]

Really? You're literally arguing for the power of the States to strip people of rights......as freedom. And the court preventing the States in their attempts to strip people of rights....as tyranny.

Well meaning tyranny is still tyranny. You seem to be advocating a benign sort of dictatorship? Where people incapable of self government are explained the error of their ways and ordered to make amends and to hell with such wasteful nonsense as voting, state courts, legislatures and governments.

The Court's obligation is the Supreme Law of the Land: the Constitution. When State or Federal Statutory laws conflict with the Constitution the courts have an obligation to advance the Supreme Law of the Land.

Here is the supreme law of the land..."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."

If you see where the Constitution delegates the definition of marriage to the Federal government get back to me.

And if Constitutional and limited government don't appeal to you then by all means admire the gobbly-gook and my little pony reasoning of the supreme court by reading their decision in full. If your stomach can take it. Then do yourself a real favor and read Scalias dissent. It is brilliant.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[Skylar]

So by your estimation, Interracial marriage bans should have stood? How about State gun bans?

My estimation doesn't matter. What do self governing people allow to stand or fall? Isn't that the only real question? By asking this question you betray your belief in a government of men rather than of laws. And situational ethics.

Your version of 'self governing people' is plain old tyranny of the majority. Where a simple majority can strip any right, can grant the government any power.

Um, no. That's not our system of government nor has it ever been. The power of the government, state and federal, is limited by the rights of the people. The federal government limited by the BoR. And the States limited by the BoR under the 14th amendment. Those rights of the people cannot simply be stripped from the people under the rhetorical sock drawer of 'self governance'.

When government tramples on rights the courts have an obligation to check it. You insist that they should never do this. You're obviously wrong.

No it doesnt. It strips them of their right to govern themselves as free citizens. And it does violence to the Constitution, our federal system of government and our history and culture.

You're confusing rights with powers. What you're describing is the POWER of the government to impose itself on the people. And laughably conflating this with 'rights'. Rights are freedom FROM government. People have rights. Not governments. Not ever.

And in every instance of 'rights' you've called on.....you've described government power. Which the federal judiciary has every authority to limit when it abrogates rights.

BTW above the Supreme Court, busily "limiting the power of the states", stands the Constitution...built and crafted to limit the power of the federal government.

With the Supreme Court being the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, placing the Constitution above legislative acts that violate it. Says who?

Says Alexander Hamilton in Federalist paper 78:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

But the Federalist Papers are wrong?

Um, no. Its just you, having fallaciously equated rights with powers. They aren't the same thing. And it is your fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are that have put your view in conflict with the founders, case law and history.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Dragonlady]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

 

[Dale Smith]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

 

[Dale Smith]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.