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.
Nonsense.If they deal in interstate commerce, you keep forgetting that part.
Are you saying that someone going to Las Vegas to get married would not be legally married in their home state? Marriages are recognized across state lines. This business is engaging in the issuance of state marriage contracts.
By that rule my a gun permit in Virginia should be valid in New York city.
Hard;y surprising that someone with a gun fetish like yours would equate a simple permit to a marriage contract.
A right, is a right, is a right.
And I don't even own a gun, what I own is a dedication to the constitution as written, and a desire to see my fellow citizens allowed what it protects for them.
The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution – you owe your dedication to that jurisprudence, whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not.
And it's that case law and the courts which protect your fellow citizens from government overreach, when government seeks to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, when government seeks to deny women their right to privacy, and when government seeks to interfere with citizens' right to vote.
Moreover, although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
This, then, is the nature, essence, and process of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law. Government enacts laws at the behest of the people perceived to be necessary and proper, with the understanding that it's incumbent upon government to enact measures in good faith that comport with the Constitution and its case law, thus acknowledging and respecting the rights of the people; and when government acts in bad faith, enacting measures perceived by the people to be repugnant to the Constitution, the people are at liberty to seek to change the law, and when the political process is exhausted they are likewise at liberty file suit in Federal court to seek relief, given the political process has failed to restore their civil liberties.
Government will always seek more power, as is its nature, always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit; it is the role and responsibility of the people and their courts, therefore, to defend that edifice, armed with the Constitution's case law to safeguard their civil liberties.
This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.
That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.
This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.
That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.
Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.
Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.
That is a dishonest argument.
This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.
That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.
Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.
Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.
Except it was the Commonwealth's argument was that there were NOT two equally valid forms. That mixing the races went against God's Design. That seems awfully familiar.
Bullpucky. There were plenty of interracial marriages in American history:
Pocahontas was a Virginia Indian . . . In April 1614, she married tobacco planter John Rolfe, and in January 1615, bore him a son, Thomas Rolfe. Pocahontas's marriage to Rolfe was the first recorded interracial marriage in North American history.
The State picked one of two forms of marriage, in-group, and outlawed out-group marriages. That was a clear overstep of the principle that the State governs society rather than creating society.
The claim that homosexuals face no barriers to marriage because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex is identical to the argument that anti-miscegenation laws were no barrier to marriage because people could marry in their own race.
No matter how much you shuck and jive you won't be able to make a facile argument into one of substance. There have ALWAYS been two forms of marriage - in-group and out-group in history. Some cultures favor only in-group marriages, Jews for instance, or Arabs who favor cousin marriage. Other groups favor out-group marriage - the Catholic Church was instrumental in forbidding cousin marriage out to the 6th degree. Many primitive tribes would not permit women to marry within the tribe, the women would have to leave the tribe to find a mate.
Men "marrying" other men has never been a practice. That's not marriage. It's insulting to call the practice marriage.
Rock Hudson was free to marry and his homosexual status didn't deny him that ability.
If it makes you feel any better, I too am oppressed. I can't "marry" my mother nor my daughters. When are you going to fix that "injustice?"
This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.
That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.
Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.
Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.
They want to be able to marry OTHER HOMOSEXUALS.
This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.Are there religious gay people? I don't think I've ever met a religious gay person. I wonder why "marriage" is SO important to them. Isn't marriage (the ceremony part anyway), a religious ceremony? Joining two souls in "holy matrimony?" The rings have religious implications, as does the entire marriage ceremony.
That is what marriage has always meant to me, the joining of two souls in the eyes of the Lord/God. This is why I don't understand why the gays put up such a stink about "civil unions" because, in reality, if they aren't religious, then that is EXACTLY what a marriage is, a civil union, a contract between two human beings. If you aren't religious, then the "ceremony" should be of no consequence to you.
Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.
Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.
They want to be able to marry OTHER HOMOSEXUALS.
That's not marriage. When some liberal wants to marry a dog, that won't be marriage either.
Ah yes...the old "they can marry someone of the opposite sex argument"...it's so similar to the argument used by bigots of yore. Same bigots, different day.
This homosexual "marriage" crusade has never been about marriage, it's always been about normalizing homosexuals. You WILL be made to love homosexuals and you WILL be made to THINK that they are normal. That's what all of this compulsion on resisters is all about.
Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.
Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.
They want to be able to marry OTHER HOMOSEXUALS.
That's not marriage. When some liberal wants to marry a dog, that won't be marriage either.
A dog is not a person and cannot consent to a marriage or anything else. A dog cannot sign a legal binding contract, but another adult human being can. Argument FAIL.
Nope. It's about equal treatment under the law. That's it.
Dr. Sally Ride was a a lesbian and her status never prevented her from being able to marry. Same with Rock Hudson, as a homosexual man he was still able to marry. They were both treated equally under the law. Same with thousand of other homosexuals who got married.
They want to be able to marry OTHER HOMOSEXUALS.
That's not marriage. When some liberal wants to marry a dog, that won't be marriage either.
A dog is not a person and cannot consent to a marriage or anything else. A dog cannot sign a legal binding contract, but another adult human being can. Argument FAIL.
You don't get to change the conditions and definitions of marriage to suit your tastes. Sorry. Once you allow one definition to be changed then you open the floor for all definitions and conditions to be changed.
They are running a business, not a religion.
Hence they fall under business law and must not discriminate.
I disagree. They're a church that performs weddings. I don't see how they must be forced to perform gay weddings, when it directly violates freedom of religion.
Not according to the City.
Additionally, city officials say the chapel is a for-profit business meaning the owners must comply with local non-discrimination ordinances.
In 2013, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That ordinance applied to housing, employment and “public accommodation” and exempted religious entities. But city attorney Warren Wilson said in May the Hitching Post would likely be required to follow the ordinance.
Idaho ministers face arrest jail for refusing to perform same-sex weddings - Spokane Conservative Examiner.com
If they were a religious entity they would have been exempted but since they are running a for profit business they have violated the law.
That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish. Your personal views should not matter on another person's personal decisions on how they will live their lives. That is just arrogant to think that you SHOULD have any say at all.
No, they are not. Only a Jim Crow supporter would say such a thing.
That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.
They are running a business, not a religion.
Hence they fall under business law and must not discriminate.
I disagree. They're a church that performs weddings. I don't see how they must be forced to perform gay weddings, when it directly violates freedom of religion.
Not according to the City.
Additionally, city officials say the chapel is a for-profit business meaning the owners must comply with local non-discrimination ordinances.
In 2013, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That ordinance applied to housing, employment and “public accommodation” and exempted religious entities. But city attorney Warren Wilson said in May the Hitching Post would likely be required to follow the ordinance.
Idaho ministers face arrest jail for refusing to perform same-sex weddings - Spokane Conservative Examiner.com
If they were a religious entity they would have been exempted but since they are running a for profit business they have violated the law.
I don't care what the city says. I don't care what you say. We're not going to perform gay marriage.... Period. Jail us. Attack us. Smear us. Whatever you want.
We have a right to run business. We have a right to our religion and beliefs. You don't have a say in the matter.
We're not doing it. Period. You'll have to jail millions of Christians across this country. We're not going away, and we're not going to follow your laws. Sucks to be you.
That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish. Your personal views should not matter on another person's personal decisions on how they will live their lives. That is just arrogant to think that you SHOULD have any say at all.
You should be able to marry your father?
That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.
I should be able to sell you my home and we both agree that I will put a restrictive covenant on the deed which cannot be voided which will prohibit you from selling the home, which you now own, to a black person? Remember, you and I can agree to this legally binding contract, so why does the law not allow us to do that?
That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish.
I should be able to sell you my home and we both agree that I will put a restrictive covenant on the deed which cannot be voided which will prohibit you from selling the home, which you now own, to a black person? Remember, you and I can agree to this legally binding contract, so why does the law not allow us to do that?
That is not true. Two adult humans should be able to enter into any legally binding contract that they so wish. Your personal views should not matter on another person's personal decisions on how they will live their lives. That is just arrogant to think that you SHOULD have any say at all.
You should be able to marry your father?
Although I find that disgusting personally, if two consenting adults want to marry one another, it's not my business, nor is it your business. This is supposed to be a free country after all. Just because we find something yucky doesn't mean it should be against the law.
The best way to put all this bullshit behind us is to have the states stop recognizing church weddings as legal.
You can get married in a church if you want but for legal purposes only civil marriages would be recognized by the state.
I like it...but I bet you'll get resistance (and not from "the gheys")
So the rest of us have to go through two ceremonies (in my case three) because 1-2% of the population are a bunch of butthurt assholes? No thanks.
