Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Ravi]

Imagine if SCOTUS, current members are all Christian, decided they wouldn't rule on SSM because SSM was against their religion.

What would be the point of the USA?

 

[koshergrl]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

This is interesting.
Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies - ABC News

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Imagine if SCOTUS, current members are all Christian, decided they wouldn't rule on SSM because SSM was against their religion.

What would be the point of the USA?

what if the supreme court stopped ruling based on law and started ruling based on personal feelings and desires.. oh wait, thats what they are doing now.

 

[koshergrl]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

This is interesting.
Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies - ABC News

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

Do you see the word "church" in here:

"Full Definition of SACRAMENT
1
a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament "

?

Nope. You don't. Now go sit down, you piece of shit. You need to look up words before you presume to tell people what they mean.

You people do need to die.

Sacrament Definition of sacrament by Merriam-Webster

 

[G.T.]

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

This is interesting.
Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies - ABC News

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marriage.

 

[Skylar]

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

Th Supreme Court says otherwise. About 4 times going back nearly half a century.

Where is it written into the constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it say that a right need be enumerated to exist?
You may wanna take a look at the 9th amendment. With special attention to the words 'reserve' and 'rights'.

You miss the point.
The legal institution of marriage exists because of the laws that create it. Laws do not create rights.

You miss the point, being insufficiently informed about the history of marriage laws or the 14th amendment to recognize where you went wrong.

First, the right to marry was recognized in response to the state's actions that would make it impossible or criminalized it. And criminalizing marriage would most definitely deny an existing right. As living as man and wife was a criminal act. If you believe marriage is secular or religious, criminalization would prevent one from entering into it.

Such was Loving v. Virginia where interracial marriage bans were overturned where the marriage was recognized as a right. As gay marriage wasn't criminalized, this rationale is less relevant to it. But thoroughly relevant to the right to marry as a legal principle.

Second, marriage as an institution in our legal tradition isn't based on any specific law. But has been recognized for as long as we've been a nation. Before a single legislatures passed any law regarding marriage, it was already a recognized institution. You equate regulation with legal recognition. And they aren't the same thing. The State's recognition of marriage predates its involvement in it.

Negating your premise a second time. As the State's recognition of marriage (and the right to it) aren't predicated on the State's regulation of marriage by any law.

Third, the 14th amendment.The basis of the Obergefell ruling and key to the specific legal questions asked of the court in regards to this case:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. With the State's issuance of marriage licenses, same sex couple have a right to marry under the law. If the State issued no marriage licenses, then no such equal protection violation.

As long as the State has marriage under the law, same sex couples have a right to it.

Fourth, the concept of individual autonomy and the Due Process Clause:

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.'....

.....This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

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

All of which invalidate your premise and reaffirm what the court has recognized for at least half a century: the right to marry.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.
the state on the other hand has every right to make rules that govern civil unions.

 

[Skylar]

muslim
you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

What judge has imposed his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State to violate the Federal Constitution? Are you trying to derail the thread?

The judge in the OP. He denied services he was obligated to provide as officer of the court because his religion mandated that those seeking those services shouldn't have them.

That's the imposition of his religious beliefs. And using the State to impose them. The 'unwilling' would be those who wanted to get married.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

If it is a mandatory part of his job he has to do it, quit, or be fired. I haven't seen any links stating if it is in fact a mandatory job requirement. I would assume so, but am no judge expert.

'Duties assignment' is pretty clear.

 

[G.T.]

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

This is interesting.
Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies - ABC News

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

Do you see the word "church" in here:

"Full Definition of SACRAMENT
1
a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament "

?

Nope. You don't. Now go sit down, you piece of shit. You need to look up words before you presume to tell people what they mean.

You people do need to die.

Sacrament Definition of sacrament by Merriam-Webster

Need to die?

Wow youre so glaringly fucking insecure about your marriage you want people to literally DIE.

Lol fake christian, god does not condone you.

 

[Skylar]

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

Marriage isn't defined as a religious sacrament. Invalidating your entire premise.

 

[G.T.]

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.
the state on the other hand has every right to make rules that govern civil unions.

The state can do whatever it wants with the word and theres literally nothing you can do about it but vote and hope.

The word marriage exists by LAW free of Religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The judge doesn't seem to know much about the Supremacy Clause.

This whole phony christian crap is such a slimy, weasel excuse for being against the Constitution and against the teachings of the bible. Jesus is rolling over in his grave at his sleazy and hypocritical followers.

I suspect a lot of true Americans are getting ordained, right and left. Its not like its hard.

The judge is also ignorant of the law.

Religious beliefs are not justification to disobey a just and Constitutional law.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

Marriage isn't defined as a religious sacrament. Invalidating your entire premise.

Marriage is a religious sacrement, your lack of relgious knowledge does not make reality invalid.
civil unions could be considered non religious, however the ceremony that goes with a marriage is religious

 

[Ravi]

Imagine if SCOTUS, current members are all Christian, decided they wouldn't rule on SSM because SSM was against their religion.

What would be the point of the USA?

what if the supreme court stopped ruling based on law and started ruling based on personal feelings and desires.. oh wait, thats what they are doing now.

If they were ruling based on feelings they would have ruled that same sex marriage can be outlawed because that is their feeling from their belief in the bible.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The judge doesn't seem to know much about the Supremacy Clause.

This whole phony christian crap is such a slimy, weasel excuse for being against the Constitution and against the teachings of the bible. Jesus is rolling over in his grave at his sleazy and hypocritical followers.

I suspect a lot of true Americans are getting ordained, right and left. Its not like its hard.

The judge is also ignorant of the law.

Religious beliefs are not justification to disobey a just and Constitutional law.

Do you feel the same with it comes to my right to own assault weapons? yes? I appreciate that.

 

[koshergrl]

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.
the state on the other hand has every right to make rules that govern civil unions.

Christians view any marriage they participate in as a sacrament.

The problem with redefining marriage is that in redefining marriage, and then determining this new definition has civil rights attached to it, the state is forcing Christians to commit sacrilege, or be penalized under the law. Which is why we objected in the first place. And it's only been how many days???? And you see the screechers already calling for the heads of Christians if they don't participate and endorse.

 

[G.T.]

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

Marriage isn't defined as a religious sacrament. Invalidating your entire premise.

Marriage is a religious sacrement, your lack of relgious knowledge does not make reality invalid.
civil unions could be considered non religious, however the ceremony that goes with a marriage is religious

No, marriage is a religious sacriment...IF YOURE RELIGIOUS.

ill be going to vegas in April for my cousins very non religious MARRIAGE

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.

No, it's not. Marriage is a sacrament BEFORE GOD and it can take place anywhere, and any marriage IS a sacrament. If it isn't, it's sacrilege.

Get it yet? YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR RELIGION TO US.

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

Marriage isn't defined as a religious sacrament. Invalidating your entire premise.

Marriage is a religious sacrement, your lack of relgious knowledge does not make reality invalid.

Not under our law. Which is the only relevant standard in a discussion of legality.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Imagine if SCOTUS, current members are all Christian, decided they wouldn't rule on SSM because SSM was against their religion.

What would be the point of the USA?

what if the supreme court stopped ruling based on law and started ruling based on personal feelings and desires.. oh wait, thats what they are doing now.

If they were ruling based on feelings they would have ruled that same sex marriage can be outlawed because that is their feeling from their belief in the bible.

would you rule against it? do you think I would?
how do you know that the judges would have ruled against it, so far they have been kissing obamas black ass on everything they rule on. law be damned.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I haven't checked today, but has the left lynched this man yet ?