Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[M14 Shooter]

Black Democrat judge refuses to perform a same-sex marriage...
Couple was them married by a white Republican.
Huh.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Nobody said they hated homosexuals. Not agreeing with gay marriage is not hate for the person.

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

because the judge must give up his religious rights in order to provide the rights to the gays.
who has more right to their rights. the gays can go get someone else to marry them, the judge does not have an option.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OH! So ya can't sustain your argument, thus requiring you to yield from the standing points, therein CONCEDING TO THOSE STANDING POINTS?

Fair enough...

Your concession is DULY NOTED and as always... summarily accepted.

I see you still haven't improved your reading skills much have you? That's ok...we can work with your limitations.

AHH! The Re-concession. GOOD FOR YOU! Really drive that point home. Maybe it'll stick this time.

Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

There is only one concession appropriate in the context of you:

MORE DEFLECTION!??

Super... Now that is a Re-re-Consession...

Your Re-re-concession is DULY NOTED and SUMMARILY ACCEPTED.

I'm losing track of concessions here...but I believe you've conceded the entire topic in a flood of obfuscation. Call Rotor Rooter for help.

No problem... ^ THAT ^ is your Re-re-re-concession.

Your Re-re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. (One more and you beat your own personal worst...)

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Nobody said they hated homosexuals. Not agreeing with gay marriage is not hate for the person.

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

Well, I'm a Buddhist, Christian and Constitutionalist.with Universalist views.

But if you put me in charge of conducting a ceremony to baptize a baby
or to induct a monk, even though I believe in supporting that practice,
I wouldn't want to be in charge of performing the actual ceremony.

That doesn't make me anti-Baptist or anti-Buddhist.
Just don't implement these thing in govt when it belongs in private practice
so everyone can exercise their freedom at will.

Is that so hard to understand?

I believe in universal health care, but by free choice
not regulated and legislated through "federal govt"
where birth control issues and funding have to go
through a federal process through Courts and Congress.

If you want free choice and religious freedom
why would you put federal govt in charge of your choices?
Why would you want to depend on judges and courts
when that process isn't freely accessible and not guaranteed to protect your rights?

Why wouldn't you want full control of your own programs
so you can do things exactly as you believe.

It's odd that Liberal secular humanists make fun of Christians
who want to legitimize everything by going through Jesus to make sure it is in keeping with God's will and truth.

But then, turn around, and want to funnel everything through
Congress and Courts to legitimize their beliefs, while claiming separation of church and state.
How is this not using the Supreme Court to act as "God" and decide what you can and cannot do.

That's what I don't get.
why get rid of divine right to rule just to vest such divine religious
authority in the Justices to decide life and death and "free choice"

If your sense of equality as a human being hangs on a 5-4 ruling
by 9 people in Washington most of us will never meet and cannot have any say over,
that is pretty sad.

I'd like to think that human equality is based on how we treat each other.
and we have the power to enforce that every day if we respect each other's will.

If we don't, if we resort to political bullying to force our way on others,
then we lose our sense of equality anyway. Getting 5-4 people to vote in your favor
is not the same as reaching an agreement freely among the public to respect each other's beliefs.

It is still depending on Govt to decide for you, which isn't free choice and isn't "separation of church and state."
It is using the state to act as a secular church to establish beliefs so nobody has a free choice but is under that dictate.

this divine right to rule and interpret law for the people without our consent
is exactly what America was founded to get away from. the Catholic church
was exerting authority in a monopoly until the Reformation refused on the grounds
that authority comes through the people's direct connection with the laws
and does not depend on the Catholic Authority. People can enforce laws directly,
and form their own contracts, programs and public services. it does not have to rely
on "mandates" that "all people are required to follow"

The Christian churches work fine without forcing "all people to pay and be under them"
People have free choice to participate and contribute.
the same should be for parties that have their own programs they want to develop.

Why not give taxpayers a choice as to which party's programs they want to fund and be under?

we'd solve this whole health care/gay marriage benefits issue instantly
if more people agree to separate tracks by party and manage their own benefits and registration
program through "exchanges"

Let the other parties develop their own. There is no need to have all this under
one policy determined by Congress when the population of the US is much more diverse
and needs localized individual programs that the communities and organizations run themselves.

Federal Govt should be reserved for just things that are needed at that level.
health care and marriages can be handles locally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Black Democrat judge refuses to perform a same-sex marriage...
Couple was them married by a white Republican.
Huh.

Well yes... the Scriptures states that these times would be inverted... and it's amazing how absolutely PERFECT that prophecy is.

It just NAILS IT!

 

[paddymurphy]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

So does he turn away people who have other religious beliefs than his too?

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

 

[Coyote]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Hmmmmm....you think?

My religion requires human sacrifices (looking at watch) - next one should be due to run quite soon in fact. Glad it's all Constitutionally protected

 

[paddymurphy]

Black Democrat judge refuses to perform a same-sex marriage...
Couple was them married by a white Republican.
Huh.

Good for the white Republican. I am sure the right wing will take care of him in the next election.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nobody said they hated homosexuals. Not agreeing with gay marriage is not hate for the person.

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

 

[Coyote]

...

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

Marriage, as a fundamental right, was recognized in Loving v Loving and is part of established case law for almost 50 years now.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, they don't SAY it; but it is clear from their words about homosexuals and their demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights how they really feel.

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

I am sure that your marriage is meaningless. Mine has not changed because gay people can marry. Seems to me that those who repeatedly and endlessly talk about using children for sexual gratification are the ones most likely doing so. So, no, the gay marriage decision does not permit you to obtain sexual gratification from children. If you do so, you are committing a crime and should be held accountable. Get help.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hmmmmm....you think?

My religion requires human sacrifices (looking at watch) - next one should be due to run quite soon in fact. Glad it's all Constitutionally protected

OH! Well, that fine and as long as you're creating your humans to sacrifice, then you're good to go.

If however, you're using matter from God's universe, we'll be forced to recognize you as abject evil; thus a common degenerate... strap your ass down to the table, stick a needle in you and stop your heart, ending your life.

It's not a terribly complicated equation, it just may be beyond the means of the lowly Relativist to comprehend... .

The good news is that you're not required to accept it. You're not even require to comport yourself within the structure of God's law... just know that if ya don't there's hell to pay for it.

See how easy it is to work these things out when there are soundly reasoned principles to guide us?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...

So I suppose that since I am on the side of the judge in this case, I too hate homosexuals and want to deny them of all rights. Hell, maybe burn them at the stake or something, pull them behind the truck at the very least.

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

Marriage, as a fundamental right, was recognized in Loving v Loving and is part of established case law for almost 50 years now.

Uh... NO... it wasn't.

Because if that were the case, then the States interests in establishing conditions of marriage would have been stripped from the law... as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT precludes conditions.

Now please... launch into the conditions placed upon other would-be fundamental rights, so that I can again demonstrate what a load of nonsense THAT IS.

 

[Pop23]

The exact same arguments (polygamy, incest) were made over Loving v Loving. And those marriages still aren't legal.

You realize there was the "limiting" part of the law that remained after loving, that was 1 man and 1 woman, right?

Now that that has been redefined, there is no Complelling state interest in denying any of the relationships I have listed except one, but to do so removes their right to due process and equal protection.

Coyote, we agree that NONE of these relationships are healthy for our nation, but we cannot simply exclude them because they are icky. It must be based on sound legal footing.

Come up with that or stop complaining. Remember, each and every argument I have used originated by same sex marriage advocates.

Shoes on the other foot, now you defeat the arguments. But a bit of caution, if you do, you defeat the arguments for INCLUSSION of same sex marriage.

And that folks, is the paradox.

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

You realize there was the "limiting" part of the law that remained after loving, that was 1 man and 1 woman, right?

Now that that has been redefined, there is no Complelling state interest in denying any of the relationships I have listed except one, but to do so removes their right to due process and equal protection.

Coyote, we agree that NONE of these relationships are healthy for our nation, but we cannot simply exclude them because they are icky. It must be based on sound legal footing.

Come up with that or stop complaining. Remember, each and every argument I have used originated by same sex marriage advocates.

Shoes on the other foot, now you defeat the arguments. But a bit of caution, if you do, you defeat the arguments for INCLUSSION of same sex marriage.

And that folks, is the paradox.

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

There is also not a damn thing about raping 3 year olds.

 

[Pop23]

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

So you are okay with siblings marrying- so long as the siblings are sterile?

Not sure the state can force sterility on anyone. There is that nasty due process we have

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

 

[paddymurphy]

...

If you want to deny gay people their rights, that is hateful. You tell us whether you want to impose the biblical punishment on gay folks.

and where did I imply that I was going to deny anybody any rights?

So, you agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the right to marry is fundamental. Good. How does that comport with a judge saying that he will not recognize that right?

Only a fool would agree that there is a fundamental RIGHT to marriage. As that would require that Marriage be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You see, by rendering marriage meaningless... that strips the legitimate authority intrinsic to marriage from marriage... thus the children conceived through marriage are not the responsibility of the parents, thus requiring the NEED to SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE LAW... thus providing Children the means to sexual consent... thus providing the means of the PROTECTED DEGENERATE CLASS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

And Reader... THEY ARE ALMOST THERE!

Just ONE MORE STEP and that is only going to require one more vote at the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

Marriage, as a fundamental right, was recognized in Loving v Loving and is part of established case law for almost 50 years now.

Uh... NO... it wasn't.

Because if that were the case, then the States interests in establishing conditions of marriage would have been stripped from the law... as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT precludes conditions.

Now please... launch into the conditions placed upon other would-be fundamental rights, so that I can again demonstrate what a load of nonsense THAT IS.

No, you dumb fuck, a fundamental right does not preclude conditions. Do you just pull this shit from your ass or is there some right wing nut job site you use? The right is the right to liberty and the right to equal protection. They are always subject to conditions.

 

[Lilah]

No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.

Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.

The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.

No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.

Marrying people isn't his job. Judges are paid to abide by the law and their conscience. That means you remove yourself from the court if you feel you cannot perform your duty in good conscience.

You really are dim, aren't you. My guess is your sole understanding of our judicial system comes from your time spent answering for petting crimes.

They are paid to abide by the law, not their "conscience." I do agree, however, that if he cannot perform his duty in good conscience, he should remove himself from the Court. Resigning would be appropriate. Glad we can agree that he should not be a judge.

Are you saying he should be coerced into doing something against his beliefs? Are you accustomed to such?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

am on the right side of the law always. The law provides that denying gay people the same right to marry as straight people is unconstitutional. How is this judge denying gay people the ability to marry not a violation of the constitution?

Here's the problem ya have Scamp.

The US Constitution precludes ANY LAW which infringes upon the means of the Individual to FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION.

And that is the FIRST PRIORITY of the protections afforded to Americans... because BITCH, that's how we roll.

Actually, dickhead, the Constitution does not. There are numerous Supreme Court Cases that make it clear that your free exercise does not permit you to refuse to adhere to a law that is not specifically targeted at your free exercise.

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

Watch how he tries to inject a reference to his favorite past time into his answer?

Mod Edit: no accusing members of pedo (review the rules)

So, every time this prick and his buddies accuse any gay person of being the same as a pedophile, I am going to see your little warning, right?

You realize there was the "limiting" part of the law that remained after loving, that was 1 man and 1 woman, right?

Now that that has been redefined, there is no Complelling state interest in denying any of the relationships I have listed except one, but to do so removes their right to due process and equal protection.

Coyote, we agree that NONE of these relationships are healthy for our nation, but we cannot simply exclude them because they are icky. It must be based on sound legal footing.

Come up with that or stop complaining. Remember, each and every argument I have used originated by same sex marriage advocates.

Shoes on the other foot, now you defeat the arguments. But a bit of caution, if you do, you defeat the arguments for INCLUSSION of same sex marriage.

And that folks, is the paradox.

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

Wanted to add the following.
What is a compelling state's interest in promoting marriage?

• marriage promotes prosperity
• marriage promotes social stability
• procreation
• inheritance laws
• taxation laws

If marriage

AND the inclusion of interacial marriage.

Here's the thing - there is nothing in same-sex marriage that is unhealthy for our nation. What justification do you have for excluding it?

That's not legal rational.

Interracial marriage included the "limiting" factor of being of separate gender. It is no more

There's also the limiting factor of "two people"...

I noted procreation above, you honestly beleive that!

Ok, two people is simply arbitrary unless there is an expressed reason, it being followed by, "not too closely related" insures that bloodlines don't become corrupted.

Now, how do two same sex males mate and corrupt a bloodline?

See, they can't. So now the whole thing becomes arbitrary.

You are now left with disallowing the same sex siblings from marriage because the straight siblings CAN procreate. Violating both due process and equal protection.

It just doesn't stand any legal test and is a losing argument

That post was a bit of a mistake (thanks to the damn quote system) - I started post trying to look into what is the compelling state interest but abandoned it. Unfortunately - it got added to my subsequent post (arrgh).

Same sex marriage still places the brakes on polygamy because it's two people still. It has no effects on sibling-marriage. Procreation can always be prevented for example, by voluntary sterilization. You're talking an incredibly tiny minority of a minority to try and build a case on - same sex siblings who also happen to be gay. That is where the slippery slope fallacy is.

Sorry, the number, without the makeup is of two opposite genders being the reasoning is arbitrary unless you can name a single other contract that limits the participants to two, then you must explain why 2 is not arbitrary.

The reason it was two was to keep track of bloodlines, since you accept that same sex groups can't procreste, the number is simply traditional and without merit. ,

Actually the number two is not arbitrary at all...

The Number comes from the genitals at issue, where one penis joins with one vagina, therein forming from two distinct bodies, one singular body... that number is therefore a central component of human physiology, which predicates the construct of Marriage.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

So does he turn away people who have other religious beliefs than his too?

How would that work? What other functions do Judges perform, which would celebrate or otherwise officiate other religious beliefs which are abhorrent to a given judge?

Two pagans walk in and want the judge to marry them, dressed in witchy attire.

Oh! Ok...

Now were these pagans coming to apply for marriage, comprised of two distinct but complementing genders, seeking to form one legally recognized body, from two?

If so, then that's just marriage.

Remember, you were going to show some distinct issue that the Judge would need to officiate over that was distinct from marriage and not the pretense of such advanced by the Homo-cult as a critical means of legalizing pedophilia.

Now did ya want to try again, or will that be your formal concession?

You'd be ok if he refused to marry a black man and a white woman (for religious reasons of course)?

can you point to anywhere in the Bible that it says races cant or shouldn't mix?