Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Coyote]

Polygamy can solve the problem of there not being enough nice guys to go around, for women.

I don't share.

 

[Lilah]

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.

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?

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.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

As you probably know, Warren Jeff's cult still practice polygamy in Colorado City, AZ, and no one can do anything about it. Warren Jeff's continues to rule his cult from his prison cell and no one can do anything about it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If nothing else these posts have shown me that the libtards do agree that I should be allowed to own an AK, full auto. hell, I can even legally own a tank or a nuclear device. the 2nd amendment gives me that right.

 

[Lilah]

Polygamy can solve the problem of there not being enough nice guys to go around, for women.

Do you find Warren Jeff's to be a nice guy?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Polygamy can solve the problem of there not being enough nice guys to go around, for women.

I don't share.

stingy bastard.
LOL

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Polygamy predated monogomy in most societies...

Yeah so did the average lifespan of 26.

Here's a clue... just because Yasheika does it, doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[danielpalos]

Polygamy can solve the problem of there not being enough nice guys to go around, for women.

I don't share.

not even for the sake of the Sisterhood of Woman?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

You know, since the Bible is clear on there only being Adam and Eve in the beginning, somewhere along the line brother and sister had to produce offspring in order for all of us to be here now.
I imagine that it had to be ok with God or he would have made more than one couple.
Just saying

 

[Pop23]

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.

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?

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.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

Polygamy predated monogomy in most societies...nothing "devient" about it at all. Sheesh...review your Bible will you?

A side note:

Males, by nature are polygamists. Marriage was used to bring some kind of sense out of the chaos.

Go on

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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, 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?

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.

From a strictly bioilogical perspective - polygamy is the winning roll of dice, so yes..it's very arbritrary.

Polygamy is simply another demonstration of the same perversion that homosexuals are mired in... just from the perspective of a heterosexual glutton for punishment.

Polygamy predated monogomy in most societies...nothing "devient" about it at all. Sheesh...review your Bible will you?

A side note:

Males, by nature are polygamists. Marriage was used to bring some kind of sense out of the chaos.

Go on

marriage was a womans idea, she invented it so she could end up with half his stuff when she nagged him into leaving for a younger mute model.,

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

First impeach Obama for defying that Federal Judge ordering a stop to issuing work permits.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Lol, idiot.

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good

If you have a point, other than on your head, make one.

You're mighty boring

Here's the dudes argument, since I do not think sterile siblings should Marry, it means I don't think procreation is a part of marriage.

Dude, sterile siblings should not marry because if it happens, with our equal protection laws, and the right to due process, you could not stop fertile siblings from marriage.

You are such a hack!

 

[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

First impeach Obama for defying that Federal Judge ordering a stop to issuing work permits.

Its ok for the left to ignore federal law, just not the right.
ask any of the anti-Americans here.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Lol, idiot.

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good

If you have a point, other than on your head, make one.

You're mighty boring

Here's the dudes argument, since I do not think sterile siblings should Marry, it means I don't think procreation is a part of marriage.

Dude, sterile siblings should not marry because if it happens, with our equal protection laws, and the right to due process, you could not stop fertile siblings from marriage.

You are such a hack!

again, if not for fertile siblings, none of us would be here now discussing this issue.

 

[koshergrl]

Funny how you people think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when somebody is an employee of government or opens a business.

Its the Bill of Rights that prevents the State from imposing a specific religion upon unwilling people. And the judge is a representative of the State, a gate keeper of state authority. And he's using his religious beliefs as a basis of denying couples state services they have a constitutional and legal right to.

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Marriage is an elective power of a judge, not a duty.....or did it never occur to you to wonder why the only consequences he's facing is a few calls for impeachment from rabid Leftists? Sorry, you can't force people to accept your lifestyle. Get used to freedom because it's not going away any time soon.

I don't think impeachment is the answer but - if he performs marriages he should perform all legally sanctioned marriages or none. It's not "accepting" a lifestyle. It's performing a job.

Yes it is accepting a lifestyle from his point of view. And marriage is an elective function of judges. Nothing ill will befall this judge for daring to have values you hate.

Bans on interracial marriage used biblical underpinnings to justify their existance. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do that part of his job? How far do you stretch "religious freedom" before it becomes an infringement on other people's rights?

Just because democrats misinterpreted the bible (until Republicans set them straight) back then doesn't make them right now.

You got the bible wrong when you were trying to deny blacks rights, and you have it wrong now you're trying to deny Christians rights. Get out of town.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

Are you saying that you have not advocated against the right's of gays to be married and have children?

There is no potential for a right wherein the exercise of such injures another.

Sexual Deviancy; the processes of the disordered mind which accept sex with a person of the same gender or an animal, is a LIE... .

Deceit is axiomatically injurious to the individual advancing it and the individual being mislead by it.

There is therefore: NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT.

You see scamp... for a right to exist, that right must first be recognized in EVERY INDIVIDUAL... You claim a right, you must recognize that same right in me. Understand?

Now where you claim a right to deceive another, you must recognize the right in another to deceive you. And in doing so you injure yourself and the other.

PRESTO... there's no right to injure another.

This is how we can be SO SURE... that you don't have a right to murder the child you conceived through your willful behavior... which is how we can be so sure that you have no right to engage in such behavior UNTIL you're in a position to bear the responsibilities central to and unavoidably intrinsic IN... that behavior.

Feel better?

I feel just fine. However, I fear...No know, that you have run off the rails

You realize of course that most everyone here knows that your insane, except of course those who are themselves insane? Of course you don't. You are INSANE. You are imagining that somehow your rights are being taken away and that you are being injured . That is a paranoid delusion. Understand?

You are back on ignore, for good

 

[Preacher]

Good for him!

 

[Pop23]

B.

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

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Lol, idiot.

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good

If you have a point, other than on your head, make one.

You're mighty boring

Here's the dudes argument, since I do not think sterile siblings should Marry, it means I don't think procreation is a part of marriage.

Dude, sterile siblings should not marry because if it happens, with our equal protection laws, and the right to due process, you could not stop fertile siblings from marriage.

You are such a hack!

again, if not for fertile siblings, none of us would be here now discussing this issue.

Lol, what makes you think I beleive in bible stories?

You don't know me berry well.

 

[Pop23]

Your right to practice your religion freely, comes with the responsibility to not do so at the expense of another to LIVE THERE LIVES freely...

There's nothing in my Religion which requires me to preclude you from living their life. To the contrary, my religion sets to me the duty to defend your life as I defend my own.

Would you like to offer an example of my having advocated for something which would preclude another from doing something to which they are otherwise rightly entitled?

I'll happily consider whatever it is ya have to offer.

Are you saying that you have not advocated against the right's of gays to be married and have children?

There is no potential for a right wherein the exercise of such injures another.

Sexual Deviancy; the processes of the disordered mind which accept sex with a person of the same gender or an animal, is a LIE... .

Deceit is axiomatically injurious to the individual advancing it and the individual being mislead by it.

There is therefore: NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT.

You see scamp... for a right to exist, that right must first be recognized in EVERY INDIVIDUAL... You claim a right, you must recognize that same right in me. Understand?

Now where you claim a right to deceive another, you must recognize the right in another to deceive you. And in doing so you injure yourself and the other.

PRESTO... there's no right to injure another.

This is how we can be SO SURE... that you don't have a right to murder the child you conceived through your willful behavior... which is how we can be so sure that you have no right to engage in such behavior UNTIL you're in a position to bear the responsibilities central to and unavoidably intrinsic IN... that behavior.

Feel better?

I feel just fine. However, I fear...No know, that you have run off the rails

You realize of course that most everyone here knows that your insane, except of course those who are themselves insane? Of course you don't. You are INSANE. You are imagining that somehow your rights are being taken away and that you are being injured . That is a paranoid delusion. Understand?

You are back on ignore, for good

Takes one to know one???

Just sayin