Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.

Interesting. Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.

So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage. No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.

When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer. When they don't, it's toilet paper. When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it. When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.

Liberalism, it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.

Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings?

 

[GISMYS]

DUH!!! MARRAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMSAN,SAME SEX "marrage" would be an ABOMINATION =sick sexual perversion,condemned by GOD!!

 

[kaz]

Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.

Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law." LOL, that's ridiculous.

Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."

The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.

It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.

Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail

 

[kaz]

Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.

Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law." LOL, that's ridiculous.

Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."

The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.

It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.

Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail.

Liberals justify the tyranny of the majority with that it's what the majority wanted so suck it. Then when the majority don't want what you want, all of a sudden majority is meaningless and it's off to self appointed dictators in robes.

Just be honest, its all about the triumph of leftist authoritarianism however you get it.

 

[kaz]

Interesting. Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.

So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage. No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.

When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer. When they don't, it's toilet paper. When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it. When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.

Liberalism, it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.

Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings?

Strawman. You loathe the system they set up for us. There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing. In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches. They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become. To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.

 

[Seawytch]

When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer. When they don't, it's toilet paper. When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it. When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.

Liberalism, it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.

Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings?

Strawman. You loathe the system they set up for us. There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing. In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches. They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become. To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.

Actually I love the system they set up for us...and they set it up with a way for people to redress their grievances through the judicial. Brilliant.

So many are thankful for it...the Lovings, Edith Windsors and folks just like me.

Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings? I agree with some, disagree with others, you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In fact, Federal courts have used Windsor, along with other relevant case law, as justification to invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

The issue will likely be on the docket for the October 2014 term.

 

[Seawytch]

Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law." LOL, that's ridiculous.

Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."

The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.

It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.

Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail.

Liberals justify the tyranny of the majority with that it's what the majority wanted so suck it. Then when the majority don't want what you want, all of a sudden majority is meaningless and it's off to self appointed dictators in robes.

Just be honest, its all about the triumph of leftist authoritarianism however you get it.

I didn't say they had anything to do with gays, I said they had to do with civil marriage expanding to include more Americans.

Okay, we get you don't think there should be civil marriage (including your own ) but civil marriage IS. Fine, you think it's a privilege...okay, what reasonable person standard to you use to deny this privilege to gay and lesbian couples? Where is the societal harm in allowing gay and lesbian couples equal access to this civil law already in place? Would you do the same for people with a driver's licence, bar them from accessing it because of the car they choose to drive? Why deny a civil marriage license based on the gender of my chosen life partner?

 

[kaz]

Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings?

Strawman. You loathe the system they set up for us. There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing. In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches. They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become. To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.

Actually I love the system they set up for us...and they set it up with a way for people to redress their grievances through the judicial. Brilliant.

So many are thankful for it...the Lovings, Edith Windsors and folks just like me.

Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings? I agree with some, disagree with others, you?

What you love is that they set up a system with no meaningful check and balance over the judiciary so they could seize power and implement authoritarian leftism by decree when you can't get it past the voters. Or as in this case you have no patience even for democracy. Clearly in a decade or two with the attitudes of the youth towards gays and the dying of the people who oppose gays you would have gotten it by democracy. You passed on that.

Which answers your question. You love it because you get authoritarian leftism either way. The voters give it to you or if they don't you run to the courts and they give it to you.

I love liberty, something the court almost never rules in favor of. Even when they rule for a "right," it's actually a back door government power. Take Roe v. Wade, they did not rule abortion is not a job for government. They handed the Federal government the power to force the States to accept it. The court never just rules the government overstepped it's Constitutional authority, so sit down and shut up. They grant powers even when they "limit" them.

 

[kaz]

The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.

It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.

Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail.

Liberals justify the tyranny of the majority with that it's what the majority wanted so suck it. Then when the majority don't want what you want, all of a sudden majority is meaningless and it's off to self appointed dictators in robes.

Just be honest, its all about the triumph of leftist authoritarianism however you get it.

I didn't say they had anything to do with gays, I said they had to do with civil marriage expanding to include more Americans.

You are as bigoted and arbitrary as the Christians are. You are not for equality, you are for expanded discrimination. You don't want to grant access to singles or polygamists to tax breaks or eliminating the death tax. Two people man/woman is just an arbitrary standard chosen by you that is just as arbitrary as man/woman. They say man/woman, you say two people, tom-a-to, tom-ah-to, six of one, half a dozen of the other. You have no moral highground in this. You're as discriminatory and bigoted as they are.

Okay, we get you don't think there should be civil marriage (including your own )

The government part of my marriage is meaningless to me. And yes, you mentioned your standard is I should ignore my partners feelings and leave her with tread marks down her back. Again, not a testament that you're ready for any sort of marriage, that isn't how it works. I think that's a you think though, not a gay thing.

but civil marriage IS. Fine, you think it's a privilege...okay, what reasonable person standard to you use to deny this privilege to gay and lesbian couples? Where is the societal harm in allowing gay and lesbian couples equal access to this civil law already in place? Would you do the same for people with a driver's licence, bar them from accessing it because of the car they choose to drive? Why deny a civil marriage license based on the gender of my chosen life partner?

Everyone should have access to lower tax rates, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be based on paternity not paperwork, living wills should be simpler and cheaper.

The question is for you, why should gays get those and not everyone else? I am against discrimination, you just want to change the height of the bar.

 

[Seawytch]

Strawman. You loathe the system they set up for us. There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing. In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches. They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become. To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.

Actually I love the system they set up for us...and they set it up with a way for people to redress their grievances through the judicial. Brilliant.

So many are thankful for it...the Lovings, Edith Windsors and folks just like me.

Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings? I agree with some, disagree with others, you?

What you love is that they set up a system with no meaningful check and balance over the judiciary so they could seize power and implement authoritarian leftism by decree when you can't get it past the voters. Or as in this case you have no patience even for democracy. Clearly in a decade or two with the attitudes of the youth towards gays and the dying of the people who oppose gays you would have gotten it by democracy. You passed on that.

Which answers your question. You love it because you get authoritarian leftism either way. The voters give it to you or if they don't you run to the courts and they give it to you.

I love liberty, something the court almost never rules in favor of. Even when they rule for a "right," it's actually a back door government power. Take Roe v. Wade, they did not rule abortion is not a job for government. They handed the Federal government the power to force the States to accept it. The court never just rules the government overstepped it's Constitutional authority, so sit down and shut up. They grant powers even when they "limit" them.

You keep insisting you know what I "love". Well golly, since we get to play that game, YOU "love" the idea that you can hide behind "I hate gubmit marriage" (despite being in one) as a cover for just simple bigotry.

How's that for playing the "I know what you love" game?

Voters don't get to vote on minority civil rights...thank goodness.

Loving v Virginia was in 1965 or 67 wasn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

I believe I've said, numerous times, that if you support siblings and multiple marriages, I support your support. Good luck.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.

 

[Silhouette]

I believe I've said, numerous times, that if you support siblings and multiple marriages, I support your support. Good luck.

Instead you should say "Good precedent". Because that's really what the operative hinge is with regard to incest & polygamy marriage if the LGBTcult succeeds in forcing behaviors objectionable to the majority under the 14th Amendment. Skilled attorneys & not mere luck will be the game at that point.

 

[Silhouette]

It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.

Exactly why?

You understand that using the anus as an artificial vagina is seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right? What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?

No, I mean in legal terms? What specifically?

 

[JoeB131]

It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.

Exactly why?

You understand that using the anus as an artificial vagina is seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right? What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?

No, I mean in legal terms? What specifically?

38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex. 99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.

So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?

Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky. Besides the level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.

As for polygamy. Meh. If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.

 

[Silhouette]

It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.

Exactly why?

You understand that using the anus as an artificial vagina is seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right? What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?

No, I mean in legal terms? What specifically?

38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex. 99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.

So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?

Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky. Besides the level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.

As for polygamy. Meh. If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.

Avoiding the legal question are we?

 

[GISMYS]

Exactly why?

You understand that using the anus as an artificial vagina is seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right? What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?

No, I mean in legal terms? What specifically?

38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex. 99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.

So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?

Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky. Besides the level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.

As for polygamy. Meh. If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.

Avoiding the legal question are we?

KEEP YOUR HIV AIDS TESTS UP TODATE!!!==For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,
And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them. ROMANS 1:26 AND YOU???

 

[Andylusion]

Besides the level of "familiarity".

Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....

Why is "Familiarity" a problem?

I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me. Familiarity is a problem? How come?

If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person? Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?

It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy. Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about? They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly why?

You understand that using the anus as an artificial vagina is seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right? What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?

No, I mean in legal terms? What specifically?

38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex. 99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.

So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?

Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky. Besides the level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.

As for polygamy. Meh. If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.

Avoiding the legal question are we?

There was a "legal" question in your homophobic rantings?

The legal question has already been answered here. Sodomy is no longer against the law. (Lawrence v. Texas). All the Sodomy laws have been struck down. You can totally get that muff dive or blow job.

Polygamy and Incest, however, are still against the law.