Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.

You are trying to restrain the law.

Are you as confused about your sexuality as you are you political leanings? Every one of your posts put down Republicans and yet you are a Republican? Really? Is that a display of self loathing?

What law is being restrained? The Judiciary does not, or should not, make law Jake.

Actually, the Judiciary DOES make law, through court precedents The fact that you don't like some of the rulings notwithstanding.

The judiciary defines laws not makes laws. So they rule on laws passed by the legislature which is what they have been doing when they shoot down defense of marriage laws. Thus by default that is making law, which is not their job.

Your opinion is not fact.

 

[Skylar]

Can we all agree that the argument isn't over the right to marry it is over the definition of marriage?

The issue is over if the definition of marriage in some states violates the right to marry of gays and lesbians.

Certainly, up until very recently, marriage was never even considered to be anything other then between a man and a woman. Marriage was a contract between a man and woman for the legal protection of both. Certainly limitations were put on marriage, a man still can't legally marry his sister. A man can't have more then one wife. So a limitation on a man can't marry a man certainly seems to be within the jurisdiction of the law.

Until comparatively recently, marriage was defined by race as well. A white woman and a white man. Or black woman and a black man. The changes we've implemented reflect our changing views of the institution. The veneration of past discrimination as justification for current discrimination isn't a terribly compelling argument.

Making the comparison, falsely, between interacial marriage is first an insult. Secondly in order for such a limitation it would mean that the black man or woman would have to be defined as something different then a white man or woman. Not so with gay marriage, a woman is still a woman a man a man.

No it isn't. Even the arguments made by those who opposed interracial marriage are nearly identical to those who oppose gay marriage. That its 'unnatural'. That its 'against the will of God'. That it 'interference of His arrangement'. That it defiles the 'sanctity of marriage'. That its a 'violation of State's Rights'. The ruling of Lean M. Bazile in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving really lays it all out.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Leon M. Bazile

Loving V. Virginia was a demonstration that venerable and institutional assumptions about the definition of marriage are as malleable and changeable as we decide they are. And if we determine that a past definition violates rights, we have not only the ability to overturn such definitions, but the duty to do so.

So we fight over definition. When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage. The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.

We fight over rights. And whether or not those definitions violate them by arbitrary excluding groups for no particular reason.

There really is nothing I see in the COTUS that even speaks to marriage one way or the other. Thus we are in a new world, let the people decide. But that won't hold for the left wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.

The Federal Judiciary clearly disagrees.

 

[Skylar]

Your opinion is not fact.

True. But there's no harm in sharing opinions. And Freewill was very clear that his view was his (er...hers?). Not some 'universal truth' or 'objective morality'. And that's completely reasonable.

 

[BlackSand]

Legislation that dictates activities concerning the services offered by the church ... Would actually violate the First Amendment as well as the additional desires towards any separation between church and state.

Since the church reserves and practices their right to deny marriage services to any couple that fails to meet their approval ... Regardless of race or gender ... Then there is no cause for Federal involvement.

Churches have denied marriage services to standard heterosexual couples who fail meet their criteria since the church was established ... No special treatment towards same-sex couples is warranted.

The question of whether or not the state will recognize a same-sex marriage is a matter of state ... Whether or not a church will offer marriage services to any couple is a church matter.

.

 

[Skylar]

I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.

Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?

For gays getting married? Nope.

 

[Skylar]

Legislation that dictates activities concerning the services offered by the church ... Would actually violate the First Amendment as well as the additional desires towards any separation between church and state.

I agree.

Since the church reserves and practices their right to deny marriages services to any couple that fails to meet their approval ... Regardless of race or gender ... Then there is no cause for Federal involvement.

I agree again.

Churches have denied marriage services to standard heterosexual couples who fail meet their criteria since the church was established ... No special treatment towards same-sex couples is warranted.

Damn straight.

The question of whether or not the state will recognize a same-sex marriage is a matter of state ... Whether not a church will offer marriage services to any couple is a church matter.

10 for 10. Your argument is flawless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can we all agree that the argument isn't over the right to marry it is over the definition of marriage?

The issue is over if the definition of marriage in some states violates the right to marry of gays and lesbians.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Certainly, up until very recently, marriage was never even considered to be anything other then between a man and a woman. Marriage was a contract between a man and woman for the legal protection of both. Certainly limitations were put on marriage, a man still can't legally marry his sister. A man can't have more then one wife. So a limitation on a man can't marry a man certainly seems to be within the jurisdiction of the law.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a coordinated attack upon the US. It is designed to promote civil unrest, just prior to the detonation of the US Economy. It's evil doing what would reasonably be expected of evil.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Making the comparison, falsely, between interracial marriage is first an insult. Secondly in order for such a limitation it would mean that the black man or woman would have to be defined as something different then a white man or woman. Not so with gay marriage, a woman is still a woman a man a man.

Yep...

 

[Skylar]

The judiciary defines laws not makes laws. So they rule on laws passed by the legislature which is what they have been doing when they shoot down defense of marriage laws. Thus by default that is making law, which is not their job.

Depends on the judge. If they're state justices they tend to use laws to ajudicate cases involving infractoins of those laws.

At the federal level, it tends to be adjudicate of the laws themselves. If they're constitutional, they remain. If they're unconstitutional, they're overruled and invalidated.

Exactly as the founders intended:

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS Library of Congress

If the state's laws are in conflict with the constitution, deference goes to the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a coordinated attack upon the US. It is designed to promote civil unrest, just prior to the detonation of the US Economy. It's evil doing what would reasonably be expected of evil.

You've already said that the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. So how can nobody 'coordinate attacks upon the US'?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Leon M. Bazile

Loving V. Virginia was a demonstration that venerable and institutional assumptions about the definition of marriage are as malleable and changeable as we decide they are. And if we determine that a past definition violates rights, we have not only the ability to overturn such definitions, but the duty to do so.

LOL! See how that works? They're claiming, that because they have a highly subjective need, the culture must adjust any standard which prevents them from acquiring that which they subjectively need... to accommodate such. This without regard to any other consideration... .

BECAUSE they need it, therefore they have a right to it.

Such is the personification of evil.

 

[Skylar]

LOL! See how that works? They're claiming, that because they have a highly subjective need, the culture must adjust any standard which prevents them from acquiring that which they subjectively need... to accommodate such. This without regard to any other consideration... .

What 'other consideration' would you be referring to? Vague much?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a coordinated attack upon the US. It is designed to promote civil unrest, just prior to the detonation of the US Economy. It's evil doing what would reasonably be expected of evil.

You've already said that the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. So how can nobody 'coordinate attacks upon the US'?

There is no record of my having ever said anything of the kind. Such a position is absurd on its face, as "The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality "IS" comprised of every individual who advocates for the normalization of sexual abnormality. YOU are such an individual, thus where you are at issue YOU ARE THE ADVOCACY THE NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.

 

[Skylar]

There is no record of my having ever said anything of the kind.

After making all sorts of accusations against your strawman the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality',you insisted you hadn't made an accusation against anyone.

Okay. Then the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone.

 

[Skylar]

Government didn't and doesn't define marriage. Nature designed the species and that design, defines marriage.

Who says nature defines marriage? That would be you and......certainly not the law. Who then?

And if the only purpose of marriage is children, how do you explain infertile couples getting married? Or the validity of marriages of childless couples....with 1 in 4 married couples never having kids? Or your grandparents still being married? Wouldn't their marriages be invalidated if they couldn't meet the only purpose of the union?

Clearly there is more than one purpose in marriage. And clearly there's a valid purpose in marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Since the requirement to have children isn't a standard that applies to anyone, why would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on that non-existent requirement?

Logically and rationally...we wouldn't. Which is why gay marriage bans fail so consistently in court, with the record of failure for such bans in the federal judiciary essentially perfect.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So we fight over definition. When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage. The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.

We fight over rights. And whether or not those definitions violate them by arbitrary excluding groups for no particular reason.[sic]

A 'need' does not a 'right' make. This without regard to the whimsy of the intellectually less fortunate who claim otherwise.

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.

There is no POTENTIAL for a right to force others to accept a deceit... and this without regard to HOW MANY individuals you manage to seat upon the US Federal Judiciary who subjectively STATE OTHERWISE.

All THAT will result in, is forcing The People to bear the responsibilities which constitute their duty, to 'throw off such government, and to provide new guards for the nations future security'.

There's literally no alternative, beyond conceding to the death that is axiomatic in tolerating evil. And make no mistake that you and your cult are manifestly evil.

We know this because of your own testimony, here, part and parcel of which is your standing refusal to simply take a stand against further predictable encroachments upon decency, not the least of which is the on-going efforts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to "LEGALIZE" the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

 

[Syriusly]

I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.

Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?

No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.

No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. .

No

 

[Syriusly]

I

THE VIRUS​

Bat Guano Crazy.

Now in big red letters.