Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.

So you feel that because someone is defined by their perverse reasoning as perverse, that to spare their feelings of illegitimacy, the words which are used to describe their perversion should be changed ?

You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as "Candle-wax" ... .

Anything gettin' through here?

This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...": Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals. You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like. In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.

I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as "Candle-wax" ... .

Anything gettin' through here?

This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...": Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals. You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like. In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.

I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol

You're speaking of temporal, illicitly gained legalities... I'm speaking of truth.

In truth: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Please feel free to return to this board, when the Legalities return to a sound moral foundation, wherein the adults finally come to realize that contracts in one state MUST be accepted in EVERY STATE for the contract to be VALID. And that where the issue central to the contract is REJECTED by MOST STATES, such a contract can NEVER BE VALID.

This is where this is heading and where you people prevail in populating the government with sufficient numbers of those who reject sound reasoning, thus threaten the fabric of national viability, then we, the Americans, will inevitably have no choice but to destroy your government.

Take a read of the Charter of American Principles and see if you can find a soundly reasoned moral justification in there which speaks to precisely this circumstance and see if you find some means to shut the fuck up, sit down and be thankful that you have landed in a nation of a tolerant, peace-loving and free people.

If so then you're a reasonable person, with a sound sense of survival.

If not, then you're a sociopathic suicide, bent upon your own destruction and that of those around you.

The former sets you within the group: Reasonable.

The latter sets you within the group: Perverse.

Now, please... inform the board of where you find yourself.

 

[mdk]

You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as "Candle-wax" ... .

Anything gettin' through here?

This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...": Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals. You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like. In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.

I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol

You're speaking of temporal, illicitly gained legalities... I'm speaking of truth.

In truth: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Please feel free to return to this board, when the Legalities return to a sound moral foundation, wherein the adults finally come to realize that contracts in one state MUST be accepted in EVERY STATE for the contract to be VALID. And that where the issue central to the contract is REJECTED by MOST STATES, such a contract can NEVER BE VALID.

This is where this is heading and where you people prevail in populating the government with sufficient numbers of those who reject sound reasoning, thus threaten the fabric of national viability, then we, the Americans, will inevitably have no choice but to destroy your government.

Take a read of the Charter of American Principles and see if you can find a soundly reasoned moral justification in there which speaks to precisely this circumstance and see if you find some means to shut the fuck up, sit down and be thankful that you have landed in a nation of a tolerant, peace-loving and free people.

If so then you're a reasonable person, with a sound sense of survival.

If not, then you're a sociopathic suicide, bent upon your own destruction and that of those around you.

The former sets you within the group: Reasonable.

The latter sets you within the group: Perverse.

Now, please... inform the board of where you find yourself.

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[mdk]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Your concession was by default...

Once again kids, note that they NEED IT BOTH WAYS!

"Our Deviancy is accepted by THE MAJORITY therefore we're accepted and we don't care IF the Majority accepts us, The Courts say you MUST ACCEPT US, OR ELSE!"


Such is the nature of evil and such represents a concession by DEFAULT!

Suffice it to say that there is NOTHING in the US Constitution which allows for a people to advance PERVERSE REASONING INTO LAW...

Zero...

None...

Nada...

ZILCH!

And the suggestion that such does exist, is just ANOTHER example of the Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance which rests as the fundamental tenets of socialism.

 

[beagle9]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Isn't the constitution held up by we the people, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ? I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think there is definitely a breach of church and state going on here, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?

So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage. Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization? (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)



>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Isn't the constitution held up by we the people, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ? I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

 

[beagle9]

I think there is definitely a breach of church and state going on here, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?

So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage. Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization? (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)



>>>>

There is no such thing as same sex holy matrimony, so what's your point ? I mean people can do what ever they want, and they can call it what ever they want, but that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God or in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of American citizens now does it ? For the ones who want to live apart from such weird and strange things, then how do you suppose they do that without a voice or representation to do so ? This is why people elect people they want to represent them, and they expect results not a sell out to the highest bidder afterwards. To many lies are told, and to much fraud is going on in the electorate now, where as they will smile and tell you one thing, but then do another because of the pressure and corruption that is overwhelming when they reach the center of the rotten core finally.

 

[beagle9]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Isn't the constitution held up by we the people, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ? I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, – where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men, are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Isn't the constitution held up by we the people, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ? I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

Who is that you think made up the rule of law in this nation ??????????? It was MEN!
Now here you are saying that men are not capable of ruling justly ????????? Well then who is sitting in the judges seats in America, umm is it ALIENS from another planet maybe ? No they are just men, and they are men who are fallible of course, and this is why we need a majority consensus (upon a jury the majority does agree to pass judgement on the criminal, and that is just one example), so it usually ends up being men making the decisions as best that they can, and so they attempt to come to a proper or righteous judgement and conclusion on many things and/or issues in this way. It is because of a majority consensus that the choices made or decisions made will be as good as they can be, and this is when making a ruling as based upon the laws in which were established by men, yes MEN or upon any other issues that this nation deals with or even the citizens deal with just as well. Yes their are those men who came to a consensus on what they understood to be correct, and also they came to a consensus as to being also correct in the eyes of God for which this nation has believed in from the beginning, and was built upon from out of Men's Hearts in that way.

Now of course Men are moving or trying to move the goal post on so many issues, and then they are applying so many remedies that it is just ridiculous anymore.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Isn't the constitution held up by we the people, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ? I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, – where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men, are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.

False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.

Isn't the constitution held up by we the people, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ? I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

Who is that you think made up the rule of law in this nation ??????????? It was MEN!
Now here you are saying that men are not capable of ruling justly ????????? Well then who is sitting in the judges seats in America, umm is it ALIENS from another planet maybe ? No they are just men, and they are men who are fallible of course, and this is why we need a majority consensus (upon a jury the majority does agree to pass judgement on the criminal, and that is just one example), so it usually ends up men as best that they can, attempts to come to a proper or righteous conclusion on many things and/or issues in this way. It is because of a majority consensus that the choices made or decisions made will be as good as they can be, and this is when making a ruling as based upon the laws in which were established by men, yes MEN or upon any other issues that this nation deals with or even the citizens deal with just as well. Yes their are those men who came to a consensus on what they understood to be correct, and also they came to a consensus as to being also correct in the eyes of God for which this nation has believed in from the beginning, and was built upon from out of Men's Hearts in that way.

Now of course Men are moving or trying to move the goal post on so many issues, and then they are applying so many remedies that it is just ridiculous anymore.

True... and all of goal post moving is a direct result of Relativism... the core around which Left-think exists.

 

[beagle9]

The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

The framers would have never conceived that we would be dealing with what we are all dealing with today either, so it's hang on for the ride I guess, because it might get a little bit bumpy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.

The framers would have never conceived that we would be dealing with what we are all dealing with today either, so it's hang on for the ride I guess, because it might get a little bit bumpy.

The Constitution is a device which serves the principles that were declared as the foundational basis of the United States. That is why the efficacy of the US Constitution is not subject to antiquation, push back by mouthy minorities who feel that it's 'negative' in its effect and that such is an obstacle to their otherwise 'honorable and ever so good... intentions.

And that is why the Founders did not need to 'consider' or provide an answer to every single possible scenario that might ever result from timeless strings of possibilities... .

Principles are immutable laws of nature... they're no more 'alterable' than the physical laws with which the conservatives are familiar and it is from those principles which the Constitution governs.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy...

The Framers did not seek to create a democracy... PERIOD. They considered the idea, debated the idea and PASSED, stating specific and uncertain reasoning for their rejection of such.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.

I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong!

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think there is definitely a breach of church and state going on here, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?

So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage. Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization? (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)



>>>>

There is no such thing as same sex holy matrimony, so what's your point ? I mean people can do what ever they want, and they can call it what ever they want, but that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God or in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of American citizens now does it ? For the ones who want to live apart from such weird and strange things, then how do you suppose they do that without a voice or representation to do so ? This is why people elect people they want to represent them, and they expect results not a sell out to the highest bidder afterwards. To many lies are told, and to much fraud is going on in the electorate now, where as they will smile and tell you one thing, but then do another because of the pressure and corruption that is overwhelming when they reach the center of the rotten core finally.

As to the emphasized part above, are you saying there are not religious organizations (Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc.) that are now providing religious marriage to same-sex couples?

The rest just seems to be a wall of text trying very hard not to answer the question that was asked.


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.

I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Secular marriages have been performed for decades. That tradition has already been shattered. Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.

It isn't a winning debate point. Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade.

Anti gay-marriage crusade. Please be accurate. I actually have friends who are gay or bi. And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.

Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials. Gay marriage? Flawed institutionalization. There is a huge difference. It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum. We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand. CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, it anti-gay. Whom you call a 'cult', 'despised' and have strongly insinuated are child abusers and child molesters.

Which is odd, as you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. The moment they don't let you bash gays, they're immediately ignored. Even when they suffer by the millions by your own standards.

 

[Skylar]

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Well that's false. Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears. Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

That again is false. The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage. Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.


>>>>

Not false, because the civil union idea was a work in progress (a compromise), so why couldn't it be worked out over time to the benefits of what the poster had spoken of ? I thought you all were about being progressive, but you want to annex an ancient thing that was created long ago in order to lift up, and to bind the man, woman, child family unit as one, and to nourish the traditions set forth in that structural family apparatus called marriage in which was set up to do these things under religious tenets.

Because it works. Its fully formed, it conveys fully a range of benefits that civil unions don't, is already codified into the law, is recognized in every state, is already intergrated into the private sector. Plus, there are more greeting cards celebrating it, making it easier to shop for.

If civil unions are the same as marriage, then civil unions are unnecessary.

And if civil unions are inferior to marriage....well that's why gays want marriage.