Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

Christian Voice
reply to post by Aleister

 

Yet you hold true words written by other men. Irony in it's fullest.

True, I hold true words written by others. Truth is to be looked for, imnho, and honored. And please explain how it's not true that gay people are only attracted to members of their own sex? That there is a choice for them? And where is the research that backs this up? True words, or, in the language of the young, word.

And as America crumbles, this is what makes the news.

I'm glad they lifted the ban, don't get me wrong. But there are a plethora of other things that desperately needs as much (if not MORE) attention than gay marriage. (For those of you wondering exactly what, you obviously haven't been paying attention the past twenty years.)

Christian Voice
The equal protection clause is about race only which one cannot change. It has nothing about homosexuality or marriage both of which are choices.

No being gay is not a choice. If it was then I would have chose to be straight a long time ago. There were times when I was in my teens that I hated being bisexual because of some people who make people like me feel like they are abnormal. It took me a long time to accept myself for who I am and to love myself for me.

It bothers me when a straight person says that it's a choice to be gay. There are gay people who live some pretty rough lives because they are gay. Those people don't choose to be treated like their mutants and they don't choose to be gay either.

reply to post by Christian Voice


It's God's place to judge mankind not man's.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Matthew 7:1-5

The ruling is still in place, as the federal judge who handed down the decision has not allowed a stay in the case. It now goes to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Alabama
Kentucky
Nevada
Ohio
Texas
Virginia
Wyoming

These Red-States gay marriage is illegal but beastiality isn't.

Condragulations Utah! LoveIsLove!


one step closer to equality

Here is a good L.A. Times article summarizing what occurred this last week in Utah, New Mexico, and Ohio (an Ohio judge ruled that the state must accept the marriage of a couple who married out-of-state on the death certificate):

www.latimes.com...

Same-sex marriage is picking up steam in the courts. A federal judge ordered Ohio on Monday to recognize gay marriages on death certificates, but used broad language that could be cited to mount a broader challenge to the law barring such unions.


It was the third judicial decision in the last week favoring same-sex marriage rights. In Utah, a federal judge struck down a gay marriage ban Friday and refused to suspend his decision Monday. A federal appellate court also rejected Utah's plea to put his ruling on hold.

As I said earlier on this thread, this Utah ruling "feels" to me like a big one. A major one. And reading that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the U.S., has refused to put Utah's marriage status on hold, tells me that even conservatives can no longer, given the way the Supreme Court ruling was written, defend anything less than full marriage for gay folk. I said it may take a year for the entire U.S. to legalize gay marriage, but it may be much much sooner if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a quick ruling at some point. Given the language of the previous Supreme Court decision, the case or ruling which will legalize it from that bench may have a 9-0 vote (something done when they really want to make a point, although getting Clarence Thomas on board, kicking and screaming, may be hard).

As a sidenote, all the talk you hear about Thomas never speaking in court, that only goes for formal questions and speaking to the public from the bench. When I was lucky enough to get a front-row spectator seat at the court a few years ago, he almost never stopped talking to the justices on either side of him. During that same visit I had a fun staring contest with Anthony Kennedy, and won on about a two-minute TKO. Bottom line, they all looked really bored up there, except for John Paul Stevens, and he was sharp as a tack and the most involved of all the justices in what was being discussed.

And another refused stay by the Circuit Court, and it seems a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is next.

From ABC News:

abcnews.go.com...

Utah's last chance to temporarily stop the marriages would be a long-shot request before U.S. Supreme Court. That's what the Utah attorney general's office is prepared to do, spokesman Ryan Bruckman said. Gov. Gary Herbert's office declined to comment on the decision.

"We're disappointed in the ruling, but we just have to take it to the next level," Bruckman said.

Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond who has tracked legal battles for gay marriage, said he expects the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision by Friday. He thinks Utah faces long odds to get their stay granted, considering two courts have already rejected it and marriages have been going on for days now.

"The longer this goes on, the less likely it becomes that any court is going to entertain a stay," Tobias said.

reply to post by buster2010


Actually Christians were called to judge others but it's the motive and heart behind it that matters. He calls for us to call a sin a sin, to inform others of their sins but to do it in a way that we are not putting them beneath us. However, homosexuality is a different animal altogether. In Romans it says that God gives them over to their perversions to burn in their lusts. They are the one sinner that not only insist on forcing others to accept their sin but they rejoice in others committing the same sins and they recruit others in to their sins. Homosexuals are the one group that can see no logic, they are blinded by their sins and as this website has proven time and again there is no chance of logically speaking with them. They start by insisting they are born that way, when that does not win them the argument they declair the Bible null and void and that lower animals show signs of what they think to be homosexual behavior (all the while comparing themselves to the lower animals in an attempt to show it is "natural" which it is not, and when that doesn't sway us they begin the hateful name calling (bigot, hate monger, hater, ignorant, etc.)
They have shown time and again that it is either black or white with them, that we either agree with them or we hate them. When did disagree equate to hate in this world ? Children deal in absolutions.

So a week will have gone by with no court stay on the ruling. But Utah will keep trying, although from accounts I've read the appeal for a stay to the U.S. Supreme Court may not work. From the Christian Science Monitor:

www.csmonitor.com...

Utah's request to the US Supreme Court would go to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is assigned oversight of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Utah. She could either rule on the issue herself or refer it to the full court. If she denies the request, the state has the option of requesting that it be heard by the full high court, but that process would likely involve some delay.

Working against Utah officials are the previous denials, in particular one by the 10th Circuit. The denials suggest that there is skepticism concerning the state’s arguments, including its claim that continuing to issue marriage licenses before the case has run its full course will do “irreparable harm” to the state. The state also needs to show its argument is strong enough to win an eventual appeal.

Christian Voice
reply to post by buster2010

 

However, homosexuality is a different animal altogether. In Romans it says that God gives them over to their perversions to burn in their lusts.

All sins are equal in the eyes of God, blasphemer. This is the problem with people like you; ignorant of your own creed and rampant on your own personal, feeble, adolescent little pseudo-agendas that you wish to push for your own personal satisfaction.

It's disgraceful.

If you are a woman, I hope you consider 1 Timothy 2:12 and mourn for your own sins that you've partaken in on this thread:

1 Timothy 2

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

They are the one sinner that not only insist on forcing others to accept their sin but they rejoice in others committing the same sins and they recruit others in to their sins.

Sounds a lot like you, actually. I suppose Jesus would have urged everyone to pick up the stones and try to aim them at the homosexuals despite the log in their own eyes clogging up their vision, hm?

Get real.

Homosexuals are the one group that can see no logic, they are blinded by their sins and as this website has proven time and again there is no chance of logically speaking with them.

Says the genius citing a book from thousands of years ago as the sole source of any intellectualism.

....Please.

I've suspected you have the IQ of an 8th grade student for a while now (Although 8th grade students have much better spelling, grammar, and language comprehension skills).

Mind the glass walls of that house, ma'am.

(all the while comparing themselves to the lower animals in an attempt to show it is "natural" which it is not, and when that doesn't sway us they begin the hateful name calling (bigot, hate monger, hater, ignorant, etc.)

None of those are hateful name calling. They are exactly the opposite. They are names for hateful name-callers. You may have to bend over and pry your head from areas in which it needs to be realeased from in order to realize that; sorry.

Children deal in absolutions.

Children believe in fairy tales. Moronic adults judge people based on fairy tales.

The remainder of the world will rejoice in jubilation when ignorant buffoons from your group-think parrot aviary die off for good and take your absurd, polluted world views with you.

If you're going to preach the Bible, try reading it. You sound like you read Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans and then stopped and decided to go hate on gay people.

I guess you missed this one in Romans, though.

Romans 3

10 As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

Get a life.

I could go on further to say that anyone who lives in a secular society needs to realize that The Bible is not a valid source for legal manipulation, but I have a feeling you're incapable of understanding that. It must be nice to be so blissfully ignorant.

Should we also ban in society, according to Biblical scripture:

- Stealing slaves from their masters

- Allowing women to speak publicly

- Any religious imagery (crucifix, the cross, buddha, etc.)

- The term "Oh my god"

- Figs

- Any non-kosher food

- Adultery

- Divorce

- Working on the Sabbath

- Consulting a spiritualist or psychic

- Planting more than one kind of seed in a field

- Wearing clothes woven with more than one kind of thread (I bet you're on the highway to hell right now for that one)

- Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or trimming the sides of your beard

- Disobedient slaves

........???

reply to post by TheRegal


Good heavens, when are people gonna stop using this lame argument to condemn Christian beliefs?

Regurgitated, re-hashed, hackneyed, boring and self-righteous. I'm not a Christian and I'm sick of seeing it.

He doesn't like gays, get over it, it's his right, the same way it's your right to shag a man if you want.

reply to post by briocheplease


Not to feed the eagles, but citing the other nonsense is a good counter-argument to the posts which cite the Bible as an argument against gay-marriage laws. I like the one about not mixing two threads in one piece of clothing, or you can get stoned, or be stoned. Anti-gay arguing Christians, after reading that, can never wear much of their wardrobe again or they will be knowingly defying the word of God (they can give those clothes to the poor, let them sin, as they are always with us anyway).

Christian Voice
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

State laws superceid federal laws anyway.

It looks like someone slept through their fifth grade civics class, and the nap lasted through spelling class, too. I guess you never heard of the Supremecy Clause of the US Constitution. You know, Article VI, paragraph 2. A state law can never supercede a federal law. A state law can take effect where federal law and the constitution are silent, but the state can not take away a right guatanteed by the US Constitution. Otherwise the "god-fearing good people" of Tennessee could vote to put all non-Baptist, non-bigoted, non-white-like-them people in prison.

reply to post by ExoPatriotico

ExoPatriotico
If Mormons say yes to homo stuff then it will be easy to win back many marriages rights - No?

No. With the exception of recently rushed/passed unconstitutional state amendments "gay marriage" was never illegal to begin with; it just wasn't recognized. Laws against polygamy have been in existence on the books for ages.

The fact of the matter is that most people view marriage as a union between two consenting adults. Not 3, 4, 5, not animals, not children, or any of the other ridiculous "slippery slope" arguments. That's not likely to change.

briocheplease
reply to post by TheRegal

 

Good heavens, when are people gonna stop using this lame argument to condemn Christian beliefs?

Regurgitated, re-hashed, hackneyed, boring and self-righteous. I'm not a Christian and I'm sick of seeing it.

He doesn't like gays, get over it, it's his right, the same way it's your right to shag a man if you want.

Right, but as soon as you voice your opinion, I'm supposed to shut up?

No thank you.

My post was a fine rebuttal and I stand behind it. You can't claim that homosexuality is immoral because the Bible says it's wrong and then go about doing thousands of things yourself that the Bible condemns and act like it's no problem. I find this especially applicable to things like Kosher law because, like homosexuality, it's simply preferential. When people like figs and red meat, it's okay to eat them... Since they're heterosexual they have no qualms saying that homosexuality is wrong and attribute it to the Bible and try to claim some moral high ground. I wonder if they didn't like figs they'd say that figs are against the Bible? Might as well, they never have to eat them and they get to tell everyone how better than everyone else they are. Real Christ-like behaviour, right?

I'm sorry if you're sick of hearing it, but you're going to continue hearing it until either these hateful nut-jobs finally get the message, or they die off.

ExoPatriotico
This is Mormon place. Mormons want polygamy to be a legal thing now. If Mormons say yes to homo stuff then it will be easy to win back many marriages rights - No?

Where are you getting this bunk?

the LDS are very anti-polygamy. It is the cultish fractions that want the polygamy.

reply to post by redmage


The "fact" of the matter is "most" people didn't vote for gay marriage so how can you say they support it?

The "fact" of the matter is almost every state that allows gay marriage did so by a judges decision and not the will of the people.

This simple ploy is why I feel the entire argument is an attempt at legislating acceptance rather than equal rights. Homosexuals want to be included into "traditional" marriage rather than redefining marriage. Once something is fundamentally redefined it is no longer traditional ( argue however you like, change the gender in a relationship is a fundamental change).

Marriage laws need to be changed across the entire spectrum to be just and equal for all. As long as all parties are adults and not related by blood (third generation or closer), who are we to judge? What right do we have to say who or how many someone should love?

200Plus
Once something is fundamentally redefined it is no longer traditional ( argue however you like, change the gender in a relationship is a fundamental change).

No, it's not.

It's the exact same thing, the only difference is the participants are offered to everyone regardless of their preferences of their consenting adult mate.

That's not a fundamental change.

Examples of fundamental changes to marriage would be prenuptial agreements or divorces.