|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
The reason that almost every Christian celebration has pagan influence is because they had to be hidden in plain sight in order for worshipers to avoid being persecuted, or even killed, for celebrating their beliefs.
That's why Christmas was intermixed with another holiday. Same thing with Easter. Open celebration of Christian beliefs was, at one time, a death sentence.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
Yeah but does that automatically mean now that the practices held within a "Traditional Marriage ceremony" are specifically christian just because they adopted them? Especially since they have pagan roots. The traditions aren't Christian as much as they've been assimilated into what people's preconceived notions are.
I have a sister who is going to get married in the middle of a forest barefoot with her soon to be husband... will that be a legitimate wedding?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I thought I covered more ground and frankly, outside of some legal terminology, did a better job - I'll grant he was a bit more concise but likely had days and a staff to prepare his argument.
Got pretty much the same nit-picking. My impression was that possible long-term societal damage was not a factor, the only concern was that it was discrimination and that it must end, consequences be damned.
And, of course, if you opposed this in any way, for any reason, you must be a bigot.
Pertinent points or terminology - the concept of "similarly situated", the fact that discrimination is in fact constitutional if there is some over-riding State interest in the question.
Amazing to me that they spent more time discussing who they should be talking to than what they should be talking about. It's the freaking Supreme Court, can't they make sure they have the correct people in the room without wasting so much time on that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
To me it would be like trying to turn Christmas into a completely secular holiday. While the tradition may have had some background of hiding in plain sight, that does not negate the Christian influence over the holiday.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Very happy to see this. One step to a road that sees equality.
Except that it doesn't. It throws it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs. It also eliminates any possibility that some states will ever legalize 'gay marriage' and won't have to recognize those marriages (or any marriages, gay or otherwise) from states that support such laws.
For example, a gay (or straight) couple married in a state that allows 'gay marriage' that moves to a state that doesn't allow it may find that the new state that they reside in doesn't recognize their marriage at all.
In the example for a straight couple that gets married in state, the new state may require them to legally get married in either the state of their new residence or one with which the state has a reciprocal marriage agreement with and it won't matter what the federal government has to say about it.
While it's true that the federal government may now recognize the marriage, the state isn't required to do so. The states still set the rules for what a marriage is in their jurisdictions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
States have the power to legislate just about anything that doesn't violate civil rights or the constitution.
This is what Kennedy was getting at. He flat out said we can't restrict the rights of two people that cause no harm to anyone. This is why DOMA was struck down.
The DOMA law had nothing to do with the states and their ability to define what marriage is. The fact that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional does not relinquish the states abilities to define what marriage is in their jurisdictions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,902
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,902 |
Quote:
Glad you liked it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
j/c Far as I'm concerned we're one more step toward judgement. Don't care where the 'traditions' came from, the same book that says Don't Steal (something that is enforced by a 'political body'), Don't Murder (another piece of legislation enforced 'politically') and some that are not enforced politically like 'Do not commit adultery' or 'Have sex outside of marriage (the second of which I can't see any male on earth whatsoever imposing on himself) said 'Man shall not lie with man as with Woman'. Whatever marriage traditions we enact in order to comply with Gods standards are not the point. The point is we comply with Gods standards. Why? His house, his rules. Same thing I tell my kids.  Do we do that all the time? No. But we keep trying. I can see where people are coming from from a human non believer stand point as far as 'rights' go, but as believers we believe our rights come from above and therefore though you advocate for what you do, you cannot cause me through earthly legislation to agree with you.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,233
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,233 |
Quote:
Quote:
Very happy to see this. One step to a road that sees equality.
Except that it doesn't. It throws it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs. It also eliminates any possibility that some states will ever legalize 'gay marriage' and won't have to recognize those marriages (or any marriages, gay or otherwise) from states that support such laws.
For example, a gay (or straight) couple married in a state that allows 'gay marriage' that moves to a state that doesn't allow it may find that the new state that they reside in doesn't recognize their marriage at all.
In the example for a straight couple that gets married in state, the new state may require them to legally get married in either the state of their new residence or one with which the state has a reciprocal marriage agreement with and it won't matter what the federal government has to say about it.
While it's true that the federal government may now recognize the marriage, the state isn't required to do so. The states still set the rules for what a marriage is in their jurisdictions.
But that raises the conflict I identified earlier....using Kennedy's rationale for voiding the statute based on constitutional grounds. How can he throw it back to the states....since they don't have the power to legislate anything that violates the constitution? It appears to me that a state now can not create or enforce any anti gay marriage law, as we now have precedent that it violates constitutional rights. This is a huge victory for the pro gay marriage folks.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I'm not real clear on their reasoning, but it was pretty definite from the transcript that this ruling was meant to apply to California only, might apply to other states that had civil unions, and would not apply to states that had not yet addressed gay marriage.
They discussed it as an all-or-nothing deal, no in-between, but not ruling out either end.
Also California is one of few states with same-sex adoption policies, that was a significant factor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
I read the first few and decided I needed to make some thoughts known.. might not make me popular.. ah well I could care less I have season tickets... course thats another of my problems.
I'll be blunt, I could care less about who loves and screws who. Not my problem or my issue. I'm more concerned with beating pittsburp and *ichigan
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
'Man shall not lie with man as with Woman'.
Leviticus 18:22
You know what else is in Leviticus says your shouldn't do?
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics wouldn't you say?) (10:9)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) (What no shrimp, oysters, or lobster?)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) (Poor biologists)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) (Where's the efficiency in that?)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) (like shirt you and I are wearing? )
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19) (Oh noooo don't take away Mules)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) (Poor farmers)
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27) (There goes the military and well really anybody who shaves)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23) (There goes real estate)
Now do you really want to keep relying on Leviticus?
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
And Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it by living it perfectly as a Jew. The law of the Old Testament is not binding upon Christians. It never was binding upon Gentiles, and Jesus brought the 2 groups together by perfectly fulfilling the law. (in other words, he never broke any aspect of the law) That said, God still hates sin, and we should try not to sin. We will all fail, and will all need the Grace of God through Faith in Jesus Christ to forgive us our sins. That does not mean that we should consciously go out and sin "just because we can, and are forgiven".
I have, personally, struggled with how God sees 2 people of the same sex who truly love one another. I have had numerous conversations regarding this, and I still cannot say with absolute certainty either way. God hates, and cannot abide sin. Jesus absolves us of our sins by forgiving us and taking our punishment Himself. Jesus said to go forth and sin no more. Do I believe that he meant that literally? Absolutely not. No man can ever hope to never sin ever again. I believe that Jesus means that we go forth and live a live according to his teachings, and that our sins are forgiven us as long as we repent them by Grace and Faith in Him. However, can we truly repent our sins if we continue to commit them? That's a really tough question for me.
I am not going to pretend I have the answers, because I absolutely do not. I do welcome a serious conversation on the matter, but not "gotcha" type stuff.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
"gotcha"
Hypocrisy is what I call it. Lots of people like to quote ole Leviticus 18 22 but few actually know all which Leviticus entails. You cannot point to Leviticus 18 22 on one hand and say that it is the law then on the other hand deny all the ridiculousness that Leviticus contains. You either accept all of Leviticus or none of it otherwise you're just a hypocrite, a bigot, or ignorant.
You calling it "gotcha type stuff" doesn't change the fact that Leviticus contains crazy, unreasonable, and illogical rules. Now if you truly believe in Leviticus 18:22 and want to defend the rest of Leviticus be my guest...otherwise it's hypocrisy.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
The law was the law prior to Jesus' dying for our sins. It no longer applies to those of us who believe in Him. (in the simplest of terms)
That does not mean that Christians have carte blanch to sin as freely as we please.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Now if it becomes legal, I also have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple.
This is about the legal aspect of gay marriage, not the morality of it.
Yeah, you might not ... but someone else might. And now they can claim that a "gay marriage" is legal and that a church is discriminating against them, which opens up a whole new can of worms. And if you think that won't happen, that's why I mentioned the whole Catholic Church and the birth control thing ... there you have the government trying to force it's moral beliefs onto a church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I do welcome a serious conversation on the matter, but not "gotcha" type stuff.
How is it a 'gotcha' type thing to point out what the Bible says?
I honestly never understood how religious people could argue that the teachings and rules of a sacred book are to be observed, but as soon as someone points out all of the weirder parts, they want to roll their eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 66
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 66 |
Quote:
I'm for gay marriage for the simple reason that I believe in the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
People are against gay marriage for one reason, their religious beliefs. And that's more than fine. However, your religious beliefs do not belong in politics.
But, I really wish straight people would stop using the "It doesn't even affect you if they can get married!" argument. You're right. It doesn't. But it also doesn't affect YOU if they can't.
It's just a lazy argument that is really annoying.
The misinterpretation of the 1st amendment rears its head again. The 1st amendment says nothing about separation of church and state in the context as many of you are brainwashed by the left believe.
It states "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion..."
Look up the word "respecting". It is defined as "having to do with" or "pertaining to".
In other words, "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW having to do with an establishment of religion...meaning there would not be a law proclaiming an "official church" of the US as there was in England.
Making laws regarding religious establishment was what Thomas Jefferson was referring to by the "wall of separation" in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Believing the Founding Fathers would be against allowing the nativity scene at city hall, or a judge posting of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, or prayer in schools etc. because they offend whiney liberals is ludicrous.
The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson asking for his help in overthrowing the establishment.
T Jeffersons letter...
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
OK, carry on with topic.
Hooray for the gay
Jan. 1. 1802. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182 |
Quote:
Quote:
Now if it becomes legal, I also have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple.
This is about the legal aspect of gay marriage, not the morality of it.
Yeah, you might not ... but someone else might. And now they can claim that a "gay marriage" is legal and that a church is discriminating against them, which opens up a whole new can of worms. And if you think that won't happen, that's why I mentioned the whole Catholic Church and the birth control thing ... there you have the government trying to force it's moral beliefs onto a church.
While relgious people force their moral beliefs on everyone. You can twist this religion thing any way you want. The real issue is equality.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
And now they can claim that a "gay marriage" is legal and that a church is discriminating against them, which opens up a whole new can of worms.
I don't see how one could find this plausible.
I am a heterosexual who has always had the legal right to marry who I choose, and there are a whole roster of churches, synagogues and mosques that would turn down my request to be married there.
And I don't think a discrimination suit would really get very far.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Right. And there will be plenty of churches that elect to marry us. In case this is news to some people around here, gay people can be "Christians", too. There are even "gay" churches! 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,245
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,245 |
Quote:
Right. And there will be plenty of churches that elect to marry us. In case this is news to some people around here, gay people can be "Christians", too. There are even "gay" churches!
No doubt. If it is legal in the individual state, finding a church wouldn't be a problem.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
I don't see how one could find this plausible.
I am a heterosexual who has always had the legal right to marry who I choose, and there are a whole roster of churches, synagogues and mosques that would turn down my request to be married there.
And I don't think a discrimination suit would really get very far.
They went after the Boy Scouts didn't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Right. And there will be plenty of churches that elect to marry us. In case this is news to some people around here, gay people can be "Christians", too. There are even "gay" churches!
That's not my point at all ... I'm sure 99.99% of people will be fine. But there's always those one or two people that just "have" to have a Jewish Wedding or a Catholic wedding or whatnot, and will throw a fit that they can't have one in said church.
Similar to the BSA ... they could join any number of boy/girl clubs that are more accepting of the lifestyle or create their own new organization ... but there's that few that just HAVE to be in the BSA and threaten discrimination lawsuits, until they are finally forcing their own moral beliefs down the throats of others.
I am just fine with the "Let people do whatever they want in their own bedrooms, it doesn't effect you" argument ... it's just that history has already show that won't be the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877 |
I think the biggest flaw in your argument here is equating the BSA to a religious institution.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
The "gotcha" goes both ways, quite frankly.
The Bible explains how the Law works. It explains how Jesus can to fulfill the Law, and how the Law is no longer binding upon Christians.
In Old Testament times, there was no Messiah yet. The Law was binding upon Jews. Old Testament Law has never been binding upon Christians.
Thus, eating pork, and other sins of the Old Testament are no longer sins for Christians. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us. He lived the perfect life in our place. He died for us. He went into hell and defeated death for us. When God judges us, he sees not us, but Jesus, because we are redeemed through Faith in Jesus, and by the Grace of God.
Again, though, this does not mean that we have carte blanch to commit crimes and sin as we may desire. A man cannot claim to be a Christian while committing murder, stealing from others, and committing other sins before God. Christians are not perfect. We will all slip up. We will all make mistakes. We will all sin. However, through repentance of those sins, through the Grace of God, and through Faith in Jesus Christ, we are cleansed of those sins. Christians are expected to follow the example of Jesus, and to do as He would do as far as helping others and so on ...... not as a threat ...... not as a requirement ...... but as a joyous expression of our Faith in Him.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
I think the biggest flaw in your argument here is equating the BSA to a religious institution.
While granted that a religious institution "should" have more Constitutional protections ... Why is that a flaw? They are both non-profit organizations that have their own sets of moral guidelines, and will inevitably have their tax-exemption threatened if they don't conform to whatever rules the government wants them to play by.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877 |
I think you answered your own question.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Like I mentioned before ... that "constitutional protection" hasn't stopped the government from trying to force Birth Control/Abortion issue onto the Catholic church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Like I mentioned before ... that "constitutional protection" hasn't stopped the government from trying to force Birth Control/Abortion issue onto the Catholic church.
and can u believe that they made polygamy illegal? Like they should totally have respected the rights of all mormons and are infringing on their rights!
just to make this painfully clear this is me making fun of your double standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
 Not sure what your point there is, and where did I say anything about my standards on that?  If anything, that just further proves my point that the government will and can force it's moral beliefs onto a religious institution whenever it decides it wants to. IMO, Utah should immediately legalize polygamy and then use all the exact same arguments that have been used for gay marriage to legitimize it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Not sure what your point there is, and where did I say anything about my standards on that?
If anything, that just further proves my point that the government will and can force it's moral beliefs onto a religious institution whenever it decides it wants to.
IMO, Utah should immediately legalize polygamy and then use all the exact same arguments that have been used for gay marriage to legitimize it.
The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not the same.
But do you believe that being part of a religion should grant you a free pass from laws?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
jc
Christian Pundits Say They're the Real Victims in the Gay Marriage Fight Now
LikeDislike
The Atlantic Wire Elspeth Reeve 1 hour ago
Same-sex marriage
Christian Pundits Say They're the Real Victims in the Gay Marriage Fight Now.
View gallery
Christian Pundits Say They're the Real Victims in the Gay Marriage Fight Now
The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional because, in part, the court found the law was created to express disapproval of a class of citizens: gay couples. But in doing so, the court created a new class of citizens to demonize: conservative Christians. At least, that's according to some conservative commentators and the religious right.
"You will be made to care about gay marriage," RedState editor Erick Erickson writes, despite tweeting yesterday that he really didn't care all that much about the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA. "You must either fully embrace it or be shunned… you will not be allowed to accept that others can disagree on the issue due to their orthodox faith," he says. As Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in his dissent, Erickson thinks gay marriage will come to the states soon. He says, "Once that happens, there will be an even messier culture war designed to treat traditionalism as a noxious notion of a bygone era — the equivalent of Jim Crow." Fox News' Todd Starnes tweeted on Wednesday, "Won't be long before they outlaw the Bible as hate speech." And: "they're going after the preachers next."
Like Erickson, The New York Times' Ross Douthat worries religious objections to gay marriage will come to look like 1960s-style Southern bigotry, unless gay-rights advocates have it in their heart to show some mercy:
Unless something dramatic changes in the drift of public opinion, the future of religious liberty on these issues is going to depend in part on the magnanimity of gay marriage supporters — the extent to which they are content with political, legal and cultural victories that leave the traditional view of marriage as a minority perspective with some modest purchase in civil society, versus the extent to which they decide to use every possible lever to make traditionalism as radioactive in the America of 2025 as white supremacism or anti-Semitism are today.
(It might be worth noting that religious groups still have the right to exclude all kinds of people. Many churches won't marry couples if one partner hasn't converted. Some don't allow divorcees to remain in the church. Some churches don't allow nonbelievers inside their temples.)
Naturally, it was Rush Limbaugh who really clarified the stakes. "The Supreme Court majority, in its ruling, actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it's been since the beginning of time," Limbaugh said on his radio show. There's an angry mob out there, and they're going to start hunting people down. The hunted are not the usual victims of hate crimes. They're people like Rush and his listeners:
I have often said that what animates people on the left -- what motivates them, what informs them -- is defeating us. No matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means. Their hatred for us overwhelms anything else. No matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek. It's what makes them happy.
While wallowing in his victimhood, Limbaugh is still shocked at the reversal:
Okay, so here's basically what happens. Everything's going along just fine, everything's cool, and then all of a sudden homosexuals say, "You know what? We want to be married," and the people who don't think that marriage is anything other than a man and a woman said, "No, no, no, no. Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. That's what it means; it's what it's always meant."
So the people who want the change then attack the defenders of the status quo as being hateful bigots, and the Supreme Court took up that argument and made their decision on that basis.
Everything's cool, and then all of a sudden, gay people want to be treated like everyone else. Those gays are such bigots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not the same.
Why not? It's just someone's definition of marriage versus another ... it doesn't affect you, then why do you care what goes on in someone's bedroom, etc, etc.
Quote:
But do you believe that being part of a religion should grant you a free pass from laws?
Uh ... no.
But just like there shouldn't be a law requiring you to go to church on Sunday, there shouldn't be a law requiring Catholic hospitals to provide birth control or abortion services when there are other readily available options. Like I said, Separation of Church and State is supposed to be a two-way street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not the same.
Why not? It's just someone's definition of marriage versus another ... it doesn't affect you, then why do you care what goes on in someone's bedroom, etc, etc.
And we're off!
We'll probably get to bestiality by page three and pedophilia by page five. 
Quote:
there shouldn't be a law requiring Catholic hospitals to provide birth control or abortion services when there are other readily available options.
When did this happen?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
there shouldn't be a law requiring Catholic hospitals to provide birth control or abortion services when there are other readily available options
As long as they get not one cent of federal or state money then I agree .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
But that raises the conflict I identified earlier....using Kennedy's rationale for voiding the statute based on constitutional grounds. How can he throw it back to the states....since they don't have the power to legislate anything that violates the constitution? It appears to me that a state now can not create or enforce any anti gay marriage law, as we now have precedent that it violates constitutional rights. This is a huge victory for the pro gay marriage folks.
But it doesn't violate constitutional rights. There is no national law on the subject to enforce.
Any marriage in one state doesn't necessarily apply in any other state. It doesn't even matter if the marriage is a 'gay' one or a 'straight' one.
For example, my wife and I were married in the State of New Mexico. If a state chooses not to recognize our marriage, they do not have to apply their state laws that apply to married couples to us. In fact, if we try to make claims to be married in a state that doesn't recognize it, we could be in violation of state law and face criminal charges and imprisonment.
This changes nothing in reality. We are at the same point (except in California) as we were prior to the point when Bill Clinton signed the DOMA bill into law. Congratulations folks! We're back in 1996!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not sure what your point there is, and where did I say anything about my standards on that?
If anything, that just further proves my point that the government will and can force it's moral beliefs onto a religious institution whenever it decides it wants to.
IMO, Utah should immediately legalize polygamy and then use all the exact same arguments that have been used for gay marriage to legitimize it.
The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not the same.
But do you believe that being part of a religion should grant you a free pass from laws?
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
j/c
I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you are Christian, then you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman as God meant it to be. If you are a pagan than you might believe something else. However, Freedom of Religion is protected under the constitution, and as such the Govt SHOULD NOT tell you what to believe or apply laws to FORCE you to follow any religion's covenants. The definition of "marriage" could be different based on what religion you follow. It is a generic term. The details of that term defined by your particular beliefs.
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
One involves two people.
The other involves three or more people.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Victory For Gay Marriage
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
