DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court: Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, Alabama counties refuse

Look elizabeth Hasselbeck, The only way that would work is if we had a religious political system.

we don't.

Religious laws do not, and will not ever trump state and federal law. look at the way our country has gone away from religion in the last few decades.

and you think somehow Islam will change that?

jeez...

Based on what, exactly?

Sharia is, at its core, unconstitutional. Even if such a series of laws could be passed locally, they would be struck down almost immediately upon appeal.

The only reason that certain people in this country go after Christianity right now while ignoring, or even pseudo-supporting Islam, is because Islam is still way too small to be of any risk to their beliefs. There simply are not enough Muslims who would vote for such laws to make them a risk, and even if one somehow passed in a single community, any person bringing suit against the law as unconstitutional would win.

Those who oppose Christianity do not somehow think that Islam is great, they just think that Islam is more of a risk to Christianity than it is to them. Christianity is the main opponent to their beliefs, and so if they force Christianity into some sort of 2 pronged defense, they figure that their chances of victory are better. Trust me, as soon as an Islamic group tries to force through a law that says that everyone has to convert to Islam, they will get the same opposition that Christianity does. However, right now, domestically, Islam is simply not that big a risk as far as public policy is concerned.

The day that government got involved in marriages, and gave benefits for being married, is the day that all people should have gained the right to marry whomever they choose as long as both parties are of legal age and agree to the marriage.

Actually, Ytown, I was referring to Brownsfan's comment above. "Righ to marry whomever they choose as long as both parties are of legal age and agree the marriage".

Now, Sharia permits marriage to and sex with children age 9. If Islam does not condone gay marriage but Sharia permits sex with children age 9, we have a problem don't we? That was my point.

Your 4% statistic from 2006 is, by now, most likey inaccurate. In the last 10 years, things have changed dramatically in this country with regard to immigration legally or otherwise. We are inching closer to direct conflict with Islam whether it be marriage, sex, women or other implications of belief differences.

I am all for the great melting pot. However, this is America. Come here, learn the language, live your life, but do not ask others to conform to yours.

bro, the only religion she needs to worry about taking over in this country is Scientology.

THAT'S a bigger that than Islam can ever hope to be in this country.

We really need to take the Sharia discussion to the Muslim protest thread.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything about homosexuality in your verses. Nor do I see a definition of marriage. What I DO see is that divorce is a sin. Ah well, I'm not going to play Bible translation games this time around, but I have yet to see a definition of marriage made by Jesus. The definition of marriage, IMO, has been made by the common man to fit his needs.

So, southern Democratic governors of the 1960s couldn't be hardcore leftists?

sure they were.

but we are talking about right now. not the 1960's with regards to marriage.

Faubus wasn't a Dixiecrat, just a racist.

40years,

I'll say it (and I don't even have to think about it), he's stupid.

If the state of Alabama ignores the court, it won't matter what the court says.

Alabama has been taken to task over what courts have seen as civil rights issues in the past and lost. They just haven't learned anything from that.

Marriage has always been about providing a legal right to passing on land ownership to the wife's children at least historically speaking. In MOST of the known world it is still for the reason. If anything it was to help protect women from being tossed away after bearing a man a child. One of the main things that led to justification of divorce was a failure of the woman to provide offspring. Love never had anything to do with it.

Only in european countries and countries of their descent do people seek marriage as a way for forcing the public to accept their sexual behavior.

You don't need to be married to have sex. Gay couples want marriage as a way of forcing society to accept their behavior. They can't make children though so there is no legal purpose or reason for them to be "married."

If the citizen of the state of Alabama don't wish to recognize homosexuality as a legal reason for marriage then they shouldn't be forced to because it's a behaviour and not a right.

What should be available instead of the term "marriage." Is a contract of "civil partnership." This should be allowed for any two people period. For instance, an Older sibling could form one with a younger sibling they are taking care of. this would allow a working brother or sister or even a just a friend to share their benefits with them. Just make it so that it can only be with one person and that you can't already be married so that businesses are not unfairly put a strain on.

This would give gay couples all the legal benefits of a married couple without forcing society to accept their behavior. In fact several states have allowed for this and most Christians did not oppose it.

Frankly speaking, I feel I should have the right to have my brother on my insurance if I want him to be, at least as much as, a gay man does for his sexual partner. IMHO.

They are? I didn't know that the political parties had done this.

And what about those of us that have no political party affiliation? Are we allowed to dissolve those groupings or do these bind us into thought slavery as well?



There's your flaw. It doesn't afford any difference. Men and women are treated exactly the same. Oh, I see, you're injecting sexual preference into the argument. I don't accept that premise of the argument.

Can a heterosexual now force private businesses to do their bidding or face a lawsuit alleging discrimination? Try that and see how far you get.



Or any number of consenting adults marrying each other. If consent is all that is required, then why can't a man have 100 or 200 wives?

Wow…you really don't see what you did here, do you?

Federal Judge Orders Alabama Official To Stop Denying Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge ordered a county official in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, saying they can no longer ignore her earlier ruling that struck down the state's marriage equality ban.

Alabama's same-sex marriage ban began crumbling in January, when U.S. District Judge Callie Granade found it unconstitutional. At the request of the state attorney general, Granade put a two-week stay on her ruling so the state could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and delay it even longer. On Monday morning, however, the Supreme Court declined to get involved, and Alabama became the 37th state where gay marriage is legal.

Despite the ruling, dozens of probate judges around the state have refused to comply with Granade's ruling. According to the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, as of Thursday afternoon, only 23 of the state's 67 counties were issuing marriage licenses to all couples.

Their defiance is due to instructions from Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (R), who sent an order to the state's probate judges Sunday night not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He argued that they were not bound to follow the federal ruling.

Four same-sex couples requested a hearing with Granade to clear up the confusion over the issue in the state. Her order came a few hours after the hearing concluded Thursday afternoon. Granade's order was directed specifically at Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis, who has refused to give licenses to same-sex couples, but it also negates the arguments of other probate judges who have been refusing to follow her earlier decision.

In her order, Granade said Davis may not deny marriage licenses "on the ground that Plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act or by any other Alabama law or Order pertaining to same-sex marriage." In other words, the federal decision trumps the state laws.

Randall Marshall, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said Granade's ruling "confirms that the U.S. Constitution requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses to all qualified couples, gay and straight."

"We hope state and local officials will recognize that their first obligation is to comply with our federal Constitution and will move quickly to follow the court’s ruling so that all couples in Alabama will be able to share in the dignity and protection that marriage provides," he added.

“It is time for the judicial chaos that Chief Justice Roy Moore has caused to end,” said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow in a statement. “Both the law and Judge Granade’s action today are crystal clear: refusing to follow the law has consequences. All probate judges should do their duties as public servants and begin to issue licenses to committed, loving same-sex couples immediately.”

And shortly after Granade's order, Mobile began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Moore has a history of defying federal decisions. In 2003, Alabama's judicial ethics panel voted to remove Moore, who was chief justice at the time, from office after he refused to follow a federal order to take down his Ten Commandments monument in the state judicial building. Moore was elected as chief justice again in 2012.

Others in Alabama have also done their fair share of trying to ignore federal directives. One of the most iconic moments from the civil rights movement was when then-Gov. George Wallace (D) blocked the doors to the University of Alabama to stop black students from enrolling. Wallace cited states' rights as his reason for refusing to follow the federal order. He ultimately stepped aside when President John F. Kennedy's administration called the Alabama National Guard to intervene.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12...kushpmg00000013

sigh......

you know what. I'm going to issue a challenge.

Razor, i want you to record a video. go to a gay couple. a real gay couple. and say the exact same thing you just posted, right in their face.

I'm starting to notice that all this talk about gay marriage, muslims, none of yall have the balls to actually say what you mean to that groups face.

i'll give you 500 dollars. right now.

I absolutely do not mean to, or want to offend here, but you do not see because you choose not to see. You want to see that which you do want to see.

God made them, male and female, and a man leaves his parents, and joins to his wife, as one flesh. It does not say that a woman joins with a woman, or a man with a man. In those days, this would have been a rarity, however Greece was rather close, and men having sex with boys was rather common in that area. I am quite sure that if Jesus felt that this was an acceptable marital arrangement, He would have specifically said so.

Jesus was never one to avoid saying what he meant. If he truly felt that it was acceptable for a man and man to marry, or for a woman and a woman, don't you think that He would have said so? Maybe He might have said "One person joins with another ..." However, that is not what He said. He died for what he taught, (the secular side of the reason he died) Could they have possibly done any more to Him in the form of punishment? Today we have a rather sanitized idea of what crucifixion was, but it was the most cruel, humiliating, and brutal way of putting a man to death, and one that has special troops trained specifically to prolong the agony of the person on the cross. Anyway, since Jesus was going to the cross anyway, Rome would have had a hard time finding a way to be more cruel to Him if he had said somethign that would have offended them more.

Jesus did about the old laws ending with the Old Covenant. However Paul states that sex between a man and man is still an abomination. (as was the custom in Corinth) Paul was the chosen messenger to the Gentiles, chosen by Christ on the road outside of Damascus.

Anyway, that said, I like and respect you, and I think that you have every right to live your life as you see fit .... however I do not think that means changing the definition of words that has stood for thousands of years to create a=something completely new, while pretending that it is really identical.

I can't do anymore. If you care to discuss this further it will have to be later.

Yes, its calling a spade for a spade and offering a compromise that has already shown to work.

For a large portion of American society there is no way you are going to force them to accept homosexuality as OK. We could debate till we are both blue in the face but that is the reality.

Instead of trying to force a fight just use the power of "Titles" to get what you want without the fighting.

No law ever passed will make me raise my kids to think homosexuality is anything other than an abomination to God. No law passed will ever make me accept it period. If that offends anyone then too bad. I'm an American and I have the right to my religious beliefs same as anyone else and I will follow what my Bible teaches long before I let a corrupt and morally poor government tell me how to live.

The federal government trying to crush state rights is what will be the number one cause of the next civil war in this country. everyone takes for granted the USA will always survive but when the government keeps forcing people to go against their beliefs either religion or the government will fall. history shows that it always ends up being the government for failing to listen to its people.

If I owned a video camera other than my webcam I'd be tempted to take you up on that since I could use the money ^^

That being said, there is not a single person I know that does not know my feelings on the matter. I would not normally seek out a gay couple or a muslim just to say I think they are living in sin because quite frankly its not worth my effort and I don't see the need to bother someone not personally bothering me. It's not like they will care about my views any more than I do about theirs or that my statement will change anything for them.

I know because when I was younger I would do such things. People don't want to stop sinning they just want more excuse enabling them to sin more often. I am not an activist anymore but that doesn't mean I don't have strong views.

Oh, no worries…you're not offending me. You can't unless I allow it. As for the rest…okay, YTown…you are going to believe what you want to believe, too. That's kind of the beauty of living free, isn't it? We won't know who is right or wrong until we die. And then it's too late.

I will tell you that no matter what a gay union is called in the end, gay people will call it marriage…because that's what it would be.

So, you can't think of one legal purpose or reason for a gay couple to want to be married? Are you really that ignorant, or are you just trying to provoke? If it's the former, there's inheritance or life insurance if one partner dies, joint filing of taxes, spousal health insurance, auto/home insurance discounts...and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Or what?

The beautiful thing about that quote is that you see exactly what you want to see. You have made it very clear over the years that you want it to be so true that you will go to any lengths necessary to believe it so that your prejudice and unkindness can be shown to be based on your loving God's word. Very much like what was done when people used The Bible to defend slavery, not allowing interracial marriage, segregation, etc. They were on the wrong side of history then, just as you are now. You aren't alone, that is for certain. People like you aren't very good messengers of God, though you certainly pretend to be and probably think you are, you are not.

God made gay folk too, I really hate to break it to you.

Oh, and I hope I haven't offended you.

And some would say that many of your comments are sinful, and of course, you wouldn't mind at all if people came up to you and told you that they felt you were going to hell for your behavior and the way you treat others. Right? You would most certainly welcome that.

Many state already offer a different solution which I already provided that takes care of those issues.

This isn't the middle ages or Asia. Wills determine where an inheritance goes and life insurance can be left to anyone you want it to. A civil union in many states takes care of the rest.

I provide several historical facts mixed with my opinions. Some of what I say will provoke some because they support letting immorality destroy our country and family values that made us strong to begin with. Of course they don't think of it that way. They just think its freedom in all things to do whatever you want. To me thats just chaos and anarchy.

A country's social contract is what keeps it viable and survivable. Just doing whatever you want because you want will destroy everything. Especially when it comes to weakening the family structure of society. When you don't protect the family structure then your society will fall. It's been proven over and over again all through history. We ignore it at our peril.

Feel free to enlighten me and back it up with scripture. Last I checked there is nothing in the bible that says I shouldn't try to lead a sinner back to the righteous path. Of course you could say I'm a sinner because I don't care enough or try hard enough to convert people but I am a bit like Jonah in that regard. I am just not afraid to speak my mind. I just don't go around throwing the bible in your face, except a little bit on this forum where so many of us like to debate back and forth.

I am not interested in converting anyone. I will just share what you need to know so you cant stand before God and try to make excuses that no one ever told you. It's up to God what he wishes to do with people. Not following the 10 commandments leads to their own destruction even if God never lifts a finger anyways.

Strong with shortcomings that limited basic rights and freedoms to those of a different race, gender, and now sexual orientation.



How would a same-sex couple weaken marriage?

What's wrong about two consenting adults which love each other joined in marriage? I'm quite sure many of these partners would thrive in an equal society.

j/c:

To all Dawgs who post in EE: a Public Service Announcement

[WORKING TITLE]
"JulesDawg (a DawgTalkers Self-Preservation Primer)"

"She comes out swingin'... and game, she be bringin'.
Don't front other dawgs- or The Blues, you'll be singin.'

A mean 'Miss-treata' with a heart of gold,
And a tongue of honed steel, now you've all been told-

If you don't heed my warning, and abide by her rules
You'll soon feel the pain- in yo' 'Family Jules.' "


God, I love this woman.




I don't know anyone else on this board who does a better job of "Keeping it 100." I also don't know anyone else on this board who's better at "keeping others 100."

"Girl Power," indeed.


Thank you, Mistress... may we have another?
Our bums aren't raw enough yet-

I wish Jules, Michelle and Cjrae would post more often.

they stay killing it all the time.

Razor has a point that I want to take in a different direction.

Marriage is a legal status between two individuals that provides economic benefits (e.g. federal tax and social security) and simplified transferal of property in the event of death (among other things). It also addresses issues associated with rights of minors who the married couple maintain legal custody. It is simply a legal status and rights.

Marriage requirements have changed and laws regarding marriage vary from State to State. Historically those laws were limited to minimum age, a waiting period and the requirement that individuals be of different sexes and not directly related.

Years ago, it was not uncommon for a individuals to seek marriage in another State (e.g. run-away, cross state lines) that had more lenient laws regarding the age of a minor (below 18) to marry in another State without consent of the legal guardian (parent).

States began to remove this sex limitation between individuals and other States refused to recognize the marriages of couples of the same sex. Because of the conflict between States, and the implications of legal benefits, the federal government has had to step in and make a ruling.

Of historical note, at one time States placed restrictions on race, which were removed, for obvious reasons. Curiously, to my knowledge, the limitation difference between age, consent of the legal guardian, and the criteria for not being related have not been a subject of legal challenge. States recognized a marriages performed in another State as being valid in that State, akin to a recognition of a drivers license.

So the challenge occurred when one State refused to recognize the legality of marriage performed in another State.

Anyway, it is just a different take.

He absolutely did, and He loves them too. I never meant to imply anything except that. I apologize if it was taken in any manner other than the spirit of love in which it was intended.

The Bible is very clear as to the subject of gay sex though. It could not possibly be clearer, including the New Testament.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. He had the hardest job of any of the Apostles. He had to go to people who had much different traditions and customs than the Jewish people had. In Corinth, for example, (to whom the letters to the Corinthians were written) Corinth was a commerce city, with a bay off the Mediterranean, and water and waterways almost all the way around. It was close to Athens and Delphi. Corinth was a place to "try just about anything". They had temples to almost every god imaginable, and were called, by Paul, a very sexually immoral people. This church also took the teachings of Paul, and twisted them around to make sure that they could follow Paul, and also do everything that the world offered to them. Paul's letters are an attempt to bring the new church back on track.

In 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, Paul Writes: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I have left the footnotes in for a reason. This is the NIV translation, and it is translated directly from the original manuscripts, and is not a translation of another translation. I have examined their methodology for translation, and I think that it is a faithful translation. That said, here is their footnote for this verse: 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

Romans 1: 26-27 says the following: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

We have to take into account the time this was written in. Words like "Gay", "Homosexual", "Lesbian", and so on were not in common use. So, the writers of the New Testament used descriptive terms, and not the same terms we use today. Plus, I am sure that Paul did not want a homosexual, for example, who abstained from sex and set aside his/her desires, to feel like they were evil. Thus proper terms, specific terms, were used. The act was a sin. Having the desire and suppressing it was not.

Now we can pretend that Bible verses do not say what they say. I can pretend that the Bible does not say that I should not have sex outside of marriage. I can pretend that, but it does not change the fact that this is what the Bible says.

I believe that Christians get into trouble when they start denying what the Bible says. I believe that Jesus gave us absolute forgiveness, in exchange for our acceptance of Him, and our repentance of our sins. This means that we cannot hold on to any of them if we are to be Christian. That is how I understand the Bible. In fact, we will slip. We will make mistakes. We will sin. We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world. We will slip, but God does not want us living a sinful lifestyle. He does not want us having sinful habits. (and by habit, I mean anything that we do on a regular basis as part of our lifestyles) If we repent of our sins,that means that we do our best to stop committing those sins. Repentance is turning from sin. It is essential for forgiveness.

Jesus says in Luke 3:5, I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Repentance is essential for salvation, We must repent of our sins. All of our sins. We must try our best to turn away from our sins. If we believe in the Bible, and in Jesus Christ, then we have to obey what the Bible says. We don't get to pick and choose. If we want only a specific form of Christianity, that allows us to do as we choose, but does not bring salvation, then we might as well start our own religion. That is, in essence, what we are doing anyway.

I am not trying to be cruel. I can definitely appreciate that it is terribly difficult to have someone say that the lifestyle you live is one that the Bible says is sinful. I would not like it either. I can understand that you are a certain person at your core, and that you have certain desires, and that is not going to change. However, what also will not change is what the Bible says. The Bible says that if we have sinful desires, then we must do our best to set them aside. It does not say that we should try to rationalize our desires and do as we please just because we feel a certain way inside.

Don't misunderstand me, this is about all of the sins that we make habit. I swear too much. I am working on stopping that. It is a habit, and a hard one to break. I have chased women, not for a relationship, but just for sex. I have lied, and told lies. I have committed all kinds of sins. I have had habits that are sinful in nature. I have accepted that I will not have sex ever again, until and unless I find a wife. That is a decision I have made, and one that I will do my best to uphold. I am trying my best to clean up the other sinful parts of my life. I do not always succeed. I fail far more often than I would like to admit. I am trying though, and I believe that is what God expects from us; an honest attempt to obey Him. We have a guidebook, in the Bible. The New Testament is the newest, revised version of God's Laws, based on the perfect sacrifice in the form of Jesus Christ. The rules are there. God's expectations are there. We are all free to ignore them. God gave us all that right. We are allowed to choose death. God will mourn each and every person who does so, but he will honor their choice, and permit them to die the final death.

We can live here, for this life, or we can live with one eye on the next world. That is our choice. I know which one I have chosen for myself. However, we each must decide for ourselves. The guidebook is there for us all to read. If we choose to read it, though, we must take into account the entire picture it paints. What are the authors of the books other than the Gospels trying to say? Who are they speaking to? Knowing these things can help enhance our understanding of these books, and what they are telling us. However, if we do so, we must be prepared to accept what the Bible tells us, even if it goes against what we might feel inside. We must understand that we might not like some of the things it says we can no longer do. However, that is our choice. We either repent and accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, or we accept death at judgment. The choice is ours.

even if we go the old school definition of marriage, sex same couples are tax payers, and thus have a right to the same benefits as everyone else.

They adopt children, at a very high rate by the way. Thats important.

So regardless of sexual orientation, they should be able to pass their assets off to whoever they see fit, since we are using the old school version of marriage.

age of consent can be helped. you just have to wait til you're old enough. sexual orientation can't, for the most part.

also, if polygamist want to marry multiple women, then whatever. do it.

I just think in that instance, maybe their should be a minimum requirement of income proving someone can support the amount of women/men he/she chooses to marry.

I don't have a problem with it. It's none of my business, regardless of my personal opinion .

Hahahaha, I love you, Clembolicious.

YTown, You could type out 1000 paragraphs with your what I believe to be faulty translations and interpretations. We've gone around like this a number of times. I have shown where biblical scholars differ on many translations and interpretations of The Bible. I appreciate that you have your beliefs, although I believe you, like many others, use the words to condemn people or actions that you find personally abhorrent. That's human nature I suppose. Do you ever take a close look and wonder why you spend so much time preaching on this particular subject? There are many events and actions happening in the world so much more detrimental to the human spirit and condition, yet I never see you going to such lengths to improve the world with your preachings and teachings on many other such matters. You may want to take a good hard look at why that is true.

You can go on and on about how you sin and try to repent, but if someone doesn't believe being gay is a sin, what's the point of that diatribe? I guarantee you there are people with different takes on The Bible than you who believe you are sinning on actions that you do not believe are sins. You don't believe the way they do and certainly are not going to repent for something you do not BELIEVE is a sin.

We've talked about it before. You believe I am going to be judged harshly. I believe you are in for a revelation for your own end. As you say, the choice is yours.

With all of that said, the bottom line is that the vast majority of people against gay marriage use their own religious beliefs as the basis for their argument. These very same people would be appalled if the government was making law that affected their life based on a religious belief different than their own.

Just as they use their own religious beliefs to say adultery, stealing, murder and promiscuousness are wrong? Uh, yea.

Well, only two of those have any real punitive laws against them. Can you tell us why?

3 are currently illegal, adultery is illegal in 27 states. Perhaps they are not all illegal because Ytown isn't done with his fight yet.

Wow. Look, I've read some of your previous posts and watched people go back and forth with you doing the crazy dance. I won't be one of those. Please don't waste your time responding to me, because it won't be reciprocated.

It is my fervent belief that no Christian ever led another person to follow Jesus by continuously pointing out their sins.

Jesus loves you Jules, as do I. I hope you find peace in Him.