DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional

Ytown your posts are as straight to the point as usual.. Love reading your posts because you say the things I'm always thinking

"action taken" and "price to pay" sounds like jihad.

I know you don't mean that, but to read it it sounds like a threat to my beliefs and happiness.

If you don't believe my happiness is within your acceptable behaviors then show me how to behave, don't tell me or legislate.

Word? civil disobedience? So if christians start taking the streets and rioting, i get to call them thugs and savages, right?


Huckabee expects civil disobedience in response to SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/huckabee-on-gay-marriage-ruling-122684558341.html

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee slammed the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on same-sex marriage, suggesting Christians will have no choice but resort to civil disobedience in order to follow their faith.

“This case wasn’t so much about a matter of marriage equality, it was marriage redefinition,” Huckabee said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” Sunday. “And I think people have to say, ‘If you’re going to have a new celebration that we’re not going to discriminate [against], may I ask, are we going to now discriminate against people of conscience, people of faith who may disagree with this ruling?’”

The 2016 Republican presidential hopeful was asked if he was recommending those who disagree with the court’s decision engage in “civil disobedience.”

“I don’t think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice,” Huckabee said. “They either are going to follow God, their conscience and what they truly believe is what the scripture teaches them, or they will follow civil law. They will go the path of Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his brilliant essay the 'Letter from a Birmingham jail’ reminded us, based on what St. Augustine said, that an unjust law is no law at all.”

Huckabee said Christian county clerks should be excused from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“If they have a conscientious objection, I think they should be excused,” he said. “I’m not sure that every governor and every attorney general should just say, 'Well, it’s the law of the land because there’s no enabling legislation.’”

Huckabee argued that liberals would do the same if the tables were eventually turned.

“If we get a future court that is conservative and that conservative court decides that this was a mistake and we’re going to go back to traditional marriage and we’re also going to say that every unborn [person] is, in fact, a person and is absolutely guaranteed due process and therefore we would strike down the idea of abortion from conception forward,” he said, “is the left going to be OK to let the Supreme Court make that decision?”

Huckabee expects civil disobedience in response to SCOTUS gay marriage ruling
Huckabee launches his 2016 bid in May. (Photo: Mike Stone/Reuters)

He added: “When the president lit up the White House the other night with rainbow colors, I guess that’s his prerogative. If I become president, I just want to remind people: Please don’t complain if I were to put a nativity scene out during Christmas and say, you know, 'If it’s my house, I get to do with it what I wish despite what other people around the country may feel about it.’”

Of course, Huckabee isn’t the only 2016 hopeful speaking out on the issue.

“My view of marriage is based on my Christian faith — no earthly court’s decision is going to change that,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. “I think it is wrong for the federal government to force Christian individuals, businesses, pastors, churches to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate our sincerely held religious beliefs. We have to stand up and fight for religious liberty. That’s where this fight is going.”

“The only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said in a statement Friday.

But South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said that would be a mistake.

“You can put it in the platform, but it will, in my view, hurt us in 2016, because it’s a process that’s not going to bear fruit,” Graham said. “What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same-sex marriage is part of their faith. So no, I would not engage in the constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the court’s ruling, fight for the religious liberties of every American.

"If I’m president of the United States, here’s what would happen,” Graham said. 'If you have a church, a mosque, or a synagogue, and you’re following your faith, and you refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, because it’s outside the tenets of your faith. In my presidency you will not lose your tax-exempt status. If you’re a gay person or a gay couple, if I’m president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also.“

On CNN’s "State of the Union,” Donald Trump was pressed about his support of “traditional marriage” when two of his ended in divorce.

“What do you say to a lesbian who’s married, or a gay man who is married, who says, 'Donald Trump, what’s traditional about being married three times?’” Jake Tapper asked Trump in an interview that aired Sunday but was conducted ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday.

The Republican presidential candidate conceded they would “have a very good point.”

Trump said his first two wives “were very good” but he was too busy building his real estate business.

“I don’t blame them, but I was working … 22 hours a day,” he said.

There's this loopy idea that a deist is totally the same thing as an individual wanting a theocracy.

This may be the closest Donald Trump has ever come to admitting fallibility.

I have written about divorce a great deal on this very board. Jesus said it's a sin, so that's good enough for me, personally.

I am not 100% sure about how divorce/remarriage is seen by God once the new marriage has taken place. My guess would be that God does, indeed, see a marriage with divorced persons as adulterous. However, marriage is a covenant, so a person marrying a divorced person would be entering into a new covenant with their new spouse, so I do wonder if God would want that new covenant of marriage broken at that point?

The Bible says that the only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit .... and we know that all others have to involve a contrite heart, and repentance of the sin involved to be forgiven. Repentance means turning from your sin, and essentially, making a new decision about your sinful actions. (to not do them anymore) Since God considers marriage between a man and a woman to be a covenant, then I do not know if He would say to break a 2nd marriage, or that the 2nd marriage is a new covenant, and the while the act of remarrying is a sin, the adulterous nature of the 2nd marriage does not continue past that initial sin of adultery. I would think that if the 2 people involved in the divorce/remarriage confess their sin of adultery, and ask God for forgiveness, then they would be forgiven, as their sexual relations would then be within the bonds of a marriage as Jesus structured it. (a man to a woman)

If I have read the parts of the Bible concerning divorce correctly, if one spouse marries, it frees the other to remarry without it being adultery ..... but I would not bet my soul of that. If it were me, I would check much more closely to make sure.

It is a very good question. That is the best answer that I can come up with. I don't personally believe in divorce, except in cases of extreme abuse or where a spouse continues to cheat on the other. I think that far too many people go into marriage expecting it to somehow be a cure-all for a relationship that is having problems, and others go into marriage expecting it to be a perpetual courtship. This unrealistic image, along with the world saying "if you're not happy, you should leave", are a huge reason why there are so many unsuccessful marriages today. (IMHO) Marriage is often a toy, rather than a lifelong covenant. That is a real shame. Luckily there are still a number of people who have married and kept their vows, who the rest of us can look to as a good example.

As for how a gay marriage is more of a sin .... I would say that it is not "more" of a sin, but it is a continual sin. God makes no allowance for a man and a man to marry at all, so such a marriage will not be seen as a covenant by God. Because there is no covenant, it will continue to be an ongoing adulterous relationship. (not just the "marriage" itself)

If there was anywhere in the Bible where God said it was OK for 2 people of the same gender to marry, then there would be no problem. That would certainly make it easier for me. I hate some of the discussions I have gotten into regarding this subject. I know that it cannot be easy for someone who is in what the Bible considers a sinful relationship to see their loving relationship being called sinful. I completely understand that. However there are many relationships that could be absolutely loving, and also still be a sin. Incestuous relationships could be completely loving, and still be wrong. A relationship between a teacher and student could be completely loving, and still wrong. A relationship between an adult and a child could be completely loving, and still wrong. The emotion of love is not the final determining factor as to whether an action is sinful, and having a desire does not mean that thing that is desired is a right. However, I do feel that this is a very difficult situation, because I know that a lot of gay couples truly do feel that they love one another. If it were up to me, I would say that these relationships are no different than a male/female relationship. However, this is not what the Bible says, and I do feel that it is important for the Biblical side to be represented. I don't say this only for those who are members of the board, or who are always in the middle of these discussions, but also because there are a lot of people who read this board and never sign up. Some might be much younger, and may be considering such a relationship, because it's "the cool thing now", and feeling that because the government says that it's OK that it must be. That is why I feel that it is important for the Biblical side to be represented. If someone does not care about the Bible, then that is their choice. They can ignore everything I say.

Frankly, it would be easier for most Christians to say "No big deal, you'll go to hell, but if that's what you want ...." but the harder path is to try and give people what the Bible says, and to try and help them out of a perpetually sinful relationship so that they can repent, and be forgiven. I believe that a homosexual act is sinful, but can be forgiven. However, I do not think that God forgives those who rub His nose in their sins. I have often used the example of a married man who cheated on his wife the day before church, and who has plans to cheat on her the day after church probably not standing a very good chance of being forgiven when he asks, because he does not mean it when he asks to be forgiven. From what I can tell in the Bible, the same is true for homosexuality. God can forgive an act, if repented ..... but he will never forgive sin that is rebelliously defended and zealously continued by the sinner. For the Christian, sin should be an accident, not a lifestyle.

I also don't ever want to encourage anyone to sin, by even implying that such a thing is not sinful. I certainly do not want to encourage someone to fall by telling them that their sin is not a sin, and that they certainly don't need to repent of it. I think that it is a far more loving act to portray, as accurately as is possible, what the Bible says ...whether people like it or not. I want to help people be saved, not be their friend now because I approve of their sins, only to have them condemned at Judgement. I would ask my Christian brothers and sisters this ...... How is encouraging a friend to sin and tell them that it's really not a sin so they can feel free to refuse repentance.... only to have them wind up condemned to hell based on your recommendation, an act of friendship? How is that an act of love? I think that helping people to find the Kingdom of God is a whole lot better than telling them to enjoy the party now, because you're going to suffer horribly later.

This does not only apply to homosexuality either. (as I have said far too many times on this board to count) Unfortunately, homosexuality has the disconcerting combination of being a sin, and an ongoing unrepentant sinful condition. That is why it is so dangerous for the gay person, in Biblical terms. They see it not as a sin, but as part of who they are, and so they do not repent, and unrepented sin is rebellious and deadly sin.

Sorry to have gone on this long.

But you took the time to reply, so obviously you've got some time to waste. Be honest, it hasn't changed your life one bit, has it? You were still able to go to church today, your church doesn't have to perform a gay marriage, and all of your rights including the First Amendment are intact.



Yup, and he didn't say anything about homosexuality. The only rationale used is from the Old Testament which exposes the hypocrisy of those using the Bible to justify discrimination.



You're correct, which as a "Gentile follower of Christ," you have no leg to stand on when it comes to homosexuality and gay marriage if you're not going to follow the Old Testament.



And so many on here and across America still use the Old Testament to defame and discriminate against homosexuals.



Ha, listening to you fundies trying to impose the Christian version of Sharia law demonstrates that exact reason why the United States is a land of laws, not religion. It really shows your own ignorance in understanding what America is and what it stands for. I'll start worrying about God's judgment as soon as you stop trying to judge the "morality" of others and stop using a religious text to supercede the laws of the United States.

So.....

people in this board who are against this still haven't actually said how this affects their daily lives. did your electricity bill go up? did you look at your wife and say "am i gay now?"

cause your still allowed to practice your religion and such.

God didn't destroy the country after the ruling....so.....

Jesus said that adultery is a sin. Adultery is sex outside of the marriage covenant. He said that marriage is one man to one woman, for life.

You cannot go from a to b and say that c is somehow the destination. There is nothing that Jesus said that allows for homosexuality. The Old testament condemned homosexuality. Jesus reaffirmed the commandment regarding adultery by name, and he affirmed what marriage is.

How do you get to any kind of approval of a homosexual union using anything He said or did? I have asked this since the topic 1st came up, and no one has yet presented anything where Jesus spoke affirming homosexuality. Paul spoke against it in the New Testament. As I stated above, Jesus left no gray area in His definition of marriage, or in regards to adultery.

I am not sure what verses you say have been changed to mean something different about slavery. There were 2 kinds of slavery in the times of the Old Testament. There were captives taken in war, who were made slaves, and there were what would be essentially an indentured servitude, where one Israelite would be a slave to another, for a certain period of time, never to exceed 7 years. In these cases, this could be a person sold into servitude by his/her family, a man who served to pay off a debt, or someone who served because he had no land or other property. This last class could find it very advantageous to serve in such a manner, because there were rules as to what the freed servant was to receive, including land, and animals.

Slavery concerning those taken in war would be similar tow hat we think of as slavery in this country.

Maybe if you can give me some specific examples I can answer better, because I really don't know what your question/point is on this subject. I have never heard anyone say that slavery was "literal" institution in the Bible, except for the type of servitude used by Israelites among themselves, which was more of an indentured type of service, with a specific end date of servitude.

If you post some specific verses I will try to answer better.

One change is for certain. At least now when a kid sees the 1934 Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire movie the Gay Divorcee, they won't scratch their heads thinking gays can't get married how can they be divorced.

There are a lot of things that some churches do that I strongly disagree with. Your example is just one of them.

I answered your question about divorce above. Next time I see him, I will try to remember to ask my pastor as to the church's position on remarriage, and how they arrived at it.

Thank you. I appreciate your kind words.

And they won't, because it doesn't. I'll admit that I took some early pleasure in watching them squirm, but there's far more value in just enjoying the ruling and the progress it means for this country. The side of good has won out, and we're one step closer to stepping out of the muck. There was a wonderful impromptu rally here downtown on Friday. I say just let them quote scripture to each other at this point. There's a long way to go yet, but we're leaving dark age fundamentalism behind for decency and reason. There's no reason that decency doesn't have to be extended to Christians who oppose or are coming to grips with this. The vitriol was somewhat warranted when their voice was suppressing others, but now they're just harmless musings without authority. I say enjoy the victory, no need to rub it in. I'm still guilty of that to an extent, but I'm working on it.

I already stated how I arrived at my conclusions, using just the Book of Matthew. Go back and you will find it ..... if, in fact, you really want to find it. I somehow doubt, based on your tone, that you would acknowledge it even if you did see it.

Here are a couple of verses for you to consider:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Timothy 1:9-10: understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

These are all New Testament.

I have no way of knowing if you consider yourself a Christian or not, but based on your tone, I will guess that you probably are not. However, I will say that I have never understood why a person would want to be a Christian if they refuse to believe what the Bible says. It's like taking a trip, and refusing to believe what the map tells you.

What does the New Testament have to do with U.S. Law?

It's not a step forward, it's backsliding. People who live only for the flesh will never understand their own ignorance until it's too late. You think only that you want something so it makes it ok to grab it. It's a terrible mentality because the only that that matters is selfishness instead of what is best for society as a whole.

History shows over and over again that rampant immoral sexual behavior destroys societies. It will destroy our country too. This will be just another gateway for giving permission to perform even more lewd and gross acts until they too become normal and accepted.

At some point decent people will get tired of all the perversion and it's going to get ugly. It wont be me since I am too old to care enough to act but man I hope my kids don't have to suffer too much from the major problems headed our country's way.

What makes your version of Christianity more "right" than everyone else? What scholarly degree, from a respected university, do you have in interpreting theological works?

Please give some credibility on these matters before espousing a de facto opinion.

Well said! You will indeed know a man by his works more than what he says =)

A) Do you think this occurs before or after The South rises again? And B) How exactly does a decent person go about making things "ugly"?

People who are not capable of learning from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Good post Jack. Also, great posts by Clem and a few others.

I understand people being upset by this, I understand that things didn't go the way some had hoped. What I have seen by those that opposed this, based on religious reasons, is that many of them are the most upset because they lost control of one of the last groups it was still cool to pick on and oppress. Sorry folks, perhaps you can now focus on people who truly deserve your attention. Like those that need your help, those that need to stop physically hurting others, those who actually harm other people or who have been harmed by other people.

The nastiness and name calling by so many of those who call themselves Christians has been everywhere I have looked. But, what I see here and in most other places are people calling out Christians who don't believe in their version of Christianity and attacking their own as not being true Christians because they are not outraged by the events. The hateful among them are ignored or praised. Everyone is fine with pigeon holing all gay people as rainbow flag waving, gay pride parading, god hating perverts. Better check out your own house, it's pretty damn filthy also.

There are Christians on this board who would be called on going sinners by many in their faith. They would believe you are living a lifestyle of sin and not repenting. Like spending so much of their day talking about football, etc., for hours on end, doing nothing productive with their lives when they could be using that time to help others, not be a burden on others, use the internet to actually help those in real need. Idle hands.....

All this being said:

A select few of you have just been removed from the wedding invitation list!

And a great and loved filled party it is going to be!!

Love does win.

I'm happy for people like you, Jules...........now if we can just open up our minds in regards to race relations and realize that we need to unify rather than widen the gap.

j/c

Moving on to perhaps the next phase in this subject, when will the Supreme Court rule as constitutional, the ability to have more than one wife at the same time?

so all the side chicks can become wifey?

Same sex marriage is wrong if u read the bible am not here to debate that. God will judge all I hope everyone the best life u can have here on earth its the one u will have after u die I would worry about. God bless all and lets us all pray for the love and mercy of God for judgement shall come to all of us one day

I don't see that happening anytime soon. The single spouse aspect of a marital relationship is pretty well established by law.

It would get pretty challenging to revisit all of the particulars for a multi-spouse relationship.

And by multispouse I mean

1 man, 2 or more wives,
1 woman, 2 or more husbands
1 spouse with multiple spouse of either sex.

Once you crack the ice on that one, the whole thing opens up.

jc

I heard one comment recently that was kinda sad, about all the kids who were bullied and harassed to the point of suicide not being around to see this happen.

They can still go shout at frightened young women entering abortion clinics. That never went out of style.



I think Ellen DeGeneres had a lot to do with this just by being in the public eye. Not so much when she first came out, but when her daytime talk show came to be, and many people who might have bought into the assumptions you described suddenly liked this gay woman who was none of those things. Chris Rock has always called her the "Rosa Parks of the gay movement". She had a big impact, and she did it without being militant or political. She was just herself, and it shifted cultural opinion. I know so many others who labored far more deserve more credit, but I agree with Mr. Rock that she was "the face" of the movement in many ways.



Mazel Tov!

Razor mentioned something worth noting. There's a lot of corrupt Pastors that are more interested in collecting your tithes than actually preaching. My Pastor is the perfect example. He's let my church completely fall apart. He'll never do anything about it besides be passive aggressive. He makes about 100 grand a year. My church is just a retirement plan for him at this point. Unfortunately, it's that way at a LOT of churches too.

I can understand.

I'm glad my pastor isn't that way - at all. In fact, I saw him at the gas station today - a while after the late service. He's moving his daughter to Cincitucky today.

He was in a rush - but when I said "hey, E., on this website I'm on everyday, it seems so many are bashing Christians and the Christian viewpoint - especially on hmosexuality. Tell me again what you said this morning cause, in referencing it on dawgtalkers, I think I got it a little wrong."

We spent a good 10 minutes talking about it.

There ARE good churches out there. Find one.

Edited to add: he makes decent money. We don't live in a high cost area, plus the church pays his insurance, adds to his retirement, etc. But I guarantee, if someone in the church were in a life or death situation right now, he'd be on his way back from Cinytucki immediately.

Our church is "inclusive", not exclusive. Evidence would be the fact that we have gays attend, and feel welcome. As it should be. We have liars, people that think money is "it", they're all welcome - even me.

There's a church in town that people call "the money church". The church I attend isn't like that. (oddly, the "money" church doesn't assist in the Tuesday night free community meals.

I feel like most atheists I talk to actually believe in God, but grew up in an awful church. There are HORRIBLE churches out there folks. I feel like that's contributed a lot to the problem in society. Horrible churches have chased out families and bloodlines which have lead to what we have now.

Instead of trying to fix the worlds problems, we need to fix the problems inside our own sanctuarys first. It's easy for us to say it's a world or generation problem because we can just deflect blame. A lot of people are content with just showing up on Sunday's, listening to a message and just leaving. How on Earth is that gonna solve anything and how are people going to take you seriously? They'd rather make anti gay messages a rallying cry than fixing Sunday Schools or Outreach. As Christians we're self serving unless there's an easy target for us to obtain that involves actual sacrifice and that is NOT how a church should run.

We talk about the country being weak. You can blame that on the church being weak too.

The bible does not promote *NOR* condemn slavery. In fact it makes mention of Christian slave owners as plain speech:



We can redefine the Scripture if we want at our own peril. This and many other unsavory verses exist within the Bible and I don't think one should cherry pick some as figurative and others as literal just when it suits our purposes. Versus like these were used 150 years ago as justification for slavery in the very country we live in.

depends, manual choke or electric? Hard to beat the sweet sound of a 455 GTO with a 4 barrel...

Uhm, not to be a bother, but you should know your subject. If you did you would know that Romans 1:1 identifies the author as Paul, as I mentioned above.

Again out of context. It's not promoting slavery. It's accepting it as a fact of life ... because it was and it was for almost another 1800 years. Many Jews would enter servitude to be under the protection of someone and to be taken care of. back then you and your entire family could be put to death for owing money. It's clearly saying to to make the most of your situation and work hard and act like a servant of God instead of trash.

In other words being poor or having a rough life is not an excuse to be lazy or act poorly. We all have a job to do so do it to the best of your ability no matter what it might be.

The Old Testament only went halfway though. A man couldn't really commit adultery. He could have multiple wives, therefore he de-facto would commit adultery in the one man/one woman scenario. The only person who could commit adultery in the Old Testament was a woman who had sex outside of her married husband. Three cheers for sexual equality in the Bible! Lets not forget too that according the Bible, anyone who commits adultery should be sentenced to death. Why do we cherry pick some portions of the Bible and not others? Why aren't Christians rallying for capital crimes for adultery anymore?



Jesus neither confirmed nor denied his stance on homosexuality unless you jump from verse to verse, but lets go ahead and say okay the Bible condemns homosexuality. I don't think one needs to concern themselves with the content of Jesus' actions toward homosexuality until one can rectify why Christians allow potentially millions of divorced people to walk this earth without being stoned for it. If we are going to make an exception for one case, why is it impossible to make one for another? Why don't we stone adulterers anymore? Jesus spoke highly of the old testament laws when it came to divorce and marriage (as you yourself said) and these old testament laws made it clear that adultery is a capital crime. Christians either need to abide by the entirety of the scripture literally, or accept that the Bible can be interpreted in many figurative ways. Do you as a Christian believe we should commit adulterers to death?



I gave one to Razor a few posts above regarding Christians owning slaves directly. But to me the key point is this: Either literal interpretation of the Bible means you must approve of slavery as defined in at least the new testament or you must say that you yourself do NOT approve of slavery and therefore disagree with what the Bible says. Do you believe slavery is OK if a slave owner is a Christian as timothy says?

Then show me the context where Timothy, or better yet Jesus himself, said a person owning another person is wrong. You won't find it. And it was not just indentured servitude as you try to claim. You will find great prophets such as Moses talking about sexual slavery (Exodus 2:7-11). Moses also says you can beat a slave as hard as you want as long as they don't die (Exodus 21:20-21). The New Testament also has multiple passages approving of slavery, including Ephesians in addition to 1 Timothy as I showed above.

Hand waving an uncomfortable portion of the Bible as a fact of life is a cop-out and you know it. According to the Bible God possessed a great deal of power in the Old Testament, clear enough to create 10 commandments on rock for which people are to live. Powerful enough to order men killed if they don't worship him. Yet God is not powerful enough to condemn slavery? Or does God just not care? Or, perhaps just as likely, the men who wrote the Old Testament did not see a problem with slavery rather than have divine intervention for the Scripture.

If you believe that a young girl sold into sexual slavery today should just work hard as a sexual slave (to be a servant of God) than I really don't know what to say. I don't believe you do, but it does show the mental gymnastics that must occur to wash ones hands of some parts of the Bible as compared to others. We are so quick to condemn homosexuals to hell yet many churches say death for adultery is figurative, not literal. Churches will hand wave away slavery in the Bible as metaphorical. Yet same-sex relations? Well that's black and white. That's literal.

Did I once say that it had anything to do with law? What it should do is convict the consciences of all who profess to follow Jesus, and make them stand against un-Biblical things ..... and I add once more ..... NOT just gay marriage.

I would also add that just because an idea has a religious background does not automatically make it unconstitutional.

SWISH: One of the unfortunate things to have happened recently here in NC is that it was passed and look like will be law (until a court kicks it out I think) is that magistrates and judicial officials can be exempt from marrying same sex couples. I think this sets a very bad precedent. As someone who voluntarily takes a job with the responsibility to apply and enforce laws, I don't think its right or fair to be able to 'opt out' of your responsibility. When a police officer gets called to a domestic violence call, they don't get to say 'Uh, dispatch, send someone else because I don't believe in gay relationships'. When you get there and one person has a busted eye, the cop doesn't get to say 'Uh, I'm not taking anyone to jail because I believe its immoral for you to be in that type of relationship to begin with'.. and when it gets to court, a judge doesn't get to say they are dismissing the case or recusing themselves from it because they don't believe it was a moral relationship to begin with.

Even if one buys in to the idea that our gov't was founded on Christian principles, it still doesn't change the fact that the purpose of our gov't is SUPPOSED to provide equal protection and treatment for everyone ESPECIALLY people we may not agree with.

I don't like Huckabee anyway. Something about him screams false to me. I can't put my finger on it. Maybe he's a reptilian being or something??

RAZOR: Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I so often hear that homosexuality and promiscuous living has ruined societies and nations through out history. For my own education, could you provide me with an example? The one that keeps coming up is the Roman Empire. The problem with that is the Roman Empire lasted nearly 1,000 years and encompassed almost all of the known world. I would agree that there are some societal behaviors and norms that are intrinsic to keeping Chaos at bay, but I think its a strong statement to claim entire nations and societies will fall.

JULES: I am happy for you and others who have been positively affected by the ruling. I have 2 friends that got married a couple months ago. I felt bad because they had to go to California to do it. Wouldn't you know that 2 days before they left to get married, the law in NC was overturned?! They still had a great time though. Got married in Joshua Tree National Forest.

Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the ruling, we all have to recognize that this truly is monumental. If this were something that directly affected me I would celebrate too, and I encourage others to celebrate. Unfortunately what I've been seeing particularly on social media is that many people in their 'celebration', they are lacking a degree of dignity and class, and have acted with surprising little tolerance. I can't tell you how many Facebook posts I've seen from people saying "If you don't like this ruling, F*** off and unfriend me then". What I find rather classless about that is those people already know who they should "unfriend". Instead of just doing it, they are doing 1 of 2 things: 1) they are basically threatening to deny someone their friendship for even vocalizing a disagreement (which is the exact opposite of tolerance, the same thing they say everyone else should be) and/or 2) they are creating a self induced situation where they can say "Oh look! All these people unfriended me! MOre proof of discrimination". To that I say, maybe they unfriended you not cuz your gay (they already knew you were), but because you're an a-hole?

Swish has asked more than a few times on this thread: How does this ruling actually effect those against it? So far no one has actually answered that. I'd like to in fairness, apply that going in both directions. Just as two guys/gals getting married doesn't have any literal impact on the religious, how does a religious person telling you their belief you are doing something immoral according to their beliefs impact you (and I mean 'you' in general terms, not necessarily Jules specifically )? I'd argue it doesn't either. Now when we talk about laws that force or prevent, certainly these things have impacts on people.

It just saddens me and kind of puts a damper on things for me because I've seen a fair amount of things being said by gay people that is just as 'hateful' and nasty as the more vocal religious people. Again. I'm happy for a lot of people over this issue, I just hope that they don't become the very thing they've fought against.

Ok, sure, so this whole thread is about the religious rantings based on variations of faith and God and has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision of Friday...

Title of thread: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional

WOW, what a bunch of silliness that goes on here.

Got it, I can rest more easily now.