SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

drbrumley

Well-known member
From Justin Raimondo via Twitter

Gay marriage is an absolute legal catastrophe for gay people - and the consequences for religious freedom will be even worse.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
But what does it all really mean? What will this mean for religious liberty in this country? Is that officially dead now?

I told you some time ago. I hope you are ready for America to be over. Because it is. The good news is the great and awesome day of the Lord draws closer with each day.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Marriage is a sacrament, a union of a man and a woman in God's name.

You are actually on the right track of something. Two men are not married, no matter what anybody says. Especially that disgusting pervert John Roberts and John Boehner. May they both rot in hell.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Scalia: "The Supreme Court has descended from the disciplined reasoning of John Marshall to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Here's a case of a "couple" in the UK suing to force a church to perform their ceremony. Cases like this (win or lose) will pave the way.

Do you think I am wrong?

The UK is not the USA.

Churches already deny couples marriage in a particular church for a variety of reasons. Don't go to *their* counseling session? Don't give answers they like? No wedding.

People can be denied a variety of religious rites for religious reasons, you can't then sue to get them done, it's freedom of religion.

There already are churches that will perform gay marriages and aver very welcoming to LGBT. You don't even have to get married in a church. A pastor doesn't even have to marry you!

I'm not seeing how any religious figures - bishops pastors etc. are going to be forced to perform ceremonies they don't want.
 

kiwimacahau

Well-known member
The Government should be able to define marriage as it likes and the church should be able to define Christian marriage as it pleases and never the twain should need to meet. The problem in the US is that far too many people see the Government as a part of the Church.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Power like this is both positive and negative; if government can now define precisely what marriage is, it also has the power to define what marriage is not. That determination, if it's made, will be made for purely political reasons.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Gay Marriage now legal in every state. That noise you heard was divorce lawyers everywhere, high fiving
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Gay Marriage now legal in every state. That noise you heard was divorce lawyers everywhere, high fiving

I don't understand you Dispensationalists.

You guys claim moral decline has to happen for the alleged rapture to happen, but then when moral decline happens, you guys get all upset.

So which is it?

Don't all kinds of bad things have to happen for your rapture to happen?

If so, then why do you guys get upset, and try to prevent bad things from happening?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You are actually on the right track of something. Two men are not married, no matter what anybody says. Especially that disgusting pervert John Roberts and John Boehner. May they both rot in hell.

If a dog's tail is a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

Answer: 4 legs

No matter what, a tail is not a leg, even if you call it a leg; just like two men are not a husband and wife.
 

Dan Emanuel

Active member
The federalist Constitution as it was written and ratified provided for an official interpreter of itself, the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court didn't decide, I.O.W., but revealed that S.S.M. has existed within the Constitution, all along, implicitly.

If you believe in the Constitution, you need to align with what the Supreme Court tell's us about it. Thats necessarily what the Constitution itself say's to us.

Until glory, you're choice in secular government, is between American federalism, and all the other worse 1s.


Daniel
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER

Please tell me Tam?

From the Dispensational website "raptureready.com"

"Homosexuality and all sorts of perverse behavior are accepted as normal. The world dictator (anti-christ) himself will not have the normal sexual attraction to women and may be asexual. Many theologians believe that he will probably be openly homosexual as indicated in the Bible in the book of Daniel 11:37: "and he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women". And therefore, after the rapture, more than likely marriage will be discouraged or illegal, and homosexual and lesbian relationships highly encouraged."

As I said, today's ruling by the SCOTUS should be welcome news for all you rapture adherents.
 

Breathe

New member
Way different ballpark. A baker isn't in the idea of selling a particular ideology to anyone. He's in the business of providing a service and can't deny service absent a legitimate business interest being served (no shoes, no shirt, no service, by way of).

A minister in a church where the product is a particular religious view, wherein homosexuality is in opposition to it, could if pressed (and that pressing is the precedent unlikely to be abridged) simply note that to do so would be to fundamentally work a harm to that product, severing something fundamental to the nature of his business.


Absolutely.

I wonder, though. If marriage for gay couples is now a civil right, wouldn't the refusal to marry a gay couple be seen as violating their civil rights - much like the refusal to marry a bi-racial couple would be?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I wonder, though. If marriage for gay couples is now a civil right, wouldn't the refusal to marry a gay couple be seen as violating their civil rights - much like the refusal to marry a bi-racial couple would be?

Of course.

Which is why the pro-homosexual crowd will not stop, and come after the Bible and/or Christian Churches next.

George Takei (Mr. Sulu), the gay activist actor from Star Trek, said the following after today's SCOTUS ruling: "we are very mindful of that challenge that still remains. They are now -- some of these, um, states, are -- going to try to use the, uh, shroud of religious freedom...."

Homosexuals will not stop until they eliminate everything and everyone that disagrees with them.
 

Shasta

Well-known member
I suppose you could argue that entropy will eventually have its way. That's one perspective, but I don't share it. I think we've always been an uneven proposition and we'll keep doing our best to level the thing out, likely never quite getting it completely right.


We don't have a state run by any one religion here, which has worked out well enough for every religion here.


You're just being contentious.


It depends on how you approach the aphorism.

You say WE as if this were somehow a partipatory decision but it is not. No what we have here is the state run by nine Men in Black who rule by fiat according to their personal idiosyncratic values whether such principles are elucidated in the constitution or not. If they have that power then they can introduce or revoke any liberty. Since the actual words of the founding document are not longer important the MIB can decree whatever they wish. I am surprised that more people cannot see where this might lead.
 
Top