Congressional Bible Study Teacher Urges Officials to Oppose Marriage Equality as Matter of ‘Theology’

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No I dont

Homosexuality should never have been legalized in the first place

Actually, Homosexuality was never illegal. Sodomy was and those laws were used to target/ entrap gay people

Which brings me to the question: What compelling government/ societal interest was served by making a sex act between consenting adults illegal?

Another question. If illegal, should the law be applied equally to hetero and homosexuality?

and...would a law against sodomy actually prevent sodomy?

For extra credit: What the hell does any of this have to do with gay marriage?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A homosexual has always been able to get married just like anyone else- to a broad.

You continue to devolve I see

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Same sex" marriage is a new, special institution, a special right.

It is not a special right for gays to be able to marry a parner of thesame sex because straight people can also mary someone of the same sex. You don't even realise haow stupid the things that you say are

 

[Clyde 154]

The Christian Bible also says that anyone that marries after divorcing or marries someone that has been divorced is committing adultery. (a sin). Should the government only allow one marriage per person?

This argument is another logical fallacy. Your dogs bites someone and must be put down because its vicious.....thus MY DOG because its of the same bread and stock must be destroyed as well?

My position is stated quite clearly......and it has nothing to do with the government mandating marriage one way or another.

Again......its not up to the government to place limits or restrictions upon Religious doctrine and tradition or any local, state, or city traditions.


What part of this simple ideology promoted by our founding documents do you fail to comprehend? In other words.....marriage is not up to the government to define, as clearly written in the Constitution.....each state is free to establish their own laws depending upon the accepted mores' of that states citizenship. Its how a FREE REPUBLIC WORKS, it cannot be free when a Central government located hundreds or thousands of miles away dictate social tradition and mores'. ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

What exactly do you assume the states bill of rights are? Outhouse paper for the federal government to wipe with? Each state has its own constitution and laws and is constitutionally allowed such if these laws are not restricted by the actual content of the US Constitution. No judge has the authority to add or take away one word from the standard that calibrates law at every level......The United States Constitution.

Its much like the language found in the first amendment when the Court insists upon changing "Freedom OF" religion to Freedom FROM" religion by false interpretation. Its the central government and our national congress that is limited in its scope of authority in relation to religious freedom, as it clearly states, "......and CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW......." What do you call forcing untraditional marriage upon individuals free from such federal mandates? Judicial Tyranny. The 13, 14th, or 15th amendment does not rescind nor negate the limits placed upon the federal government as found to exist in the 1st and 10th amendments.

 

[pknopp]

Again......its not up to the government to place limits or restrictions upon Religious doctrine and tradition. What part of this simple ideology promoted by our founding documents do you fail to comprehend? In other words.....marriage is not up to the government to define, as clearly written in the Constitution.....each state is free to establish their own laws depending upon the accepted mores' of that states citizenship. Its how a FREE REPUBLIC WORKS, it cannot be free when a Central government located hundreds or thousands of miles away dictate social tradition and mores'.

The government is not dictating your religious doctrine. They are saying they recognize gay marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A homosexual has always been able to get married just like anyone else- to a broad.

• When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already had equality prior to Obergfell “because they already could , like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that they do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
  
  In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.
  
  Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
  
  One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

 

[Mac-7]

Which brings me to the question: What compelling government/ societal interest was served by making a sex act between consenting adults illegal?

In our anything-goes, do-it-till-your-satisfied lib culture its difficult argue against a perversion after the high court says its ok

Maybe its better to save my energy for libs next frontier - legalizing pedophilia

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As stated.....the government has no authority to change the conditions of the tradition of marriage as defined in the very first amendment of the US Constitution, FREEDOM OF RELIGION. But.........SCOTUS has attempted to declare that one amendment overrides another. The 1st is made null and void by a SPEICIAL INTERPRETATION of the 14th? No where can I find an amendment that declares the 1st has been rescinded.......as was found in the amendments concerning the ban of liquor sales.

What you fail to realise is that for many people marriage is more of a civil matter tan a religious rite. Equal protection under the law and due process has nothing to do with religious freedom or the first amendemt

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In our anything-goes, do-it-till-your-satisfied lib culture its difficult argue against a perversion after the high court says its ok

Maybe its better to save my energy for libs next frontier - legalizing pedophilia

Gibberish! Where did anyone say that anything goes? And that pedophilia shit is real old and stupid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The reality of "HOW IT EXISTS...is, homosexuality is detailed as a sin in Christian Doctrine", and you can't condemn anyone for simply declaring the truth as its recorded in the very source of all Christian doctrine........the Holy Scriptures. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

The concept of sin has no place in civil law and secular society

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you want.....legislate law that allows same sex marriage, give them special treatment and allowances that come with anyone that has a demonstrable handicap. Just state on the license, this couple is homosexually married. Give them their own handicapped parking, etc., Just don't attempt to declare that everyone must change their traditions to fit into some SPECIAL INTEREST narrative. The majority establishes both law and tradition in a representative free republic.......it can be no other way, unless you want despotism. Thus the constitutional mandate for a SUPER MAJORITY ratification when it comes to RIGHTS both CIVIL and HUMAN.

Special rights? Handicapped? Everybody must change....??? No one is asking you to change anything That is a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is not one right in this nation that has not been the product of a MAJORITY..........women's right to vote and own property, the civil rights acts of the 50's and 60s....etc., all have come about through the will of the majority. When you attempt to force feed any minority position under the pretense of human or civil rights......you have a problem, you have ceased being a free republic governed by the will of the people......you are now under the rule of a 12 man politically appointed OLIAGARCHY.

Do you also oppose the SCOTUS ruling in Loving V. Virginia> Yes or No and why?

 

[Mac-7]

Gibberish! Where did anyone say that anything goes?

If libs can believe in 57 genders based on the imagination of some perverted social misfit,

and then turn society upsidedown for their sake then anything goes is the policy of the left whether they admit it or not

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The federal government has no place dictating the regulations of traditional marriage. As far as taxes go there is already legislation in existence to deal with benefits of taxation (if you can call a tax a benefit in any form) its called a legal CONTRACT. Your argument is based upon a logical fallacy. You are making an argument based upon the fallacy that its righteous to tax or not tax individuals based upon the tradition of marriage in the first place.

As always.........the progressives legislate the cause of a problem (unrighteous taxation without representation...i.e, a progressive tax system that punishes those that actually earn and gives to those who do not earn)....and then they claim to be the solution to a problem they created in the first place. Its who they are.......its what they do.

Example: If the only reason to allow same sex marriage is for tax purposes.....and its made legal under the current system of taxation.....consider the following, what if someone wanted to cohabit in order to take advantage of said law........an uncle demands the right to live with and marry his niece in order to tax advantage of the tax clause in relation to same sex marriage (Homosexuals declare its not about sex but about love) this couple simply entered the marriage to game the system, they did not sleep together but simply shared the same address under a legal marriage contract.

Where does this slippery slope end? Marriage to animals? Marriage to inanimate objects? Marriage to self?

The courts have no business in dictating social mores' or social traditions. The duty of SCOTUS is not to "interpret" law but to ARBITRATE EXISING LAW......meaning to compare any suggested acts of legislation against the very source of CALIBRATING LAW in this nation the existing language found in US Constitution and following amendments. When no language is found to compare......as detailed in Amendment No. 10 SCOTUS has no recourse but to allow THE STATES to legislate as the citizens of that state desire.

The Constitution is not a document that demonstrates the authority of the Federal Government and Courts......its a document that details the LIMITS of authority THE PEOPLE have granted the Central Government and Court systems. Its a negative contract.

If you desire homosexual marriage to be legal at the national level................simply amend the constitution through the will of a supermajority of peoples.....and stop attempting to dictate through an Oligarchical Judicial Authority that has never existed in this Republic.

When you attempt to pass national laws with as simple 50+1 majority the only thing produced is civil unrest as you have the nation divided practically down the middle........the end result always ends as detailed in the federalist paper No. 10. Violence and Revolution.

Look around the nation, look out your window, what do you see today.......the sparks of revolution between this divided populous is already visible. The left spent 2 years attempting to burn down this nation......yet only reacted when a one day protest existed on Jan. 6, 2021 with charges of violence against a conservative populous that was tired of being pushed around by idiots who claim this republic is a social democracy.

Yes I know. You people want to throw tha baby out with the bath water. Destroy marriage. Anything to avoid letting those perverted gay people from being part of it. But be careful what you ask for. And let us know when suppport for abolishing marriage is any more than a small plip on the legal and societal radar. It aint happening

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?
Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

During a Presidential debate some time ago, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

  Much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition.  Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds.  There is  little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).  However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).  Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.).  Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible:  for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing.  This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples).  Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not.  Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary:  the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

 

[metalwolf]

Wouldn't this be against the first amendment?

I mean it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof" that they don't understand?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If libs can believe in 57 genders based on the imagination of some perverted social misfit,

Where do you get that idiotic shit from.? 57? You have it confused with Heinz 57 varieties? We believe that not everyoneis clearly male or female and that is backed up by science, but I will not let you derail that topic with a red herring

 

[metalwolf]

Where do you get that idiotic shit from.? 57? You have it confused with Heinz 57 varieties? We believe that not everyoneis clearly male or female and that is backed up by science, but I will not let you derail that topic with a red herring

I think the genders is like 62 or such?

Your Gender Identity Can Change Over Time, And Yes, That’s Totally Normal

Plus, 20 gender and gender-related terms to add to your vocab.

www.womenshealthmag.com

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

and then turn society upsidedown for their sake then anything goes is the policy of the left whether they admit it or not

What the hell do you mean by this anything goes crap. Give some examples. How has gay marriage "turned society upside down"? Most people are not even talking about it anymore. We have families headed by same sex couples in our community. They are just here among us. They are neighbors and friends. It is not an issue and it has zero impact on the marriages or relationships of anyone else. If anything that have enriched the diversity of the community. The same thing with transpeople . Get the fuck over it

 

[Mac-7]

Where do you get that idiotic shit from.? 57? You have it confused with Heinz 57 varieties? We believe that not everyoneis clearly male or female and that is backed up by science, but I will not let you derail that topic with a red herring

If you do a search of the liberal insane asylum opinions vary from 63 to 112

And thats within the first 5 or 10 responses

So ONLY 57 is a conservative guess of what liberals are capable of

 

[Mac-7]

What the hell do you mean by this anything goes crap. Give some examples. How has gay marriage "turned society upside down"?

If you go back in time when the first free thinking liberal decided that marriage was an unnecessary religious imposition

And way back then marriage was between a man and a woman

So libs were not even talking about two men shacking up

And its all been downhill on countless fronts since then