If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

as I stated in an earlier post. i have no issue with civil unions.

That is might generous of you indeed. Separate but equal anyone? Where have we heard that before??

 

[Pop23]

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

Out of my ass? It appears the cake is up your ass:

The history of the wedding cake

The history of the wedding cake
It hasn't always been flowers and ribbons. Once upon a time, rather than being eaten, cakes were thrown at the bride as a symbol of fertility, says Catherine Gee.

History of the Wedding Cake

Today’s wedding cake has evolved out of many traditions. It is believed that the wedding cake began in Ancient Rome where wheat bread was broken over the bride’s head symbolizing fertility and good fortune.

Then there is the Cake AND other Wedding celebrations, all historically ABOUT THE COUPLES ABILITY TO PROCREATE - FROM A FEMINIST WEBSITE!

Wedding Traditions that Want to Get You Pregnant

1. Getting Married in June: Marrying in June was a way to honor Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage and childbirth. Marrying in June also meant pregnant mom could still work the fields and babies born in warmer months were more likely to survive. To read more about why couples marry in June click here.

2. The Flower Girl and Ring Bearer: These little cherubs are miniature bobble heads of the bride and groom. The fact that they are children represents the newlyweds’ future youngsters, because, you know, they’re expected to look like mom and dad. Hence the identical uniform.

3. Flowers as Decoration: Flower bouquets, boutonnières and centerpieces are not just for décor. The Flower Girl throwing petals everywhere is sort of like magic fertility dust. Flowers are symbols for fertility and…the vagina. Just ask Georgia O’Keefe; she knows what I’m talking about. (I will also admit that flowers were also used as a way to mask everyone’s smell. Deodorant is a modern convenience, when people showered sparsely back in the day the flowers doubled as a B.O. cover up.)

4. Bridal Shower Ribbon Cutting Game: There’s a common bridal shower game where for every ribbon the bride breaks when opening her gifts – a child she shall have. I suppose one could interpret the broken ribbon as her hymen since it’s supposed to be ultimately about getting her pregnant. Wedding > Bride > Virgin > Hymen Breaking > Baby; cuz married sex is supposed to lead to an immediate conception, right? (Bleh.)

5. The Wedding Cake: The wedding cake is not just dessert, it’s a fortuitous sex symbol meant to produce many offspring. The cake dates back to ancient Rome. Ancient cakes baked symbolic fertility grains into an uninspiring carb used to bless the couple. A seventeenth-century French chef sweetened it into the towering confection we know today.

6. Cutting the Cake: That ancient Roman cake was broken over the virginal bride’s head by her husband. This represented her hymen being broken (by him) later that night. The crumbs that fell over her were like Tinker Bell’s dust but instead of blessing her with the power of flight, it was more like blessing her with fertility. Guests would clamber for the fallen floor crumbs so they could get their own prosperous good luck to take home. This is also why we now share the cake with wedding guests. This eventually evolved into the cake cutting performance we see today, which is more about sexual intimacy and nurturing in a weird Freudian way.

7. Putting Wedding Cake Under Your Pillow: Sounds like creating laundry for yourself, but this was a commonly practiced tradition at one time. Female guests would take a slice of wedding cake home, put it under their pillow and sleep over it. It was thought that doing so would bless them with the same fertility bestowed upon the bride. (Why they thought pillow cake would do this is a great mystery.) Letting guests take home a slice stems back to those ancient Roman floor crumbs guests wanted. It was a little slice of superstitious prosperity and fertility to take home. Nowadays, while some guests may make off with butter cream frosting, most just get little tchotchkes as a thank you.

8. Throwing Rice: Throwing rice holds the same meaning as the wedding cake and the flower girl throwing petals. Its purpose is to spread well wishes of prosperity and fertility on the couple. At this point you might be asking yourself – what’s with all this grain and fertility business? All types of grain from barley to rice to wheat translate to prosperity (i.e. wealth) all across the world both physically and metaphorically. Ancient civilizations relied heavily on good harvests, not just to survive but as a type of currency. When harvests experienced bad years, birth rates most likely dropped; hence why they are so correlated. And since women were limited to the home and were considered economically unviable, their value rested on their ability to produce children. Children were only legitimate if consummated in marriage and were part of intricate laws regarding inheritance and social status. It’s a complicated web of social values, but the foundation of it all is food’s nurturing power and it’s associated symbols.

THEN THERE IS MY FAVORITE!

9. The Open Bar: I know what you’re thinking, how could the open bar be guilty of trying to knock up the bride? Well, it’s not the open bar’s fault per se, but there is a historical precedence of booze in relation to fertility. One of the possible explanations for the term honeymoon comes from mead, the honey wine. Mead was drunk by the newlyweds because, like grain, honey was also seen as a fertility and prosperity symbol. It was drunk for typically one month, which was also the length of most honeymoons in Victorian times. It also thought to lower the inhibitions of any nervous newlywed virgins.

YOU GOT SOME SPLAININ TO DO LUCY!

And yet I found information that showed fertility was not what the wedding cake symbolized. It certainly does not today.

Besides, gays aren't infertile. (I had five babies myself)

Mine were from people who actually study the history of Marriage. Yours A WIKI PAGE!. And even that page shows something different:

"In the medieval era, wedding cakes were constructed in rolls and buns that were laid on top of each other. The groom and bride would attempt to share a passionate kiss on top of the stack of rolls to ensure fertility and have good fortune."

Gay's individually may not be sterile, and fertility has nothing to do with a COUPLES ability to produce offspring. Clue, they, within the couple alone, cannot produce offspring.

 

[Seawytch]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

as I stated in an earlier post. i have no issue with civil unions.

Then go get one. I'll stick with my legal, civil marriage. The benefits are far greater.

 

[Pop23]

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

as I stated in an earlier post. i have no issue with civil unions.

That is might generous of you indeed. Separate but equal anyone? Where have we heard that before??

In cases where the discrimination is generational. Was your Pa Gay? Was that trait passed on?

 

[Slyhunter]

I was fired for something, anti-Muslim, I posted on FB. I just said that non-violent Muslims have the same goals as violent ones do, a Worldwide Caliphate. They just use peaceful means of getting there, like outbreeding non-Muslims. I think it sucks a business thinks they have a right to control you when you are not at work.Controlling speech, next controlling thought. They fired me for being racist.

I can see the same problem with some employer doing it because of some employee's gay marriage pictures in FB.

I may end up homeless because of it.

 

[Pop23]

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

 

[Seawytch]

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

Out of my ass? It appears the cake is up your ass:

The history of the wedding cake

The history of the wedding cake
It hasn't always been flowers and ribbons. Once upon a time, rather than being eaten, cakes were thrown at the bride as a symbol of fertility, says Catherine Gee.

History of the Wedding Cake

Today’s wedding cake has evolved out of many traditions. It is believed that the wedding cake began in Ancient Rome where wheat bread was broken over the bride’s head symbolizing fertility and good fortune.

Then there is the Cake AND other Wedding celebrations, all historically ABOUT THE COUPLES ABILITY TO PROCREATE - FROM A FEMINIST WEBSITE!

Wedding Traditions that Want to Get You Pregnant

1. Getting Married in June: Marrying in June was a way to honor Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage and childbirth. Marrying in June also meant pregnant mom could still work the fields and babies born in warmer months were more likely to survive. To read more about why couples marry in June click here.

2. The Flower Girl and Ring Bearer: These little cherubs are miniature bobble heads of the bride and groom. The fact that they are children represents the newlyweds’ future youngsters, because, you know, they’re expected to look like mom and dad. Hence the identical uniform.

3. Flowers as Decoration: Flower bouquets, boutonnières and centerpieces are not just for décor. The Flower Girl throwing petals everywhere is sort of like magic fertility dust. Flowers are symbols for fertility and…the vagina. Just ask Georgia O’Keefe; she knows what I’m talking about. (I will also admit that flowers were also used as a way to mask everyone’s smell. Deodorant is a modern convenience, when people showered sparsely back in the day the flowers doubled as a B.O. cover up.)

4. Bridal Shower Ribbon Cutting Game: There’s a common bridal shower game where for every ribbon the bride breaks when opening her gifts – a child she shall have. I suppose one could interpret the broken ribbon as her hymen since it’s supposed to be ultimately about getting her pregnant. Wedding > Bride > Virgin > Hymen Breaking > Baby; cuz married sex is supposed to lead to an immediate conception, right? (Bleh.)

5. The Wedding Cake: The wedding cake is not just dessert, it’s a fortuitous sex symbol meant to produce many offspring. The cake dates back to ancient Rome. Ancient cakes baked symbolic fertility grains into an uninspiring carb used to bless the couple. A seventeenth-century French chef sweetened it into the towering confection we know today.

6. Cutting the Cake: That ancient Roman cake was broken over the virginal bride’s head by her husband. This represented her hymen being broken (by him) later that night. The crumbs that fell over her were like Tinker Bell’s dust but instead of blessing her with the power of flight, it was more like blessing her with fertility. Guests would clamber for the fallen floor crumbs so they could get their own prosperous good luck to take home. This is also why we now share the cake with wedding guests. This eventually evolved into the cake cutting performance we see today, which is more about sexual intimacy and nurturing in a weird Freudian way.

7. Putting Wedding Cake Under Your Pillow: Sounds like creating laundry for yourself, but this was a commonly practiced tradition at one time. Female guests would take a slice of wedding cake home, put it under their pillow and sleep over it. It was thought that doing so would bless them with the same fertility bestowed upon the bride. (Why they thought pillow cake would do this is a great mystery.) Letting guests take home a slice stems back to those ancient Roman floor crumbs guests wanted. It was a little slice of superstitious prosperity and fertility to take home. Nowadays, while some guests may make off with butter cream frosting, most just get little tchotchkes as a thank you.

8. Throwing Rice: Throwing rice holds the same meaning as the wedding cake and the flower girl throwing petals. Its purpose is to spread well wishes of prosperity and fertility on the couple. At this point you might be asking yourself – what’s with all this grain and fertility business? All types of grain from barley to rice to wheat translate to prosperity (i.e. wealth) all across the world both physically and metaphorically. Ancient civilizations relied heavily on good harvests, not just to survive but as a type of currency. When harvests experienced bad years, birth rates most likely dropped; hence why they are so correlated. And since women were limited to the home and were considered economically unviable, their value rested on their ability to produce children. Children were only legitimate if consummated in marriage and were part of intricate laws regarding inheritance and social status. It’s a complicated web of social values, but the foundation of it all is food’s nurturing power and it’s associated symbols.

THEN THERE IS MY FAVORITE!

9. The Open Bar: I know what you’re thinking, how could the open bar be guilty of trying to knock up the bride? Well, it’s not the open bar’s fault per se, but there is a historical precedence of booze in relation to fertility. One of the possible explanations for the term honeymoon comes from mead, the honey wine. Mead was drunk by the newlyweds because, like grain, honey was also seen as a fertility and prosperity symbol. It was drunk for typically one month, which was also the length of most honeymoons in Victorian times. It also thought to lower the inhibitions of any nervous newlywed virgins.

YOU GOT SOME SPLAININ TO DO LUCY!

And yet I found information that showed fertility was not what the wedding cake symbolized. It certainly does not today.

Besides, gays aren't infertile. (I had five babies myself)

Mine were from people who actually study the history of Marriage. Yours A WIKI PAGE!. And even that page shows something different:

"In the medieval era, wedding cakes were constructed in rolls and buns that were laid on top of each other. The groom and bride would attempt to share a passionate kiss on top of the stack of rolls to ensure fertility and have good fortune."

Gay's individually may not be sterile, and fertility has nothing to do with a COUPLES ability to produce offspring. Clue, they, within the couple alone, cannot produce offspring.

Mine too...

The history of the nuptial pastry, though, is even stranger than these modern rituals suggests. In ancient Rome, marriages were sealed when the groom smashed a barley cake over the bride’s head. (Luckily, tiaras were not fashionable then.) In medieval England, newlyweds smooched over a pile of buns, supposedly ensuring a prosperous future. Unmarried guests sometimes took home a little piece of cake to tuck under their pillow.

The Strange History of the Wedding Cake | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Well, technically there are some laws that require that the couple being civilly married be infertile together unless they are beyond child bearing age.


.>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

Because queer- lifestylists eat and shit just like everyone else. It isn't a direct-condoning of that which is a new and unique repugnant concept to a Christian: the bastardization of the word "marriage" where children are involved and used to get the benefit of both mother and father. A new contract instead banishes them from that benefit. Christians believe that marriage requires both mother and father as the nuclear family unit where children are always assumed to arrive or be part of; whether or not the rare exception happens.

there is even a need to consummate the marriage. I bet these leftists toads don't even know this. It's what annulled many a marriages.

There is no requirement in Government sanction marriage for consummation of the marriage via sexual contact. But can you imagine if there were and it was left to the State Legislatures to legislate what sexual consummation might be. Would a new Bride be allowed to deny Anal Sex as a way to consummate her Marriage?

it may not be a requirement, but it is used for annulments.

You're confusing religious marriage with civil.

I believe any legally-sanctioned marriage can be annulled for lack of consummation. I'm gonna say, "My partner refuses to boink me" is a serious problem in pretty much everyone's book. It's also grounds for divorce if refusal to have sex crops up later down the line.

 

[Pop23]

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

Marriage was a traditionally religious institution for centuries before Government got involved.

But you will praddle on.

 

[Pop23]

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Well, technically there are some laws that require that the couple being civilly married be infertile together unless they are beyond child bearing age.


.>>>>

Which make absolutely ZERO sense today. Not being argumentative, but ..............

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

as I stated in an earlier post. i have no issue with civil unions.

That is might generous of you indeed. Separate but equal anyone? Where have we heard that before??

In cases where the discrimination is generational. Was your Pa Gay? Was that trait passed on?

The longer this goes on, the further you posts devolve into inane equine excrement.

 

[jillian]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

and what are there more of? and who has the power structure?

insane.

and so?

It’s beyond your Ken. Don’t worry your ignorant little heed about it.

It’s beyond your Barbie

Say what genitalia-less Ken?

I live when subliterares try to pretend. The whole world is stupid except for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That seems to smack of some religious hokus- pokus . Now I understand you.

So you believe that man-made laws constitute actual truth? What I said is demonstrably true. Are all laws correct? Please answer with a yes or no. If you say yes, you're contradicting yourself, because before the law changed on marriage, I'm sure you denounced it and fought against the law as it was, claiming it was an unjust law.

So I'll ask you again, are all laws correct or not?

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

There's no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth". Truth and fact just are. That's kinda the definition. God exists, or He does not, and neither my belief or your disbelief will alter it one way or the other.

Look at it this way: the existence of Pluto (the planet, not the Disney dog) was completely unknown for a long time, and then it was suspected and posited and theorized long before any definitive proof existed. And there were a lot of people who disagreed and didn't believe there really was anything there, back when it was first suggested. Did that disbelief change the fact that Pluto existed? Did those disbelievers have "their truth" on the subject, and the theorizers "their own truth"?

You need to learn to communicate more precisely, so that you don't whip out sloppy phrases like "does not exist for me" and start thinking that's anything literal. What you're actually trying to say is, "I don't wish to believe it exists, therefore I will adamantly refuse to even contemplate the possibility that I'm wrong". Or, for short, "I disbelieve", but you must understand that your belief is not a "truth" of any sort, in and of itself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Regarding the City of Houston law suit

I live in Texas and I watch these things happen.

It is important to note that not all local government organizations in Texas are providing same-sex benefits. They are hiding behind the question of Obergefell's scope and applicability.

This is a fight that has been going on since before Obergefell. Houston granted benefits to same-sex city employees who married in another state. A law suit came almost immediately that challenged Houston based on the state's same-sex marriage bans. The lower Court in that case enjoined Houston because at the time, Texas law's prohibited any action recognizing same-sex unions.

Obergefell was decided before the appeal, so the appeals court ruled in favor of Houston and lifted the injunction, which the Texas Supreme Court almost unanimously denied the petition (designating the lower court's decision as "pet. denied" which, under Texas law, makes that lower court's decision binding as if the Texas Supreme Court had held the exact same thing).

After a fairly compelling motion to rehear, the Texas Supreme Court decided to grant a rehearing.

Don't be fooled by the Texas Supreme Court decision.

The issue undecided within Texas, which would have caused conflicting lower court decisions, so they agreed to hear it, held that Obergefell decision was narrow, leaving state courts to determine the decision's "reach and ramifications." The Court then remanded the case back to the Harris County District Court (trial court) to address whether Obergefell applies to spousal benefits.

Very important to understand: Obergefell fails to address whether states and their political subdivisions must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.

See what happened there? Why would they do that?

The Texas Supreme Court, in holding that it cannot determine whether a lower court's decision is in correct or in error if the lower court doesn't make a decision, is inviting a decision favorable to Houston. Harris County is Houston. On appeal, the Court will likely be reviewing the merits of a decision that upholds same-sex benefits, rather than one that denies them.

The Court said (VERY IMPORTANT) that this holding does not mean Houston can “constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses” but that the lower court must determine the "reach and ramifications" of Obergefell as it applies to benefits. I think the Court is signaling how it will review a decision from the lower court, both by the statements in oral arguments and that statement above.

In oral arguments, Texas Supreme Court Justices asked the opponents about how they could argue against the Houston benefits policy while the state itself has extended benefits to same-sex spouses of its employees, to which the opponents responded that the state was bound by the federal case challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage because it was a named party in Obergefell. Houston was not -- AND NEITHER WAS ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER IN TEXAS.

After that ruling, Houston appealed to the SCOTUS prior to the Harris County District Court taking any action on remand. The SCOTUS rejected the appeal. Why? Texas has not made a final decision on how Obergefell applies to same-sex benefits. Houston moved too fast.

Meanwhile, benefits are still being provided.

So, you can't be tempted to accuse the blacksmith of trying to destroy the steel when he beats it with a hammer.

The Texas Supreme Court is making sure it has followed procedure and demanded a complete legal process before making a decision that will ultimately be presented to the SCOTUS. The lame-ass Jesus Nazi attempt to get the SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell is not only a hail mary, but it may end up expanding that decision to include same-sex benefits to all state and local government employers.

Without doing a complete analysis, I believe they are right that Obergefell does not extend to same-sex benefits. So, what needs to be done? The SCOTUS needs a complete top-to-bottom process to allow them to narrowly expand Obergefell to apply to same-sex benefits. Texas is providing it.

And knowing the people on the Court, I imagine the SCOTUS decision will be 6-3 split at worst. Gorsuch is will be governed by stare decisus and join Sotomayor, Keegen, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy in the majority. I wouldn't be surprised if John Roberts or Clarence Thomas didn't join the majority.

So, don't be too quick to judge. The Texas Supreme Court is fairly disciplined.

Regardless, government belongs to all of us. It is the only entity that should not be allowed to discriminate.

 

[Pop23]

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

as I stated in an earlier post. i have no issue with civil unions.

That is might generous of you indeed. Separate but equal anyone? Where have we heard that before??

In cases where the discrimination is generational. Was your Pa Gay? Was that trait passed on?

The longer this goes on, the further you posts devolve into inane equine excrement.

So your Pa was gay, that trait gets passed on through generations. Oh please tell us all

 

[Lysistrata]

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

Marriage was a traditionally religious institution for centuries before Government got involved.

But you will praddle on.

No, it has always been a civil institution. How do you get a hundreds of years-old history of arranged marriages to consolidate alliances between countries and tribes; marriages between people who never have been in the same room together before, and call it "religious" when it was recorded, sometimes formed by governments, and then the "happy couple" were afforded special privileges by the relevant government? How did kings beget "legitimate" heirs to their thrones and also bastards; "legitimate" heirs by "marrying" people whom they never met before and "bastards" by people whom they personally selected to bed and impregnate? Was Henry VIII "in love" with the Spanish Infanta when he married her and wished to share his life with her under the guidance of God? Had he even met her before?

There was absolutely nothing involving religion of any sort in the operation of this system. Go get yourself some history.

 

[buttercup]

There's no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth". Truth and fact just are. That's kinda the definition. God exists, or He does not, and neither my belief or your disbelief will alter it one way or the other.

Look at it this way: the existence of Pluto (the planet, not the Disney dog) was completely unknown for a long time, and then it was suspected and posited and theorized long before any definitive proof existed. And there were a lot of people who disagreed and didn't believe there really was anything there, back when it was first suggested. Did that disbelief change the fact that Pluto existed? Did those disbelievers have "their truth" on the subject, and the theorizers "their own truth"?

You need to learn to communicate more precisely, so that you don't whip out sloppy phrases like "does not exist for me" and start thinking that's anything literal. What you're actually trying to say is, "I don't wish to believe it exists, therefore I will adamantly refuse to even contemplate the possibility that I'm wrong". Or, for short, "I disbelieve", but you must understand that your belief is not a "truth" of any sort, in and of itself.

Thank you. I think it's a shame that some here are either unwilling or unable to think this through. Out of one side of their mouth they claim that they are right and others are wrong, while out of the other side they deny that truth is objective. And they don't even see the blatant contradiction there. It's kind of funny, actually… but sad at the same time.

 

[Pop23]

Regarding the City of Houston law suit

I live in Texas and I watch these things happen.

It is important to note that not all local government organizations in Texas are providing same-sex benefits. They are hiding behind the question of Obergefell's scope and applicability.

This is a fight that has been going on since before Obergefell. Houston granted benefits to same-sex city employees who married in another state. A law suit came almost immediately that challenged Houston based on the state's same-sex marriage bans. The lower Court in that case enjoined Houston because at the time, Texas law's prohibited any action recognizing same-sex unions.

Obergefell was decided before the appeal, so the appeals court ruled in favor of Houston and lifted the injunction, which the Texas Supreme Court almost unanimously denied the petition (designating the lower court's decision as "pet. denied" which, under Texas law, makes that lower court's decision binding as if the Texas Supreme Court had held the exact same thing).

After a fairly compelling motion to rehear, the Texas Supreme Court decided to grant a rehearing.

Don't be fooled by the Texas Supreme Court decision.

The issue undecided within Texas, which would have caused conflicting lower court decisions, so they agreed to hear it, held that Obergefell decision was narrow, leaving state courts to determine the decision's "reach and ramifications." The Court then remanded the case back to the Harris County District Court (trial court) to address whether Obergefell applies to spousal benefits.

Very important to understand: Obergefell fails to address whether states and their political subdivisions must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.

See what happened there? Why would they do that?

The Texas Supreme Court, in holding that it cannot determine whether a lower court's decision is in correct or in error if the lower court doesn't make a decision, is inviting a decision favorable to Houston. Harris County is Houston. On appeal, the Court will likely be reviewing the merits of a decision that upholds same-sex benefits, rather than one that denies them.

The Court said (VERY IMPORTANT) that this holding does not mean Houston can “constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses” but that the lower court must determine the "reach and ramifications" of Obergefell as it applies to benefits. I think the Court is signaling how it will review a decision from the lower court, both by the statements in oral arguments and that statement above.

In oral arguments, Texas Supreme Court Justices asked the opponents about how they could argue against the Houston benefits policy while the state itself has extended benefits to same-sex spouses of its employees, to which the opponents responded that the state was bound by the federal case challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage because it was a named party in Obergefell. Houston was not -- AND NEITHER WAS ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER IN TEXAS.

After that ruling, Houston appealed to the SCOTUS prior to the Harris County District Court taking any action on remand. The SCOTUS rejected the appeal. Why? Texas has not made a final decision on how Obergefell applies to same-sex benefits. Houston moved too fast.

Meanwhile, benefits are still being provided.

So, you can't be tempted to accuse the blacksmith of trying to destroy the steel when he beats it with a hammer.

The Texas Supreme Court is making sure it has followed procedure and demanded a complete legal process before making a decision that will ultimately be presented to the SCOTUS. The lame-ass Jesus Nazi attempt to get the SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell is not only a hail mary, but it may end up expanding that decision to include same-sex benefits to all state and local government employers.

Without doing a complete analysis, I believe they are right that Obergefell does not extend to same-sex benefits. So, what needs to be done? The SCOTUS needs a complete top-to-bottom process to allow them to narrowly expand Obergefell to apply to same-sex benefits. Texas is providing it.

And knowing the people on the Court, I imagine the SCOTUS decision will be 6-3 split at worst. Gorsuch is will be governed by stare decisus and join Sotomayor, Keegen, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy in the majority. I wouldn't be surprised if John Roberts or Clarence Thomas didn't join the majority.

So, don't be too quick to judge. The Texas Supreme Court is fairly disciplined.

Regardless, government belongs to all of us. It is the only entity that should not be allowed to discriminate.

Oh Man, this is just about to get fun!