Supreme Court poised to hear landmark gay marriage case

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't know what they will decide. It won't make the issue go away even if the gay marriage crowd succeed here. Roe v Wade didn't make abortion go away. It only intensified it. I think eventually one of two things will take place. The constant assault on traditional institutions and values by the left will either fully succeed or spark a big push back. I don't know which will happen.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I don't know what they will decide. It won't make the issue go away even if the gay marriage crowd succeed here. Roe v Wade didn't make abortion go away. It only intensified it. I think eventually one of two things will take place. The constant assault on traditional institutions and values by the left will either fully succeed or spark a big push back. I don't know which will happen.

Push back on this issue is coming from some unlikely quarters.

"The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman."

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract."

http://thefederalist...e-sex-marriage/

[quietfan 233]

I don't see that prior, older attitudes toward same sex marriage OR individual state votes/attitudes matter. They are irrelevant in my opinion.

At one time many people in the South were comfortable with Jim Crow laws. Those attitudes changed, thank goodness, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that because people felt differently in 1930 or 1950 that the SCOTUS ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education was invalid or incorrect simply because people "used to be" against it.

Likewise for individual state votes on Constitutional rights. A state cannot censor the free press, ignore Brown vs. Board of Education, or invalidate the 2nd Amendment, for example, regardless of state ballots or wishes. When it comes to civil rights, the federal government can and should overrule state laws that attempt to abridge those rights. Otherwise much of the South might still be living in a "Jim Crow" culture.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the validity of the 14th and 16th Amendments (or any other amendment):

Where, in the end, lies the final authority in settling those questions? The United States Supreme Court. Political theorists can argue forever, but the reality is that the federal courts have recognized the validity of those Amendments multiple times, and under our system of government the Supreme Court is the only body with jurisdiction to answer such questions. Said amendments are, and will be, the law of the land until such time as another amendment clarifies or supplants them.

Those who would argue otherwise would be better served directing their efforts toward a campaign to ratifying new amendments to counter or repeal those currently recognized by SCOTUS. Otherwise, such arguments may make for interesting discussions, but have no impact on the actual application of the law. I.e., it might be fun to talk about such theories in the abstract, but in the real world of real government, it's a done deal and only further amendment of the Constitution will change that. As in most of life, one must either accept reality, live delusionally in denial of reality, or work to change reality.

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't know what they will decide. It won't make the issue go away even if the gay marriage crowd succeed here. Roe v Wade didn't make abortion go away. It only intensified it. I think eventually one of two things will take place. The constant assault on traditional institutions and values by the left will either fully succeed or spark a big push back. I don't know which will happen.

Push back on this issue is coming from some unlikely quarters.

"The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman."

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract."

http://thefederalist...e-sex-marriage/

It's not about SSM as such. It's just the latest vehicle the left has brought forward in their quest to completely change the direction of this country.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I don't see that prior, older attitudes toward same sex marriage OR individual state votes/attitudes matter. They are irrelevant in my opinion.

At one time many people in the South were comfortable with Jim Crow laws. Those attitudes changed, thank goodness, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that because people felt differently in 1930 or 1950 that the SCOTUS ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education was invalid or incorrect simply because people "used to be" against it.

Likewise for individual state votes on Constitutional rights. A state cannot censor the free press, ignore Brown vs. Board of Education, or invalidate the 2nd Amendment, for example, regardless of state ballots or wishes. When it comes to civil rights, the federal government can and should overrule state laws that attempt to abridge those rights. Otherwise much of the South might still be living in a "Jim Crow" culture.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the validity of the 14th and 16th Amendments (or any other amendment):

Where, in the end, lies the final authority in settling those questions? The United States Supreme Court. Political theorists can argue forever, but the reality is that the federal courts have recognized the validity of those Amendments multiple times, and under our system of government the Supreme Court is the only body with jurisdiction to answer such questions. Said amendments are, and will be, the law of the land until such time as another amendment clarifies or supplants them.

Those who would argue otherwise would be better served directing their efforts toward a campaign to ratifying new amendments to counter or repeal those currently recognized by SCOTUS. Otherwise, such arguments may make for interesting discussions, but have no impact on the actual application of the law. I.e., it might be fun to talk about such theories in the abstract, but in the real world of real government, it's a done deal and only further amendment of the Constitution will change that. As in most of life, one must either accept reality, live delusionally in denial of reality, or work to change reality.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"it might be fun to talk about such theories in the abstract, but in the real world of real government, it's a done deal and only further amendment of the Constitution will change that. As in most of life, one must either accept reality, live delusionally in denial of reality, or work to change reality."

This response is a classic example how the climate of opinion has been so sucessfully manipulated that people argue for the subversion of the Constitution as if their argument trumps the vision of the founders who wrote the Constitution to specifically limit the power of the federal govt and the courts. As it relates to civil laws, they should be determined by legislators and voters not the robes.

States were designed to be the laboratories of democracy but their powers have almost been rendered useless in the wake of a federal govt that is out of control.

[quietfan 233]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

It is not necessary to kill the institution of marriage in order for gay couples to get those same treatments. Civil contracts would do it but the LGBT community isn't satisfied with that solution and will settle for nothing short of forcing their will on everyone especially those who object on the basis of religious conviction.

[quietfan 233]

"it might be fun to talk about such theories in the abstract, but in the real world of real government, it's a done deal and only further amendment of the Constitution will change that. As in most of life, one must either accept reality, live delusionally in denial of reality, or work to change reality."

This response is a classic example how the climate of opinion has been so sucessfully manipulated that people argue for the subversion of the Constitution as if their argument trumps the vision of the founders who wrote the Constitution to specifically limit the power of the federal govt and the courts. As it relates to civil laws, they should be determined by legislators and voters not the robes.

States were designed to be the laboratories of democracy but their powers have almost been rendered useless in the wake of a federal govt that is out of control.

You are certainly within your rights in holding this opinion. Every poster on this board is entitled to his/her opinion, as is every person in this country. Given that the population of the country is about 320 million, there could be 300+ million different opinions on what the meaning or intent of the Constitution is. (Chances are, even those founding fathers & the writers of the document were not in total agreement.)

So the question becomes, who makes the final decision regarding what the Constitution means or what the "vision of the founders" really was? You? me? Judge Roy Moore? Ralph Nader? Harvey Updyke? Adam Sandler? Like it or not, justified or not, reasonable or not, we as a nation have dropped that hot potato into the hands of SCOTUS. Since I see about as much chance of you or I changing that as the chances that you or I can change the weather, it seems pointless to argue or worry about it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

because of the 14th Amendment. In this case

Funny you mention that amendment since it was NEVER legally ratified and is itself viewed as unconstitutional

http://www.barefoots...et/14uncon.html

Since we're speaking of amendments the 16th amendment was NEVER legally ratified either.

http://www.givemelib...notratified.htm

You should notify the Court immediately. I do not believe they are aware of this.

Is your opinion based on the belief that the southern states were forced to ratify the reconstruction amendments?

Cute..they;re aware of it and are perfectly comfortable and content asserting power they were never intended to have. Obviously, you didn't read the link. It was clear and quite unambiguous but here you are as usual espousing a losing argument. States outside the south never ratified it

• Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
  
• In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
  
• A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
  

http://www.constitut...14ll/no14th.htm

You are aware that the states outside the south have now ratified the 14th Amendment?

No, its a very complicated legal issue. I do understand it is widely recognized and accepted as the law. I am simply saying it was never legally ratified according to the law that governs the amendment process. Thats all. read the link bud. I know you prefer assuming Im radically wrong but you haven't done so well on that front about anything.

http://www.constitut...14ll/no14th.htm

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in "ratification." It said simply that they were acts of the "political departments of the Government." This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose "Constitutional History of the United States" is a standard work, writes:

"Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?"

This is the tragic history of the so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a "government of law."

Don't get me wrong Blue. I think you are obviously correct on original intent. I just do not share your opinion on the reconstruction amendments.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"it might be fun to talk about such theories in the abstract, but in the real world of real government, it's a done deal and only further amendment of the Constitution will change that. As in most of life, one must either accept reality, live delusionally in denial of reality, or work to change reality."

This response is a classic example how the climate of opinion has been so sucessfully manipulated that people argue for the subversion of the Constitution as if their argument trumps the vision of the founders who wrote the Constitution to specifically limit the power of the federal govt and the courts. As it relates to civil laws, they should be determined by legislators and voters not the robes.

States were designed to be the laboratories of democracy but their powers have almost been rendered useless in the wake of a federal govt that is out of control.

You are certainly within your rights in holding this opinion. Every poster on this board is entitled to his/her opinion, as is every person in this country. Given that the population of the country is about 320 million, there could be 300+ million different opinions on what the meaning or intent of the Constitution is. (Chances are, even those founding fathers & the writers of the document were not in total agreement.)

So the question becomes, who makes the final decision regarding what the Constitution means or what the "vision of the founders" really was? You? me? Judge Roy Moore? Ralph Nader? Harvey Updyke? Adam Sandler? Like it or not, justified or not, reasonable or not, we as a nation have dropped that hot potato into the hands of SCOTUS. Since I see about as much chance of you or I changing that as the chances that you or I can change the weather, it seems pointless to argue or worry about it.

Im not arguing with you about it. I am simply pointing out a few tasty points that are NOT opinions. it should be an issue decided by the states withing the context of the Constitution. It is a fact that the founders could not possibly have foreseen every eventuality and that is why the powers they delegated to the federal govt were limited and unambiguous. However, the Constitution has been under attack since its inception because it stands in the way of the acquisition of powers.

The states were envisioned as the laboratories of democracy that way if citizens didn't like the civil laws in one state they could move to another where you found them more suitable. If the laws were that good they'd eventually spread everywhere but their merit would be measured in a prudent way rahter than forcing them on the entire populace all at once. Besides, the SCOTUS is not infallible and have been wrong quite a few times. Surely you're aware of their mistakes?

[quietfan 233]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

It is not necessary to kill the institution of marriage in order for gay couples to get those same treatments. Civil contracts would do it but the LGBT community isn't satisfied with that solution and will settle for nothing short of forcing their will on everyone especially those who object on the basis of religious conviction.

Civil partnerships remind me of school segregation. If "separate but equal" is unconstitutional in schools, why wouldn't it be unconstitutional for marriage vs. supposedly "separate but equal" civil partnerships? As in Brown vs. Board of Education, any duality of standards/systems carries an inherent inequality in standards/systems.

(P.S.> I obviously strongly disagree with your implication that SSM marriage will "kill the institution of marriage", but won't argue that point, seeing it as your equally strongly held opinion and acknowledging your right to it.)

[TheBlueVue 177]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

It is not necessary to kill the institution of marriage in order for gay couples to get those same treatments. Civil contracts would do it but the LGBT community isn't satisfied with that solution and will settle for nothing short of forcing their will on everyone especially those who object on the basis of religious conviction.

Civil partnerships remind me of school segregation. If "separate but equal" is unconstitutional in schools, why wouldn't it be unconstitutional for marriage vs. supposedly "separate but equal" civil partnerships? As in Brown vs. Board of Education, any duality of standards/systems carries an inherent inequality in standards/systems.

(P.S.> I obviously strongly disagree with your implication that SSM marriage will "kill the institution of marriage", but won't argue that point, seeing it as your equally strongly held opinion and acknowledging your right to it.)

It will kill it by virtue of changing the parameters of what constitutes marriage. It will no longer be the union of one man and one woman. Not only that, it is currently a religious institution but the "marriage' of 2 men or 2 women will defy that aspect of what it is altogether. I cant imagine any argument rendering those points irrelevant.

[TheBlueVue 177]

because of the 14th Amendment. In this case

Funny you mention that amendment since it was NEVER legally ratified and is itself viewed as unconstitutional

http://www.barefoots...et/14uncon.html

Since we're speaking of amendments the 16th amendment was NEVER legally ratified either.

http://www.givemelib...notratified.htm

You should notify the Court immediately. I do not believe they are aware of this.

Is your opinion based on the belief that the southern states were forced to ratify the reconstruction amendments?

Cute..they;re aware of it and are perfectly comfortable and content asserting power they were never intended to have. Obviously, you didn't read the link. It was clear and quite unambiguous but here you are as usual espousing a losing argument. States outside the south never ratified it

• Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
  
• In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
  
• A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
  

http://www.constitut...14ll/no14th.htm

You are aware that the states outside the south have now ratified the 14th Amendment?

No, its a very complicated legal issue. I do understand it is widely recognized and accepted as the law. I am simply saying it was never legally ratified according to the law that governs the amendment process. Thats all. read the link bud. I know you prefer assuming Im radically wrong but you haven't done so well on that front about anything.

http://www.constitut...14ll/no14th.htm

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in "ratification." It said simply that they were acts of the "political departments of the Government." This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose "Constitutional History of the United States" is a standard work, writes:

"Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?"

This is the tragic history of the so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a "government of law."

Don't get me wrong Blue. I think you are obviously correct on original intent. I just do not share your opinion on the reconstruction amendments.

Its not a matter of opinion though. It is clearly a matter of the written law that governs the process. We're either a nation of laws or we're not. I realize it is going to remain in the law because the courts are not inclined to hear a case that if reversed would reduce the court's power and return them to the states. I get that but this is classic case of illegitimate acquisition of political power and dont think for a minute the SCOTUS is not a political entity

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Blue,

Let's say for a second that you brought a lawsuit and somehow convinced the judges that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

How long do you think it would take for the exact same amendment to be run through Congress and approved by 38 states? I'm guessing it would set a record. You're railing against something that happened 150+ years ago and that no state in the Union now would refuse to re-ratify.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I think the tool of choice will be tax exempt status. If anyone thinks this strategy isn't being put together right now, they've got their head so far in the sand they're hearing the muffled sounds of Chinese. Eventually the day will come where someone files a lawsuit and the argument will be that tax exemptions should be be granted to any organization that discriminates against LGBT people in any way. So if you won't allow them to use your church buildings for a wedding or the minister won't perform the ceremony, then your tax exempt status should be revoked. Nevermind that the reason for the tax exemption is to solidify they 1st Amendment - removing the cudgel of tax law from the hand of government to coerce religious institutions.

As I was saying...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417597/obamas-lawyer-religious-institutions-may-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-court-rules-gay

[WarTim 3,456]

Christian Churches would not allow or tolerate. Bank on it.......

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Well their only choice if these folks get their way would be to lose tax exempt status. And for churches and schools that aren't well off, it might shutter the doors.

[aubfaninga 16]

I guess that I am still the "extremist bigot" in the room.

Every human has the legal "right" to get married. The "right" to get married is not being taken or kept from homosexuals, they are just not seeking marriage.

[Mims44 1,878]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

It is not necessary to kill the institution of marriage in order for gay couples to get those same treatments. Civil contracts would do it but the LGBT community isn't satisfied with that solution and will settle for nothing short of forcing their will on everyone especially those who object on the basis of religious conviction.

Civil partnerships remind me of school segregation. If "separate but equal" is unconstitutional in schools, why wouldn't it be unconstitutional for marriage vs. supposedly "separate but equal" civil partnerships? As in Brown vs. Board of Education, any duality of standards/systems carries an inherent inequality in standards/systems.

(P.S.> I obviously strongly disagree with your implication that SSM marriage will "kill the institution of marriage", but won't argue that point, seeing it as your equally strongly held opinion and acknowledging your right to it.)

It will kill it by virtue of changing the parameters of what constitutes marriage. It will no longer be the union of one man and one woman. Not only that, it is currently a religious institution but the "marriage' of 2 men or 2 women will defy that aspect of what it is altogether. I cant imagine any argument rendering those points irrelevant.

Marriage is not a "religious institution". Most people I know that are recently married also did not have the church play any role in their marriage/wedding.

I've never been married in a church or by a pastor/preacher/priest.

[cooltigger21 0]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

It is not necessary to kill the institution of marriage in order for gay couples to get those same treatments. Civil contracts would do it but the LGBT community isn't satisfied with that solution and will settle for nothing short of forcing their will on everyone especially those who object on the basis of religious conviction.

Civil partnerships remind me of school segregation. If "separate but equal" is unconstitutional in schools, why wouldn't it be unconstitutional for marriage vs. supposedly "separate but equal" civil partnerships? As in Brown vs. Board of Education, any duality of standards/systems carries an inherent inequality in standards/systems.

(P.S.> I obviously strongly disagree with your implication that SSM marriage will "kill the institution of marriage", but won't argue that point, seeing it as your equally strongly held opinion and acknowledging your right to it.)

It will kill it by virtue of changing the parameters of what constitutes marriage. It will no longer be the union of one man and one woman. Not only that, it is currently a religious institution but the "marriage' of 2 men or 2 women will defy that aspect of what it is altogether. I cant imagine any argument rendering those points irrelevant.

Marriage is not a "religious institution". Most people I know that are recently married also did not have the church play any role in their marriage/wedding.

I've never been married in a church or by a pastor/preacher/priest.

It is a religious institution. It was created by God for the benefit of mankind.

[Mims44 1,878]

Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?

Because the government does not give tax deductions for friendships, it does not distribute social security benefits based on who your pastor is, the military won't consider an emergency furlough because your country club members have a crises or there's a death in your pediatrician's family. When the government started granting unique rights to the married, it took on the responsibility of regulating or defining marriage.

It is not necessary to kill the institution of marriage in order for gay couples to get those same treatments. Civil contracts would do it but the LGBT community isn't satisfied with that solution and will settle for nothing short of forcing their will on everyone especially those who object on the basis of religious conviction.

Civil partnerships remind me of school segregation. If "separate but equal" is unconstitutional in schools, why wouldn't it be unconstitutional for marriage vs. supposedly "separate but equal" civil partnerships? As in Brown vs. Board of Education, any duality of standards/systems carries an inherent inequality in standards/systems.

(P.S.> I obviously strongly disagree with your implication that SSM marriage will "kill the institution of marriage", but won't argue that point, seeing it as your equally strongly held opinion and acknowledging your right to it.)

It will kill it by virtue of changing the parameters of what constitutes marriage. It will no longer be the union of one man and one woman. Not only that, it is currently a religious institution but the "marriage' of 2 men or 2 women will defy that aspect of what it is altogether. I cant imagine any argument rendering those points irrelevant.

Marriage is not a "religious institution". Most people I know that are recently married also did not have the church play any role in their marriage/wedding.

I've never been married in a church or by a pastor/preacher/priest.

It is a religious institution. It was created by God for the benefit of mankind.

That is a personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of everyone else.

For instance, most of the people I know.

[triangletiger 1,599]

'Back in 2005, long before the movement to legalize same-sex marriage had gained cultural momentum, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty held a forum on the question of gay marriage and religious freedom. The forum included major legal theorists on both sides of the marriage issue. What united most of the legal experts was the consensus that same-sex marriage would present a clear and present danger to the rights of those who would oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

Marc D. Stern, then representing the American Jewish Congress, put the matter directly:

“The legalization of same-sex marriage would represent the triumph of an egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one, and not just legally. The remaining question is whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of a different ethical vision. I think the answer will be no.”

That was a prophetic statement, as we can now see. Stern continued:

“Within certain defined areas, opponents of gay rights will be unaffected by an embrace of same-sex marriage. But in others, the impact will be substantial. I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact on religious dissenters.”

Keep that in mind as you consider the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case that sets the stage for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states — and sets the stage for what may well be, in the United States, the greatest threat to religious liberty of our lifetime.

The first exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Antonin Scalia asked Mary L. Bonauto, lead counsel arguing for same-sex marriage, if clergy would be required to perform same-sex ceremonies. Bonauto insisted that declaring a constitutional right for gay marriage would not require clergy of any faith to perform same-sex ceremonies.

The second exchange was between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Solicitor General Verrilli, also arguing for same-sex marriage. The Chief Justice asked: “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?”

The Solicitor General did not say no. Instead, he said that the federal government, at present, does not have a law banning discrimination in such matters on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As for the states, “that is going to depend on how the States work out the balance between their civil rights laws, whether they decide there’s going to be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not, and how they decide what kinds of accommodations they are going to allow under State law.” He went on to say that “different states could strike different balances.”

Make no mistake. The Solicitor General of the United States just announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation, with whatever “accommodation” might be included in that law. Note also that the President he represented in court has called for the very legislation Verrilli said does not exist … for now.

Verrilli’s answer puts the nation’s religious institutions, including Christian colleges, schools, and seminaries, on notice. The Chief Justice asked the unavoidable question when he asked specifically about campus housing. If a school cannot define its housing policies on the basis of its religious beliefs, then it is denied the ability to operate on the basis of those beliefs. The “big three” issues for religious schools are the freedoms to maintain admission, hiring, and student services on the basis of religious conviction. By asking about student housing, the Chief Justice asked one of the most practical questions involved in student services. The same principles would apply to the admission of students and the hiring of faculty. All three are now directly threatened. The Solicitor General admitted that these liberties will be “accommodated” or not depending on how states define their laws. And the laws of the states would lose relevance the moment the federal government adopts its own law.

The third exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage. That policy of Bob Jones University remains a moral blight to this day, even though the university has since rescinded the policy. Bob Jones University stood virtually alone in this unconscionable policy, but the Court’s decision in that lamentable case also set the stage for Justice Alito’s question — “would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

Pay close attention to Solicitor General Verrilli’s response:

“You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

Verrilli’s pauses no doubt indicate that he understood the importance of what he was saying — “It’s going to be an issue.”'

http://www.albertmoh...the-crosshairs/

[TheBlueVue 177]

Blue,

Let's say for a second that you brought a lawsuit and somehow convinced the judges that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

How long do you think it would take for the exact same amendment to be run through Congress and approved by 38 states? I'm guessing it would set a record. You're railing against something that happened 150+ years ago and that no state in the Union now would refuse to re-ratify.

No Im not. Im simply making a point that the Constitution has been under attack since its inception. And, quite frankly, it is a long shot to assume the court would be inclined to even hear it since the truth would significantly diminish their power. I make no claims that anyone should even try to convince a judge that the amendment was illegally added to the Constitution but the idea of illegitimate acquisition of power even applies to the robes because of factions continued quest for power since the law did not extend to them the legal authority.

Incidentally, your favorite topic of income tax and creation of the IRS by the 16th amendmant was also illegally ratified. Ya think anyone, at this juncture, is going to use that to avoid paying their taxes? I dont but, it all goes to support the point that the Constitution is and always has been under attack because it so often stands in the way of the govt's acquisition of the necessary power, in this specific instance, to confiscate people's income.

Im not as certain as you that no state in the union would not want back the power the courts usurped from them with the passage of the 14th amendment but thats just my opinion. Im a proponent of a convention of the states anyway which is a Constitutional remedy for the abuse of power by the federal govt.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I love that for years the question that was always thrown at people who weren't on the gay marriage bandwagon was "How does allowing gay marriage affect you? How does letting two people love who they love and marry who they want to marry affect your life in any way?" And now we can see that was hollow rhetoric because we can see that if you oppose or merely express disapproval it affects people in several ways:

- You will be called a bigot and compared to a segregationist or a member of the KKK, regardless of how you've treated gay people in your life or how many acts of love and sacrifice you've demonstrated to gay people that you know.

- You may lose your job if your views on gay marriage aren't what the activists want them to be, especially if yours is a high profile position (see Eich, Brandon)

- If you own a business, no matter how many gay customers you have gladly served as customers over the years, if you politely decline to be involved with this particular event, you will be sued, harrassed, fined, threatened with jail time and possibly bankrupted.

- If you are a religious organization such as a charity/non-profit, a school, etc., you will be threatened with losing your tax exempt status which, given the fact that most of these already operate on razor thin margins financially, will likely mean you have to shut your doors and close down.

I have a feeling this list will continue to grow. And anyone that can look at the trajectory of this and still claim that it will never get to a point where churches or ministers could be coerced in this way has to be either the most naive person on the face of this earth or the most cynical liar I've ever met. This is (and never really has been) a "live and let live" scenario, it is a brickbat being used to pound dissenters into submission or run them from the public square to the margins.

It's exactly like I've mentioned before - The Law of Merited Impossibility: It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights or gay marriage, and boy, do they deserve what they're going to get.