Thanks. I prefer "whom" in this instance,too, but I can tolerate "who". In any event, it's distraction from the topic. Thx.
Posted on 01/14/2014 9:30:26 PM PST by ReformationFan
Last November marked the twentieth anniversary of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At an event hosted by the Newseum and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, RFRA’s champions shared stories of how the statute came into being and the long odds it had to overcome. Though no one was resting on his or her laurels, there was a general sense of a job well-done.
And then Douglas Laycock, one of the primary architects of RFRA, began to speak. He warned that millions of Americans view religious liberty as their enemy because they resent religion’s interference in their sex lives. Even though RFRA is a “super statute,” it will offer religious believers little protection if the nation turns against religious liberty. Statutes can be repealed. Courts can empty them of their meaning.
Laycock’s warning may seem overwrought, but consider just a few news items. In New Mexico, multiple organs of state government have said that a Christian photographer violated the law by refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. In Colorado, a Christian baker was sued because he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and in Washington State a florist was sued for the same reason. Christian nurses in New Jersey were required to assist with abortions or risk losing their jobs. And of course, there is the nationwide HHS contraception mandate.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
When it comes down to it, the blame falls mostly to those of us who didn’t honour marriage the way it should have been honoured. It’s only because of that did every other thing on this topic became conceivable.
It was wombs trying to act like they were fathers instead of mothers!!!
Now our youth live in a state of total cornfusion!!!
This goes all the way back to the state sticking its nose in religious sacrament in the first place.
The issue is NOT should the state recognize homosexual marriage but that it has no business dealing in any kind of marriage - or divorce for that matter.
When tax laws and other statues favor one group of people over another you are asking for trouble.
This is a different issue from say abortion where innocent life is at stake.
At this point, I do not advocate any Christian getting LEGALLY married or any church conducting any LEGAL marriages in their building. Have the ceremony in a hotel ballroom or some other public place or a private home but the church should conduct NO weddings of any kind on church property. The couple should NOT get a marriage license from the state and the minister should, if possible, give up their right to conduct legal weddings.
This is the only way to get around this issue. The state will very shortly FORCE churches to conduct these ceremonies unless they simply say “We don’t do them at all. We don’t do any legal weddings”
Christian couples should have a “Dedication Service” or a whatever they want to call their non-legal wedding and then live together in the eyes of the state but not God. Do weddings like the Quakers. The couple stands up at that by invitation only service and says “We’re married”
Simply remove the club from the secularist hand. Agree with them, marriage as a secular institution is dead. Then change the laws so that the tax system reflects that.
Nonsense.
The State did play a role though.
Many/most heteros don’t honor marriage either..
Judging by how many cheat on their wives and husbands..
or divorce them..
Givernment Marriage is a legal contract between two people...
Religious marriage is merely an oath.. enforced by givernment as if it was God..
Who should we blame for gay ‘marriage’?
______________________________________
well if youre looking for the first one to make SSM “legal” thus opening the door, that would be Willard when he was gov of MASS 12 years ago...
Actually the nonsense is yours.
Jonty is quite cogent
As we have devalued traditional marriage so has non traditional “marriage” gained traction in response
Divorce and bastard children rates are not a coincidence of homosexual marriage
They opened the door to declaring holy marriage unholy and relative
It seems ‘who’ is adequate these days for the objective case.
I agree wholeheartedly - why did the church start operating as an arm of the government and recording the marriage of individuals for them? Churches should have wedding ceremonies for church members ‘In good standing’ i.e. they attend church each week and are active in the church community and they are not in serious continuous breach of any of the rules of the church. If Church people then want their marriage recognized by the state they can go fill in the forms and do the state ceremony as well. Won’t that put a lot of noses out of joint for those who just use the churches as pretty places to get married in!
In Singapore they normally do the civil ceremony first then for those who want they go to a church sometime later and do the church wedding.
Mel
The beginning of the rise of homosexuals in America to their near ruling status —coincides with roe v wade. They share the same moral system. Abortion and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin. People who believe in abortion also believe in homosexuality and vice versa. In a sense abortion serves as the sacrament for homosexuality.
Render abortion illegal and over time homosexuality will shrivel.
Oh yeah, and one last thing. to understand the culture of homosexuality and abortion — you have to revisit the cultures of central America before Columbus arrived or the cultures of the Canaanites who were around the Israelites as told in the old testament.
In both cases homosexuality and all forms of abominations coincided with human sacrifice.
Thanks. I prefer "whom" in this instance,too, but I can tolerate "who". In any event, it's distraction from the topic. Thx.
If Massachusetts wouldn’t have fallen to the sodomites, that dubious “honor” would have gone, eventually, to another of the loony lefist states. Canada was a major impetus, and its close proximity almost guarantees infection.
Not that Romney shouldn’t have resisted. There were several years of massive support for a marriage referendum in MA, but Romney squandered that opportunity.
How about if I'm an African-American baker and some Klan members come in demanding I bake them a cake with a picture of a black man being lynched? Both Nazis and the Klan are legal groups. Wouldn't I have to bake cakes for them according to their wishes? How about sexual-fetish people? The list of disgusting but legal groups demanding identifying cakes baked for them could be enormous. Where as a citizen with rights of my own do I get to draw the line?
Isn't "who" correct here?
The general rule of behavior Mod is you generally get more of the behavior that is encouraged and less of that behavior that it penalized. Thus when the State began to reward those who wanted Divorce— when the State rewarded those who did not honor the “marriage” bond. The society saw an increase in such immoral behavior.When the State refused to recognize the Rule of Law— that when human law contradicts the laws dictated by God,Himself —human laws are invalidated. We saw an increase in invalid law. The corrupt State does NOT represent the Religious and Moral citizen and the State which begins to call evil good and good evil cease to act under the authority of God and it is the duty of the man called by the Name of Christ to resist and oppose those who take pleasure in those who live in defiance of GOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.