Posted on 04/28/2014 10:29:12 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bob would not be pleased at our mirth, at his expense.
Hey! Why is it always “Bob”? C’mon, there are lots of us and we get no respect at all. How come there’s never been a President Bob? We’ve had a Millard, a Zachary, a Ulysses, a Woodrow, and for pity’s sake, even a Barack, but a Bob? Noooo....
the authentic Church.....of God....in Christ...thinks these people are sleazy moral-morons!
How about this "compelling interest"... Refer to the Federal Government's very own Centers for Disease Control website! When a Sodomite "wedding" is consumated there is a documented HEALTH RISK! Why do people ignore this elephant in the room?
>> Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.
Exactly.
While there are certain practical benefits to having the state recognize marriage, I prefer it not be involved in the affairs of marriage given the states’ affinity to sodomy.
Bob is pleased by your deference. :-)
And “President Bob” would be an EXCELLENT FReeper Name. Too bad I’ve been here too long to bother changing.
"Many will be deceived."
How vile!
This is Rev. Wright’s denomination. As another FReeper so eloquently put it: “Socialism with a steeple.” Another formerly mainstream denomination that has been thoroughly corrupted from within, and lost well over half their membership.
This is a copy of the complaint. It’s actually filed by several from United Church of Christ, a few Unitarians, a Lutheran or two, and a Rabbi.
http://www.amendmentonelawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Complaint-filed-on-April-28.pdf
Sure don’t sound like any Church of Christ I’ve ever been to. Sure ain’t the Pottsville,KY CoC.
Obviously these supposed clergymen have never read a Bible!!
There is nothing that prohibits them from performing the ceremony. It just won’t be recognized as legal in the eyes of the law.
The definition of marriage is one man, one woman, at its core. Not merely “any two people who love each other”.
Never been that. Never will be that. One man. One woman. Joined in holy matrimony.
Words mean things and definitions of terms are what they are. Legally words mean exactly what they mean as well. Contracts are specific. Laws are worded explicitly.
Marriage is, what it is. It is not two men. It is not two women. It is one man, one woman joined together by the one True God of the Bible, in wedded bliss.
Marriage is the foundation of the God-blessed, family unit. The root of the family tree for that couple.
This is why definitions are important to defend. You don’t just let your enemies hijack your terms and control the language of the debate.
“Too bad Ive been here too long to bother changing.”
Yeah, me, too. But please, here’s a great opportunity to make a lot of really nice people happy. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I read the complaint. Thanksfor attaching it. Yes, it was nauseating. I would be happy to draft a reply for the State of North Carolina. It would be very simple:
In the complaint, the Plaintiff keps using the word “Christ.” I don’t think that word means what they think it means.
Can’t wait for the Muslims to sue for polygamy.
Is that the Church ZERO CLAIMS to belong to as a Christian?
Couldn’t be. With his ego, he’d only worship at the “Church of Himself”.
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.