Posted on 05/15/2014 1:31:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Edited on 05/15/2014 3:42:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It’s pointless to oppose murder as well.
I don’t know. If I were black, I’d be outraged at such comparisons.
We need to keep fighting. Look at abortion. We were so screwed in 1973 and now we are making some decent strides. Of course we have a lot more to do but we are chipping away at it. We can do the same with Gay Marriage easily.
“The Supreme Court has [no] right to even hear a case like this. It’s a state issue.”
Given that theses judges are striking down state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because they supposedly violate the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only the right, but the obligation, to settle the matter. The correct answer, of course, is that nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but until SCOTUS so rules we’ll keep having rogue judges imposing same-sex marriage by judicial fiat through their outrageous interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Good point.
No doubt that the libs are overwhelming winning this one, soon we wont even be able to say that we oppose it : reference NFL.
...not likely...aren’t there plenty of people opposing it on this forum...? How do you suppose they will be silenced...?
The idea that a woman should only breed with one man, who will then assist in the protection and care of resulting offspring, predates both government and religion (even if one accepts Genesis, I don't think it claims the continuous existence of religion between the time of Adam and Moses; if a proper religious tradition already existed, it would not have been necessary for God to instruct Moses in writing the Torah).
Religious arguments against marriage are counterproductive in talking with anyone who does not accept the religion in question. The secular argument is much stronger: 99.99999% of all people who have ever lived, lived in a society which recognized a concept of marriage involving exactly one male as different from any kind relationship involving any other number. The requirement that marriage involve exactly one male is not imposed by government, nor by religion, and the only way it can be viewed as "bigoted" is if the vast majority of people who have ever lived are bigots.
Further, even if gays have the right to call themselves whatever they want, that does not imply that anyone else has any obligation to honor such declarations. The right of free association implies the right to honor the kind of marriages that has essentially always been nearly universally recognized, without incurring any obligation to recognize so-called "marriages" which fail to meet one of the most basic and universal requirements of marriage (that it must involve exactly one male)
What, exactly, is gay “marriage”? Can anyone define that?
We should let the libs keep cramming gay marriage, climate change, and everything else down everyone’s throats 24/7.
Americans hate being told what to do. We just have to be ready when that happens.
“What, exactly, is gay “marriage”?”
As far as the state is concerned, it is simply whatever judges, pols, or 50% +1 of the voting public thinks it can be at any one time. They’ll let you know if you need to be punished for disagreeing with them about it.
Freegards
That isn't going to happen, it can't happen, and saying so won't prevent homosexual marriage, and is a waste of time, if not a deliberate diversion, and a tactic of libertarians.
If you oppose it, then elect politicians who will pass laws against it.
Do you care to explain the connection here? I'd be interested in knowing what it is.
F*** anyone who compares fags playing house to civil rights.
You are kidding I hope.
anonymous posters?
Is your real legal name IrishBrigade?
You must live around liberal scum since your posts usually have a liberal tinge.
Apparently no coherent response, so fall back on ad hominem.
“...even if gays have the right to call themselves whatever they want, that does not imply that anyone else has any obligation to honor such declarations...”
If the issue about same-sex marriage were really about marriage, then you would be right, but sadly it is far more about forcing Christians to approve of homosexual relationships than it is about marriage. Otherwise, why would there be any problem when a Christian wedding photographer politely declines to throw his creative talents into recording a same sex wedding? Why grind a Christian baker into the ground and force him to close his business because he declined to sell a same-sex couple a wedding cake? Because gays demand something that people like me cannot give them, approval of their immoral acts and especially to grant them equal status as “married”.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
Once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as God’s definition of marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your children from such indoctrination. As long as they are enrolled in government-controlled schools, they will be graded on how well they accept the State’s idea of normal, or refuse to reject God’s idea of normal.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].
You may lose control of your own property. [2]
You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. [3,4,6,7, 8, 9, 10]
From an article:
“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.
“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”
To advance the legal case that a marriage between two people of the same sex is no different than a marriage as God defines it, the US Justice Department will base their arguments before the Supreme Court that a child does not need, nor have a right to a mother. [5]
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
After same-sex marriage causes polygamy to be recognized polyandry won’t be far behind. Brave new world!
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://tinyurl.com/covv9by
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://tinyurl.com/7gcpeh9
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://tinyurl.com/bwp2bvj
[4] Baker refuses to make wedding cake for lesbian couple and ‘calls them abominations unto the Lord’
Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint
link:
http://tinyurl.com/a482bpf
[5] DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to—Mothers March 3, 2013 By Terence P. Jeffrey
http://tinyurl.com/blcyj9u
[6] [Washington State] AG sues florist who refused flowers to gay wedding
http://tinyurl.com/bv25bjw
[7] New Mexico Supreme Court rules against photographer in gay bias case
By Barry Massey, Associated Press.
http://bit.ly/19MTTGW
[8] Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes
http://bit.ly/131Lc6w
[9] NYT: Weighing Free Speech in Refusal to Photograph Lesbian Couple’s Ceremony
http://nyti.ms/1dP1q6d
[10] Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs
http://fxn.ws/1bmofKN
Not even that, I’ve never heard of some person with darker skin color ever having a closet. People see that your skin is darker, simple as that. You never have to come out about it. “Coming out” is a privilege that black people seldom ever had.
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.