Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
At 10:00 AM Wednesday, the Supreme Court will deliver its final decisions of this term. We can expect decisions on both same-sex marriage cases.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
Righteous judgement is exactly my point. We’re to judge other believers, that includes those who claim to be belivers, such as false teachers. We’re not to be yoked with unbelievers and we’re not to judge them.
Every single one of the verses you cited at the end of your post has to do with judging believers or those who claim to be believers. That’s exactly what 1 Corinthians 5 instructs us to do.
Where have you been?
They’ve been suing the churches for that a while.
Also, ask some military chaplains what’s going on re: same-sex marriage push.
I have no problem defending the faith to those who oppose it...that requires making judgements...and yes of ‘unbelievers’ on what they are saying as well as who they are influencing.
I have learned long ago that often conversations are rarely intended for the individual you’re speaking with as much as those standing by listening, who are and can be affected by the discussion or debate.
Also I don’t think we should attempt to limit the Lord wanting to affect those who oppose us....how can they know what sin is in the world we live today unless it is “defined” for them?.... That can mean judging what they do believe, the standard they are using, and pointing out the differences and distinctions. Which means making judgements.
Actually Reagan put him on the court, but his first choice was Robert Bork,and then a different Ginsberg (male) who were both defeated by the Senate.
So not really Reagan’s fault.
I’m following links and saw your discussion about Outraged.
Or better yet - the FReeper formerly know as Outraged in FLA.
Got the Zot. FYI. In case you wanted to know.
You foresaw correctly.
Good riddance.
What a crazy post, your real war seems to be against Christians, and gay marriage and polygamy are merely the tools that you will use against Christianity and the Christians that you rage against in repeated posts.
You want gay marriage legal.
That is your argument for gay marriage, the left wins, marriage is destroyed, lay back and enjoy it.
Wonder where the libertarian passion to leave race based marriage as a state issue was, I don’t remember them caring about that, or so many other causes.
“Divorce lawyers. And I’m not kidding. “
Not to mention, family law attorneys. It is going to be a constant debacle. Child custody and paternity/maternal issues will become a joke. Wait until a divorcing “spouse” is hit with big child support and to avoid responsibility the turkey baster bio parent is named.
At the end of your useless, irrelevant posts is your supporting gay marriage, and opposing political resistance to it.
Your attempt to use the bible to do it, is obscene, don’t lecture conservatives that their politics and political activism are against God and that allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do.
So someone got the Zotski? I thought I smelled smoke.
Here is a thread where you two can make your religious case for gay marriage.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3036020/posts
Ah, yes, because a real Christian would never point out the deficiencies of a church... link. [/sarc]
and gay marriage and polygamy are merely the tools that you will use against Christianity and the Christians that you rage against in repeated posts.
Rage against Christians?
Funny you should describe James's admonition to have a faith that actually does something, impacting the world, as rage.
Even more that you cannot think of these things as a human issue, rather than a legal issue.
You make it clear form your posts that you want to use the law to impose your will on people.
I've made it clear that I'd rather change people so that the law is unnecessary.
You go out of your way to condemn, yelling your assertions; the condemnations I've put forward are backed by God's word… you implicitly claim that I am twisting God's word out of context; I say: Prove It, cite chapter & verse, give real reason rather than yelping assertions.
You want gay marriage legal.
Nope; if you bothered to actually talk with me instead of blind assertions and accusations you would know this.
If you are a Christian and a conservative, then switch sides on this political issue.
“”I am saying the feds need to STAY OUT of these issues that they are state’s issues.””
“Pentagon Extends Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3036017/posts
Ah, from assertions and accusations to demands.
First, answer my previous questions… and then why don't you present a reasoned argument?
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.