Christian activist judge orders Alabama officials to disobey the law

[Vol8188]

The typical argument against gay marriage:

"If homos can marry, what prevents me from marrying my sheep? Honestly, I'm asking. She's going to expect me to put a ring on it"

 

[McDad]

The typical argument against gay marriage:

"If homos can marry, what prevents me from marrying my sheep? Honestly, I'm asking. She's going to expect me to put a ring on it"

Ewe can't be serious.

 

[Vol8188]

Ewe can't be serious.

Nice pun

 

[volprof]

States should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit!

That seems to be the basic argument of the idiots in this thread.

I've never bought the state's rights argument. I love Thomas Jefferson. God bless him, but I don't think he ever quite anticipated it working this way.

When it comes to basic human rights, like, who can you love and marry, that's not up for debate. That's a federal concern.

 

[volprof]

Ewe can't be serious.

McDad, you kill me. You should have went into comedy, if you didn't.

 

[Danl]

Ewe can't be serious.

Baaaaaaaaaad pun!

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

The typical argument against gay marriage:

"If homos can marry, what prevents me from marrying my sheep? Honestly, I'm asking. She's going to expect me to put a ring on it"

lol.....u trippin today. :yes:

 

[JoeKyleVol]

Oh man, CNN showing picture of two black women getting married. Huckabee, Moore, Cruz, and Fox News in general are losing their collective minds.

LG, quit making me like your posts!

And to think you said I went to a strip-mall church, lol.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It's a morals issue. Sexual preferences aren't like Race and they don't entitle Gays to minority status.

Science disagrees with you.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Wow,you're really open minded about Christianity:no::no:

Why should he be?

 

[Sandvol]

Actually, they are not federal rights as of yet. We have differing federal court rulings and SCOTUS has yet to rule.

If the states wanted to they should just nullify anything that SCOTUS rules. All the states who passed anti gay marriage laws should just ignore SCOTUS. There's not a damn thing they could do about it.

 

[gcbvol]

History repeats. Just as people blocked doorways and protested against the end of segregation and bans on interracial marriage, so some now fight to the bitter end against equality for gay citizens. Most of us look back now at those old images with dismay, sadness and pity. So will it be with folks like Moore. Very sad indeed.

 

[gcbvol]

If the states wanted to they should just nullify anything that SCOTUS rules. All the states who passed anti gay marriage laws should just ignore SCOTUS. There's not a damn thing they could do about it.

Ridiculous. The economic impact of such action would be devastating. Not only the likely loss of federal funds, but the loss of tourism and conference monies along with private businesses relocating. No state would ever do such a thing over this issue.

Whether individuals agree with it or not, society has evolved on this issue and widely support equality for gay folks. These lingering battles are doing nothing but hurting citizens and wasting tax dollars.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Top Alabama judge orders state to ignore federal gay marriage rulings - Orlando Sentinel

Whatever side of the issue you come down on, this guy cannot issue such an order. He is clearly violating the United States Constitution. This is the same guy who got into a showdown with the federal courts when it came to having the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

This is the kind of thing that gives the Evangelical community such a bad image.

Obama has violated the Constitution on multiple occasions.

 

[rjd970]

This isn't a religious issue.

By and large the movement against this is religious. Those that say otherwise simply aren't being honest. The religious are the only ones that care about states rights? Ridiculous. Remember, this is the same guy that decided to make his other stand for "states rights" about a 10 commandment monument. Why not admit what this is really about instead of hiding behind "states rights"?

So I think Minibull has a great point. If the religious crowd are so against this, why not enforce the other nonsense found in the OT AND NT? Whats the argument against that?

I'm all for a judge to make his own rules on marriage, as long as he enforces ALL of them...

God's Marriage Laws:
• No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced. (Matthew 5:32)
• No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians. (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
• No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall
occur during the women's menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18, &
Ezekiel 18:5-6)
• No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races. (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36:6-8, 1 Kings 11:2)
• A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman's period shall both be executed. (Leviticus 18:19)
• No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her
brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passwed away shall
refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives.
(1 Timothy 5:5-15)
• No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended (Matthew 5:28)
• A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
• If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, both adulterers shall be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
• A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
• If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to
rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be
cut off and no pity shall be shown her. (Deuteronomy) 25:11-12)
• A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
• If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with
each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male
heir. (Mark 12:18-2)
• "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Penalty, stoning to death. (Luke 16:18)
• "An illegitimate child shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2) - If your father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc. was ever a bastard child, you are not allowed to enter God's church.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with anything approaching a rational response.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Romans 1:18-32

 

[alexbond45]

By and large the movement against this is religious. Those that say otherwise simply aren't being honest. The religious are the only ones that care about states rights? Ridiculous. Remember, this is the same guy that decided to make his other stand for "states rights" about a 10 commandment monument. Why not admit what this is really about instead of hiding behind "states rights"?

So I think Minibull has a great point. If the religious crowd are so against this, why not enforce the other nonsense found in the OT AND NT? Whats the argument against that?



I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with anything approaching a rational response.

You shouldn't have to, I've seen monkeys interpret these verses better.

 

[Septic]

By and large the movement against this is religious. Those that say otherwise simply aren't being honest. The religious are the only ones that care about states rights? Ridiculous. Remember, this is the same guy that decided to make his other stand for "states rights" about a 10 commandment monument. Why not admit what this is really about instead of hiding behind "states rights"?

So I think Minibull has a great point. If the religious crowd are so against this, why not enforce the other nonsense found in the OT AND NT? Whats the argument against that?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with anything approaching a rational response.

Careful, Sandy tends to set his phaser to ignore if you give metered, salient, rational examples of why he's wrong.

 

[CNCVol88]

I personally don't care either way. I'm not gay and so won't ever need to marry another dude. I just think since it's the states issuing the license, the state should get to decide who they go to.

 

[gcbvol]

I personally don't care either way. I'm not gay and so won't ever need to marry another dude. I just think since it's the states issuing the license, the state should get to decide who they go to.

I understand your perspective and agree to an extent, but if that were the case states like Alabama might still refuse licenses to interracial couples.

Sometimes federal government has to step in to ensure citizens have access to equal rights or privileges. It may not be ideal but is at times necessary.

 

[hog88]

If the states wanted to they should just nullify anything that SCOTUS rules. All the states who passed anti gay marriage laws should just ignore SCOTUS. There's not a damn thing they could do about it.

I guess they could but that would be a dangerous precedent and gay marriage isn't worth it.

 

[utvolpj]

If the states wanted to they should just nullify anything that SCOTUS rules. All the states who passed anti gay marriage laws should just ignore SCOTUS. There's not a damn thing they could do about it.

The states passing these ridiculous laws rely heavily on federal dollars. It would be a pretty bad decision

 

[Septic]

I guess they could but that would be a dangerous precedent and gay marriage isn't worth it.

Aside from the state committing economic suicide, I imagine that a lot of people would be removed from their positions for refusing to carry out federal law.

It seems to be a common theme that some folks aren't thinking this all the way through. History is not going to be kind to the anti equality crowd.

 

[hog88]

Aside from the state committing economic suicide, I imagine that a lot of people would be removed from their positions for refusing to carry out federal law.

It seems to be a common theme that some folks aren't thinking this all the way through. History is not going to be kind to the anti equality crowd.

It wont be but a minor blip in history. But a state ignoring the SCOTUS would be monumental and again gay marriage isn't worth it.

 

[sjt18]

Top Alabama judge orders state to ignore federal gay marriage rulings - Orlando Sentinel

Whatever side of the issue you come down on, this guy cannot issue such an order. He is clearly violating the United States Constitution. This is the same guy who got into a showdown with the federal courts when it came to having the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

This is the kind of thing that gives the Evangelical community such a bad image.

A judge has a right and obligation to disobey illegal and unjust rulings. Why didn't you say that these illegal rulings by liberal judges gives the gay rights movement a bad image?

You ought to know that it isn't the first time that's been done. It was done during the civil rights era particularly.

Our nation was founded by people who refused to live under laws and rulings by the "legitimate" legal authorities that violated the rights of the individual.

There is no question AT ALL that these judges planted by Obama specifically for the purpose of ruling on these challenges are acting beyond their constitutional limits and beyond the law. Whether you support or oppose gay marriage, states and the voters have an absolute right under the 10th Amendment to regulate marriage licenses.


The right answer is to get gov't out of marriage altogether. Why is gov't attempting to dictate the terms of a private contract that clearly has historical religious overtones. Gov't involvement in marriage is a FAR more egregious violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses than any of the stuff liberals tend to get upset over like prayer in school, public religious displays, religious speech, etc. If you want a formal marriage contract then you go to Legalzoom or your local lawyer and make one.

The fundamental problem here is that the "gay marriage" movement has next to nothing to do with "preserving" the rights of gays. It has EVERYTHING to do with curtailing the rights of Christians and others who disagree with gay marriage on a moral basis. The LGBT movement wants to use the power of gov't to FORCE a moral viewpoint on others.