Christian activist judge orders Alabama officials to disobey the law

#202
#202
gcbvol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ironically, Utah to be added as a state, had to change their marriage laws to outlaw polygamy. This was demanded by the Federal Government. Does a State like Utah have to change its law back to licensing polygamy with the recent nationwide shift on gay marriage?
 
#203
#203
So correct me if I am wrong.
1) AL voters banned gay marriage overwhelmingly by 81% in 2006.
2) A court overturned this ruling.
3) The SCOTUS refused a stay on this ruling until their decision later this year.
4) A judge in the state ordered the ban kept in place until said ruling.

So the people voted, a liberal activist court overturned the will of 81% of the electorate, then a fed judge says keep the law until the SCOTUS rules. Why is supporting the will of an overwhelming majority activist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#204
#204
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can still get a microphone and tell everyone your moral viewpoint. Your moral compass shouldnt guide anyone but yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#205
#205
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was with ya till you got to the end.

What "rights" of Christians are being curtailed? Are they losing something in this process?

I'm not gay but I'd wager that the lgbt folks don't give a **** about the oppositions moral viewpoint - they just want to enjoy the same things you and I do. I do think it's ironic that the anti equality crowd has somehow managed to find a window to cry "victim" from though.

At least you're not afraid to admit what it is. That is a moral/religious issue. The rest of the folks are stepping and fetching, parading around the "states rights" flag are too afraid to say it. You're wrong about this last part, but kudos to you for having the balls to say it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#206
#206
Septic said:
I was with ya till you got to the end.

What "rights" of Christians are being curtailed? Are they losing something in this process?

I'm not gay but I'd wager that the lgbt folks don't give a **** about the oppositions moral viewpoint - they just want to enjoy the same things you and I do. I do think it's ironic that the anti equality crowd has somehow managed to find a window to cry "victim" from though.

At least you're not afraid to admit what it is. That is a moral/religious issue. The rest of the folks are stepping and fetching, parading around the "states rights" flag are too afraid to say it. You're wrong about this last part, but kudos to you for having the balls to say it.
Click to expand...

I'm with you to an extent, but then cases pop up like the bakery that declined to make a cake for a gay wedding. The owner wasn't doing anything to prevent the gentlemen from getting hitched, but she didn't want to be personally involved. So she got sued. That run contrary to the idea that that "lgbt folks don't give a **** about the oppositions moral viewpoint".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#207
#207
82_VOL_83 said:
So correct me if I am wrong.
1) AL voters banned gay marriage overwhelmingly by 81% in 2006.
2) A court overturned this ruling.
3) The SCOTUS refused a stay on this ruling until their decision later this year.
4) A judge in the state ordered the ban kept in place until said ruling.

So the people voted, a liberal activist court overturned the will of 81% of the electorate, then a fed judge says keep the law until the SCOTUS rules. Why is supporting the will of an overwhelming majority activist?
Click to expand...

To hell with the will of the people, these superior judges and politicians are so much smarter and civilized than the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#208
#208
bamawriter said:
I'm with you to an extent, but then cases pop up like the bakery that declined to make a cake for a gay wedding. The owner wasn't doing anything to prevent the gentlemen from getting hitched, but she didn't want to be personally involved. So she got sued. That run contrary to the idea that that "lgbt folks don't give a **** about the oppositions moral viewpoint".
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are specific incidents that one could cite to show errors from both sides i.e. the bakery that was sued for not putting anti gay slogans on a cake.

My point was that as a group (in general), I don't believe the overwhelming sentiment is to change the religious into accepting them.

Of course there are exceptions, every group has them.
 
#210
#210
Septic said:
I was with ya till you got to the end.

What "rights" of Christians are being curtailed? Are they losing something in this process?

I'm not gay but I'd wager that the lgbt folks don't give a **** about the oppositions moral viewpoint - they just want to enjoy the same things you and I do. I do think it's ironic that the anti equality crowd has somehow managed to find a window to cry "victim" from though.

At least you're not afraid to admit what it is. That is a moral/religious issue. The rest of the folks are stepping and fetching, parading around the "states rights" flag are too afraid to say it. You're wrong about this last part, but kudos to you for having the balls to say it.
Click to expand...

I agreed with OP in terms of government being involved in marriage; it absolutely should not. We should employ a federal level civil union platform to ascribe any benefits and privileges and leave holy matrimony to religious institutions as a purely ceremonial event.

Inferring that the religious are the real victims here is rich. If government wasn't in the marriage business and gays were trying to force religious institutions to include them in their cermonies he'd have a point. That's not the case, however. Gay citizens are trying to obtain the same access to the privileges enjoyed by their fellow citizens; nothing more.

Maybe the reason all court decisions save one have gone the same way is because it is actually the right thing to do. The arguments against have done nothing to prove hardship or injury on the religious or anyone else. When your primary arguments against same-sex marriage are that couples are meant to reproduce or that it will destroy the family unit (without offering proof), it might be a good idea to reevaluate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#212
#212
volfanjustin said:
To hell with the will of the people, these superior judges and politicians are so much smarter and civilized than the people.
Click to expand...

Let's see, at one time, the will of the people in some states supported slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, making interracial marriages illegal...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#213
#213
Dave1967 said:
It's a morals issue. Sexual preferences aren't like Race and they don't entitle Gays to minority status.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant? All they are asking for is equal rights.

And by the way, being a minority is not limited to race. Left handed people are minorities. The blind or handicap are minorities. Gingers are monorities
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
alexbond45 said:
So much for 10th amendment "rights"

Agree or not, Alabama has all the right to set if they desire a gay marriage ban. Article IV states that essentially Federal Law > State Law

However, the Supreme Court does not create federal law, congress does. It is absolutely out of line for the Supreme Court to override state laws.

Essentially, there needs to be
1. A law
2. An amendment
3. A mandate

None are issued by the court
Click to expand...

It's the job of the court to interpret the laws and the constitution. Therefore their ruling does override that of any state level court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#216
#216
Vol8188 said:
How is that relevant? All they are asking for is equal rights.

And by the way, being a minority is not limited to race. Left handed people are minorities. The blind or handicap are minorities. Gingers are monorities
Click to expand...

I am against ginger marriage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#217
#217
Sandvol said:
The 14th amendment was written to protect former slaves. That was its intent. It was not meant as a Pandora's Box.
Click to expand...

Treating people equally is a pandoras box? That's interesting. And sure the amendment was passed to protect freed slaves, but they didn't saw equal protection was limited to blacks. They made a point to include everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#218
#218
Minibull said:
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.
Click to expand...

This guy is my new favorite poster.
 
#220
#220
Vol8188 said:
Treating people equally is a pandoras box? That's interesting. And sure the amendment was passed to protect freed slaves, but they didn't saw equal protection was limited to blacks. They made a point to include everyone.
Click to expand...

the argument could be made that issues of race and sexual choice/preference are not the same thing unless you are concluding that people are born gay. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but just stating a viewpoint.
 
#223
#223
theFallGuy said:
the argument could be made that issues of race and sexual choice/preference are not the same thing unless you are concluding that people are born gay. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but just stating a viewpoint.
Click to expand...

It's an irrelevant view, because it in no way relates to what we are talking about. The amendment does not say "treat all people equally regardless of race"

It says to treat all people equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top