Off Topic Messages

There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:41 pm

The people have spoken.

Defense of Marriage Ruling --> HERE
Proposition 8 Ruling --> HERE


Supreme Court Rulings Boost Gay Marriage
DOMA Violates 'Equal Protection Principles'; Justices Avoid Ruling on California's Proposition 8
By JESS BRAVIN And BRENT KENDALL
U.S. NEWS Updated June 26, 2013, 11:26 a.m. ET


U.S. Supreme Court.jpg
WSJ's Jess Bravin discusses the Supreme Court's ruling on the the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government must recognize gay marriages in states where they are legal.


WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court handed a victory to supporters of gay marriage, striking down a 1996 federal law that denied federal benefits to lawfully wedded same-sex couples.

The court avoided a ruling on the merits in a second gay-marriage case involving California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, saying that both the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. That means a federal district court's ruling striking down Proposition 8 stands, which could clear the way for same-sex marriage to resume in California.

Collectively, the rulings represent a history-making advance for the cause of gay marriage. The Supreme Court for the first time said the federal government couldn't discriminate against same-sex couples if their marriage is recognized by a state, and in the California case it declined to reverse the district court ruling recognizing a right to gay marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy announced the court's 5-4 decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case. Justice Kennedy was joined by the four members of the court's liberal wing—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—while Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The court's majority said the Defense of Marriage Act "violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."

Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Justice Scalia read parts of his dissent from the bench. He said the court shouldn't have ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act at all, and he also said the court was wrong on the merits.

"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," he wrote.

The court's four dissenters offered three different written dissents, by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Alito.

The ruling on Proposition 8 was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts said Proposition 8's backers didn't have legal standing to challenge the law.

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chief Justice Roberts said, alluding to the state of California's decision not to defend Proposition 8 in court.

Justice Kennedy led the dissenters in the Proposition 8 case. He didn't debate the merits of the state initiative but said he believed the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. He said proponents of a ballot initiative ought to be able to defend it in court when the state doesn't.

The rulings were coming amid quickly shifting public opinion on gay rights and gay marriage. A poll this year by the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public life found that 50% of Americans support gay marriage, up from 39% in 2008. When Proposition 8 passed in 2008 with 52% of the vote, only two other states permitted gay marriage. Today, 12 states plus the District of Columbia do so.

Moreover, many elected officials and public figures who had previously been noncommittal have thrown their support behind gay marriage. In May 2012, President Barack Obama, who had previously supported civil unions but not full marriage, said he now supported marriage as well. Former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, now says the measure is a mistake.

In both Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, the underlying issue is gay marriage, but the specific legal questions differ.

Both cases came to the court in an unusual posture: The federal and state governments that normally would defend their challenged laws agreed with plaintiffs and lower courts that the measures violated the U.S. Constitution.

With the Obama administration declining to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives stepped in. And when California's governor and attorney general offered no defense of Proposition 8, the private citizens who sponsored the initiative came to defend the measure.

But the Supreme Court has long held that particular conditions must be met before a party can appear in federal court, among them that it possesses a definite interest in the outcome beyond a general interest in public policy. And the justices weren't certain that either the House or the Proposition 8 backers possessed the legal standing to appear. The court specifically asked the parties to address that question in the briefs and oral argument.

When it came to the merits of the cases, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act was the narrower gambit. While the challengers argued that the law violated constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, they also left room for the justices to decide the case without opining so broadly.

Family law traditionally falls under state jurisdiction, and it has been virtually unknown for the federal government to deny recognition to couples married in accordance with state law.

Standard methods of legal interpretation require the government to provide justification for discriminating against similarly situated parties, and gay-rights activists argued that no legitimate reason underlay the Defense of Marriage Act. To the contrary, as Justice Elena Kagan observed during oral arguments in March, the legislative record demonstrated that disapproval of homosexuality was a significant basis for enacting a statute designed to penalize same-sex couples.

When the Defense of Marriage Act was adopted 17 years ago, no state permitted same-sex marriage, so the law's impact was largely theoretical. But today, with a dozen states authorizing such marriages, the harm the measure inflicts on same-sex spouses has become clear. In the case before the court, New York resident Edith Windsor would have been exempt from a federal estate tax of $363,000 had her late spouse been male.

Federal district and appeals courts in New York ruled for Ms. Windsor. In parallel cases, lower federal courts in Boston reached the same result.

Paul Clement, the former George W. Bush administration solicitor general the House hired to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, argued that the federal government had good reasons for denying benefits to same-sex spouses, including maintaining a uniform federal policy regarding marriage across the country, endorsing the values of states that reject same-sex marriage, and, potentially, saving money by excluding married gay couples from tax and other benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.

Although Proposition 8 affected only California, the lawsuit challenging the voter initiative carried the potential of changing marriage laws across the country.

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the state constitution's equal-protection provisions required recognition of same-sex marriages. By enacting Proposition 8 the following November, California voters eliminated that right by adding a sentence to the state constitution stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In 2010, a federal district judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 on broad grounds, concluding that such discrimination against gays and lesbians served no rational purpose.

The measure's proponents appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where last year a Pasadena, Calif.-based panel agreed that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, but for narrower reasons. Citing a 1996 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Ninth Circuit found it impermissible to withdraw rights from a minority group while leaving them intact for others.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:17 pm

It is a very good day indeed. :D

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:04 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:

The people have spoken.


No - actually, the COURT has spoken - legislating from the bench and over riding the will of the people.


Is the "change" you spoke of in the "Obama's brick house" thread when you wouldn't answer my question "what change are you talking about"??




RKS

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:31 am

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:

The people have spoken.


No - actually, the COURT has spoken - legislating from the bench and over riding the will of the people.


Is the "change" you spoke of in the "Obama's brick house" thread when you wouldn't answer my question "what change are you talking about"??
RKS


That America is actually far behind a number of countries in the world on this is, frankly, disgusting. As a "world leader" it should be leading the way, not grudgingly following behind when it comes to equal and human rights. Currently it is legal in thirteen countries, and during the summer will become legal in two more, with Britain to follow later in the year or next year, with the bill making its slow way through the House of Lords at the moment. To my knowledge around another dozen countries have bills pending to try to legalise same-sex marriage. As someone wrote on twitter today, people need to realise that the church and religion doesn't govern countries, governments do, and they are elected by the people.

In the USA, Obama has always been very clear about his plans to legalise same-sex marriage and has won two elections. Therefore, the will of the majority of people seems to be either that they are pro same-sex marriage or don't give a damn either way.

I have yet to see any logical, non-hysterical argument against same-sex marriage. People say the bible speaks of it as an abomination. The bible says the same about people re-marrying after divorce, and sees that as adultery, but I notice that doesn't get brought up, and people are not fighting for the law to be reversed on that front so that it is in line with the bible. The religious angle is, pure and simple, homophobia. If religious groups don't approve of gay marriage, don't partake in one. There are many things the bible doesn't approve of, and presumably those who believe in the book lead their lives appropriately and ignore those who do not. I fail to see where this issue is any different.

Bearing all of that in mind, I'm not sure what other argument there is against it. In Britain, we had the right wing arguing that it demeans marriage of a man and a woman, which seems downright odd, as me marrying the man I love doesn't make your marriage any less. Or, if if it does, your marriage didn't mean much anyway.

Perhaps the ludicrous comments about gay marriage are best summed up here from the New Zealand parliament:

phpBB [video]



It's a pity the so-called land of the free couldn't adopt the rather beautiful response to this that took place in the New Zealand parliament after their same-sex marriage bill got passed. A truly wonderful and moving moment.

phpBB [video]



The rest of the world watches on, wondering why America is happy to allow all and sundry to own guns, but are so scared of two people loving each other.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:41 am

Recent polls show that public support for same-sex marriage is on the rise and that those who oppose it are now in the minority in some areas. It's going to happen and in 30 years most people will be a little bemused that it was such a struggle to make it happen.

Some people seem really threatened by the prospect, as if their own heterosexual marriage would somehow be undermined if gay people were allowed to marry. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:53 am

Well done my southern neighbours.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:54 am

poormadpeter wrote:In the USA, Obama has always been very clear about his plans to legalise same-sex marriage and has won two elections. Therefore, the will of the majority of people seems to be either that they are pro same-sex marriage or don't give a damn either way.


Actually, Obama was originally against gay marriage. He cited his religious beliefs and said in 2004 that he didn't think that "marriage is a civil right.” He said "we have a set of traditions in place that I think need to be preserved." He also reasserted that opinion in 2008 when he said that “as a Christian” his definition of marriage was “the union between a man and a woman.”

Fortunately, his position "evolved" over time and he changed his stance. And the majority of the Americans made it clear that gay marriage is no longer the divisive issue that it once was when he was re-elected for a second term.


poormadpeter wrote:I have yet to see any logical, non-hysterical argument against same-sex marriage.


You should have seen the comment made by one of FECC's finest earlier! It was so vile that it's almost a shame that the comment was deleted; it was the perfect example of how extraordinarily illiterate, imbecilic and contemptible some on the extreme right can be.

poormadpeter wrote:People say the bible speaks of it as an abomination.


The deleted comment mentioned that gay people will go to hell. (In the most illiterate and offensive way, of course.) Let's assume this is true because Leviticus 18:22 does say that to lie with "mankind, as with womankind" is an "abomination." Many Christians on the extreme right might want to get ready to be roommates in hell with the people they so detest because according to Leviticus 11:2 through 11:11 it's pretty clear that eating pork is also an "abomination." I don't know too many Christians on the extreme right who don't eat bacon. Or ham. Or pork sausage. :shock:

poormadpeter wrote:The religious angle is, pure and simple, homophobia.


Of course it's homophobia because there are plenty of other things that are strictly forbidden in the Bible that many Christians freely do all the time. (Tattoos, eating lobster, cotten/polyester blends, coveting, lying, divorce, etc.)

The religious angle is cherry-picked from the Bible to prove that homosexuality is a sin; unfortunately, the same people who do the cherry-picking forget to read the rest of the Bible!
Last edited by InheritTheWind on Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:19 am

For the wrath of God is revealed from
Heaven against all ungodliness and un-
righteousness of men, who suppress the
truth in unrighteousness.




Likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
another, men with men committing what is
shameful, and receiving in themselves the
penalty of their error which was due.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:05 am

TJ wrote:Recent polls show that public support for same-sex marriage is on the rise and that those who oppose it are now in the minority in some areas. It's going to happen and in 30 years most people will be a little bemused that it was such a struggle to make it happen.

Some people seem really threatened by the prospect, as if their own heterosexual marriage would somehow be undermined if gay people were allowed to marry. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Everytime the ungoing discussion about gay marriage in the US comes up, I always wonder what the fuzz is about. I really don't understand why it seems to take ages ...

A more appropriate repeated discussion would be the 500th execution in Texas that took place yesterday. People are against gay marriage, but to kill a person (any person!) is okay?

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:06 pm

Bob-Holland wrote:
TJ wrote:Recent polls show that public support for same-sex marriage is on the rise and that those who oppose it are now in the minority in some areas. It's going to happen and in 30 years most people will be a little bemused that it was such a struggle to make it happen.

Some people seem really threatened by the prospect, as if their own heterosexual marriage would somehow be undermined if gay people were allowed to marry. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Everytime the ungoing discussion about gay marriage in the US comes up, I always wonder what the fuzz is about. I really don't understand why it seems to take ages ...

A more appropriate repeated discussion would be the 500th execution in Texas that took place yesterday. People are against gay marriage, but to kill a person (any person!) is okay?


It's Texas!

Austin is a cool place, but otherwise, c'mon, it Texas! There's a violence there that is extraordinary.
I'm watching an excellent documentary film about a crime and execution in Texas that is chilling on every level. It does not really take a position in that sense. It lets you experience the violence itself, from the casualness of the crime to the casual nature of Texas executions. "Into The Abyss" by Werner Herzog.

Difficult if you are squeamish - you see everything, but recommended.

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:06 pm

iplayastrat wrote:For the wrath of God is revealed from
Heaven against all ungodliness and un-
righteousness of men, who suppress the
truth in unrighteousness.




Likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
another, men with men committing what is
shameful, and receiving in themselves the
penalty of their error which was due.


As I have said before, and will say again:

You can live your life how you want. If you, and millions of others wish to live your lives in accordance with something written thousands of years ago, so be it. But I see no reason why your beliefs should be pushed on to others, and why those with beliefs should control the lives of those without them. I have never met God. To my knowledge, no-one alive has. And certainly no-one has come back from heaven to tell us just what it's like and to say, "yes folks, he does exist". Until that happens, it's a bunch of fairy stories.

Christians firmly believe that their God exists and that his teachings are real. The problem is that every Jew, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist I've met also believe that their religion is the right one. Now, how I see it, not everyone can be correct. And I may not be correct in saying that all of those with a faith are delusional and that nothing exists. But we live in 2013, not 2000BC. Times change, people change. Two hundred years ago, people were having their hands cut off for stealing a loaf of bread. Seventy years ago, God-fearing citizens in America were lynching people for the colour of their skin. Don't tell society how to live their life, and they won't tell you how to live yours.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:23 pm

intheghetto wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Christians firmly believe that their God exists and that his teachings are real. The problem is that every Jew, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist I've met also believe that their religion is the right one. Now, how I see it, not everyone can be correct. And I may not be correct in saying that all of those with a faith are delusional and that nothing exists. But we live in 2013, not 2000BC. Times change, people change. Two hundred years ago, people were having their hands cut off for stealing a loaf of bread. Seventy years ago, God-fearing citizens in America were lynching people for the colour of their skin. Don't tell society how to live their life, and they won't tell you how to live yours.



...and that my friends is how it is. Thank you!

+1 big time!!!!


Yes, very nice post PMP!

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:12 am

rjm wrote:I'm watching an excellent documentary film about a crime and execution in Texas that is chilling on every level. It does not really take a position in that sense. It lets you experience the violence itself, from the casualness of the crime to the casual nature of Texas executions. "Into The Abyss" by Werner Herzog.

Difficult if you are squeamish - you see everything, but recommended.

Thanks for mentioning this documentary. I watched it this evening.
It's indeed sometimes tough to sit through, especially watching and listening to Michael Perry gave me an uneasy feeling. But it's a beautiful documentary, and even though Herzog tells us in the first minutes he is against the death penalty and that he also does not believe that God would agree with a person killing anybody, he leaves plenty of room to the viewer to form his own opinion.
Thanks again. I'll be looking for more Herzog docu's on the subject since I found out he did more than 'Into The Abyss'.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:20 am

You're welcome.

rjm
P.S. -- Good post, pmp. Basically, the U.S. constitution is very clear: live and let live. Not very much more complicated than that. People can make their own religious choices, but leave others to make theirs.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:57 am

rjm wrote:
Basically, the U.S. constitution is very clear: live and let live.



Really? Live and let live. I'm not sure where it says that in the U.S. Constitution.

Here is a link to the U.S. Constitution, would you please point out where it so very clearly says that.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... ution.html



Thanks,
RKS

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:42 pm

I don't need a link. I carry it in my back pocket.

It was a summary; not a quotation. I could provide MANY!

(But my jeans are in the closet now. Not ME; the jeans. ;)

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:38 pm

rjm wrote:

I don't need a link. I carry it in my back pocket.


Really now? You might want to take it out and re-read it.


It was a summary; not a quotation.


"Live and let live" is a summary of the whole U.S. Constitution? Huh. Good to know!


I could provide MANY!


Provide many what? Summaries?

How about just read the actual document and quote what it actually says rather than a summary.




RKS

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:40 pm

Please stop fighting and post on-topic. Thank you.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:50 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Please stop fighting and post on-topic. Thank you.


The topic changed with Bob-Holland's post and comment about the Texas death penalty with a follow-up from rjm about Texas and the death penalty which then moved to rjm's comment about the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe you should get on those two for changing the topic.




RKS

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:44 pm

intheghetto wrote:
Whether you've read every line of every paragraph of the constitution, which I doubt you have, one thing is very clear, one of it's core philosophies is EQUALITY FOR ALL something you're sentiments don't reflect. So why don't you click on your convenient little link there and read past the preamble that you usually see posted on campaign buses.


Sounds like you need to click the little link I provided - you clearly don't know your U.S. Constitution.

The word "equality" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution - not even in the Preamble (which used to be required memorization when I was in school).

"All men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.


The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, prohibits a state government from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, with the special intention of protecting the rights of former slaves.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a limited government, meaning it tells the goverment only what it CAN do (everything else is left to the states), which then protects the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) and the Amendments that followed.

Not "live an let live" or "equality for all".

Here is another little link for an online U.S. Constitution college course and it's FREE!

https://online.hillsdale.edu/101/info

Maybe this course should be required of Congress (heck, even the Supreme Court for that matter) before taking an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution.



RKS

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:39 pm

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:intheghetto wrote:
Whether you've read every line of every paragraph of the constitution, which I doubt you have, one thing is very clear, one of it's core philosophies is EQUALITY FOR ALL something you're sentiments don't reflect. So why don't you click on your convenient little link there and read past the preamble that you usually see posted on campaign buses.


Sounds like you need to click the little link I provided - you clearly don't know your U.S. Constitution.

The word "equality" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution - not even in the Preamble (which used to be required memorization when I was in school).

"All men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.


The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, prohibits a state government from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, with the special intention of protecting the rights of former slaves.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a limited government, meaning it tells the goverment only what it CAN do (everything else is left to the states), which then protects the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) and the Amendments that followed.

Not "live an let live" or "equality for all".

Here is another little link for an online U.S. Constitution college course and it's FREE!

https://online.hillsdale.edu/101/info

Maybe this course should be required of Congress (heck, even the Supreme Court for that matter) before taking an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution.



RKS


perhaps you should explain why gays and lesbians should not have equal rights and be allowed to marry. People say that it is damaging to the concept of marriage, but then so is divorce - so much for "till death us do part". Right? As it has been established within the scientific community that homosexuality is not a life choice, but as natural as the colour of hair, eyes or skin, what exactly do you object to?

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:26 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
perhaps you should explain why gays and lesbians should not have equal rights and be allowed to marry. People say that it is damaging to the concept of marriage, but then so is divorce - so much for "till death us do part". Right? As it has been established within the scientific community that homosexuality is not a life choice, but as natural as the colour of hair, eyes or skin, what exactly do you object to?



According to the Bible, marriage was instituted by God as the life-long union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all.

Scripture calls homosexuality sinful (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27).

I agree that the divorce culture has done great harm to the institution of marriage as well. While it was and is God's intention that male and female be a life-long union and marriage was to be until "death do us part", divorce is not sinful behavior.

As for homosexuality not being a "life choice" but just the way you are naturally - there are many sinful behaviors that we have a 'natural' propensity to commit. I am a married man and I have a love for women - it's just natural to me - and if I'm being honest, at times I have sinful thoughts when I see another beautiful women. While even the thought is sin that I must confess and repent of, I have never committed the "act" of adultery - even though I could easily say "I should be able to do that because that's the way I am 'naturally'".

Or someone who is born with a desire to steal or take someone elses property (kleptomaniac). Should they act on that just because they we're born that way? Of course not.


The Bible also says plainly that those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” that is to say, those who repent and show genuine sorrow over their sin, are forgiven and loved by Christ.


And so as Christians, we forgive and love too, following His lead with compassion and humility. We forgive and love because we are all sinners. None of us are perfect and ALL of us are in need of His grace and mercy; because no matter the sin, we have all rebelled against our Creator and fallen prey to unbelief; because He has justified us by grace through faith, freely given and joyfully received (Rom. 3:23–24); because Christ has reconciled us to the Father; because He has declared us righteous and we are.


For 1000's of years societies have recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. In America, now for a few hundred years, marriage has been recognized as a life long union between one man and one woman. Slowly, many of the traditions that have formed the fabric of America are being eroded.

Maybe this is what Michelle Obama meant when she said: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."




RKS

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:01 pm

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:poormadpeter wrote:
perhaps you should explain why gays and lesbians should not have equal rights and be allowed to marry. People say that it is damaging to the concept of marriage, but then so is divorce - so much for "till death us do part". Right? As it has been established within the scientific community that homosexuality is not a life choice, but as natural as the colour of hair, eyes or skin, what exactly do you object to?



According to the Bible, marriage was instituted by God as the life-long union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all.

Scripture calls homosexuality sinful (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27).


According to the Bible eating bacon is an "abomination." Do you not eat bacon? (See Leviticus 11:1-47, Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:1-29, Deuteronomy 14:8, Isaiah 66:17)

And according to Matthew 5:17-19 in the New Testament these are the laws that you must follow!

Didn't you read my earlier post?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77442#p1182773

I'm curious how you reconcile your beliefs with your actions.

You really need to stop worrying about what other people do in their private lives. Worry about your own.

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:38 am

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:poormadpeter wrote:
perhaps you should explain why gays and lesbians should not have equal rights and be allowed to marry. People say that it is damaging to the concept of marriage, but then so is divorce - so much for "till death us do part". Right? As it has been established within the scientific community that homosexuality is not a life choice, but as natural as the colour of hair, eyes or skin, what exactly do you object to?



According to the Bible, marriage was instituted by God as the life-long union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all.

Scripture calls homosexuality sinful (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27).

I agree that the divorce culture has done great harm to the institution of marriage as well. While it was and is God's intention that male and female be a life-long union and marriage was to be until "death do us part", divorce is not sinful behavior.

As for homosexuality not being a "life choice" but just the way you are naturally - there are many sinful behaviors that we have a 'natural' propensity to commit. I am a married man and I have a love for women - it's just natural to me - and if I'm being honest, at times I have sinful thoughts when I see another beautiful women. While even the thought is sin that I must confess and repent of, I have never committed the "act" of adultery - even though I could easily say "I should be able to do that because that's the way I am 'naturally'".

Or someone who is born with a desire to steal or take someone elses property (kleptomaniac). Should they act on that just because they we're born that way? Of course not.


The Bible also says plainly that those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” that is to say, those who repent and show genuine sorrow over their sin, are forgiven and loved by Christ.


And so as Christians, we forgive and love too, following His lead with compassion and humility. We forgive and love because we are all sinners. None of us are perfect and ALL of us are in need of His grace and mercy; because no matter the sin, we have all rebelled against our Creator and fallen prey to unbelief; because He has justified us by grace through faith, freely given and joyfully received (Rom. 3:23–24); because Christ has reconciled us to the Father; because He has declared us righteous and we are.


For 1000's of years societies have recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. In America, now for a few hundred years, marriage has been recognized as a life long union between one man and one woman. Slowly, many of the traditions that have formed the fabric of America are being eroded.

Maybe this is what Michelle Obama meant when she said: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."


RKS



So being gay is the same as being a kleptomaniac, or you possibly not being able to keep you d*ck in your pants if you see Miss World pass by and give you the nod? Oooooook.

Well, here's news for you - not everyone in this world is Christian. There are vast number of us who basically don't give a damn what the bible says. Now, the bible can view marriage how it wants to - and you can view marriage as you want to. If you don't want gay marriage, don't marry a man. It's quite simple. By allowing gay marriage, no country is stopping men and women from marrying each other.

For all your supposed knowledge of the bible, you are wrong in saying that divorce is not viewed as a sin. Matthew 19:9 reads as follows - "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery". So, basically it is a sin (adultery is a sin, is it not?) to remarry after you are divorced.

So, my question about divorce remains. But the Christian population seem to have coped with that legal sin devaluing their marriage for some time now, and the world hasn't come to an end. And many Christians have committed that "sin" themselves. But if you don't agree with divorce, you don't get divorced. The same applies to gay marriage.

What is very annoying to non-believers, of course, is the fact that you quote from the bible as if you have proof that it is the way we should live our lives. You can prove nothing in it, anymore than I can prove it is a pack of lies and a book of fairy stories. However, I'm not trying to tell YOU how to live your life, but you are trying to tell me, and millions like me, how to live mine.

You quote your bible, I'll quote the following. It was spoken by Karl Ulrichs, a German scientist, at the Reichstag in 1870 - possibly the first recorded gay rights speech. Ulrichs was attempting to overthrow a move to further legalise homosexuality in Germany. The law still got strengthened, only to be repealed in 1929, and for the repeal to be quashed by the rising Nazi Party. Ulrichs is talking about legalisation of homosexuality, but the words of this extremely courageous man still hold true with regards to gay marriage, not least his comment about the creator having made us all. Read, learn, inwardly digest.

"In all creation, no other living creature endowed with sexual feeling is required to engage in life-long suppression of the powerful drive, causing it to consume itself in cruel self-marytrdom [which is what you are suggesting] ... The urning [old name for homosexual] is a human being. He, too, therefore has natural human rights. His sexual direction is justified by virtue of natural rights. The lawmaker has no right to place himself above nature, no right to persecute the creator in the things he created, no right to martry living creatures for being subject to the drive which nature gave them. He too has civil rights: and correspondingly, the state has duties to fulfill vis-a-vis as well. It does not have the right to let itself be guided by arbitrariness or blind, persecutory zeal."

Re: There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:50 am

intheghetto wrote:
The Constitution covers Civil Rights the exact thing you rally against as reflected in your comments.


Which of my comments am I rallying against civil rights?







InheritTheWind wrote:
You really need to stop worrying about what other people do in their private lives. Worry about your own.


Actually, my post is a response to Poormadpeter's post.

I'm not worrying about what other people do in their private lives, if only they would keep what they do private.



InheritTheWind wrote:
According to the Bible eating bacon is an "abomination." Do you not eat bacon? (See Leviticus 11:1-47, Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:1-29, Deuteronomy 14:8, Isaiah 66:17)

And according to Matthew 5:17-19 in the New Testament these are the laws that you must follow!

Didn't you read my earlier post?



I first must ask the question and hope for an honest answer: Are you a Christian?


The Old Testament scriptures you cite are part of the manual of purity dealing with dietary rules for the Jewish people. Because the family table was an extension of the Lord's altar, God proclaimed what foods would defile them - that is, make them unclean. And which foods that would not defile them, that is, make them clean. By eating unclean foods, the people would die in their impurity.

You then cite Matthew 5:17-19 - the context is that the Pharisees and Scribes thought they could keep the Law perfectly and have salvation - they couldn't and we can't either. Jesus says in that passage that he came to fulfill the Law and He did.


Saint Paul wrote to the Romans:
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Since Jesus fulfills the Law, we are no longer bound to the Law.

We are saved by grace. Having been saved by God's grace, we now live our lives unto Him. We stop doing those things that are displeasing to God and start doing the things that ARE pleasing to Him. While it is a daily struggle, I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13





RKS