Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 16, 2015, 01:00:01 PM
-
About time they stopped kicking the can down the road.
Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
Published January 16, 2015
Associated Press
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution.
The justices said Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states.
The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected by late June.
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are among the 14 states where gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry.
The number of states that permit same-sex marriage has nearly doubled in three months as a result of federal and state court rulings. The justices' decision to turn away same-sex marriage appeals in October allowed some of those rulings to take effect. Florida last week became the 36th state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/16/supreme-court-to-hear-gay-marriage-cases-in-april/
-
Obama: SCOTUS should recognize same-sex marriage
By BEN SCHRECKINGER 1/22/15
President Barack Obama hopes the Supreme Court issues a ruling on same-sex marriage that will legalize the unions nationwide, he said Thursday.
“My hope is that they go ahead and recognize what I think the majority of people in America now recognize,” Obama said of the justices on the high court. “Two people who love each other and are treating reach other with respect, and aren’t bothering anybody else, why would the law treat them differently.” His answer came during a YouTube interview that was part of his post-State of the Union push.
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear four cases on same-sex marriage this spring.
Obama has in the past focused on his desire to see same-sex marriage legalized on a state-by-state basis and demurred from discussing the issue on a nationwide basis.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-scotus-should-recognize-same-sex-marriage-114512.html#ixzz3Pflsu3xR
-
I'd be happy if the Supremes said "what's this bullshit about marriage? The Government should recognize domestic partnerships between consenting adults, regardless of gender. Religious organizations are free to 'marry' consenting adults, which will automatically create a domestic partnership, but aren't compelled to marry anyone against their beliefs. Now get the fuck out of here. We're going to have pizza, beers and watch 'XXX - State of the Union'."
-
I'd be happy if the Supremes said "what's this bullshit about marriage? The Government should recognize domestic partnerships between consenting adults, regardless of gender. Religious organizations are free to 'marry' consenting adults, which will automatically create a domestic partnership, but aren't compelled to marry anyone against their beliefs. Now get the fuck out of here. We're going to have pizza, beers and watch 'XXX - State of the Union'."
are religious organizations (I assume you mean churches but correct me if I'm wrong) currently required to marry gay couples in states where that is legal?
I was not aware this had anything to do with churches (for profit wedding chapels excluded since those are businesses)
-
are religious organizations (I assume you mean churches but correct me if I'm wrong) currently required to marry gay couples in states where that is legal?
I was not aware this had anything to do with churches (for profit wedding chapels excluded since those are businesses)
I don't think they do, but that's not my point. My point is that government shouldn't have any sort of special recognition of "marriage." In other words, I think there should be a civil component (civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever we want to call them) that are the equivalent of walking into a Court and getting "married" by a Judge which should be available to all consenting adults, without regard to gender. If people prefer to get married in front of their God and their God (through his representatives) is willing to play along, then people ought to be able to have a religious ceremony that includes, automatically, the civil component.
I think that all people should be able to get the advantages currently associated with marriage and reserved for such couples through a civil framework - and the same goes for the disadvantages. And I don't think people have the right to demand that someone "marry" them - or more generally act - against his beliefs.
-
I don't think they do, but that's not my point. My point is that government shouldn't have any sort of special recognition of "marriage." In other words, I think there should be a civil component (civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever we want to call them) that are the equivalent of walking into a Court and getting "married" by a Judge which should be available to all consenting adults, without regard to gender. If people prefer to get married in front of their God and their God (through his representatives) is willing to play along, then people ought to be able to have a religious ceremony that includes, automatically, the civil component.
I think that all people should be able to get the advantages currently associated with marriage and reserved for such couples through a civil framework - and the same goes for the disadvantages. And I don't think people have the right to demand that someone "marry" them - or more generally act - against his beliefs.
where are people demanding that someone marry them against their beliefs
you started out by saying that you don't think they do and ended with repeating that they shouldn't be required to
also, the courts are involved because of the equal protection clause and it seems that all of these gay marriages are done by civil ceremony in states where it is legal except in cases where a particular church has no issue with it
-
where are people demanding that someone marry them against their beliefs
you started out by saying that you don't think they do and ended with repeating that they shouldn't be required to
also, the courts are involved because of the equal protection clause and it seems that all of these gay marriages are done by civil ceremony in states where it is legal except in cases where a particular church has no issue with it
I started by stating what I hoped the Supreme Court would say on this topic. Read my post(s) again, understand them and get back to me.
-
I started by stating what I hoped the Supreme Court would say on this topic. Read my post(s) again, understand them and get back to me.
I read it
I also read Bums post with these two sentences
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution.
The justices said Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states.
-
I really hope they rule in favor of gay marriage so we can all move on with our lives and worry about something important for a change.
-
I really hope they rule in favor of gay marriage so we can all move on with our lives and worry about something important for a change.
Oh don't worry. I'm sure something else will crop up.
-
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage
By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated Sun January 25, 2015
Washington (CNN)Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage won't be enough to make it the law of the land overnight.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he wants to amend the Constitution to leave the decision over who can marry up to each state.
And former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a strident social conservative, just seems to want to be asked fewer questions about it.
Their comments -- all in media appearances the weekend of a conservative confab in Iowa hosted by Rep. Steve King -- made clear that the party won't be dropping its debate over just how to handle the electorate's growing acceptance of same-sex marriage anytime soon.
The Supreme Court's announcement that it will decide this spring whether states can ban same-sex marriage -- which, after a spate of lower court decisions in recent months, is now legal in 36 states -- has once again fueled debate about an issue that had faded from the focus of many Republicans in recent years.
Now, Republicans have to decide whether -- and how -- they can strike a balance between a conservative base that still sees marriage as between one man and one woman and a national electorate that is increasingly approving of same-sex marriage. A recent CNN/ORC poll found that 57% of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
They'll be running against a Democratic candidate who will almost certainly support same-sex marriage rights -- and could even raise it to highlight cultural differences with the GOP nominee.
Here's where some of the Republicans' top 2016 contenders stand on gay marriage:
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: In a major reversal of his 1990s position of opposing same-sex marriage rights with some hostility, Bush recently called for respect for the court's ultimate decision in a statement, and for those on both sides of the debate.
"We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law," Bush said. "I hope that we can also show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue -- including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Though he stopped fighting against a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey, Christie has said he hopes the Supreme Court won't mandate it everywhere.
"I don't think there's some referee who stands up and says, 'OK, now it's time for you to change your opinion,'" he said last year. "The country will resolve this over a period of time. But do I think it's resolved? No."
Sen. Ted Cruz: The Texas conservative firebrand has called for an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the federal government from telling the states how to handle marriage rights.
"The Constitution makes clear marriage is a question for the states," he said in a speech this month. "It's not a question for a bunch of unelected federal judges who may disagree with the democratic views of the people who live in the United States of America."
Huckabee: The socially conservative former Arkansas governor, Fox News host and 2008 Iowa caucuses winner said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman -- and that even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, procedurally, state legislatures would need to adopt laws implementing that ruling.
"I'm advocating an adherence to the Constitution," he said. "I'm really saying that there is a process to change the law, and it doesn't just involve one unilateral branch of government. ... Judges can't make law. That's judicial supremacy and that is not constitutional."
Jindal: The Louisiana governor, also known as a social conservative, said he'd like to amend the Constitution to allow states to define marriage. It's similar to then-President George W. Bush's push in his 2004 re-election bid to define marriage in the Constitution.
"I certainly support Ted Cruz and others that are talking about making an amendment in the Congress -- a constitutional amendment to allow states to continue to define marriage," he said. "I think it should be between a man and a woman."
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: Paul, who has called for the government to play a smaller role in most facets, told CNN in October that he doesn't think lawmakers should get too involved in the issue.
"I believe in old-fashioned, traditional marriage. But I don't really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue," he said. When asked if he could change his own view on the issue one day, Paul shrugged.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: When a federal judge struck down the Texas law limiting marriage to one man and one woman in February 2014, Perry lashed out, saying the decision flew in the face of the state's voters' wishes.
"Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens," he said in a statement then.
Later that summer, Perry compared homosexuals to alcoholics.
"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," Perry said. "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: The 2012 GOP nominee who is mulling another bid has stuck by his opposition to same-sex marriage, telling Fox News in 2013 that he considers one-man, one-woman households "the ideal setting for raising a child."
"I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that's because I believe the ideal setting for raising a child is where there's a mother and a father in the home," Romney said. "Other people have differing views and I respect that, whether that's in my party or in the Democratic Party. But these are very personal matters. My hope is that when we discuss things of this nature, we show respect for people who have differing views."
Sen. Marco Rubio: The Florida freshman senator recently told CNN that he believes "the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman," but called for the Supreme Court's decision to be respected -- even if that decision is to allow same-sex marriage everywhere.
"I wouldn't agree with their ruling, but that would be the law of the land that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed -- either by a future Supreme Court, or a U.S. constitutional amendment, which I don't think is realistic or foreseeable," he said.
Santorum: Long known as an advocate for socially conservative cultural values, Santorum bristled at questions about same-sex marriage in Iowa over the weekend.
"What I think is important is marriage and the family. And I think the most important thing we can do as a party is to restore the importance of marriage, encouraging marriage from an economic point of view as well as a societal point of view," he said.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Though he's long said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, in 2014 Walker stopped fighting a court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in his state.
"For us, it's over in Wisconsin," Walker said then. "The federal courts have ruled that this decision by this court of appeals decision is the law of the land and we will be upholding it."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/25/politics/gop-2016-gay-marriage/index.html
-
He's right. It's over already.
Clarence Thomas: Supreme Court's Decision Suggests Justices' Minds Are Made Up On Gay Marriage
Reuters
Posted: 02/09/2015
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's move on Monday to allow gay marriage to proceed in Alabama is the strongest signal yet that the justices are likely to rule in June that no state can restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples.
Of the nine justices, only two - conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia - dissented from the court's refusal to block gay weddings from starting in Alabama. Gay marriage is now legal in 37 states.
Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court's move to allow gay marriages to go ahead "may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution" as it considers cases from four other states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S. Constitution. Although only two justices publicly dissented, the court order did not reveal whether any other justices voted to grant the stay.
Oral arguments in the cases, which are expected to result in a definitive nationwide ruling on the matter, are due in April with a decision expected by the end of June.
Gay rights groups shared Thomas' view.
Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign's legal director, said the justices' action on Alabama "has telegraphed there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."
The group also told same-sex couples in the 13 states where gay marriage is still banned to "start your wedding plans now."
Thomas' words echoed Scalia's 2013 dissent from the court's decision to invalidate a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples. Scalia predicted that the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in that case would give judges a green light to strike down state gay marriage bans. That's exactly what happened.
At the time of that ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay marriage. That number has now hit 37, with federal judges playing the central role in paving the way for gay marriage in 23 of the 25 states where it has become legal since then.
As Thomas noted in his dissent, the court's normal practice would have been to put the Alabama case on hold until it had decided the cases involving the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan.
One of the factors the court considers when deciding whether to put a hold on a lower-court ruling is the "likelihood of success" for the petitioners if the case were to be appealed.
The court in recent months has denied similar stay requests from other states, most recently Florida, thus allowing gay marriage to go ahead even while litigation continues.
Alabama's case was different as it was the first application to be made after the high court's announcement in January to take the four cases and settle the matter once and for all. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage-clarence-thomas_n_6646404.html
-
He needs to give it up. He's just going to get fired again.
Chief Alabama judge would defy Supreme Court in gay marriage ruling
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
February 12, 2015
Washington (CNN)The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted Thursday he will continue to resist efforts to implement same-sex marriage in his state, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage later this year.
Chief Justice Roy Moore likened an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy v. Ferguson, two 19th century Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation, respectively.
"If it's an unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court," Moore said in a testy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "I will follow the law as I interpret it."
Moore has ordered lower court judges in Alabama not to implement a federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Moore's actions come despite the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to stay the federal ruling, effectively allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state for the first time on Monday.
Judges in some of the state's counties refused to allow same-sex couples to marry in spite of the federal court ruling.
"That's not the federal law. What you're confusing is law with the opinion of a justice," Moore told Cuomo. "What one lone federal judge says is not law."
Moore is personally opposed to gay marriage and steadfastly against legalizing gay marriage, insisting that Alabama recognizes the "divine" nature of the definition of marriage.
Gay marriage is Alabama judge's latest battle
Moore also characterized the federal judge's ruling that overturned the state's ban as an "attempt by the federal court to control the state," which he called a "federal intrusion into state sovereignty."
The battle Moore is waging is just the latest for a controversial judge who sticks to his guns and won't bend to federal law when he believes it is wrong.
Moore was booted from the state's supreme court when he refused to implement a federal ruling ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments at an Alabama judicial building in 2003.
He won a statewide reelection to reclaim his chief justiceship in 2012.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/ray-moore-alabama-gay-marraige-supreme-court-slavery/index.html
-
I look at this as a simple matter of the protection of communal property rights. Marriage at its most basic is a legal contract over property and money. If two men want to enter into a legal contract it should be their right. It's not the domain of the government to make moral judgements on this issue.
-
I look at this as a simple matter of the protection of communal property rights. Marriage at its most basic is a legal contract over property and money. If two men want to enter into a legal contract it should be their right. It's not the domain of the government to make moral judgements on this issue.
I don't think it's necessarily a moral or religious issue, but it's going to happen nationwide.
My concern is about what happens next. I've been talking about triad marriages for a while. That's probably where we are headed.
-
I don't think it's necessarily a moral or religious issue, but it's going to happen nationwide.
My concern is about what happens next. I've been talking about triad marriages for a while. That's probably where we are headed.
The only solution might be for government to get ouf of the marriage business all together. Distribution of communal property is determined by wills. You want to live with three people that's your business but the government doesn't recognize your union as it doesnt recognize any union.
-
The only solution might be for government to get ouf of the marriage business all together. Distribution of communal property is determined by wills. You want to live with three people that's your business but the government doesn't recognize your union as it doesnt recognize any union.
Makes sense, although I doubt we overhaul the entire institution nationwide. Government rarely does the sensible thing.
-
McConnell, Cruz Urge Court to Reject Gay Marriage
April 3, 2015
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mcconnell-cruz-urge-court-reject-gay-marriage
-
Arguments tomorrow.
Sea change in the poll numbers.
Fox News poll: 48 percent favor same-sex marriage, 51 percent say legalize marijuana
By Dana Blanton
Published April 27, 2015
FoxNews.com
The country remains divided on same-sex marriage, according to the latest Fox News poll.
Currently 48 percent favor legalizing same-sex marriage, while 44 percent are opposed.
Just 32 percent of voters said gays should be allowed to marry legally when the question was first asked on a Fox News poll in 2003 (58 percent were opposed). Since 2012, the portion favoring it has been between 42 and 49 percent.
Democrats favor it by a wide 62-32 percent margin. That’s the opposite of how Republicans feel: 31 percent favor vs. 57 percent oppose. Independents favor it by a 51-43 percent margin.
Sixty percent of voters ages 65 and over oppose it, while 61 percent of those under 45 are in favor.
Those most likely to favor gay marriage include people who say they “never” attend church (79 percent), self-identified liberals (70 percent), Democrats (62 percent), voters under 45 (61 percent) and Northeasterners (57 percent).
Groups most inclined to oppose it include those who identify as “very” conservative (75 percent) or as part of the Tea Party movement (68 percent), white evangelical Christians (68 percent) and regular church goers (64 percent).
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/27/fox-news-poll-48-percent-favor-same-sex-marriage-51-percent-say-legalize/?intcmp=latestnewshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/27/fox-news-poll-48-percent-favor-same-sex-marriage-51-percent-say-legalize/?intcmp=latestnews
-
most polls are in favor of gay marriage,fox poll ,take that with a grain of salt :D
-
Supreme Court justices appear divided in historic gay marriage arguments
Published April 28, 2015
FoxNews.com
Supreme Court justices appeared sharply divided Tuesday as historic arguments on gay marriage ended, with one pivotal justice asking tough questions of both sides.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often is seen as the swing vote, said gay marriage has been debated for only a decade and wondered aloud whether scholars and the public need more time. He said marriage has been understood as one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time.”
"It's very difficult for the court to say `We know better,"' Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer representing same-sex couples.
Kennedy, in the course of arguments, posed skeptical questions of both sides, only adding to the uncertainty over how the Supreme Court may rule in this landmark case. He also pressed attorney John Bursch, representing the states that ban same-sex marriage, to explain how granting gay couples a right to marry would harm traditional marriages.
A decision is expected in late June.
Chief Justice John Roberts said gay couples seeking to marry are not seeking to join the institution of marriage.
"You're seeking to change what the institution is," he said.
The arguments offered the first public indication of where the justices stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or whether the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.
The session was interrupted after about 30 minutes by a protester yelling loudly. He was removed by security.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the issue is not whether there should be same-sex marriage "but who should decide the point." He expressed concern about the court imposing a requirement on the states that "is unpalatable to many for religious reasons."
Justice Stephen Breyer asked if the nation needs more time to "wait and see" whether gay marriage is harmful to society. Bonauto responded that wait-and-see has never been considered a justification for discrimination under the Constitution.
The court was hearing extended arguments, which also are exploring whether states that do not permit same-sex marriage must nonetheless recognize such unions from elsewhere. Same-sex couples now can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.
People on both sides of the issue gathered outside the marble courthouse early Tuesday. Some waved gay rights banners, while others carried placards proclaiming marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Homo sex is a sin," read one sign. A man shouted into a microphone that gays violate the laws of God. A group of same-sex advocates tried to drown him out by singing "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Cheers went up in the crowd when the court's doors opened, allowing a lucky few who lined up days ago to get inside.
The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, four of the 14 remaining states that allow only heterosexual marriage. Those four states had marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November. That is the only federal appeals court that has ruled in favor of the states since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law.
Kennedy has written the court's three prior gay rights decisions, including the case from two years ago. All eyes are on him for any signals of his intention this time.
It was barely a decade ago that the first state allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. That was Massachusetts, in 2004. As recently as last October, barely a third of the states permitted it. Now, same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and Washington, D.C., a sign of the dramatic change in public opinion.
At the Supreme Court, the opposing states hoped to reframe the debate.
"This case is not about the best marriage definition. It is about the fundamental question regarding how our democracy resolves such debates about social policy: Who decides, the people of each state or the federal judiciary?" John Bursch, representing Michigan, wrote in his main brief to the court.
Other arguments by the states and more than five-dozen briefs by their defenders warn the justices of harm that could result "if you remove the man-woman definition and replace it with the genderless any-two-persons definition," said Gene Schaerr, a Washington lawyer.
The push for same-sex marriage comes down to fairness, said Bonauto, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. The people who have brought their cases to the Supreme Court are "real people who are deeply committed to each other. Yet they are foreclosed from making that commitment simply because of who they are," she told reporters last week.
Arguments made by Bonauto, other lawyers for same-sex couples and more than six-dozen supporting briefs have strong echoes of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage. In that case, the justices were unanimous that those bans violated the constitutional rights of interracial couples.
No one expects unanimity this time. The justices have allowed orders in favor of same-sex couples to take effect even as the issue has made its way through the federal court system, but that was action through inaction.
Only 11 states have granted marriage rights to same-sex couples through the ballot or the legislature. Court rulings are responsible for all the others.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/28/supreme-court-hears-historic-same-sex-marriage-arguments/
-
‘We will not obey’: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
By Todd Starnes
Published April 28, 2015
FoxNews.com
“We will not obey.”
That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.
“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”
“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.
The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.
The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.
“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.
He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”
“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”
Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.
“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”
And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”
That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.
“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”
Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.
“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”
Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.
He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.
An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.
“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ... What will we do, and how will we respond?”
Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.
“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”
To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.
“We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/will-not-obey-christian-leaders-threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/
-
Why no civil disobedience of Adultery ?
You think the fundies would be all over that.
1. It's a violation of a vow taken before god (in many cases)
2. It's most definitely a choice (never heard someone say they knew when they were 6 years old that they were an adulterer)
3. It clearly damages families
4. It much more prevalent in sheer numbers than gay people
5. It legal in many states and the states where is it illegal it's not really enforced
When Jeebus returns isn't he going to take care of the big shit first.
I would guess happily married, law abiding gay people are going to be way down on the list compared to adulterers
Why are fundies not out protesting adultery?
-
Are religious colleges at risk if Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage?
By Shannon Bream
Published May 07, 2015
FoxNews.com
Same-sex marriage foes are flagging a mostly-missed moment from last week's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of gay marriage, calling it a warning sign for religious freedom.
They point to an exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and the administration's top lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Alito asked if, in the event the Supreme Court holds that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, would religious colleges risk losing their tax-exempt status if they continued to advocate for traditional marriage only.
Verrilli responded, "I don't deny that ... It is going to be an issue."
Travis Weber, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty, said he believed Verrilli's logic would eventually extend to churches and just about "anyone holding a traditional view of marriage."
Weber warned that if the current trend continues, those who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage could face "fines, potentially imprisonment."
Just days ago, speaking at the Women in the World Summit 2016, Democratic contender Hillary Clinton said, "Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
The statement sparked concern among those who believe the federal government should not be in the business of using its significant leverage to coerce others to adhere to any specific viewpoint.
There is also concern among the religious community that the IRS has reached some sort of agreement with the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which was in the process of suing the agency.
In a legal document dated July 29, 2014, the IRS pledged to engage in tougher monitoring and enforcement of political restrictions on churches, in exchange for FFRF's promise to drop its lawsuit.
Attached to that document is a letter explaining that at least 99 churches had been referred for a "high level examination" by the IRS' "Political Activities Referral Committee."
Despite numerous Freedom of Information Act requests for documents related to any deal with FFRF, the IRS has been less than forthcoming.
As a result, Judicial Watch, a conservative but nonpartisan organization, has filed a federal lawsuit asking that the IRS be forced to disclose them.
When asked to explain Verrilli’s comment, the White House referred Fox News to the Justice Department, which also declined comment and suggested contacting the IRS.The IRS did not immediately respond.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/07/are-religious-colleges-at-risk-if-supreme-court-approves-same-sex-marriage/?intcmp=latestnews
-
So when the verdict is rendered, what is the excuse going to be?
Patriotic individuals upholding our Bible based Constitution? Or Unchristian activists trying to legislate from the bench?
-
Well I guess we know how she's going to vote. lol
Justice Ginsburg invokes 'Constitutional' powers in same-sex wedding
by Joni B. Hannigan | 19 May, 2015
(http://cdn.christianexaminer.com/data/en/full/4507/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.jpg?w=720&h=479&l=50&t=40)
U.S. President Barack Obama hugs Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prior to delivering his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 25, 2011. L-R: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the president, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.
WASHINGTON (Christian Examiner) – Invoking what she said are powers invested in her by the U.S. Constitution, 82-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over a same-sex marriage ceremony Sunday, according to an article in the New York Times.
Ginsburg joined together in marriage, Michael Kahn, artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York, Sunday afternoon, according to the Times.
The ceremony between the men took place in an opulent setting at the Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood.
The justice appeared to place special emphasis on the word "Constitution," the article said, and the word was met with loud applause. The Supreme Court has been deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage and hearing arguments regarding state laws on whether same-same couples should be permitted to marry.
Justice Elena Kagan and Ginsburg previously have been asked to recuse themselves from the case since before the hearings Ginsburg indicated she had already made up her mind about the issue. Yahoo! Politics said April 27 Ginsberg reported she was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide because of America's changing social views.
A New York Times columnist said Ginsburg told her in 2012 about she had a "strong hunch" about the outcome of the case. "I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court retreats from what it has said about same-sex unions," Ginsburg told Gail Collins.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/justice.ginsburg.invokes.constitutional.powers.in.same.sex.wedding/48960.htm
-
well, we guessed at that vote!
-
Just a stab in the dark. :)
-
He's right.
Marco Rubio: Gay Marriage 'Real and Present Danger' to Christianity
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=6a9d43b9-09e9-418e-91ce-6de8346223d7&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Marco Rubio: Gay Marriage 'Real and Present Danger' to Christianity (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Wading into a thorny issue, the Republican presidential candidate laments that opponents of gay marriage are labeled "homophobe" or "hater."
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio told the Christian Broadcasting Network that the push for nationwide same-sex marriage represents a threat to Christianity.
"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater," the Florida senator said. "So what's the next step after that? After they're done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. And that's a real and present danger."
The remarks, posted Tuesday on CBN's website, are a strong denunciation of the gay-rights movement just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Many legal experts believe the Court will invalidate gay marriage bans, in part because there are five justices who voted to advance gay rights as recently as 2013.
"If you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater."
Rubio's comments appear aimed at the evangelical base, a core Republican constituency that remains strongly against same-sex marriage even as a growing majority of Americans want it to be legal. That dichotomy makes it a thorny issue: respected party strategists, including Rubio's own pollster Whit Ayres, have warned that a candidate perceived as anti-gay won't be able to connect with voters under 30. The Republican National Committee warned in a brutally candid 2012 election post-mortem that the party must be more "welcoming and inclusive" when it comes to gay rights or "young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out."
The rhetoric from Rubio, who is locked in a tough fight for the Republican nomination, was more aggressively opposed to gay marriage in the CBN interview than last month when he was asked about the issue by MSNBC, a cable provider that attracts a largely left-of-center audience.
"Ultimately the decision on how we define marriage has always belonged to the states," he said in the April 14 interview. "If in fact, as the polls indicate, a growing number of Americans believe that marriage between two individuals of the same sex should be legal, then they can petition their state legislatures and change their state laws. And in fact, I suspect you'll see that happen. It's already begun to happen."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/marco-rubio-gay-marriage-real/2015/05/26/id/646809/#ixzz3bHz6luwt
-
He's right.
Marco Rubio: Gay Marriage 'Real and Present Danger' to Christianity
Rubio tries to have it both ways. sucking up to gay republicans one day, and sucking up to anti-gay marriage supporters the next.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2016-hopeful-marco-rubio-reaches-gay-republicans-article-1.2195693
-
Good for him. Big tent. Nothing he said was inconsistent.
-
Good for him. Big tent. Nothing he said was inconsistent.
no, but snuggling up to gay republicans one day, and shitting all over gay marriage the next?
way more politics than strong conviction there.
-
no, but snuggling up to gay republicans one day, and shitting all over gay marriage the next?
way more politics than strong conviction there.
Another instance where you, the compulsive liar, didn't even read the link you posted. Troll.
-
He's right.
Marco Rubio: Gay Marriage 'Real and Present Danger' to Christianity
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=6a9d43b9-09e9-418e-91ce-6de8346223d7&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Marco Rubio: Gay Marriage 'Real and Present Danger' to Christianity (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Wading into a thorny issue, the Republican presidential candidate laments that opponents of gay marriage are labeled "homophobe" or "hater."
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio told the Christian Broadcasting Network that the push for nationwide same-sex marriage represents a threat to Christianity.
"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater," the Florida senator said. "So what's the next step after that? After they're done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. And that's a real and present danger."
The remarks, posted Tuesday on CBN's website, are a strong denunciation of the gay-rights movement just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Many legal experts believe the Court will invalidate gay marriage bans, in part because there are five justices who voted to advance gay rights as recently as 2013.
"If you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater."
Rubio's comments appear aimed at the evangelical base, a core Republican constituency that remains strongly against same-sex marriage even as a growing majority of Americans want it to be legal. That dichotomy makes it a thorny issue: respected party strategists, including Rubio's own pollster Whit Ayres, have warned that a candidate perceived as anti-gay won't be able to connect with voters under 30. The Republican National Committee warned in a brutally candid 2012 election post-mortem that the party must be more "welcoming and inclusive" when it comes to gay rights or "young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out."
The rhetoric from Rubio, who is locked in a tough fight for the Republican nomination, was more aggressively opposed to gay marriage in the CBN interview than last month when he was asked about the issue by MSNBC, a cable provider that attracts a largely left-of-center audience.
"Ultimately the decision on how we define marriage has always belonged to the states," he said in the April 14 interview. "If in fact, as the polls indicate, a growing number of Americans believe that marriage between two individuals of the same sex should be legal, then they can petition their state legislatures and change their state laws. And in fact, I suspect you'll see that happen. It's already begun to happen."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/marco-rubio-gay-marriage-real/2015/05/26/id/646809/#ixzz3bHz6luwt
He is wrong
Don't worry Fundies
The Supreme Court fully supports your right to all the Hate Speech that you want so don't lose any sleep
Thanks to this guy
-
It's time for Republican Party leaders to embrace marriage equality
By Mary Cheney
Published June 01, 2015
FoxNews.com
There’s been a lot of discussion about same sex marriage over the last few months – particularly from the candidates running for the GOP nomination. Sometimes it seems as if they are in a contest to see who can be the most stalwart defender of “traditional marriage” – who can most effectively stoke the unfounded fears of the far right.
When talking about same sex marriage, these candidates regularly throw around phrases like religious freedom and religious liberty, warn that marriage equality will lead to the criminalization of Christianity or the downfall of the American family, and fret that our nation’s very future is at risk.
Let’s be clear. The fight over marriage equality isn’t about religious freedom or the criminalization of Christianity. States have regularly taken action to enact civil marriage with clear exemptions and protections for churches, synagogues and other religious entities. No matter what happens with same-sex marriage, that will not change.
It is also no longer a fight about our country’s future because that fight is already over. According to a recent CNN/ORC survey, the highest percentage of Americans ever, 63%, support the freedom to marry as a constitutional right for gay couples. This is an increase of 14% since 2010 and shows significant gains across all party lines. Regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court decides this term, the American Public is already on the side of marriage equality. Should the Court oppose the expansion of the freedom to marry to all fifty states, millions of Americans will be disappointed, but progress will continue to be made. It will just take a bit longer.
The next time a Republican presidential candidate wants to talk about the need for our society to support and protect families and children, I hope he or she will include all families and all children in that protection.
What is up for discussion and debate however, is where the Republican Party goes from here.
Along with the general public, support for the freedom to marry has increasingly gained acceptance among senior Republicans on Capitol Hill. Senators Rob Portman of Ohio and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced their support of marriage equality in recent years. And just this spring, twenty-three current and former members of Congress, including Senators Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Susan Collins (Maine) and Representatives Curbelo (Fla.), Dold (Ill.), Hanna (N.Y.), Gibson (N.Y.), and Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) added their names to a Republican amicus brief arguing in support of marriage equality cases presently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Republican Party has always claimed to be in favor of certain key principles including, support for individual liberty, personal responsibility and the belief that strong families are the corner stone of our society. This is exactly why more leaders of the party should embrace the idea of marriage equality.
Legalizing civil marriage for same-sex couples does not threaten heterosexual marriage; nor does it violate the First Amendment by forcing churches to perform ceremonies that violate their fundamental beliefs. It will not lead to the arrest of ministers or priests who refuse to perform same sex marriage ceremonies.
It will, however, increase relationship stability, strengthen families and provide legal protections for children growing up in same-sex families – all of which are goals in keeping with the principles of the Republican Party.
For years I have listened while Republican candidates talked about the importance of family and the need for our country to support strong families. I whole-heartedly agree. We do need to support families, but that means supporting all families – regardless of which state they live in, how they look or how they are made.
So the next time a Republican presidential candidate wants to talk about the need for our society to support and protect families and children, I hope he or she will include all families and all children in that protection – including the hundreds of thousands of children like my son and daughter who are growing up with same-sex parents.
Mary Cheney is a political consultant based in Washington, D.C. and is also the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/01/its-time-for-republican-party-leaders-to-embrace-marriage-equality.html?intcmp=latestnews
-
It's time for Republican Party leaders to embrace marriage equality
the young people in the party seem to agree. But the older people, the $$ of the party, will have a hard time giving up their stance on same-sex marriage.
-
:o
56 Percent of Voters Favor Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Poll
Monday, 01 Jun 2015
By Melissa Clyne
By a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent, American voters favor a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, according to a new Quinnipiac University National Poll.
The results come as the country awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on the controversial issue, which is expected sometime this month. The Court’s ruling will address "the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state," a January posting on the Supreme Court’s official blog said.
Political party affiliation greatly influences voters' opinions, according to Quinnipiac, which found that Democrats favor same-sex by a margin of 70 percent to 24 percent and independents by 61 percent to 34 percent. Republicans oppose same-sex marriage 62 percent to 34 percent.
Slightly more women than men support gay marriage (men 55 percent to 41 percent; women 57 percent to 35 percent).
GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that he’d fight the high court’s decision if it legalizes same-sex marriage.
"Roe versus Wade was decided 30 some years ago, and I continue to fight that, because I think the court got it wrong," he said. "And I think if the court decides this case in error, I will continue to fight, as we have on the issue of life ... We're not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity."
While the Supreme Court’s "word has validity," the role of Congress and the president, Santorum continued, is to "push back" when the high court makes a wrong decision.
"I think it's important to understand that the Supreme Court doesn't have the final word. It has its word," he said.
By a margin of 53 percent to 40 percent, voters oppose allowing individual states to prohibit same-sex marriage, according to the Quinnipiac results, and 57 percent to 36 percent support requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.
"Democrats, independent voters, men and women back same-sex marriage in these questions, with Republicans opposed," according to the poll.
Overall, the survey found, voters support same-sex marriage by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent.
The poll also measured voters' feelings about the death penalty and President Barack Obama.
Support for the death penalty is dying, according to the survey results.
Forty-eight percent of American voters support life without parole for convicted murderers, while 43 percent support the death penalty. Those figures change when a person is convicted of murder during a terrorist act.
In that case, 58 percent of American voters say a person convicted of terrorist-related murder deserves the death penalty, compared with 36 percent who support life without parole.
In the case of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 62 percent of voters supported death with 34 percent favoring life without parole.
"American voters may be moving away from the death penalty, but in general, there is absolutely no ambivalence" about executing Tsarnaev, said the poll’s assistant director, Tim Malloy.
Obama’s disapproval ratings have risen slightly since an April 27 Quinnipiac survey, according to the poll results, which found American voters disapprove of the job he’s doing by 50 percent to 43 percent. In the earlier poll, 49 percent of voters disapproved of the president’s job performance.
Voters continue to disapprove of Congress. Republicans fared worse than Democrats, with the Democrats receiving a disapproval rating of 61 percent to 30 percent, and their GOP counterparts getting a 73 percent to 17 percent score.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/gay-marriage-same-sex-constitution-poll/2015/06/01/id/647886/#ixzz3brdSvlJK
-
LOL at Old Man Bum pretended to be surprised by this
Hey old man, it's even higher among young Republicans
-
He is wrong
Don't worry Fundies
The Supreme Court fully supports your right to all the Hate Speech that you want so don't lose any sleep
Thanks to this guy
Are you for restricting people from saying things, Straw?
-
Another instance where you, the compulsive liar, didn't even read the link you posted. Troll.
A stupid hypocrite calling someone else a liar? Priceless.
-
A stupid hypocrite calling someone else a liar? Priceless.
Shut the heck up you little ignorant punk. I'm not Soul Crusher. I'm not going to put up with your crap like he did.
-
Shut the heck up you little ignorant punk. I'm not Soul Crusher. I'm not going to put up with your crap like he did.
He called you on being a lying hyp, who calls other posters a lying hyp.
You are, and you do so suck it up Nancy.
-
Shut the heck up you little ignorant punk. I'm not Soul Crusher. I'm not going to put up with your crap like he did.
Poor baby. Truth hurts huh? No you are not SC. Despite his short comings, he was never a hypocrite. Let alone one that gets tripped up so easily by his own hypocrisy.
-
He called you on being a lying hyp, who calls other posters a lying hyp.
You are, and you do so suck it up Nancy.
No shit. It's laughable - but not really considering how stupid he is - that he cries over and over about 240 not being a real Republican while at the same time, he is so ashamed of the GOP (and himself) that he claims he isn't a Republican.
Other than calling 240 names, he can't offer a damn thing in terms of rebuttal or counter argument to what 240 says. Instead just opting for name calling, complete ignorance of anything posted, and silence when challenged.
-
Poor baby. Truth hurts huh? No you are not SC. Despite his short comings, he was never a hypocrite. Let alone one that gets tripped up so easily by his own hypocrisy.
I know the ignorant little punk misses stalking Soul Crusher every day, but like I said, I'm not him. I will ban the little ignorant punk if he stalks me. Bank on it. :)
-
He called you on being a lying hyp, who calls other posters a lying hyp.
You are, and you do so suck it up Nancy.
Lying? You mean like this? :)
Really? You volunteered for which Army? The United States, France, or Denmark? Or all three? :o
Denmark. The International Brigade.
Who is keeping score? That's pretty dumb. I'm interested to know when you served? You don't seem like the military type, so that surprised me.
I didnt serve. I voluntered but they would have me because of my criminal record.
Your turn.
Why didnt you serve?
So it turns out that not only did you lie about being from Denmark (or the U.S. or France, or whatever), you also lied about serving in the "International Brigade."
I plugged that name into Google and look what I found: "In the Danish Defence agreement 2005–2009, the brigade was to be dissolved and the Brigade thereby official ceased to exist on February 15, 2005."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_International_Brigade
In other words, the International Brigade doesn't even exist. Unless of course you claim to have served (or tried to serve) before 2005?
Let's keep the lies straight here. lol
-
I know the ignorant little punk misses stalking Soul Crusher every day, but like I said, I'm not him. I will ban the little ignorant punk if he stalks me. Bank on it. :)
Pointing out your hypocrisy = stalking. ::) HAHAHAHAHA Why is it idiots always think they are "stalked" when someone points out the obvious?
You can't ban anyone. You can just run to Ron and whine about it. You don't have banning powers. ::)
Of course, if you don't like anyone pointing out what a hypocrite you are... then maybe, umm.... don't be one so much?
-
Pointing out your hypocrisy = stalking. ::) HAHAHAHAHA Why is it idiots always think they are "stalked" when someone points out the obvious?
You can't ban anyone. You can just run to Ron and whine about it. You don't have banning powers. ::)
Of course, if you don't like anyone pointing out what a hypocrite you are... then maybe, umm.... don't be one so much?
Keep it up you ignorant little punk. Your days of coming on this board every single day and doing nothing but calling people names (well, just Soul Crusher and Coach) are done. You don't know where to draw the line. You sound like a social misfit. But I'm done reading all of your crap on the board. So however it's going to happen, you keep it up and you are gone. Book it.
-
Keep it up you ignorant little punk. Your days of coming on this board every single day and doing nothing but calling people names (well, just Soul Crusher and Coach) are done. You don't know where to draw the line. You sound like a social misfit. But I'm done reading all of your crap on the board. So however it's going to happen, you keep it up and you are gone. Book it.
You really can't handle anyone pointing out your hypocrisy can you? HAHAHAHA immediately go on the defensive and start making threats.
-
You really can't handle anyone pointing out your hypocrisy can you? HAHAHAHA immediately go on the defensive and start making threats.
Get off your boss's computer and do something constructive you little juvenile idiot. What kind of loser gets himself repeatedly banned from a message board? lol
Come on little ignorant punk. Do it. :)
-
Get off your boss's computer and do something constructive you little juvenile idiot. What kind of loser gets himself repeatedly banned from a message board? lol
Come on little ignorant punk. Do it. :)
I have never been banned. Timed out only once and only for 48 hours. Ron didn't think enough of you to give me the full week you wanted, even though you whined for it for DAYS.
Now, I do have to admit this is a bit weird, as you may be showing signs of another brain cell forming. But I had thought about my next reply to you including a remark about how I pictured you using a Clint Eastwood voice while you typed your reply. Then you posted that video.... uncanny. Try not to do that again.
-
I have never been banned. Timed out only once and only for 48 hours. Ron didn't think enough of you to give me the full week you wanted, even though you whined for it for DAYS.
Now, I do have to admit this is a bit weird, as you may be showing signs of another brain cell forming. But I had thought about my next reply to you including a remark about how I pictured you using a Clint Eastwood voice while you typed your reply. Then you posted that video.... uncanny. Try not to do that again.
Like I have told you before, you will be a constructive contributor on the board, or you will not be posting here. Whether you are banned again, or not, I will delete or alter every single post you make on this board if your antics continue. And like I did before, I'm leaving my intentions right here on the board, so the little ignorant message board loser (i.e., you), and everyone else, knows exactly what I intend to do.
So, buck up and act like a grownup, make positive contributions, or take a hike. Your choice. :)
And quit causing trouble for yourself on your employer's computer. Not a smart move.
-
Of course you will. That's all you can do. Because you sure as shit can't defend your hypocrisy.
Since you already stole my Clint Eastwood reference, you will just have to do with knowing I typed this reply with my middle finger. Best I could do for you.
-
Of course you will. That's all you can do. Because you sure as shit can't defend your hypocrisy.
Since you already stole my Clint Eastwood reference, you will just have to do with knowing I typed this reply with my middle finger. Best I could do for you.
Come on little ignorant punk. Be a positive contributor to the board. You can do it. :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61h3iuxAWuL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
Channeling a Rick Perry theme now?
-
No shit. It's laughable - but not really considering how stupid he is - that he cries over and over about 240 not being a real Republican while at the same time, he is so ashamed of the GOP (and himself) that he claims he isn't a Republican.
Other than calling 240 names, he can't offer a damn thing in terms of rebuttal or counter argument to what 240 says. Instead just opting for name calling, complete ignorance of anything posted, and silence when challenged.
And on top of that he is an administrator.
Go figure.
-
Come on little ignorant punk. Be a positive contributor to the board. You can do it. :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61h3iuxAWuL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Oh the irony ::)
-
Come on little ignorant punk. Be a positive contributor to the board. You can do it. :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61h3iuxAWuL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
was 333386 / SoulCrusher a positive contributor?
was he ever banned; or just taken away to the loony bin?
-
was 333386 / SoulCrusher a positive contributor?
was he ever banned; or just taken away to the loony bin?
Of course he was. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he was on here literally everyday posting substantive articles.
He was never banned, because he didn't come on here every day attacking people. He probably just got tired of a couple people making personal attacks every single day. I don't blame him.
-
Of course he was. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he was on here literally everyday posting substantive articles.
He was never banned, because he didn't come on here every day attacking people. He probably just got tired of a couple people making personal attacks every single day. I don't blame him.
Holy shit!!
I have no problem with Soul but the man posted 24/7, about Obama chooming, being gay, communist spy etc etc.. Substantive articles yeah right.
-
Holy shit!!
I have no problem with Soul but the man posted 24/7, about Obama chooming, being gay, communist spy etc etc.. Substantive articles yeah right.
Yes he posted some of that fringe, tabloid stuff, but posted a lot of other substantive stuff as well.
-
i'd offer to blow him if he came back. anything to make him happy.
-
Of course he was. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he was on here literally everyday posting substantive articles.
Substantive articles? He obsessed over Obama and posted every article - true or false - that mentioned the name, followed by "FU" or comments about "chooms". He would generate dozens of nonsense posts every day - mostly drivel. He didn't make substantive posts and his contribution to substantive conversation on here was - and I'm being generous - minimal.
He was never banned, because he didn't come on here every day attacking people. He probably just got tired of a couple people making personal attacks every single day. I don't blame him.
Yes... that's why... he got tired of being attacked ::)
-
Substantive articles? He obsessed over Obama and posted every article - true or false - that mentioned the name, followed by "FU" or comments about "chooms". He would generate dozens of nonsense posts every day - mostly drivel. He didn't make substantive posts and his contribution to substantive conversation on here was - and I'm being generous - minimal.
Yes... that's why... he got tired of being attacked ::)
Yes, substantive articles. He obviously hated Obama, and yes he repeatedly said "FU," "chooms," etc.
What would happen is people ignored his substantive articles, jumped on the tabloid stuff, and resorted to attacks on him personally, rather than addressing the non-tabloid articles he posted. One or two people here got personally offended whenever he attacked Obama (which was every day).
In any event, we can agree to disagree. You or anyone else go through pages on the board and see what he posted.
-
Yes, substantive articles. He obviously hated Obama, and yes he repeatedly said "FU," "chooms," etc.
What would happen is people ignored his substantive articles, jumped on the tabloid stuff, and resorted to attacks on him personally, rather than addressing the non-tabloid articles he posted. One or two people here got personally offended whenever he attacked Obama (which was every day).
In any event, we can agree to disagree. You or anyone else go through pages on the board and see what he posted.
That's exactly why Avxo and Whork have questioned your statement
It's completely contrary to what they (and others) have actually seen
-
Substantive articles? He obsessed over Obama and posted every article - true or false - that mentioned the name, followed by "FU" or comments about "chooms". He would generate dozens of nonsense posts every day - mostly drivel. He didn't make substantive posts and his contribution to substantive conversation on here was - and I'm being generous - minimal.
Yes... that's why... he got tired of being attacked ::)
HAHAHAHA
-
Poll: Two-thirds expect justices to legalize gay marriage
Supreme Court, Same Sex Marriage, Equal Rights
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/article_images/supremecourtmarriage.jpg?itok=pu1MBI7T)
Getty Images
By Lydia Wheeler - 06/11/15
Two-thirds of Americans expect the Supreme Court to hand down a victory for gay and lesbian couples later this month and legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states, according to a new poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).
In its Religion and Politics Tracking Survey, PRRI surveyed 1,009 adults from June 3 to June 7 to measure public opinion on same-sex marriage; the upcoming Supreme Court decision; nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBT Americans; the acceptability of small-business owners refusing services on religious grounds; and the amount of discrimination faced by gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.
The survey found that 55 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, 65 percent expect the Supreme Court to make it legal across the country, and 62 percent feel that transgender, and gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination in today’s society.
Those numbers are down slightly from February 2014, when 71 percent believed transgender people, and 68 percent believed gay and lesbian people faced a lot of discrimination.
In contrasting Democrats and Republicans, PRRI found Republicans are far more likely to doubt that LGBT Americans face a lot of discrimination in the United States and are much less likely to support efforts to address it. Compared to 75 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of Republicans agree that transgender and people face are widely discriminated against.
And when it comes to laws that allow discrimination against members of the LGBT community, 60 percent of Americans said they oppose allowing small-business owners to refuse service to gay and lesbian people, even if it violates their religious beliefs.
http://thehill.com/regulation/244675-two-thirds-of-americans-expect-a-legal-same-sex-marriage-ruling-study-finds
-
Gays marrying kills another traditional marriage.
http://divorce.usattorneys.com/christian-couple-threatens-divorce-samesex-marriage/
-
'Civil War' And 'Endless Trauma': What Opponents Predict Will Happen If Marriage Equality Is Legalized
Jacob Kerr
jacob.kerr@huffingtonpost.com
Amanda Terkel
aterkel@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 06/17/2015
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court will issue its decision this month in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that could affirm that same-sex couples around the country have the constitutional right to marry.
Same-sex marriage is already legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia. But in the remaining states, gay couples are prohibited from marrying, and couples who were legally married in other states are barred from having their unions recognized in these non-marriage equality states.
If the Supreme Court affirms that same-sex couples can get married ... then same-sex couples will probably start getting married. But many opponents on the far right predict much more serious consequences, ranging from acts of civil disobedience to the collapse of civilization.
Below are some highlights. We'll update you on whether these predictions come true -- if we're still around to do so.
All Hell Is Going To Break Loose
house tom delay
"If this Supreme Court rules against marriage, all hell is going to break loose. In fact, I'm a signatory of a document that basically says you can rule any way you want to, but we're going to stand for marriage even if it takes civil disobedience." -- Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
The Destruction Of Our Country
justice roy moore
"I think there’s an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage and I think it will cause, literally cause the destruction of our country or lead to the destruction of our country over the long run." -- Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore
A Disastrous Ending
ben carson
"I believe God loves homosexuals as much as he loves everyone, but if we can redefine marriage as between two men or two women or any other way based on social pressures as opposed to between a man and a woman, we will continue to redefine it in any way that we wish, which is a slippery slope with a disastrous ending, as witnessed in the dramatic fall of the Roman Empire." -- GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson
A Civil War
james dobson
"The country can be no stronger than its families. I really believe if what the Supreme Court is about to do is carried through with, and it looks like it will be, then we’re going to see a general collapse in the next decade or two." -- Focus on the Family founder James Dobson
The End Of A Great Civilization
louie gohmert
"And this isn’t new, and it’s been tried over and over. And it’s usually tried at the end of a great civilization." -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
A New Era Of Civil Disobedience
pat buchanan
"If the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors preaching not acceptance but principled rejection ... The culture war in America today may be seen as squabbles in a day-care center compared to what is coming. A new era of civil disobedience may be at hand." -- Three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan
Our Country Will Fall
rick santorum
"The family is the bedrock of our society. Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall." -- GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum
An Endless Trauma
steve king
"If this court decides that they’re going to change the definition of marriage, that then throws this country into an endless trauma." -- Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
Civilization Won't Survive
todd akin
"Anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived." -- Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)
Destroy Marriage
pat robertson
"This so-called lifestyle — I just can’t believe it, they have tried to destroy marriage." -- Televangelist Pat Robertson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_7588496.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
-
Gay marriage is already legal in many other countries along with many states in the US....I wonder why all hell hasn't broken loose yet?
Has anyone seen any "endless trauma" yet?
-
Southern Baptists urged to reject any laws legalizing gay marriage
By Todd Starnes
Published June 17, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/06/17/southern-baptists-urged-to-reject-any-laws-legalizing-gay-marriage/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1434564080139.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Prepare for civil disobedience.
That’s the message one prominent pastor is sending to some 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, said American Christians should be prepared for massive fallout if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex unions.
“We want to stay in the system,” Graham told me in a telephone interview. “We want to work in the system. We want to support our government. We want to obey its laws.”
But.
“But there’s a coming a day, I believe, that many Christians personally and churches corporately will need to practice civil disobedience on this issue.”
The foundation for such a possibility was laid Wednesday morning in Columbus, Ohio where the current and former presidents of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination sent a strong message to the country.
What would it look like if 16 million Southern Baptists engaged in civil disobedience?
“We strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships,” the statement declared.
While affirming their love for all people – regardless of sexual orientation, the former Southern Baptist presidents said the “cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage.”
“Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man,” they emphatically stated.
Graham, who was elected president in 2003 and 2004, was among those signing the statement. In all – some 35 years of Southern Baptist leadership was represented.
He told me Christians must be prepared for the aftermath of a court decision that legalizes gay marriage.
“Many people must be willing to count the cost on this,” he said.
So what would it look like if 16 million Southern Baptists engaged in civil disobedience?
“I hope we never live to find out what that looks like,” Graham told me. “There are many Christians today who are preparing if necessary to go to jail.”
I’ve known Pastor Graham for years and I’ve never known him to use hyperbole. His words and his predictions are sobering. And he hopes the Supreme Court and Washington, D.C. hear what Southern Baptists are saying.
“We want them to know our voices will be heard,” he declared.
The issue of same-sex marriage has already been addressed by attendees at the denomination’s annual meeting. Delegates, known as messengers, approved a resolution opposing gay marriage and Southern Baptist Convention President Ronnie Floyd delivering a fiery sermon vowing not to obey the court’s decision.
Graham said they are calling on Southern Baptist business owners and public sector workers to stand together as well – knowing full well they could lose their jobs and careers.
“We are concerned about Southern Baptist Christians in the marketplace – in the media and corporate world,” he said.
He related the story of a deacon in his church who politely declined participation in his company’s “diversity day.”
“He’s already been sent to human resources and he received a semi-threatening letter from the CEO,” Graham said. “It’s already happening – the punishment – the discrimination.”
Denominational leaders are warning churches and Christian schools to be prepared for potential lawsuits from LGBT activists as well as the threat of losing tax exempt status.
“The punch that is most deadly is the one you don’t see coming,” Graham said. “You need to see this coming. It’s coming your way. It’s coming to a town, a city, a university, a college, a church near you,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/17/southern-baptists-urged-to-reject-any-laws-legalizing-gay-marriage.html
-
'Civil War' And 'Endless Trauma': What Opponents Predict Will Happen If Marriage Equality Is Legalized
Skip's Predictions:
1. Hard core religious types will blame every stupid tiny minute problem on the fact that it was legalized no matter how absurd the connection.
2. Nobody else will even give a flying fuck and probably not even know or care what the SCOTUS has to say.
-
Skip's Predictions:
1. Hard core religious types will blame every stupid tiny minute problem on the fact that it was legalized no matter how absurd the connection.
2. Nobody else will even give a flying fuck and probably not even know or care what the SCOTUS has to say.
I think they are overstating what will happen, although I doubt there will be zero consequences in the long run.
-
I think they are overstating what will happen, although I doubt there will be zero consequences in the long run.
clearly you know nothing about history
Todd Akin on the other hand knows something about the history of the human race and that's why he knows our civilization will not survive
"Anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived." -- Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)
BTW - does anyone here have any idea what past civilization that "condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly" Akin is referring to?
-
Apparently Louie Gohmert thinks "gay marriage" has been tried over and over.
Anybody else aware of this?
"And this isn’t new, and it’s been tried over and over. And it’s usually tried at the end of a great civilization." -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/whfeyg/louie-gohmert-on-gays-in-the-military
-
If God didn't destroy the US because of the genocide of the Native Americans or because of the slavery of the African children, then he really isn't going to give a shit about two people of the same sex marrying.
Religious idiots just need to get another brain cell and get over it.
-
Activists prepare for gay marriage decision
By Mark Preston, CNN
Thu June 18, 2015
Washington (CNN)New Mexico Pastor Steve Smothermon says he is ready to go to jail to protect his religious freedom. And he is not the only one.
Smothermon is one of more than 50,000 people who have signed a pledge to engage in social disobedience if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling this month that would legalize same sex marriage across the country.
"We want to help people, but we are not going to be forced by the government and society or the politically correct to say we are going to believe in it," said Smothermon, senior pastor of Legacy Church in Albuquerque. "If they said, 'Listen pastor, we are going to put you in jail if you don't honor this.' I am going to say, 'Then put me in jail.' "
READ: First on CNN: GOP presidential hopefuls urged to reject gay marriage
Emotions are running high as the nation waits to see how the Court will rule on whether states should be required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples and if a state should be forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in another state. Some social conservatives argue that recognizing same sex marriage will weaken the nation's moral fabric as well as their religious freedom. Supporters of a constitutional right for same sex marriage say it is high time the nation recognized these unions.
No matter how the Court rules, it is expected to have dramatic political implications in the 2016 elections and beyond.
Shifting opinion
Until recent years, same sex marriage has been an issue relegated to the shadows, as politicians either did not support or would not publicly endorse it.
And it wasn't just Republicans who opposed same sex marriage. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that defined marriage as being between a woman and man. Clinton would later disavow his decision. President Barack Obama waited until 2012, seven months before Election Day, to announce his support of the right for gays and lesbians to marry.
READ: Carson: Gay rights aren't the same as civil rights
Support of same sex marriage by elected officials tracks with changing public opinion on the issue. A majority of Americans, 63%, believe that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married, according to a May CNN/ORC International Poll. In August 2010, the CNN/ORC poll showed that 51% of Americans believed that gays and lesbians did not have a constitutional right to marry.
"It is amazing thing for someone like me, who has been in politics for 35 years now, to see in your own lifetime an issue going from being a strong negative for your party to being a strong positive the way gay marriage has," said Richard Socarides, an openly gay Democrat, who served as a senior adviser to President Clinton. "Democrats supported gay rights and never wanted to talk about it and Republicans opposed gay rights and always wanted to talk about it. It has completely shifted in a very short period of time."
The many signs of #SCOTUS
The many signs of #SCOTUS 14 photos
EXPAND GALLERY
This shift is particularly pronounced with Democrats and Independents. The 2010 CNN/ORC poll shows that 56% of Democrats and 57% of Independents supported a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to be married. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, support for a constitutional right for same sex marriage jumped to 74% for Democrats and 69% for Independents.
Republicans have also moved towards supporting same sex marriage, but a majority remains opposed. The May CNN/ORC poll showed that 60% of Republicans do not support a constitutional right to same sex marriage; in the 2010 CNN/ORC poll, 73% of Republicans were against it.
Dividing the GOP
Complicating matters for the GOP is that same sex marriage is a divisive issue within its own party. It not only pits social conservatives against centrist-leaning Republicans, but also younger people against their parents and grandparents.
The May CNN/ORC poll showed that 59% of Republican and Republican-leaning independents under the age of 50 supported a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry, while 61% did not.
READ: Rubio: Gay marriage proponents pose 'danger' to Christianity
Growing support for same sex marriage among young Republicans, polling data and the fact it is already legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia is enough for some in the party to say it is time to let the issue go. In March, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who is gay, and more than 300 GOP office holders, activists and operatives including former Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady submitted a brief to the Court expressing support for same sex marriage.
Brady, who stepped down as chairman in 2013 after sparring with social conservatives for supporting same sex marriage in Illinois, said it is not productive for the GOP to continue fighting this issue.
"When we run as the party of big ideas we do very well," said Brady. "Whether you agree or disagree on how the court has ruled, we need to focus on electing a Republican president."
Still, there is strong opposition in the GOP when it comes embracing same sex marriage, and social conservatives want to put people on the record on this issue -- specifically those running for the White House.
"We need to make sure we have presidential candidates standing up for religious liberty," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.
Brown's organization will unveil a 2016 presidential pledge Thursday, asking candidates to publicly state their support for marriage between one man and one woman. He said they would begin contacting campaigns immediately asking them to sign the pledge, much like Mitt Romney and other GOP presidential candidates did in 2012.
Already, two Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have added their names to the Defend Marriage Pledge, the online document Smothermon and 50,000 other people have signed in which they vow to ignore the Court's ruling if it violates the teachings of their faiths.
"A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order," reads the pledge. "As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line."
READ: Jeb Bush stands by opposition to same-sex marriage
Dr. Rick Scarborough, who helped launch the Defend Marriage Pledge, said it is critical for people to come together to fight for religious liberty. Scarborough, founder of the Judeo-Christian advocacy organization Vision America, said he is concerned that the government will try to force people and organizations to ignore the teachings of their faith and accept same sex marriage. In addition, he warned that if the Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage, it would a "slippery slope" resulting in the enactment of new laws that would further encroach on people's religious liberties.
Scarborough noted that California and New Jersey have already passed laws in recent years outlawing "reparative therapy," which supporters claim will help turn a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. (The American Psychiatric Association disagrees and opposes such treatment).
"The real issue for us is the effort to silence us for what we believe is true," Scarborough said.
Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the United States under President George W. Bush, said he does "not think anyone's religious liberty would be violated" if the Court rules in favor of same sex marriage.
"I do not believe someone would force a member of the clergy to perform a marriage," said Olson, who successfully argued to overturn California's prohibition on same sex marriage. But Olson did add that merchants would be prevented from asking personal questions of potential customers.
"If you are in the commercial world, just as in the case of race, I do not think if you have a bake shop you can ask someone their sexual orientation," he said.
Issues for 2016
Opponents and supporters agree that regardless of how the Court rules on same sex marriage, the issue is not going away.
"We will work to overturn any illegitimate Supreme Court ruling and we will make sure that folks understand that it is an illegitimate ruling by the Court," said Brown, who will be present outside the Court on the day of the ruling.
Adam Talbot, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization would continue to fight for equality even if the Court rules in favor of same sex marriage, because people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are "still at risk for discrimination."
And expect to hear same sex marriage and religious liberty discussed on the campaign trail in the coming months -- like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush each did this past week.
"They turn their backs on gay people who love each other," Clinton said at a campaign rally over the weekend, accusing the Republican candidates of refusing to back same sex marriage.
Bush warned that if Clinton is elected president she would work to weaken their religious freedoms.
"These have been rough years for religious charities and their right of conscience," Bush said. "And the leading Democratic candidate recently hinted of more trouble to come. Secretary Clinton insists that when the progressive agenda encounters religious beliefs to the contrary those beliefs, quote, 'have to be changed.'
"That's what she said, and I guess we should at least thank her for the warning."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage/index.html
-
Smart move by Republican canditates to alienate independent and cross over voters just to appeal to Republican voters who are already going to vote for them anyway
-
They better practice keeping their mouths shut.
This is absolutely true: "The ones calling for tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant," said the Rev. James Merritt of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth.
Foes of gay marriage say speaking out can make them a target
Shelia M. Poole and Craig Schneider, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (TNS)
June 24, 2015
ATLANTA — Alveda King is certain of two things: She'll always oppose same-sex marriage, and people will always get mad when she says so.
How could the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. oppose gay marriage? they demand to know. At times the social media jabs, angry emails or tense phone calls are threatening, she said, although recent Twitter comments were merely critical.
Tennis great Martina Navratilova, who married partner Julia Lemigova in 2014, tweeted:
"@AlvedaCKing really tired of you guys telling me and my family we are 'wrong' in about every way imaginable. Shame on you."
In an unexpected turnabout, many opponents of gay marriage will not speak publicly in 2015 because of the backlash that will follow: the charges of bigotry, intolerance or worse. Not too many years ago, it was the proponents of same-sex marriage who were publicly condemned — by some of the very folks who won't speak out today.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule any day now on the legality of same-sex marriage.
"The ones calling for tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant," said the Rev. James Merritt of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth.
The Rev. Bryant Wright of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in East Cobb noted during the recent Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Ohio, where gay marriage was at the top of the agenda, that when his church put a sign outside announcing they would discuss the topic of homosexuality, the young people in the church received a lot of criticism.
"Our students became concerned," he said. "The statements were so mocking them, so bullying them, so criticizing them. "People said to them: 'You're so hateful. Why do you go to that church?'"
He criticized gay and lesbian advocates for their aggressive approach in responding to the church's belief that gay marriage is wrong.
"It's a bullying, intimidating approach."
He said gay rights advocates "have been clever in making this a civil rights issue." But he believes it is not.
"A lot of pastors who believe in civil rights are so frustrated because they are being lumped in" with bigots, Wright said.
Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, an advocacy organization for the LGBT community, dismisses the idea that there is an organized plan to attack members of the clergy or their congregations for opposing gay marriage.
Since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2003, there have not been any instances in which a church was forced to marry a same-sex couple and a Supreme Court ruling won't change that, he said.
However, "when people directly attack our family, whether by word or deed, then there are members of the LGBT community who will point out that that is hate-mongering," he said.
Alveda King has even found her own life shared on social media. One person tweeted that King had been married three times, suggesting that she might not be the best person to talk about marriage.
"When I speak of adulterers, they don't write or call me a hypocrite and threaten to kill me," said King, who has often mentioned her divorces. "The fornicators laugh at me and tell me to get a life. When I speak out against gay marriage, the supporters of that movement threaten to kill me. "
Anytime she does an interview, she said, "it just surges. That's almost expected now. I don't get angry. I pray. I just pray."
It's not just high-profile figures feeling the heat.
Marshall Grant, an information technology worker from Roswell, opposes such unions, although he has relatives and friends who are gay. Grant says same-sex marriage goes against his Christian values, but he doesn't want to be painted as a bigot.
"Even though more people are accepting of it, they are less tolerant," said Grant, who didn't want his photo taken for this article. "The dialogue has shifted to, 'if you don't believe in gay marriage, I will not be tolerant of you.'"
Could it affect his relationships with co-workers or even his job?
"You can get fired for anything nowadays," he said. "It's a very sensitive topic. "
Experts say the widespread use and reach of social media play a big role in this feeling of being under siege.
The Internet gives "broadcast capacity" to anyone, said Dr. David Greenfield, of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction in Hartford, Conn. "Which means if you have an opinion, whether well informed or ill-informed, popular or controversial, you can have that opinion broadcast in a very large way without almost any effort."
So, for those taking unpopular stands, "it's absolutely true that you can be targeted because of freedom of speech. Unless you're defaming someone or threatening in some way, this is pretty much allowed."
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Foes-of-gay-marriage-say-speaking-out-can-make-6347487.php
-
The Internet gives "broadcast capacity" to anyone, said Dr. David Greenfield, of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction in Hartford, Conn. "Which means if you have an opinion, whether well informed or ill-informed, popular or controversial, you can have that opinion broadcast in a very large way without almost any effort."
So, for those taking unpopular stands, "it's absolutely true that you can be targeted because of freedom of speech. Unless you're defaming someone or threatening in some way, this is pretty much allowed."
You can be targeted and yes it's "allowed." But don't worry: if those targetting you are being dumb, there's a fix and it's quick and easy: more speech... imagine that.
-
You can be targeted and yes it's "allowed." But don't worry: if those targetting you are being dumb, there's a fix and it's quick and easy: more speech... imagine that.
It isn't just the fact they are targeted. It's the attempt to silence them through threats and intimidation. You cannot easily and quickly fix that kind of intimidation.
I think you are mixing how to respond to speech that you find offensive (answer: more speech) with how to respond to threats, intimidation, censorship, etc. I don't think you can approach them the same way.
-
Some people really gonna whine and gnash their teeth over the decision. Sucks to be them.
-
It isn't just the fact they are targeted. It's the attempt to silence them through threats and intimidation. You cannot easily and quickly fix that kind of intimidation.
I think you are mixing how to respond to speech that you find offensive (answer: more speech) with how to respond to threats, intimidation, censorship, etc. I don't think you can approach them the same way.
Sure. But that's nothing new - extremists are extremists for a reason.
-
It isn't just the fact they are targeted. It's the attempt to silence them through threats and intimidation. You cannot easily and quickly fix that kind of intimidation.
I think you are mixing how to respond to speech that you find offense (answer: more speech) with how to respond to threats, intimidation, censorship, etc. I don't think you can approach them the same way.
yes, very similar to how blacks protesting for equal rights were threatened, attacked, beaten, lynched, had their churches bombed, had crosses burned on their lawns, etc..
or how abortion doctors are threatened, attacked and murdered
you and your people are experiencing those same things ?
-
Some people really gonna whine and gnash their teeth over the decision. Sucks to be them.
Let the whining begin. Or better yet, a mass exodus of the bigots as they flee to better countries.
-
Sure. But that's nothing new - extremists are extremists for a reason.
It's not just extremism. It's the attempt to silence opposition.
It's one thing to have an opinion; even an unpopular one. It's quite another to tell others they cannot express opposing viewpoints without being persecuted.
-
Scalia: 'This Court' is a ‘Threat to American Democracy’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
June 26, 2015
(http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_50p/s3/supreme_court-ap_photo-2.jpg?itok=O2whPX0A)
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
(CNSNews.com) - In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage was a right, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that this Supreme Court has become a “threat to American democracy.
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” Scalia said.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
Here is an excerpt of a key passage from Scalia’s decion:
I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/scalia-court-threat-american-democracy?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-scalia-court-threat
-
It's not just extremism. It's the attempt to silence opposition.
It's one thing to have an opinion; even an unpopular one. It's quite another to tell others they cannot express opposing viewpoints without being persecuted.
you have a right to express your opinion
you have no right to be free from criticism by others for having that opinion
no one is persecuting you by just criticizing or objecting to your opinion
-
I'm no El Profeta, but I've been predicting this for years. Not surprised at all.
Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states
Published June 26, 2015
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.
Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. But in a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples and to recognize such marriages performed in other states.
The ruling means the remaining 14 states that did not allow such unions, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans. Already, gay marriages were underway Friday in several states where they had been banned. A court in Atlanta issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples Friday morning, soon after the decision. Other licenses reportedly were issued in Arkansas and Texas -- where Gov. Greg Abbott also issued a memo directing state agency heads to protect religious liberties.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996.
"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices. He continued: "Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right."
The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally. Cheers broke out outside the Supreme Court when the decision was announced.
Speaking in the Rose Garden, as he did a day earlier after the high court upheld a key component of his health care overhaul, President Obama called the ruling a "victory for America."
The president said it would "end the patchwork system we currently have" and the uncertainty gay couples face over whether their unions will be recognized in other states.
"This ruling will strengthen all of our communities," Obama said.
But other justices argued that the court should not be able to order states to change their marriage definition. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, called the ruling an "extraordinary step."
"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."
Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Each of the four dissenting justices also wrote a separate dissent. Prominent social conservatives, meanwhile, blasted the decision. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said it puts the government on a "collision course with America's cherished religious freedoms."
The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere. They previously had their bans upheld by a federal appeals court.
Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.
The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/
-
Scalia: 'This Court' is a ‘Threat to American Democracy’
Roberts is going to have to give Scalia a good talking-to. Let him know it's time to move liberal, as Roberts has.
-
I'm no El Profeta, but I've been predicting this for years. Not surprised at all.
Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states
Published June 26, 2015
FoxNews.com
yeah, you and tens of millions of other people
congratulations
-
Roberts is going to have to give Scalia a good talking-to. Let him know it's time to move liberal, as Roberts has.
For all his faults, and he has many, Scalia is a much better jurist than Roberts.
-
finally.
case closed
move along, there's nothing to see here.
-
Scalia: 'This Court' is a ‘Threat to American Democracy’
Well he can take his little prolapsed asshole and serve on another court in another country if he doesn't like this one.
Talk about a whiny little bitch.
-
finally.
case closed
move along, there's nothing to see here.
Actually it's on to triad marriages, more lawsuits involving religious organizations and people of faith, civil disobedience, etc. It's not going to change the court's ruling, but I wouldn't say the entire issue is being put to rest.
-
Dershowitz: Obama has 'Chutzpah' to Take Credit For Marriage Ruling
By Bill Hoffmann
Friday, 26 Jun 2015
President Barack Obama has "chutzpah" to claim some credit for the Supreme Court's landmark endorsement of same-sex marriage, renowned civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV.
"I wasn't surprised [at the ruling]. What surprises me is that President Obama is taking any credit for this," Dershowitz said Friday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" following the court's 5-4 ruling.
"He ran twice against gay marriage and it was only when he was not running for re-election, when the polls showed the vast majority of Americans supported gay marriage, that he had the courage of his convictions to come out and support it.
"So it takes a little bit of chutzpah for him to get on the radio and claim some credit … His Justice Department supported it, but for years they did not support it but that's true of most politicians. They blow with the wind."
In a speech at the White House Rose Garden, the president said, "There's so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to every American. But today we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we've made our union a little more perfect."
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already could wed in 36 states and the District of Columbia — but the 5-4 ruling means the other 14 states must lift their bans on same-sex marriage.
Dershowitz — a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas," published by RosettaBooks — said that the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage is "something that was inevitable."
"Even if the Supreme Court had not ruled in favor of gay marriage, within five or 10 years, every state would have legislated gay marriage because it's the trend," Dershowitz said.
"And so the question really is, is this the role of the courts or is this the role of the legislator? This was inevitable. It was going to happen, but is it better to come through the judiciary or is it better to come from the people? And that's an argument reasonable people can disagree about."
Dershowitz, a Newsmax contributor, said he believes that issues such as same-sex marriage are better decided by the people.
"Roe v. Wade — it would've been much better if the right of a woman to choose an abortion came from the legislatures instead from on high," he said.
He noted that the tides have dramatically turned from when America was founded.
"If you asked the framers of our Constitution 225 years ago, they would've laughed at you. Thomas Jefferson thought that gay people should get the death penalty," Dershowitz told Steve Malzberg.
"If you asked any justices in the Supreme Court 20 years ago, they would've laughed at you. Fifty years ago, if a lawyer had raised this question, he probably would've been subjected to sanctions. This is the quickest turnaround ever in constitutional history ... It's a great victory for those of us who realized that we have a living Constitution, that you can't treat the Constitution as if the words were there, to be interpreted as they were intended back in the 1800s."
Dershowitz said the Supreme Court's ruling will in no way trample on religious freedoms.
"No priest is going to have to marry two men or rabbis are going to have to marry two men. Nobody is going to have to violate their religious rights," he said.
"People who say that they have a religious right not to sell flowers to gay people, that's absurd. There's no religion that says you can't sell flowers to gay people or you can't cater their wedding. But you can't be forced to perform a rabbinical or a priestly function.
"We try very hard to balance liberty, equality, religious freedom, religious views and it's a work in progress. It's never perfect, but we're getting it right for the most part."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alan-Dershowitz-Same-Sex-Marriage-Marriage-Equality-Gay-Rights/2015/06/26/id/652438/#ixzz3eCv6Z8pa
-
Actors, Celebs Whoop With Joy at US Gay Marriage Ruling
Friday, 26 Jun 2015
Actors, singers and Hollywood celebrities, many of whom have played a major role in driving acceptance of gay rights in mainstream culture, whooped with joy at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that made gay marriage legal nationwide on Friday.
Twitter lit up after the historic decision, with #LoveWins, accompanied by a rainbow-colored heart, and #Supreme Court quickly becoming the top trending items on the social media site.
Celebrities such as British singer Elton John and U.S. comedian Ellen DeGeneres, both of whom are in same-sex marriages, have spoken out in support of gay unions for years.
Popular American TV shows "Will & Grace", "Glee" and comedy "Modern Family" also are widely credited with playing an influential role in changing the perception of gays, lesbians and transgender people in the United States and beyond.
Following are some celebrity reactions to Friday's ruling, delivered via Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and statements:
Madonna, Singer
"Finally And at Last! The Revolution Of Love has Begun!"
Lady Gaga, Singer
"Same-sex marriage is now legal all across the US! Free to love. Free to marry. Free to be equal!"
Leonardo Dicaprio, Actor
"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Katy Perry, Singer
"Really encouraged to be an American today... Love should live beyond labels & intolerance!"
Neil Patrick Harris, Actor
"It's a new day. Thank you Supreme Court. Thank you Justice Kennedy. Your opinion is profound, in more ways than you may know"
Ellen Degeneres, Actress And Tv Talk Show Host
"Love won."
Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Actor And Star Of Tv Comedy "Modern Family"
"Hugely emotional that marriage equality has finally come to the U.S. History! Love ALWAYS wins."
Liza Minnelli, Actress And Singer
"I have always said that everyone has the right to love who they love and today, with the historic decision from the Supreme Court, I am so happy it is now the law of the land."
Ian Mckellen, British Actor
"America now joins in all the other countries that have been doing the same thing. I think it's going to be a rapid domino effect. It will have a big effect beyond these shores, I hope."
George Takei, Former "Star Trek" Actor
"This is a happy day, not just for LGBT Americans, but for all Americans. It is the beginning of an era where we no longer will speak about same-sex marriage, but of marriage. And one day, we need not speak of LGBT rights, for they simply will be human rights. Across this great land, families are celebrating because we truly are one family."
Marc Jacobs, Fashion Designer
"Seems I'm always a bridesmaid and never a bride! Still, my heart is huge with this great news!! We can love who we want and how we want!!!"
Sam Smith, Grammy-Award Winning British Singer
"All 50 STATES!!!! So happy. Times are changing my friends. We have such a long way to go and so much more fighting to do so I hope nobody stops and thinks everything's ok because it isn't, BUT it's days like today, and moments like this that we've all gotta have a drink and celebrate how far we have come. I couldn't be prouder to be gay x love to all x"
Lance Bass, Singer, Former Member Of NSYNC
"We are so proud to be American today! All of our #LGBTbrothers and sisters can now love freely! Thank you #SupremeCourt for doing the right thing."
Seth Macfarlane, Director, Creator Of Tv's "Family Guy"
"Congratulations America for finally catching up to the modern era with this landmark step forward for gay and lesbian rights."
Whoopi Goldberg, Actress
"BRAVO Supreme Court!!! We knew you had it in you. . . looking out for equality and looking out for healthcare. It's a good day in America!!!!!!"
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hollywood-gay-marriage/2015/06/26/id/652437/#ixzz3eCwp7fWE
-
Actually it's on to triad marriages, more lawsuits involving religious organizations and people of faith, civil disobedience, etc. It's not going to change the court's ruling, but I wouldn't say the entire issue is being put to rest.
certainly plenty of biblical precedent for that so I assume you're all for it
-
For all his faults, and he has many, Scalia is a much better jurist than Roberts.
roberts is a left wing puppet now. He and hilary will wreck what is left of the constitution and the borders.
all the john roberts puppets from a few years back...
-
‘Court is not a legislature’: Roberts rips gay marriage ruling, day after he backed ObamaCare
Published June 26, 2015
FoxNews.com
A day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided squarely with the Obama administration on the health care overhaul, the same jurist came out swinging against the court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
In his dissenting opinion -- which he read from the bench for the first time in his nearly 10 years as chief justice -- Roberts charged Friday that the court had no right to intervene in what should be a democratic debate by the people, at the state level, over same-sex marriage.
"This court is not a legislature," he wrote. "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."
As for the state's role, he said: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."
The dissent underscored how unpredictable -- and to his critics, confounding -- the chief justice, appointed by a Republican president, can be.
He has earned many critics on the right for, twice, helping save vital elements of the Affordable Care Act -- conservative justices effectively accused him of twisting the law to save ObamaCare in Thursday's ruling. But in his dissent on the 5-4 gay marriage ruling, Roberts accused others on the court of, similarly, overstepping their bounds.
"It does sound like two different people," said Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News.
Roberts wrote in Friday's dissent: "The Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration.
"... But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens --- through the democratic process -- to adopt their view. That ends today."
Roberts was joined by two other conservative justices on the court -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- who each filed their own dissenting opinions.
"Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept," Roberts wrote.
The other dissenting justices were no less critical.
Scalia wrote: "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."
And Samuel Alito wrote: "The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women.
"Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."
But Roberts' dissent was striking, a day after his opinion upheld ObamaCare subsidies. That case centered on whether the language of the law, which technically limited subsidies to policies in exchanges set up by the states, could also apply to policies bought through the federal exchange. Roberts and the six-justice majority said Congress intended subsidies to be available for all.
His conservative colleagues viewed this as an overreach.
"We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Scalia wrote, joined by Thomas and Alito.
But on gay marriage, the conservatives stood together, particular on the issue of the high court's right to decide what they said was a state issue.
On this, the majority strongly disagreed.
"The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who read the majority opinion. As for the court's role, he said:
"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/court-is-not-legislature-roberts-rips-same-sex-marriage-ruling-day-after-backed/
-
On this, the majority strongly disagreed.
"The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who read the majority opinion. As for the court's role, he said:
"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act."
-
certainly plenty of biblical precedent for that so I assume you're all for it
BOOOOMM!!!
-
roberts is a left wing puppet now. He and hilary will wreck what is left of the constitution and the borders.
all the john roberts puppets from a few years back...
Take a chill pill.
-
If God didn't destroy the US because of the genocide of the Native Americans or because of the slavery of the African children, then he really isn't going to give a shit about two people of the same sex marrying.
Religious idiots just need to get another brain cell and get over it.
Gays getting married is a SIN!!
Genocide and slavery is fine.
-
So to all the idiots proclaiming they will move, or self immolate, or divorce their own spouses, or go to jail, etc...
When does the festive actions take place?
-
He is a real piece of work.
Obama: Americans need to shift religious views to accept gay marriage
June 27, 2015
After the Supreme Court issued its ruling on gay marriage Friday, President Obama gave a speech in which he said Americans need to change their religious views to be accepting of gay marriage, the Daily Caller reported. To that end, he encouraged gay marriage supporters to "help” people overcome their deeply-held religious views.
“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said. Initially, he exhibited a bit of respect for those who oppose same-sex marriage.
"Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”
"But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he added. The implication was clear: Those who disagree with the idea of gay marriage based, for example, on their religious views, must change to be more like progressives who accept gay marriage.
“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he added. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”
"That’s always been our story," he continued. "We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”
A post at the conservative blog Chicks on the Right posted it's translation of Obama's comments. "All you crazy religious people who believe in traditional marriage need to change your beliefs!" the blog said. "They're holding you back from joining up with the rest of us super-smart people who aren't burdened by those pesky moral standards given to you by a Higher Power. We know soooooo much better than you and we certainly know soooooo much better than God! Drop the religion crap already and come join us in supporting something you find morally repugnant! Give it time - you'll get over it soon enough!"
The blog also saw something of a threat in Obama's comments. "This is our chance to choose to jump up and party with all the same-sex marriage celebrators before you come down and force us to do it?" the blog asked. "What are you going to do if we're still not on board with it? If we still cling to God and religion? 'Cause I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that God will have something to say about that in a future day."
Obama, as we reported in 2012, has spent some time shifting and evolving on the issue of gay marriage. In February 1996, he wrote on a candidate questionnaire: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” In 2011, however, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer claimed the statement was written by someone else.
"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he said during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. In 2008, he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage.
In 2012, he came on board with gay marriage, apparently reverting back to his 1996 position. But as we reported at the time, there was one caveat. He still supported the states' right to decide the matter for themselves.
Celebrating the Supreme Court decision, the White House was lit up in the colors of the gay rainbow flag Friday. The Interior Department marked it with a picture of two men kissing on the edge of Colorado's Black Canyon, drawing praise from many and criticism from others.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-americans-need-to-shift-religious-views-to-accept-gay-marriage
-
Obama is wrong
You are free to have whatever idiotic religious belief that you want in this country.
What you don't get to do is claim your religious beliefs supersedes the laws that everyone has to follow
If your religious beliefs are in conflict with your job then find a new job because you're not qualified or capable of doing whatever job it is that is creating the conflict
Also, although you are free to believe whatever idiotic thing that you want you're not able to claim exemption from criticism for those beliefs
-
Funny and sad at the same time.
Bill Donohue to Gay Pride Rowdies: Spit at Me and I'll Clock You
By Bill Hoffmann
Monday, 29 Jun 2015
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, erupted in fury on Monday at reports that Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and noted Fox News religion analyst, was spat on at the Gay Pride Parade in New York City.
"If some gay guy — or a straight guy — starts spitting in my face, I'll floor them. That's the right answer," Donohue told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
On Sunday, Morris tweeted that he was in downtown Manhattan when "I ran into gay marriage parade. Two men walked by and spat on me. Oh well ... I deserve worse."
In another tweet, Morris, who also serves in campus ministry at Columbia University, appeared to forgive them, adding: "The two men who spat on me are probably very good man [sic] caught up in excitement and past resentment. Most in that parade would not do that."
But Donohue — author of "The Catholic Advantage: Why Health, Happiness, and Heaven Await the Faithful," published by Image — is not as forgiving.
"This idea that we are just piñatas, like a doormat to be walked upon, is because you've got some of these fascistic elements in the gay community doing this kind of thing," he told Steve Malzberg.
"Can you imagine if, in the St. Patrick's Day Parade, that some of the people there would spit upon some of the gays, for example, who are saying we want inclusion? That would be front page all over the place...."
Donohue believes that the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states is just the beginning for the groups who were celebrating the ruling.
"They don't really care about marriage equality. What they want is to force the churches, the mosques, the synagogues, all the churches to fall in line and do exactly what they want us to do," he said.
Donohue is also concerned about some recent appointments of bishops by Pope Francis.
"[They are] very soft on gay marriage. He just appointed one in Berlin. I don't know what's going on quite frankly. A lot of Catholics are scratching their heads," Donohue told Steve Malzberg.
"The Pope is very much a maverick. I appreciate his comments on same-sex marriage made in the past … but you take a look at some of the appointments that he's made, including in this country, I begin to wonder.
"I hope that he stays a steady course on this. He's done a lot of good work, but you're dealing with somebody who's a little bit unpredictable."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/catholic-league-bill-donohue-gay/2015/06/29/id/652737/#ixzz3eZqhMWO8
-
The fallout is coming. If you have a faith-based belief in traditional marriage and/or homosexuality, you are a "bigot." Although the marriage issue is over, the consequences are not.
ABC/Univision Network Editor: Tax 'Fanatical,' 'Bigoted' Churches
By Matthew Balan
June 30, 2015
On Monday, Fusion senior editor Felix Salmon echoed New York Times writer Mark Oppenheimer's call for the end of the tax exemption of religious institutions, but took it one step further: he called for the specific targeting of churches that "remain steadfastly bigoted on the subject" of same-sex "marriage." Salmon contended on Fusion.net that "if your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you're in the wrong. And it should certainly not bend over backwards to give you the privilege of tax exemption."
The former Reuters financial blogger, who left in 2014 to work for Fusion (a joint project between ABC and Univision), began his article, "Does your church ban gay marriage? Then it should start paying taxes," by underlining that "now that the US government formally recognizes marriage equality as a fundamental right, it really shouldn't skew the tax code so as to give millions of dollars in tax breaks to groups which remain steadfastly bigoted on the subject. I'm talking, of course, about churches."
Salmon, a native of the United Kingdom, asserted that "for all that the US Constitution mandates the separation of church and state, the two do overlap in quite a few areas...One of those areas is taxation: the US government subsidizes churches to the tune of many billions of dollars per year by giving them tax-exempt status." He added that "it's important to note that the tax exemption for churches and other religious organizations is not embedded in the Constitution...Taxation is a purely secular affair, and by default it applies to everybody equally, whether they're a religious institution or not."
The Fusion senior editor argued that "it would be unconstitutional to single out religious institutions to make them pay more tax than anybody else, but the government has every right to stop giving them special tax-free privileges." But he soon contradicted himself, as he made it clear that he supported punishing "bigoted" churches who oppose same-sex "marriage:"
It's abundantly clear that religious institutions have no right to tax exemption. Most famously, in 1983, Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status when it continued to ban interracial dating....In the Bob Jones case, the US government made a very important statement. It's not enough, they said, to support the right of interracial couples to date and get married; it's also important to register official disapproval of any organizations which fail to support that right. To be given exemption from paying taxes is a special privilege bestowed by the state on deserving organizations. But there's nothing deserving about an organization which bans interracial dating. So, the state is entirely within its powers to remove that privilege.
The same argument can and should be applied to gay marriage. If your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you're in the wrong. And it should certainly not bend over backwards to give you the privilege of tax exemption.
Salmon then brushed aside religious liberty concerns, and had the audacity to suggest to conservative that they should support his attack on dissenting religious groups:
We have religious freedom in this country, and any religious organization is entirely free to espouse whatever crazy views it likes. But when those views are fanatical and hurtful, they come into conflict with the views of any honorable legislator who believes in freedom and equality. And at that point, it makes perfect sense for our elected representatives to register their disapproval by abolishing the tax exemption for organizations who cling to narrow-minded and anachronistic views.
Conservatives should not object. The libertarian position here is simple and clear: everybody has freedom of conscience, including religious organizations; the tax code should apply equally to all; and the government should not be in the business of "picking winners", and deciding who does and who doesn't qualify for tax exemptions. So, abolish tax exemption for all religious organizations, whether they support gay marriage or not. Religion is concerned with spiritual matters; when it comes to taxes, the general principle is "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Which is to say, give to the country's secular monetary authorities that which you owe in tax.
The writer concluded by claiming that "it is entirely right and proper for the state to say to a church that if you want to thumb your nose at a fundamental right which is held by all Americans, then we are not going to privilege you with tax-free status. We'll let you practice your bigotry, at least within the confines of your own church. But we're not about to reward you for doing so."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2015/06/30/abcunivision-network-editor-tax-crazy-bigoted-churches#sthash.k8VpInBW.dpuf
-
Outrage After Iconic Iwo Jima Photo Is Recreated With Gay Pride Flag
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/2015/07/01/780/438/070115_iwojimaphoto.jpg)
Jul 01, 2015
As seen on The Kelly File
The iconic 1945 photo of Marines raising the American flag over Iwo Jima has been recreated with the gay pride flag.
The recreated image shows four muscular, skin-baring men raising a rainbow flag in place of the Marines and the American flag.
Brian Kilmeade reported on "The Kelly File" tonight that the controversial photo was taken nearly 10 years ago and appeared on the cover of a gay magazine at the time.
The photo began re-circulating last week after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in a historic Supreme Court ruling.
Kilmeade said the photographer, Ed Freeman, was shocked by the hate mail and backlash he has received on social media.
Watch Megyn's and Brian's discussion above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/01/gay-pride-photo-recreation-iconic-iwo-jima-image-sparks-outrage
-
Outrage After Iconic Iwo Jima Photo Is Recreated With Gay Pride Flag
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/2015/07/01/780/438/070115_iwojimaphoto.jpg)
Jul 01, 2015
As seen on The Kelly File
The iconic 1945 photo of Marines raising the American flag over Iwo Jima has been recreated with the gay pride flag.
The recreated image shows four muscular, skin-baring men raising a rainbow flag in place of the Marines and the American flag.
Brian Kilmeade reported on "The Kelly File" tonight that the controversial photo was taken nearly 10 years ago and appeared on the cover of a gay magazine at the time.
The photo began re-circulating last week after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in a historic Supreme Court ruling.
Kilmeade said the photographer, Ed Freeman, was shocked by the hate mail and backlash he has received on social media.
Watch Megyn's and Brian's discussion above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/01/gay-pride-photo-recreation-iconic-iwo-jima-image-sparks-outrage
LOL @ outrage over a ten year old photo that appeared on the cover of a gay magazine
who gives a shit
can't you fundies find something serious to get angry about
-
LOL @ outrage over a ten year old photo that appeared on the cover of a gay magazine
who gives a shit
can't you fundies find something serious to get angry about
10 years old? LOL!!!!
-
Can't this issue die already. Die, die, die...
-
Can't this issue die already. Die, die, die...
The issue of homosexual marriage being legal is dead/decided. The fallout, unfortunately, is not.
-
The issue of homosexual marriage being legal is dead/decided. The fallout, unfortunately, is not.
Probably true. Libtard rules are generally along the lines of gay people can be offended at any stupid, tiny, little thing, but straight people may not be offended by anything they do or say. Then it's all ok.
-
The issue of homosexual marriage being legal is dead/decided. The fallout, unfortunately, is not.
yes, the fallout like you and Fox news being offended over a ten year old photo from the cover of a gay magazine
-
Probably true. Libtard rules are generally along the lines of gay people can be offended at any stupid, tiny, little thing, but straight people may not be offended by anything they do or say. Then it's all ok.
Truth.
-
Truth.
nonsense
Obama is wrong
You are free to have whatever idiotic religious belief that you want in this country.
What you don't get to do is claim your religious beliefs supersedes the laws that everyone has to follow
If your religious beliefs are in conflict with your job then find a new job because you're not qualified or capable of doing whatever job it is that is creating the conflict
Also, although you are free to believe whatever idiotic thing that you want but you're not able to claim exemption from criticism for those beliefs
Faux News is one big 24/7 cryfest of being offended so straight people (everyone at Faux News is straight, even the gay people) clearly have no problem vocalizing all the things that offend them in the world
-
nonsense
Faux News is one big 24/7 cryfest of being offended so straight people (everyone at Faux News is straight, even the gay people) clearly have no problem vocalizing all the things that offend them in the world
remember when repubs used to be tough? FOX is offended 24/7, just like msnbs. always butthurt, always outraged, always "offensive statements made..."
They'are not about solutions, they're about bitching.
-
Episcopalians Vote to Allow Gay Marriage in Churches
Thursday, 02 Jul 2015
The Episcopal Church has completed its embrace of gay rights, changing church law to allow same-sex religious marriages throughout the denomination, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide.
The new policy won overwhelming approval from the top Episcopal legislative body Wednesday, following decades of debate and conflict. It came 12 years after the denomination blazed a trail by electing the first openly gay bishop.
"To finally get to this day is an incredible moment," said the Rev. Cynthia Black, of Morristown, New Jersey, a lesbian who has been campaigning for gay acceptance for years. "It is the beginning. It is not the end. There will still be people excluded, but at least we've gotten to this point."
The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention. Many dioceses in the New York-based church of nearly 1.9 million members already had been allowing their priests to perform civil same-sex weddings, using a trial prayer service to bless the couple. Still, the church hadn't changed its own laws on marriage until Wednesday.
The new law eliminates gender-specific language on marriage so same-sex couples could have religious weddings. Instead of "husband" and "wife," for example, the new church law will refer to "the couple." Clergy can decline to perform the ceremonies.
The changes were approved 173-27 by the House of Deputies, a voting body of clergy and lay people. The deputies also approved a gender-neutral prayer service for marriage on a 184-23 vote. The House of Bishops had given authorization for both measures a day earlier.
The measures take effect the first Sunday of Advent, Nov. 29.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the Anglican Communion, an 80 million-member global fellowship of churches. Ties among Anglicans have been strained since Episcopalians in 2003 elected Bishop Gene Robinson, who lived openly with his male partner, to lead the Diocese of New Hampshire. Many more conservative Episcopalians either split off or distanced themselves from the national U.S. church after Robinson's election.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, earlier this week expressed deep concern about the move to change the definition of marriage.
During debate Wednesday, the Rev. Jose Luis Mendoza-Barahona of Honduras said the new church law goes against the Bible and would create a chasm in the church.
"The fight has not ended, it's starting," he said during debate at the convention. "Those of us in the church who are loyal followers of Christ are going to remain firm in not recognizing what happened today."
But in an interview after the vote, Robinson said he was "delighted" and "proud" of the church.
"It's a day I wasn't sure I would live to see," said Robinson, who is now retired. "What we're seeing I think in the Episcopal Church, and last week with the Supreme Court decision, is an entire culture evolving into understanding that gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender people contribute just as much as anyone else to this society and deserve all the same rights."
The Episcopal Church joins two other mainline Protestant groups that allow gay marriage in all their congregations: the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The 3.8-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets its congregations decide for themselves, and many of them host gay weddings.
The United Methodist Church, by far the largest mainline Protestant church with 12.8 million members, bars gay marriage, although many of its clergy have been officiating at same-sex weddings recently in protest.
Black and her wife Becky Walker, who had a commitment ceremony in their home in 1988 and formally married four years ago in Massachusetts, said they hoped the changes would help reverse dwindling church membership, drawing young people looking for a welcoming religion. Faith groups across the spectrum of belief, from the Episcopal Church to the Southern Baptists, have been losing members as more Americans say they identify with no particular religion. The Episcopal Church has shrunk 18 percent over the last decade, after more than a generation of steady decline.
"People under the age of 30 don't understand what the fuss is about. They've grown up having LGBT folks as their friends and part of their life," Black said. "They don't understand why the church would ever exclude them."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Episcopal-Church-allows-Gay/2015/07/01/id/653158/#ixzz3equq4q4E
-
finally.
so pleased with my church.
-
Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would OK Gay Marriage, Some Abortion
By Andrew Miller
July 7, 2015
Liberals love to define the Bible the way they want. This time it was the 39th U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
About half way through the interview on Huffington Post Live, Carter was asked his opinion of gay marriage, to which he gave the obligatory, “That’s no problem with me. You know, I think everybody should have the right to get married regardless of their sex.”
Carter then switched to the topic of abortion, noting his not-quite-pro-choice stance. He supported this by saying that Jesus would not approve of abortion, except in cases of rape and incest (because suddenly God wouldn’t care about the inherent value of a life in these instances, of course).
But then, interviewer Marc Lamont Hill herded Carter back over to gay marriage where the following ensued:
Carter skipped the point where Jesus defined a relationship between a man and a woman in Mark 19:4-6. Here is the NIV version from Biblehub.com:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Pretty clear to anyone except a former president.
Carter followed on the heels of actor Ryan Reynolds, who appeared on HuffPost yesterday, calling gay marriage opponents ‘monsters.’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/andrew-miller/2015/07/07/jimmy-carter-jesus-would-ok-gay-marriage-some-abortion#sthash.DnqXGX9v.dpuf
-
Nobody cherry picks from the Bible more often than conservatives.
-
:-\
Democrats demand ‘bigoted’ words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ be removed from federal laws
July 10, 2015
Michael Schaus
Democrats are playing word games again.
If you say “husband” or “wife,” you may be bigoted and not even know it, some Democrats apparently think.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide, more than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the “gendered” words “husband” and “wife” from federal laws and replace them with “gender-neutral” words like “spouse” and “married couple.”
“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination,” said California Democrat Rep. Lois Capps, according to the Washington Examiner.
Democrats have apparently declared a war on traditional words now that the Supreme Court has handed them a victory in the war on traditional marriage.
“I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages,” Capps said.
Saying that “our values as a country are reflected in our laws,” Capps argued that the change is needed to help put an end to subtle prejudices.
In addition to making federal regulations and laws friendlier to gay marriage, Capps said the move would have other “benefits” for minority groups such as women.
As an example, her office noted that federal law makes it a crime to threaten the president’s wife but says nothing about the president’s husband, which she says illustrates an implied prejudice against women’s holding the highest office in the land.
The bill “would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the president’s ‘spouse,’” her office said.
The Examiner notes that the specific example of presidential spouses might be a nod to the candidacy of Democrat 2016 front-runner Hillary Clinton. After all, it’s unlikely Capps is thinking about Republican Carly Fiorina’s chances at the White House.
When the “social justice” warriors in the Democrat Party start nitpicking “gendered” words in the federal register, it may be safe to assume legislators have a little too much time on their hands.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/07/10/democrats-demand-bigoted-words-husband-and-wife-be-removed-from-federal-laws-223113#ixzz3fn0FOaHh