Ban on Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Upheld By Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Reversing Trend

6th CircuitCINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld state bans on same-sex “marriage” in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Thursday, reversing a year-long trend in the federal courts to strike down such state restrictions as being unconstitutional.

“A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Sutton, appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, on behalf of the majority.

“No one here claims that the states’ original definition of marriage was unconstitutional when enacted. The plaintiffs’ claim is that the states have acted irrationally in standing by the traditional definition in the face of changing social mores,” he continued. “[But] how can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new definition of marriage?”

Sutton also rebuffed claims that homosexual relationships were entitled to be recognized as marriages simply because they have feelings for each other.

“Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love,” he said. “Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot.”

“If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage,” Sutton asserted. “[But] the predicament does not end there. No state is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable…”

The circuit judge was joined by Judge Deborah Cook in his opinion, also nominated by Bush. Judge Martha Daughtrey was the sole dissenter, rejecting her colleagues contentions that the courts should stay out of the institution of marriage.

  • Connect with Christian News

“If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances …. prove to be nothing but shams,” she wrote.

The matter is now expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the court declined to hear several same-sex “marriage” cases this year following a string of lower court decisions declaring state amendments as running afoul to the federal Constitution, some believe that the nine justices may agree to consider the matter next year.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Neiman

    A. This Court was right, this is a state rights issue to be decided by the people in each state, not legislators or judges.
    B. The cowardly Supreme Court will keep kicking the ball down the field as long as the cowards can, eventually making a complicated non-ruling that will make gay marriage the law of the land.
    C. Gay marriage was inevitable, when in 1962 God was kicked out of the public square in America, the sexual revolution ignited and this was a sure end result.
    D. America will become completely libertine and degenerate and God will continue to judge America and bring us lower and lower in world standings, power and wealth, as He should, but who cares, we can all eat, drink and play until the end, right?

    • Phipps Mike

      Neiman,

      you are in error. The judge DID say it should be up to the legislators: “He also said it was up to legislators, not life-tenured judges…”

      ” God will continue to judge America and bring us lower and lower in world standings, power and wealth…”

      correction: the Republicans are going to bring our wealth down. Outsourcing our jobs, expecting us to work for slave wages and then taking away all the welfare they can in one big fell swoop. Kill the poor and spoil the rich is their intent.

      • Neiman

        I am NEVER wrong, sometimes not exactly right, but NEVER wrong. 🙂

        I was not saying what the judges said, I was stating my belief in the ancient Constitutional idea, long ago discarded by you on the Left that, this is a nation, “of, by and for the people,” and they are not subjects of judges or legislators, but they are to make their will known and decide what is best for their own states in such matters.

        It is not the GOP, but Democrats that are destroying our economy, however, that is not the issue, it is because liberals kicked God out of the affairs of this nation in 1962 that God has lifted His hand of protection and blessings from our land and the State, in the hands of either party, is being destroyed because we are now enemies of God.

        • Krauss Allie

          Neiman, this is in fact NOT a state’s rights issue. We do not leave issues of civil liberties to the whim of the people. Doing so will lead to the minority suffering at the will of the majority. States could then vote to reinstate slavery, or prevent Jews from owning businesses, or keep Muslims from wearing the hijab. The majority could even decide they want to prevent two men or two women who love each other as deeply and sincerely as any husband loves his wife, from having the very same fulfillment and commitment a marriage provides. Can you imagine how horrible this would be?

          If you remember your civics lessons you know the United States is not a true democracy. It is a constitutional republic… and that constitution is there to ensure the rights of the weakest among us are never trampled by the desires of the strong and powerful. It is for this very reason that within our lifetimes, gay marriage will be legal in all fifty states and believe me, I’m truly looking forward to that great day.

          • Freedomrequiresresponsibility

            NOT every “whim of the people” is a civil liberties issue.

            In the United States, there are no death squads of the government running around dragging homosexuals from their clubs, houses, beds and executing them in the street. Nobody is kicking children out of schools and saying they aren’t allowed back because they are queer. Nobody is firing people for being gay. Nobody was hanging signs at the polling places this week saying “no gays get to vote.” Nobody is even saying that they can’t live together openly…….so your “civil liberty” issue, has nothing to do with civil liberties………

            The People have long held that a marriage was between a man and a woman, now all of the sudden certain people think it should be between any adult and whatever he/she/it wants the document to say that he/she/it is married to……The People have spoken in almost every state to reaffirm marriage as being between a man and a woman, EVEN CALIFORNIA…..only corrupt judges and politicians have said otherwise, usually after the crowd of voters had already reaffirmed the original meaning of the word marriage by a vote….. and yet YOU think that it is a civil liberty issue despite nobody being deprived of their life, freedom or belongings…

          • Phipps Mike

            ” despite nobody being deprived of their life, freedom or belongings…”
            they deserve the SAME financial breaks that hetero married couples get. They also adopt children so they should get to claim for the children as well on their income tax returns. They should also get the right to make decisions regarding their significant other while in the hospital (end of life decisions).
            YOU just cant handle the fact that men can LOVE EACH OTHER.

          • Gary

            Homosexuality is immoral. ssm is immoral. As an individual, I refuse to recognize the validity of the immoral choices people make. And I resent the government endorsing those choices.

          • Phipps Mike

            ok, so by your reasoning (immoral), ALL thieves, ALL military members who have killed somebody in any war, ALL liars, ALL fornicators…etc…should NOT get the financial breaks even within a heterosexual marriage BECAUSE they have committed immoral sins. Hmmmmmmm….ok Gary. Once again, your premise is an extremist view that is wide sweeping.

          • Gary

            There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires ssm to be legal. And now a federal court of appeals has acknowledged that fact. I am glad there are a least a few federal judges who won’t lie about the Constitution in order to promote homosexuality.

          • Phipps Mike

            Gary, like I told Jose below, the 14th amendments words DOES “sweep” SSM as a equal right and until changed, it will always be that way. SCOTUS will be the deciding factor on this.

          • Gary

            Wrong. The 14th Amendment in no way requires the legalization of ssm. Anyone, even federal judges, who says it does are wrong.

          • Phipps Mike

            all of the other challenges that went before SCOTUS succeeded in saying the 14th amendment DOES cover that. To date, its the majority. This win means nothing in the overall.

          • Gary

            I refuse to accept an error by the courts. Any judge who says any part of the US Constitution mandates the legalization of ssm is either mistaken, or lying.

          • Phipps Mike

            its not a MANDATE that they MUST marry, its the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS mandate. Homosexuals as citizens of the US get the same privileges that heteros get under that amendment.

          • Gary

            Everyone, including homosexuals, are entitled to legally marry as long as they meet the requirements. The requirement that you must marry someone of the opposite sex is not unconstitutional. No one has proven that requirement to be unconstitutional.

          • Phipps Mike

            the point is that homosexuals be allowed to marry whomever they want so long as it is LAWFUL. WHY would a homosexual man want to marry a stupid woman? seriously.

          • Gary

            But it isn’t LAWFUL, in many states, for anyone, homosexual or other, to marry whomever they want. Everyone has to meet the same qualifications in order to be legal.

          • Phipps Mike

            its not against the law for two same sex people to have sex with each other nor to have a relationship. That is what I meant., It is however illegal for a person to have sex with a child, animal, or relative. Those would be the ones that shouldn’t be able to marry each other.

          • Gary

            Where does the US Constitution require a minimum age for marriage? And where does it prohibit kinfolk from marrying each other? If the courts can create a right to ssm, and pretend it is found in the US Constitution, getting rid of the other marriage requirements won’t be a problem.

          • Phipps Mike

            “getting rid of the other marriage requirements won’t be a problem.”
            its pretty pessimistic to believe that child molesting would EVER be allowed when EVERYBODY is a parent.

          • Gary

            It is pessimistic. But also realistic. Since you are for homosexuality and ssm, you are unable to offer a valid reason why children or close kin should not be allowed to marry.

          • Phipps Mike

            It most definitely is NOT realistic. There are hardly ANY people existent that thinks its ok for an adult to have sex with a child OR an animal. You really need to stop being purposefully antagonistic saying things you KNOW wont happen. Animals and children would both be VICTIMS in a marriage. Two adult men or women to each other, wouldn’t.

          • Gary

            As we have seen with ssm, the courts don’t care what people think. If ssm is allowed, it is just a matter of time until the courts abolish ALL of the qualifications for marriage because they have no reason to retain them. It would be “unfair” to tell two brothers that they cannot “marry”, just like it is now unfair to tell two unrelated males they cannot marry. And, if you cannot find ssm immoral, then you will have no basis to find any other arrangement immoral. Polygamy will also become legal.

          • Phipps Mike

            its possible for polygamy to get in there but NOT relatives. Time is the deciding proof of what will happen. Until then, we can only guess.

          • Gary

            Why not relatives?

          • Phipps Mike

            downs syndrome resulting from the 47th chromosome developed by relatives having sex. and also the roles. Relatives feel like they are your siblings. It feels weird to see your cousin as a spouse.

          • Gary

            How you feel does not matter. It is none of your business if people have children with defects.

          • Phipps Mike

            legislators are PEOPLE. People with FEELINGS. Most laws are made from the feelings that the general public have about things. Where do you think all the knee jerk laws come from? why do you insist on always playing stupid? Its Gods wish for people to take care of each other and the world around them. That INCLUDES trying our best to lessen the chances of having children with defects. You sure are oblivious to Gods intents…aren’t you?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It absolutely IS lawful. You don’t have sole discretion to decide what it is lawful.

          • Gary

            I have sole discretion as to which laws I will obey and accept. And I won’t accept a change in the definition of marriage. And I really do not care who that might offend.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You believe you have sole discretion as to which laws you’ll obey? The police would probably like a word with you.

            Anyway, no one is asking you to marry any gay couples. Only to get out of their way. The fact remains that under the law as it’s currently written, the 14th Amendment guarantees same sex couples the right to marry.

          • Gary

            The 14th Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to ssm. And I will not get out of the way of sexual perverts who seek legitimacy.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Luckily, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Garyocracy. So when our duly-appointed federal judges make a ruling, it becomes law. There is no requirement to check with Gary first.

          • Phipps Mike

            “not a Garyocracy”
            bwahahahahaha!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Despite the fact that you persist in refusing to accept it, the 14th Amendment has been ruled, time and time again, to protect the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

          • James Grimes

            You are correct. Same sex “marriage” is NOT a civil right. If a state, through the will of the people, wants to grant that privilege, then so be it. The National Government should not intrude.

          • James Grimes

            Gary, your position is admirable.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can “resent” it all you want, but you haven’t provided a reason why it should be illegal.

          • Phipps Mike

            “you haven’t provided a reason why it should be illegal.”

            sitting back eating my popcorn……lol

          • Jose

            Please sir don’t be so ignorant. All political knowledge you “might” have isn’t going to make ssm either moral or constituonally correct. And no one says a man can’t loveanother man. However they can’t love them as one loves a woman and expect the same rights as a couple that not only is naturally sound but also contribute to nature by being able to procreate. All ssm is a perverse, twisted sexual desire, nothing more nothing less. So then why should a govt grant equal rights to a union that is soley based on a twisted sexual activity and make it as equal to a sound and righteous Union of a man and woman? (Btw not even animals and beasts are dumb enough to mate with a same gender aren’t we supposed to be the civilized ones with morals?)

          • Phipps Mike

            1. I am well educated in all things I comment on, so ignorance does not apply.

            2. A man cannot love another man PHYSICALLY the same as he can another woman, but he can EMOTIONALLY and that is what I was referencing, Sex is NOT love…Now who is the ignorant one?

            3. Marriage is NOT for procreation, it is for COMMITMENT for life to your spouse, there is NO prerequisite saying you have to procreate, I have yet to hear in ANY vow: “I promise to love, cherish and have babies…”

            4. Animals TRY, once again…who is ignorant? dogs dry humping other dogs is not a heterosexual attempt.

            5. ssm is only immoral as according to the people who THINK the Bible is against it. It doesn’t apply to anybody else.

            6. I didn’t claim “make ssm either moral or constitutionally correct.” But I will add that equal rights may not have included SSM at the time the Constitution was written but the wording of the 14th amendment would sweep it into being applicable.

            If you have a problem with that, write your Senator. SCOTUS WILL be deciding on this in the not too distant future, so wait and see what happens.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “The decision to marry is a fundamental right.” Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)

            Therefore, denying someone the right to marry is the denial of a fundamental right.

            Even without the citation, how could you argue that denying someone the right to marry is not a denial of one’s freedoms?

          • Neiman

            Those rights not specifically enumerated and granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.

            Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, there is no civil right to marriage between people of the opposite gender as such unions do not represent marriage, which is only between two people of the opposite gender.

            Yes, I agree gay marriage will be the law of the land and it will mark the final, absolute rejection of God and He will finally, completely lift His hand of blessing and protection from America and we will become less than a third world nation, of great poverty, no economic or political power in the world and we will become obsessed with our own moral degeneracy, a modern Sodom and Gomorrah and we will fall into the ash heap of history, all because we turned our back on God.

          • Phipps Mike

            “Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, ”

            civil rights issue? no…EQUAL rights issue? yes.

            “it will mark the final, absolute rejection of God”

            no it wont…are you trying to profess that God cares ONLY about the sin of homosexuality and no other sins? that’s where all of the bigots/phobes in here are wrong.

          • Neiman

            No it is not an equal rights issue, people have no more right to marriage between people of the same gender than to plural marriages, marriages between adults and small children, humans to animals, etc. The States decide what defines marriage and in most states the people have decided it is only between two people of the opposite gender, while liberal judges and legislators have overruled the people to satisfy their anti-Christ, atheist, left wing politically correct agenda, all designed to destroy the Christian Church.

            God considers homosexuality as the ultimate form of idolatry. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and in the New Testament He expressed His great anger at this perversion of His Creative Design for humanity. Gay marriage is the rejection of His design for marriage. In short, like the stages of cancer, homosexuality is the sign/symptom of Stage-4, incurable moral depravity, it is not greater than all sins but it is the most glaring example of our rebellion against Him.

            In 1962, directly after a Liberal Supreme Court passed their first decision in support of the lie of Separation of Church and State, the first thing we witnessed was the sexual revolution, which included for the first time homosexuality being removed from the list of mental disorders, and with a then sexually charged, drug crazed younger generation, homosexuality became acceptable, then riots, assassinations, the most unpopular war in US history and a host of other evils erupted. Since then, with God only removing His hand of protection and blessings from our land, with His allowing our free will to reign, we have fallen into moral degeneration, licentiousness, depravity and a culture of death, wherein we have committed the worst human holocaust in all human history via abortion.

            Lastly, homophobia does not exist, to be as phobia it demands an irrational fear, opposing evil is not irrational and it is the ultimate expression of the Love of God.

          • Phipps Mike

            I don’t see how its a form of idolatry. Idolatry is worshipping another GOD or putting Godlike value to whatever you worship. Such as the Golden calf. A sexual act is not a object and thus cannot be considered an “idol”.

            “which included for the first time homosexuality being removed from the list of mental disorders,”

            that’s because it is not a disorder. First. it is UNTREATABLE and that was just established yet again, recently when they stopped the churches from trying to do that quacky “conversion” attempt. A disorder is something that happens from environmental factors, not natural factors. Genetic disposition is partly responsible for homosexual attraction to the same sex as was stated in a recent article right here in CNN. I still have that proof if you need to see it.

            “His allowing our free will to reign, we have fallen into moral degeneration,”

            are you saying God made a mistake?

            “Lastly, homophobia does not exist, to be as phobia it demands an irrational fear, opposing evil is not irrational and it is the ultimate expression of the Love of God.”

            it IS irrational to be afraid of another man finding you sexually attractive. The phobia usually is about the “uncomfortable” feeling one gets if they see two men kissing or wearing wild colorful clothes…etc…

          • Neiman

            You wear me out with your nonsense.

            1. If I were to invest many hours in explaining God’s Word, Will and Way to you, even if I had perfect understanding. Spiritual things are only spiritually understood and you have not His Spirit.

            The ultimate idolatry is to love our own gender more than God, to reject His Divine plan for all human interrelationships, His plan for sexual conduct only with a member of the opposite gender and only in the marriage bed, which estate was ordained by Him at the first as only between one man to one woman and where before Him they become one flesh. In Romans One we learn that God, with great anger, rejected the blasphemous idea of men and women burning with sexual lusts for their own gender, against His Will and thus placing love for their own bodies on His Throne, making it more important than God’s Word. That is idolatry!

            2. It is not true that homosexuality cannot be changed, as the Holy Spirit through Paul spoke of many who were formerly homosexuals that were healed of that disorder and after became children of God. The mistake of reparative therapy is that it involved psychological counseling and not wholly directed at spiritual healing through the new birth. Human psychology is not a science, it is the occult.

            3. No I am not saying God ever makes any mistake. I am saying that when human beings reject God’s rule in their lives, they are given over to their free will, God not interfering and the result, as all men are continually evil, is our own destruction. We reap what we sow and when most human beings sow to the flesh and turn from God, they reap destruction.

            4. Christians do not fear being attractive to members of their own gender, they love homosexuals and want them to turn to God, be healed and escape the pains of hell. That is not a phobia, that is the Love of God.

          • Phipps Mike

            “The Concept of Idolatry

            Idolatry is defined by a number of twentieth-century theologians in terms of making that which is contingent absolute. For Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, idolatry occurs when we ‘make some contingent and relative vitality into the unconditioned principle of meaning’ (178) 11 defines not just idolatry but sin itself in such terms: ‘sin is the vain imagination by which man hides the conditioned, contingent and dependent character of his existence and seeks to give It the appearance of unconditioned reality’ (137—38). 12 Sin consists of placing such a high value on something that it effectively replaces God in some sense. Both the strength and weakness of this view of idolatry lies in it being so general. a can be readily applied to almost anything. To label all sin jdolatry, as attractive as this may sound, does not do justice to the variety and depth of the Bible’s treatment of sin. ‘awbreaking, lawlessness, impurity and the absence of love are $ust a few of the many other ways in which Scripture conceives of different forms of sin. Romans 1 does not in fact take idolatry to be the pattern of all subsequent sins, but rather portrays Indulgence in further sin, being given up to various vices, as being the appropriate punishment for giving up God in idolatry.

            In attempting to understand idolatry theologians like Niebuhr take a top-down approach, focusing on God as the absolute one. Another way of proceeding is to go from the bottom up, looking at what it is that idolaters do with their idols, what the charge of idolatry consists of and to what the sin of idolatry is compared.”

            source: http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-studies/getting-stuck-in/the-concept-of-idolatry.htm

            Because of the above, I will say that its a desperate move to call sexual immorality as “idolatry”

            I disagree 1000% with your number 2. There are just as many PHONEY “cured” homosexuals as there are “faith healers” or those who “speak in tongues”. If you are truly attracted to you rown sex, its NATURE that does that NOT PSYCHOLOGY. You cant CURE nature. Point blank. Once attracted ALWAYS attracted.

            “Christians do not fear being attractive to members of their own gender,”

            really? I know personally of quite a few. There was one that I outed in a debate about don’t ask, don’t tell policy. ” I wouldn’t want guys looking at ME in the showers!”

          • Neiman

            I do not care what others say about idolatry, I only care what God says in His Word and that confirmed by 2-3 places in Holy Writ. Romans 1:25 – about homosexuality being idolatry: ” They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. ”

            Homosexual conduct is a choice! Child molesters, alcoholics, drug addicts and rapists may claim that by genetic causes they have these destructive impulses, but we as a society say they must resist them for their own good and society. Homosexual conduct is not genetic it is a choice and it is a sin unto spiritual death and they should resist these evil, destructive impulses of the flesh.

            Your anti-Christian hatred makes every such personal observation of not value, you will lie to win your case as do all liberals.

          • Phipps Mike

            ” Homosexual conduct is not genetic”
            right, the CONDUCT is not genetic. the attraction IS.

            Why do you keep saying that I am anti-christian when I am a Protestant baptist? If you are catholic, I detest you and I wont continue my convo with you. I consider Catholics all the same as Fred Phelps.

          • Neiman

            A. There is no homosexual gene or everyone with it would be gay 100%. Even if one was definitely found, would it be cause or effect? Is it a mutation caused by environment or sin? It is definitely not approved by God and He condemns it as idolatry and sin.

            B. If you refuse to surrender to God’s Word in everything, if your life is not devoted to Christ alone, if as you do, you constantly try and attack Christians and twist Scripture, the fruits of your life are anti-Christ and I cannot judge anything but the fruits of your life.

          • Phipps Mike

            “Even if one was definitely found, would it be cause or effect? Is it a mutation caused by environment or sin?”

            good question

            “you constantly try and attack Christians and twist Scripture,”

            newsflash: (drum roll please)

            Many newer Christians these days seem to call anybody else’s INTERPRETATION of the Bible “twisted” if it doesnt fit their OWN interpretation.

            Now I have to ask, how does that make YOU any better than the Catholics that killed thousands of Protestants for having a different interpretation.

          • Neiman

            A. If you were devoted to God, if you were truly converted to Him, when anything seemed to counter God’s Word, you would call upon the Lord to show you how to harmonize it with His Word, knowing man would be wrong and Him always right
            B. You cannot prove your errant beliefs BY scripture and only Scripture and that by His whole revelation to man.
            C. Whom have I killed or when have I indicated any desire to force my beliefs on anyone versus just confidently stating my beliefs?

            D. I have said, your side, the secular humanist side, according to God’s Word, in the short term wins.

          • Phipps Mike

            The thing is that its not so much that I end up seeing people countering Gods words, it’s that I see Gods word being manipulated to fit bigotry and hatred. God does NOT teach hatred. Yet that’s all I see against people who are different than the Christian status quo. You don’t know how much I would really LOVE it if God would come down and make a appearance and tell everybody just what he DOES mean. That way it wouldn’t have been manipulated by men scribing his words.

          • Neiman

            I was talking about non-Christians, secular humanist minded, atheist scientists and worldly philosophers and educators and politicians countering God’s Word, by relying on the frail, false interpretations of things, because they do not know God.

            God has come down, no I don’t just mean when Jesus was among us, I mean when we are truly converted to Christ, having forsaken idols, repented of our sins, His Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us and the Bible tells us that he will lead us into all Truth and we will know it is the Truth, because it will fit perfectly with His Word.

            Jesus said that if the world did not believe the Prophets, then they would not believe Him when He speaks to us in His Word.

            You interpret as bigotry and hate any opposition to sin, but it is the highest expression of the Love of God. Yes, many err and many still trusting in the flesh become judgmental and seem harsh, as they do not know the Spirit.

          • James Grimes

            The Constitution does not give the National Government the power over marriage. That power is reserved to the states in spite of whether you or anyone else agrees..

          • Phipps Mike

            James, sovereignty is only good until it becomes a Constitutional breach. As I just wrote to Gary, SCOTUS has ruled it WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL hence all of those wins against bans of SSM.

        • MBH

          Neiman. Being a new great admirer of yours what you say is 100% correct. There is apparently a silent war going on between the states ad the Federal government. The state by law should have the last say. As far as Republicans and. Democrats I am having a very hard time distinguishing between them. It appears to be scripted much like WWF wrestling federation. It appears they drink from the same well. I am confident you know that both are Godless and serving only themselves.

          My father would say there is great corruption here or there, but just don’t you be corrupt. A day will come when justice will be served. Maybe that the states each owe the Federal gov’t billions and billions of dollars and They all openly take federal money. Thus the states are beholding to it. Republicrates and Demicans. Ah for whom shall I choose?

          • Phipps Mike

            “The state by law should have the last say. ” unless a State law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That’s what checks and balances (SCOTUS) is FOR.

          • MBH

            You are so correct. 100%. So why do they not take this opportunity? Look at Texas. The Federal government is at war with Texas. EPA, open border, no federal funds. The Federal government is doing anything and everything to harm this state. Every state in the US recieves Federal money not to mention each owes billions. California alone owes what sime $80 billion? Obamacare supposedly will send the State of Florida into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. This state does not have the revenue to support all the retirees and poor.

            There was this clause that stated what you are saying and the Feds reversed it’s meaning to say the Federal government has the last say in dictating laws to the state commerce.

            Still. Why aren’t the states dictating to the Federal government what they decide individually? $$$$$

          • Phipps Mike

            Texas was talking about seceding not long ago, Although it is unethical, can you blame the Federal Govt for refusing to send them funds at least in as far as what it would be like if they DID secede? Seceding is TREASON in my book.
            Here in Wisconsin…Clown Walker (the Governor), REFUSED the money for Medicaid from the feds knocking 80,000 people off medical care. So we aren’t receiving anything either, although its Walkers fault.
            I’m not believing for a second that any ONE State could go into a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit. That most DEFINITELY would have to be a number that was brought forward from past debts added to a new debt. (not Obama’s fault).

            Obviously the Feds (Obama) DON’T “dictate” or we would be getting Medicaid funds. Walker had the last say in this case.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That is legally correct.

          • Neiman

            Come out from among them, this world, and be separate, trusting only in God. Christians are not part of this world system, our citizenship is in heaven. We can only pray for this nation and bemoan how far it is fallen from the grace which God once bestowed upon us, when we still honored Him.

            Our Constitution has fallen, the Bill of Rights a joke, twisted by men that sought their own ends. America is now but a shadow of what it was.

          • Phipps Mike

            “America is now but a shadow of what it was.”
            Right, when the founding fathers helped us escape a ONE religion rule, they intended for freedom of religion meaning people don’t HAVE to be Christians. They can CHOOSE. Today’s Christians don’t respect that there are OTHER religions just as important as their own. Capitalism and free trade was designed for people to not be peasants…it was NOT designed for people to “get rich” or get their “first million”. The Muslims are right that the US is a “capitalistic whore”. Republicans God is REALLY money., NOT God.

          • Neiman

            Setting aside your GOP hatred and your false ideas about them:

            The Bill of Rights first included religious liberty, the most sacred of all rights. Next, it forbids Congress from making any law that restricts/limits those rights, it is against Congress, not religions. Next, until that most damnable Hugo Black and his lie of Separation of Church and State, there was not only not the slightest hint of hostility towards the Christian faith, it was the faith of most Americans, I can provide a long list of ways that our Founding fathers and our government supported the Christian faith, honored it on all their buildings and monuments. Further, it was never a prohibition against people of faith influencing our laws, far from it, nor that they should be prevented from electing leaders that would share their faith. It was solely a prohibition against Congress: (a) Establishing an official State Christian denomination and (b) passing any laws infringing of freedom of religious expression.

            Yes, Democrats have always hated the Christian faith and have eviscerated the Freedom of Religion clause to where it no longer exists, but at least be honest and say it is because your party hates the Christian faith, do not lie and suggest that it did not grant Christians full freedom anbd rights as citizens.

          • Phipps Mike

            Neiman, you are the king of being partly right in all of your posts…lol.
            Much of what you say is true but you articulate it in a way that twists the intent.
            We did NOT want religion IN OUR LAWS, That’s why we founded AMERICA. to escape the King’s RULE.
            The way you are going on, its as if you WANT a King instead of our current system. You act like freedom of religion is not about WHAT religion you get to pick and rather the freedom to PUSH Christianity’s practice on everybody. That’s the OPPOSITE of religious FREEDOM.
            I know a lot of liberal Christians. Many fundamentalists don’t have a CLUE what Liberal really means. It doesn’t have to include breaking Gods laws. It means to find a CHANGE (new way) to get things done and the most important part of being a liberal is to do EXACTLY what the Bible says: give, give give. Give until your fingers bleed. You MUST take care of your fellow man. Its GODS WISH.

          • Neiman

            Stop lying about what I believe or desire. I am simply telling you the truth. I expect this nation to become more and more hateful of Christ and Christians, even now fining them, sending some to jail and eventually capital punishment for opposing the State religion of Secular Humanism. So, relax, Christianity as taught in the Holy Bible will be wiped out.

            The truth is that our Founding Fathers and the Federal government was never, until 1948, hostile to the Christian faith in any way, shape, manner or form as being in every part of our lives, in its influencing our laws to better reflect Christian values, in their only choosing candidates that share their values. The Federal Government bought bibles for our public schools, they supported Christian education, they placed Christian passages on all our monuments and federal buildings, they only appointed Christian Chaplains, they started every session of congress and virtually every public meeting or event with only Christian prayer; and, thus, by their words and actions betrayed none of the hostility and extreme separation now foisted upon us by liberals, turning the whole thing upside down.

            When the first people came to America and as was reflected in the First Amendment, what they did not want to duplicate was the idea of an official Christian denomination as the State or National denomination, freedom was to worship the Christian God as we saw fit without fear. Naturally, this demanded that all other faiths be allowed the same freedom of expression in their religious practices, but none but the Christian faith was officially honored and recognized by our nation until late in the 20th century when Socialist FDR and that anti-Christ Hugo Black conspired in the Court Packing Scheme to make sure their practical atheist views gained dominance and that atheism, or should I say secular humanism, became the only official State religion, which it is today and they put in place the tools in the lie of Separation of Church and State to declare open warfare on the Christian Church.

          • Phipps Mike

            “what they did not want to duplicate was the idea of an official Christian denomination as the State or National denomination, ”

            ahh!! we AGREE on something! Yea, the idea was so that Protestants were not given a death sentence. Catholics are quacks. I am a protestant and proud of it. I am also a Baptist and thank God not a SOUTHERN one. They give a BAD name to Christianity. Women do NOT belong in the home. Especially in TODAY’S economy.

            ” Naturally, this demanded that all other faiths be allowed the same freedom of expression in their religious practices,”

            exactly, and Buddhists deserve all of the same freedoms and respect as Christians..etc…America was founded for EQUALITY and FAIR treatment to all without class division, religious division..etc…No man is any BETTER than another.

          • Neiman

            As is your custom, you want to tell God what He should say and do; but despite your decidedly unchristian beliefs, if a family is serving God and not man, in most circumstances the woman will stay at home and they will depend upon God’s Grace to handle and exceed all their material and financial needs. That does not mean it is a sin to work outside the home or that women, if they feel the need, should be condemned for doing so. It is solely a matter of God’s Word and His best plan for our lives spiritually and He said women should submit to their husbands and raise their children, keep their home and adorn themselves with the goodness of God and in such a way He will protect and guide and bless them. If they choose to ignore His Will and Way then He will still love them, they remain saved, they just miss out on God’s best plan for their lives and for their children, which is directed at eternity and not satisfying temporal material or physical lusts.

            You are looking at everything from a secular humanist, politically progressive lens and for Christians, they should only be looking at things from God’s Word. While other faiths have all the same rights, that does not mean Christians should abandon their role as citizens in what laws they prefer and which candidates they choose and from trying to influence America for good. That does not mean if another faith is able to get laws passed, like in the Christian baker case, which laws cause them to violate their Christian beliefs that, they should tamely submit, but rather they should stand with God against the whole world if necessary in obeying God.

          • Phipps Mike

            “That does not mean it is a sin to work outside the home or that women, if they feel the need, should be condemned for doing so.”
            ah but southern baptists DO say it is a sin. At least the fundamentalist sect of them do…or should I say cult.
            Nowhere have I said what God should say or do., I just disagree with a lot fo peoples INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible and its intent.

          • Joe Soap

            @Neiman
            Way to Bloviate guy. Just so you know

            bloviate
            verb
            To talk loudly and bombastically; BLOW OFF one’s MOUTH,

          • Neiman

            Thank you for showing us your hate filled, closed mind.

          • Carol Cantell Moorby

            BUT……..PRAYER CHANGES THINGS. We are to pray for those in Authority. God is a god of second chances! We have just been given an opportunity to turn things around. With Gods wisdom we will win…” Blessed is the nation who trusts in The Lord.” AMEN!

          • Neiman

            1. It would require a national repentance.
            2. It would require we turn away from the lie of separation as interpreted by liberal jurists and return to God.
            3. While on a rare occasion a nation has thus repented in Biblical times, it takes a Prophet like a Jonah, by the power of God to cause that repentance and in Scripture the only such great leaders in this age will be the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet, whom will hardly lead the nation to repentance and a turning back to God.
            4. By all means pray for this nation, but be wise and know that God has seen it all from beginning to end as if in a moment and He does not tells us of any great repentance in this the last days. So pray to be sure for individuals, but do not expect such a national repentance unless we find justification in End Times prophecies. Yet, in those prophecies we only hear of the fall of the entire world and God’s Wrath against all flesh.

          • MBH

            Zeph 2:1 – 4 1 Gather together, yes, gather, O shameless nation,
            2 before the decree takes effect –before the day passes away like chaff– before there comes upon you the burning anger of the LORD, before there comes upon you the day of the anger of the LORD.
            3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his just commands; seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the anger of the LORD.

            Judgment on Surrounding Nations

            4 For Gaza shall be deserted, and Ashkelon shall become a desolation; Ashdod’s people shall be driven out at noon, and Ekron shall be uprooted.

            Apparently when Israel gives up Gaza which had already taken place waiting for Ashkelon toalso be given up we shall then see the final play.

          • Neiman

            “FOR BEHOLD, in those days and at that time when I shall reverse the captivity and restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and will bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and there will I deal with and execute judgment upon them for their treatment of My people and of My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations and because they have divided My land.” (Joel 3:1-2)

            God has declared Israel His earthly Throne, from there Jesus will set up His earthly rule. He has promised all of the land of Israel to the Jews for an everlasting possession and He issues a dire warning against anyone that dares divide His land.

            Is there any nation in the world, including America that is not involved in dividing Israel with the falsely called Palestinians, including America? For every nation and people, God promises the final war will destroy everyone that dares divide His land. Worse, they all are are, including Mahdi Obama, working to divide the Holy City – Jerusalem. May God have pity on them all.

          • MBH

            Neiman, being obviously well versed lets step up the stakes shall we? Can you give me a 7 year period starting with the Feast of Trumpets ending on Tabernacles where there is 1260 days and 1290 days according to an ancient Hebrew calendar? Keep in mind the 30 days of Adar is in the 2nd half?

        • Phipps Mike

          you started off with “this court is right” meaning that what followed should have been what the courts view on it was.

          For the people would include not sticking their noses into the peoples bedrooms or personal affairs yet its the GOP that wants to legislate religion into our laws. Cant have it both ways. Either get out and STAY out of peoples personal business or let the govt employ religion and be ALL UP IN OUR BUSINESS. (Govt intrusiveness)

          Congress legislates for those with the biggest contributions (Corps) which are SUPPORTED by the GOP (rich people).
          Republicans already have it the way they want it (rich get richer and the poor die). So where is your complaint even valid? (assuming you are Republican)

          • Neiman

            I meant they were right to leave it to the States.

            From the dawn of man, governments have made laws based on the religious/moral values of the people, that they might be protected from the excesses and moral depravity of their neighbors. From the founding of America we have made laws that reflect the basic Judeo-Christian Moral values of this once mostly Christian nation. Further, it is the right and the responsibility of a moral people, for the good of their children, to seek to pass laws that reflect their religious values and to elect only those people that share those values.

            It is also a truth that until liberals kicked God out of the public square, we had been the greatest economic and military power on earth, far beyond any nation in human history, all because of His blessings on this land. It is also true that since that terrible day in 1962, we have fallen into moral dissolution and by virtue of the moral bankruptcy of both parties, we are no longer the greatest economic or military power and are rapidly falling into the abyss, because God has removed His hand of protection from us.

            There are more millionaires among and more money in the hands of Democrats than Republicans. Your mind has been twisted about the GOP and I will not waste my time with you. I am politically unafiliated, although I do believe the GOP more closely shares my moral values and desire for limited government, than do liberals.

          • Phipps Mike

            “From the dawn of man, governments have made laws based on the religious/moral values of the people, that they might be protected from the excesses and moral depravity of their neighbors.”
            ALMOST right…not quite.
            Those “morals” are actually just about “quality of life” and one does not NEED God to understand its wrong to steal, kill…etc….
            The economy crashing was because Bush did NOT fund the wars. That’s a fact. Obama’s numbers completely goes against your claims. Limited Govt is fine so long as part of that limit is to stay OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS.

      • Bob Maddry

        No, the democrats are the ones that have already done that to you for the last 6 years. I will not explain and waste my breath to you … go do your research before spouting party dribble on here.

        • Phipps Mike

          Bush ran wars without funding it, End of political lesson for you, for the day. (by the way, do NOT engage in a political debate with me under the pretense that I am not prepared to hand your you know what to you). I am politically activated and my wife is a lobbyist/campaigner.

      • Carol Cantell Moorby

        But this is NOT the intent of conservative bible Christians of whom many were elected

        • Phipps Mike

          Carol, we still have many elected officials that believe in the ridiculous trickle down economics theory. Think about it for a minute, You have a Corps, move it to China and pay the workers there 7 dollars a day (instead of per hr), no benefits, no minimum wage, no regulations, tax free. Do you REALLY think giving them tax breaks will initiate them to create AMERICAN JOBS…..NOTTTTTTTTT.

    • Jose

      Very well put! I already knew these atheists were going to try to tear this comment apart haha. Yet they dont see their impending judgement for their sins happening right in front of their eyes! America is already falling down from being a super power (see forbes top 20 most powerful list) keep denying and blaspheming our God and he will abhor this land from his presence and turn it to nothing.

  • Gary

    Well. Federal judges who actually understand the US Constitution. How unusual.

    • Jose

      Praise the Lord, there are still men with morals in our land

      • Gary

        I would not go so far as to say these judges have morals. But they at least understand the limitations of their office. And they understand that there is no mandate in the US Constitution for the legalization of ssm.

        • Jose

          Gary, you’re right I have no idea what life’s these men live or if they are “moral” as I stated. It’s just good to see something good for a change in a land where debauchery is a norm.

          • Gary

            Agree with that.

    • BarkingDawg

      No, Sutton does not understand the USConstitution. His central argument being that the state legislature has the power to pass laws that are I’m violation of the US. Constitution will be given the goon hand treatment by SCOTUS.

      Even Scalia will mock him for that.

  • SFBruce

    This decision will certainly be appealed, and probably very soon, to the Supreme Court. Many speculated that the reason the court turned down several similar cases back in October was due to the fact that there were no disagreements among the three circuits represented. This creates a split which should make it hard for the court to deny hearing it. I think there’s every likelihood this decision by the 6th circuit will be reversed.

  • Gary

    It is impossible to make the case for ssm from the actual text of the US Constitution. In order to argue that the Constitution requires ssm to be legal, you have to pretend the Constitution means something other than what it says. That is what the federal judges who have ruled in favor of ssm have done. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has broken the trend. Hopefully, there are five judges on the Supreme Court who will be honest enough to rule that there is no Constitutional basis for requiring the legalization of ssm.

    • Phipps Mike

      Gary, SCOTUS are the “overseers” of the Constitution, If THEY say it IS covered, then it is. Its their JOB and their primary purpose. To DECIDE what IS or isn’t Constitutional. They are EXPERTS and in their seats for a GOOD reason.
      Stick to just saying: “I, Gary, hate homosexuals because they make me uncomfortable and I was programmed to believe they are bad.” and leave the legalities to legal EXPERTS. If they decide against SSM, I have to concede to their decision as well. I still will not see homosexuality as “bad” though. They are not deciding the “moral” side of this.

      • Neiman

        SCOTUS was only meant to say this thing or that does or does not conform to the original meaning and amendments of the Constitution, despite their trying to become a super legislative and executive branch of government: (a) They are often wrong, they all have a political bias. (b) The other two branches are not required to submit, they are separate and equal and have both the right and responsibility to interpret the Constitution as they see fit; and, if they choose to ignore SCOTUS decisions, either impeachments or the constitutional corrective of the ballot box is required to enforce their decisions. (c) SCOTUS has no power, no police and no military to enforce their decisions, they are advisory and they cannot make law.

        Try reading the Constitution.

        • Phipps Mike

          “SCOTUS was only meant to say this thing or that does or does not conform to the original meaning and amendments of the Constitution, ”

          ummm that’s EXACTLY what MY statement said! : “To DECIDE what IS or isn’t Constitutional.” aka, they are experts on what the Constitution MEANS just as a Pastor is for what the Bible says.

          They don’t MAKE law but they ENFORCE its test to the Constitutionality of it. If somebody doesn’t comply after the ruling, the other parts of the judicial branch then employs the consequences (fines, jail..etc..). The way you are writing it, anybody could do anything they wanted against their rulings without consequence. You don’t NEED a vote for a court order to arrest somebody not in compliance. Example? those bakers who were fined and in a HUGE way.

          • Neiman

            The Justice Department and the Military are part of the Executive Branch, a wholly separate and wholly equal branch and while the executive branch may allow them to enforce such decisions, it is not under the control or authority of the Judicial branch.

            Those Christian bakers were not fined by SCOTUS or even the federal government, they were unconstitutionally fined by local/state authorities. Unconstitutional because it violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

          • Phipps Mike

            The federal law for businesses against discriminatory practices trumps the right to exercise religion because when you are operating AS a business, you may NOT run it AS a religious one. It was not unconstitutional. Business owners CANNOT have free speech ON THE CLOCK.

          • Neiman

            Show me that in the Constitution. Show me how that meets the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. These militant gays may demand a cake, but they cannot demand a Christian decorate it with a theme that is contrary to their faith, the cake is one thing, forcing people to compromise their faith is unconstitutional.

          • Phipps Mike

            its not in the Constitution, its in the Federal LAW against discrimination from business owners.

          • Neiman

            If it is not clearly enumerated in the Constitution, it is extra and thus unconstitutional. If such laws may be instituted and be greater than the Constitution, we are a nation without a Constitution and are a dictatorship of lawmakers.

      • Gary

        Being a member of the SC does not mean you are an expert on the US Constitution. The US Constitution does not mean what the SC says it means, no matter how many times it is repeated, or how much some people may wish it were so. The Constitution means what it says, and that is all. If you want the meaning of it changed, then amend it. The Constitution says nothing about marriage or homosexuals. Neither does it authorize the SC to define marriage.

        • SFBruce

          Even if you are a strict constructionist, someone still has to discern what the original framers had in mind. You don’t have to like it, but the fact is virtually all state and federal officials do, indeed, recognize the Supreme Court as final authority on exactly what the Constitution means.

          You’ve ignored my question; but based on this and other comments, I have to assume that you do believe that it should be constitutionally permissible to ban interracial marriage.

          • Gary

            Determining what the writers of the Constitution meant isn’t hard. The challenge for the judges is to pretend the Constitution says something it does not say, and try to prove the Constitution actually says what you want.
            If races could be accurately defined, and measured, then I do not believe it is unconstitutional to limit people to marrying within their own race. All the Constitution requires is that the same rules apply to everyone. But I doubt that is possible now, so the best thing probably is to allow interracial marriage.

          • SFBruce

            You just proved my point. While I agree with you that the Constitution requires the same rules apply to everyone, you and I disagree exactly on what that means. I think it means states shouldn’t ban interracial marriage; you don’t. I think it means states shouldn’t ban same sex marriage, you don’t. You and I are both entitled to our opinions, but it’s the Supreme Court’s decision that counts.

          • Gary

            You can be wrong if you want to. And so can the courts. But what neither you nor they can do is make us accept a different definition of marriage.

          • SFBruce

            You can believe whatever your conscience demands regarding not just marriage, but any and everything. But the courts have a duty and responsibility to settle these kinds of legal disputes. Remember, we’re only talking about civil marriage. Churches and individuals can and should go where their conscience dictates.

          • Gary

            Then the government should do its duty by refusing to legally change the definition of marriage. Problem solved.

    • SFBruce

      It’s equally impossible to make the case that inter-racial marriages should banned, if one only looks to the actual text of the Constitution. When the 14th Amendment was approved, its writers didn’t envision its being applied in that way, and yet, I know of no serious person who, today, would suggest that (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) was wrongly decided.

  • Robert

    “If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances …. prove to be nothing but shams,” she wrote.

    This is the kind of thinking that is the problem…They do not have such authority or the responsibility. The constitution can only be legally changed by a vote of the people.

    • Gary

      Limiting marriage to a man and a woman is not wrong. And it is not unconstitutional, however much some people want it to be.

      • Phipps Mike

        “Limiting marriage to a man and a woman is not wrong”

        yes it is, unfair=wrong

        • Gary

          Prove it is unfair. And then prove that is wrong. Bet you can’t prove either one.

          • Phipps Mike

            it is OBVIOUSLY unfair. How can you say it isn’t? “Its ok for you and you to marry but not YOU because it makes OTHERS uncomfortable.” Geesh Gary.

          • Gary

            No, it is not obvious at all. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. It is not unfair to limit marriage to that definition.

          • Phipps Mike

            I am not talking about the definition. Its unfair to let some people marry and others not….to who they are ATTRACTED to.

          • Gary

            Oh. So if I am ATTRACTED to my neighbor’s wife, it would be unfair for the government not to let me legally marry her, even though she is already married???? Please. You want the government and society to sanction whatever it is people want to do. Well NO! We are not going to do that. Too bad if you think it is unfair.

          • Phipps Mike

            Gary, you must have a lot of fun pretending that you don’t know what I mean. Attracted to meaning a man is attracted to another MAN, not a woman. Why would a homo marry the opposite sex when they are not even ATTRACTED to them? That’s like eating a food you don’t like the taste of. I also don’t support bigamy….geesh Gary.

          • Gary

            I don’t care who homosexuals are attracted to. No one has the right to marry whoever they are attracted to. I don’t have that right, and neither do homosexuals. And, given your support of homosexuals, you have no reason to object to bigamy.

          • Phipps Mike

            oh, so you are suggesting that nobody should marry who they are attracted to? do you have an ugly wife? is that why you are saying that, because you are jealous that most other sensible people marry who they are attracted to?
            It would take an IDIOT to marry somebody they are NOT attracted to. So are YOU that idiot?
            Bigamy is too many chiefs and not enough Indians…SSM doesn’t have that problem so your snarky response about that is inapplicable.
            I think you are pretty messed up in the head, Gary. You truly fit the definition of homophobic. Your energy you put out going against homosexuality is VERYYYY unusual and much higher than anybody else I have ever encountered on the web or off.
            Makes me think you really WERE sexually abused by a male. Its the only thing that would make sense as to why you are so HATEFUL of Gays. Of course you are not going to admit it.

          • Gary

            When you apply for a marriage license, they don’t ask if you are attracted to each other, or if you like each other, or if you love each other. None of those things are legal qualifications for marriage.
            Your views on bigamy are nothing more than your opinions. Others have different opinions.
            I am more vocal than most opponents of homosexuals, but my beliefs do not differ from those of every other Christian.

          • Phipps Mike

            who said anything about qualifications, YOU SHOULD NOT MARRY SOMEBODY that you are not attracted to or like. That’s just common sense. There are no betrothels. Of course the bit on bigamy is my opinion but it has nothing to do with your statement about how I don’t have a right to voice my opinion against it. Bigamy and SSM are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things with NOTHING IN COMMON. That makes your statement about it inapplicable.

            ” but my beliefs do not differ from those of every other Christian.”

            no. but your ATTITUDE and drive DO.

          • Gary

            It is the qualifications for legal marriage that is the argument. The government does not care whether you are attracted to, or like, or love the person you want to marry. Neither should they care. Everyone is free to marry whoever they want IF THEY BOTH MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS.

          • Phipps Mike

            Ok Gary, I will just end this debate with: Gay people will ALWAYS be here in abundance, Even if they cant get the same financial benefits that married couples can, they can still adopt children and raise them as a hetero couple does, be just as successful in doing so, they can still do the same things heteros do on a day to day basis, they can still be just as accepted as a hetero couple is and be considered NORMAL. Most of our youth SUPPORTS Gays. The proof is in the pudding by how many States actually have SSM legalized. Nothing you or your friends can do about it and soon you will see two men kissing in public as a regular occurrence. As the other guy in here already said, this is not a Garyocracy. You will have to say the prayer of serenity because NOTHING is going to change,

          • Gary

            God rejects homosexuals, AND their supporters. So do Christians, regardless of their age. If I find two men kissing in public, I will attack them.

          • Phipps Mike

            “If I find two men kissing in public, I will attack them.”
            I pasted that so you wont have a chance to hide the fact that you said it.
            1. attack how? physically? That wouldn’t be too wise (2 of them and one of you), You really want to get beat up by putting your nose where it doesn’t belong?

            2. if they didn’t beat you up, they would have you thrown in jail for assault and battery.

            3. The Bible does not give you permission to PHYSICALLY attack sinners. Looks like you let the cat out of the bag. Oh and Gary, after they beat you up, they will probably give you a big wet kiss.

          • Gary

            I am not going to tolerate displays of sexual perversion in public.

          • SFBruce

            I say it again: if that intolerance is expressed with physical violence you will be in substantial legal trouble.

          • Gary

            Maybe. Maybe not.

          • Phipps Mike

            your choice, Gary. Consequences aren’t so good though.

          • SFBruce

            I hope you realize you’ll pay for that. Laws against assault count even when your victims are gay men.

          • Gary

            Oh. So if I am ATTRACTED to my neighbor’s wife, it would be unfair for the government not to let me legally marry her, even though she is already married???? Please. You want the government and society to sanction whatever it is people want to do. Well NO! We are not going to do that. Too bad if you think it is unfair.

  • Opus35

    One more small step to the end result. Once this case makes to SCOTUS the answer will be clear. 50 states and DC with SSM. Civil rights will be for everyone.

  • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

    What a shame that so many believe in denying rights to other citizens that they claim for themselves and believe in using the government as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the rest of society into bending to their religious beliefs.

    Yes, the conservative court supports the religious laws that forbid some American citizens from seeking happiness according to the dictates of their own conscience. This is a case where religious bigotry flies in the face of the Establishment Clause.

    Not surprisingly, logic failed the Bush appointed Judge Jeffrey Sutton. If all the world believed in a single proposition, the shear weight of all that belief, without supporting evidence, would lend not a nanogram to the truth of the proposition.

    Remember, most folks in the West used to believe Slavery was just fine, and it was/is supported by the Bible. It wasn’t religion that “freed” the slaves, it was Reason and war.

    • Gary

      I don’t deny anyone the same rights that I have. But, I don’t have the right to marry someone of the same sex, and neither does anyone else.

      • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

        You have the right to seek happiness in marring someone you love. You are denying others that right. That is bigotry, especially because it does you no harm whatsoever.

        • Gary

          Wrong. I have the right to marry, if I, and the one I want to marry, meet the qualifications. Just like everyone else.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            So, you are denying that you have the right to marry someone you love?

          • Gary

            Nobody has the right to marry someone they love. You have the right to marry who you are qualified to marry, and who is qualified to marry you. I agree that most people want to marry for love, and that is great, but they still must meet the requirements.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            And that qualification, to you, is what? Wence comes the “requirements?”

          • Gary

            The qualifications in most states have been, 1. The people getting married must be of the opposite sex. 2. They cannot already be married to someone else. 3. They cannot be close kin. 4. They must be at least the minimum age for marriage in that state.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            Please note that all gays in all states had the right to marry someone they love. Some states have now passed laws against that. Why did they pass laws against same-gender marriage? What is the root of the reason for the law? Whence came the desire to ban some people from marrying?

          • Gary

            In the history of the USA, nobody has ever had the right to marry someone they love, UNLESS both meet the qualifications for legal marriage. It has only been about ten years ago that states began to eliminate the requirement that you must marry someone of the opposite sex. So, since the founding of the country, same-gender marriage has not been legal.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            *****Please point out the specific law or laws that the U.S. has had since its founding that forbade same-gender marriage.*****

  • Joe Soap

    You Americans and same sex marriage. Some states say yes some states say no. Some judges says yes, some judge says no. I’m amazed you can keep track. No doubt this decision will itself be appealed since you appear to have forgone government by the people for government by judiciary.

    Tell me? Why do you have elections again?

  • BarkingDawg

    Based on the order released by SCOTUS lifting the stay in the Kansas case, it would appear that the current score in SCOTUS is 7-2 in favor of overturning state SSM bans.

    I doubt that the 6th circuits decision will stand.

    In fact, I would be willing to bet that Sutton’s central argument, that the states have precedence over the US Constitution will be unanimously rejected by SCOTUS.