Judge Rules South Dakota’s Voter-Approved Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional

MarriagePIERRE, S.D. — A federal judge in South Dakota has struck down the state’s voter-approved marriage amendment which enshrines marriages as being solely between a man and a woman, opining that the law is unconstitutional because it excludes homosexuals from having the same opportunity.

“Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry,” wrote Judge Karen Schreier, nominated to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton. “South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification.”

Twelve homosexuals had filed suit last year, challenging the 2006 law, which was passed with 52 percent of the vote.

“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota, the amendment, then known as “Amendment C,” reads. “The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”

But Schreier ruled that the amendment does not serve a “compelling” government interest and violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which outlines that states may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” She stayed her ruling pending appeal.

Homosexual advocacy groups applauded the decision.

“We are thrilled for our clients and for all same-sex couples in South Dakota, who have watched and waited as progress has been made in so many other states, and who can now see light at the end of the tunnel in their own state,” Chris Stoll with the National Center for Lesbian Rights told reporters. “We are also grateful to Judge Shreier for writing such a detailed and powerful analysis and for affirming in such strong terms that same-sex couples have the same fundamental freedom to marry as others.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said that he will continue to fight the matter in court.

“It remains the state’s position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the voters of South Dakota and not the federal courts,” he said.

While South Dakota would mark the 36th state, plus the District of Columbia, to legalize same-sex “marriage,” not all courts have ruled that states must recognize homosexual nuptials.

“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 on behalf of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last November.

“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.”


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
  • Gary

    There seems to be many judges who are quite willing to lie about the Constitution. “Judge Karen” is one of them.

    • Pollos Hermanos

      Where did you go to law school? I’m genuinely curious.

      • Gary

        I don’t have to go to law school to understand the US Constitution. Maybe you would need to.

        • Pollos Hermanos

          So what part of:

          “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          Seems to be eluding you?

          • James Grimes

            What are ” the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?” Is it to live a depraved lifestyle?

          • Pollos Hermanos

            That’s really not your call. If you find something depraved, don’t do it.

          • James Grimes

            Yes, it is my call. I am to judge righteously. Do you know what that means?

          • Pollos Hermanos

            I view people arguing about the meaning religion on about the same level as two comic book buys arguing the deeper meaning of the color of a Jedi’s light saber because both conversations are equally as silly.

            Of course most of the writers of Star Wars are alive to ask.

          • James Grimes

            You must think I’m interested in your opinion (as depraved as it is). Why would you think that? I have no interest.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Not particularly but you are kind of a fun little toy to play with.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And yet you keep taking his bait by responding. If you have so little interest, why do you keep answering?

          • Gary

            Would you like to know how we view you? You should already have a pretty clear picture of that from our previous comments.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            I don’t particularly care how you view me. I don’t generally spend much time thinking about your life (sorry to burst your bubble) and what you think of me really isn’t any of my business.

          • Gary

            I don’t believe you. Sodomites usually crave acceptance and validation. But you will get none from Christians.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            I get plenty from Christians. I don’t particularly care what your brand of Christianity thinks unless you’re trying to pass laws to hurt me. Since you’re becoming increasingly irrelevant, it’s just more interesting to study you.

          • Gary

            You get none from real Christians. And I am trying to keep you from passing laws that hurt me and my family. But for wicked and corrupt federal judges, you would not be legally where you are now.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Are Lutherans ‘real’ Christians? How about Methodists, Episcopalians, Quakers or Catholics?

            I need to know who exactly Gary the gatekeeper of Christianity is going to let into heaven.

            By the way, no law is hurting your family, if you can show any harm, take it to court and see how well you do. The ADF sure hasn’t had very good luck.

          • Gary

            No one who accepts homosexuality or encourages its practice is a Christian.
            Laws that give homosexuals an exemption from the marriage laws do hurt me and my family by corrupting society, and making it more vulgar. Such laws also make it more difficult for moral people to live in peace. In order to get a fair hearing in the courts, there would have to be fair judges. And those are in short supply.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Not up to you to decide, Gary.

            The no true Scotsman fallacy… all you guys have left, huh?

          • Gary

            I always get to decide who I accept and who I reject. I insist on that.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            With that, I agree… just like your cousins in the Klan.

            But… you don’t get to decide who is christian and who ain’t.

            I like you Gary… you’re a great ally for my side.

          • Gary

            I know who is a Christian and who is not by their words and by their behavior. Those who endorse homosexuality are not.

          • James Grimes

            You will know them by their fruit.

          • Spoob

            Your posts make me think of that old hymn, “And They’ll Know We Are Christians By Our Hate.” Except I think the last word was originally “love” before you changed it.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Uh-huh…

            Sweetcheeks, you’re not god. You’re one lowly little man with a specific interpretation of the christian mythology.

            Nothing more.

          • Gary

            And you are a pervert. I’d rather be me.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I always get to decide who I accept and who I reject.”

            Well then it doesn’t harm you or your family.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Are denominations who accept divorce Christian?

            Your opinion on “vulgarity” has no bearing in a court of law. “I think it’s icky” isn’t going to get very far with a judge (see almost all the court cases over the last two years).

          • Tedlick Badkey

            What does “corrupting society” mean?

            Vulgar is just your opinion… nothing more.

            You do realize this will never stand in court.

            Is that the best you have?

          • Gary

            I don’t intend to argue anything in any court. My arguments will be made outside of the judicial system.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Then you will enjoy gay marriage in your nation.

            Congrats!

          • Gary

            No, I won’t.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Awwwww… him will be sad with gay marriage in America.

            Poor widdle guy…

          • James Grimes

            “No one who accepts homosexuality or encourages its practice is a Christian.” That is very true, Gary. There are authentic Christians who live by God’s word and there are pseudo (non)-Christians who will fall for anything.

          • Fundisi

            Please, I implore you in Jesus Name not to lump everyone that have sincerely come to salvation by God’s Grace, into their being thus automatically lost. There are some, perhaps many that are still immature in the faith, still carnal in their understandings, poorly taught as too many false ministers today have failed to preach from God’s Word against sin and about the sure fate of hell, thus deceiving them into a false sense of tolerance of sin in a mistaken idea of the love of God, into believing in a saccharine sweet God without Justice. They need our most sincere prayers that they might have their eyes and hearts opened by the Holy Spirit to the truth, pray that they will get into God’s Word and into Christian fellowships that preach the full Gospel.

            I am sympathetic to your and Gary’s feelings on this matter, without any judgments against either of you in this matter; and I know it comes from a sincere desire to stand on God’s Word and against evil, it is about warning people that believe they are saved and yet are deceived; but, remembering my own early years, my own poor understanding of God’s Word and tolerance of sin in my own life, that it is all a growth process and the Holy Spirit surely leads us towards the Truth at our own pace and in His own time, but all along the way, despite our failures we are still surely saved and will not be lost.

            There was a man and his wife that being young and on fire for the Lord, went to the mission field’s, but being immature in their faith and going ahead of God’s timing they failed miserably, with the wife dying on the mission field of disease and the man so angry at God he left his baby daughter behind. For several decades of his life he lived a dissolute life, having seemed to have lost his faith and engaging in sinful conduct. Yet, shortly before his death, God sent his daughter back to him with the testimony that despite thinking he had failed, God actually ignited revival fires through their one convert, whereupon hundreds of thousands of souls were saved. The man, broken, repented and soon died. God spoke to my heart about the story and showed me that this dear Christian was never lost, like the Prodigal he wandered from home, but His Heavenly Father was always with Him and he was never in danger of being lost. My point? Let us be charitable and pray that those souls having genuinely been born again and yet have been deceived, will yet be awakened by the Spirit to the truth.

          • James Grimes

            “Please, I implore you in Jesus Name not to lump everyone that have sincerely come to salvation by God’s Grace, into their being thus automatically lost.” I did not do what you thought I did. There are Christians (real) and there are pseudo-Christians (fake). They are not the same.

          • Fundisi

            “There are Christians (real) and there are pseudo-Christian.”
            Yes, I agree and far too many of them.

          • Spoob

            And you are in no position to label or judge either one. You are not God, just a fundie.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Well since Gary conveniently ignored my question (because I suspect he’s afraid to answer it), maybe you can tell me.

            Are churches that accept divorce real Christians or not?

            I’ll even up the ante because I think you’re smarter than Gary.

            Is Ronald Reagan in hell because he never repented for his divorce from Jane Wyman? If he had repented, he’d have left Nancy and gone back to Jane before he died (as Jesus commands).

          • Fundisi

            Where did Jesus command a divorced person that has remarried to divorce that second wife and go back to his first wife? Book, chapter and verse please.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            How would one repent of their sin other then to make it right.

          • Fundisi

            When you are able to pose a coherent, intelligent question or point, get back to me. The above is nonsensical.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            We can start from the beginning if you’d like.

            Are divorced/remarried people sinning or not?

          • James Grimes

            We both know it’s not there. FWIW, I don’t engage with Atheists. It’s a waste of my time.

          • Spoob

            I will ask you the same thing I asked Gary. If you’re going to seriously say that no one who accepts homosexuality is a Christian, please tell me what you THINK a Christian is, and where you get this bigoted statement from.

          • Spoob

            “No one who accepts homosexuality or encourages its practice is a Christian.”

            Please back up this bigoted statement with facts.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            How haver you been hurt, Gary? How has your family been hurt?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “And I am trying to keep you from passing laws that hurt me and my family.”

            How does allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage hurt you and your family?

          • Jimmy Humphries

            “Thou shalt not judge.” Do you even read your book? True Christians don’t act like this.

          • Fundisi

            Wrong! God calls us to make righteous judgments about evil that we might avoid evil company and thus avoid pollution of our souls. He only warns us against hypocritical judgments and especially ones that cause us to judge someone’s everlasting fate unto deserving death.

          • Spoob

            The problem is what you are calling “evil” is not what the rest of us are calling it, so how can you claim “righteous judgment” on something that is only your opinion?

          • Fundisi

            Because my definition is based on God’s Word, not the arbitrary, ever changing values of godless liberalism, not on the ever shifting values of moral relativism

          • Spoob

            Nothing you do or say is based on God’s word, but your own opinions.

          • James Grimes

            Gary, this clown must think he is significant. He will learn how insignificant he really is. Have a blessed day.

          • Spoob

            Don’t indirectly attack others, James. You’ve been told this in the past. Address people head on or don’t mention them at all.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            That almost sounds like a threat.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Yeah, it means you get trumped by civil law a bunch.

          • Jimmy Humphries

            “Though shalt not judge.”

          • Fundisi

            You are quite wrong! God calls us to make righteous judgments about evil that we might avoid evil company and thus avoid pollution of our souls. He only warns us against hypocritical judgments and especially ones that cause us to judge someone’s everlasting fate unto deserving death.

          • James Grimes

            As usual, Atheists misquote Matthew 7 : 1.

          • Jeff Varney

            That’s true, James, and atheists are not the only ones who misquote that scripture in Matthew. They are others who are having problems with their lives and involved in sin that tell us not to judge. Today, Matthew 7:1 and other scriptures in the Gospels that quote judging are the most recited and quoted scripture(s) in God’s Word today and no longer John 3:16 as it was recited and quoted years ago. James advised us not to judge outwardly (according to the outward appearances) but rather judge inwardly according to the personality, the character, and the heart. That, of course, is righteous judgment.

          • Spoob

            Which is entirely a subjective matter and fundamentalist Christians use it to bolster bigoted and hateful beliefs unsupported by the Bible.

          • Jeff Varney

            Want to see a real bigot, Spoob? Look in the mirror and there’s the answer right there.

          • Spoob

            LOL

            Who am I being a “bigot” towards, Mr. I’m-not-religious?

            I’m standing up for Catholics, homosexuals, women and everyone else you bronze age cretins are trying to beat down, but I’M the bigot. Too funny.

          • James Grimes

            Thanks, Jeff. I’m glad to see that someone really understands what righteous judgment is really about. Some people become very dangerous when they attempt to use Scripture as a weapon and they don’t know what they are doing.

          • James Grimes

            I am to judge righteously, but with all the comments from depraved individuals here, it’s hard to know where to begin.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It’s the over 1,100 protections and benefits for starters… and since your side has put forward exactly zero rational defense for keeping gay people from receiving those, you are losing.

            It’s not complicated.

          • James Grimes

            I’m not interested.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Good! Then you’ll not be upset when gay marriage is legal nationwide.

            Nice to know.

          • Fundisi

            So-called, falsely-called really, gay marriage will in all probability soon be the law of the land; but, that will never make it real marriage, only a perversion of marriage, just as their sexual lives are a perversion of normal, healthy sexual conduct. If every nation on earth were to make it lawful tomorrow, it will remain forever unlawful to God, a sin and those precious gay souls caught up in that deviant lifestyle choice, absent repentance, will pay the most awful price for their rebellion against God. When most of them thus suffer in eternity, it will be their free will choice, as is their deviant sexual lifestyle choice.

            So, while you are rejoicing now at how many legal victories your side is winning and at the prospect of forcing this vile perversion of marriage on the nation – your everlasting tears and torments because of it, will be your own doing. Sadly, at the same time you are bringing down America morally and spiritually in the process, into the literal abyss, leading even a host of non-gays souls in there with you.

          • Jimmy Humphries

            And those Christians who self righteously sin by passing judgement on others will be burning right along with us. “Thou shalt not judge.”

          • Fundisi

            You are very very wrong! God calls us to make righteous judgments about evil that we might avoid evil company and thus avoid pollution of our souls. He only warns us against hypocritical judgments and especially ones that cause us to judge someone’s everlasting fate unto deserving death.

          • Fundisi

            I forgot to add, no Christians, even if they fail and make self righteous judgments, are still safe in Christ, having been forgiven all their sins by His Grace, His Mercy; and, in Christ we have an advocate before God’s Court in our defense and ever sanctifying us by His Word.

          • pax2u

            those self righteous true “christians” believe that they can declare who is and who is not a Christian,
            usually they have no denominational doctrine and a theology of hatred

          • Spoob

            As long as you continue to attack other human beings for falling in love, you will never be taken seriously.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, it is, provided that the way in which they live their life does not unduly infringe upon the rights of others nor threaten public welfare.

          • Gary

            None of it eludes me. All that means is that the laws are supposed to apply to everyone equally. Homosexuals have always been free to marry by the same rules as everyone else must go by. What you and the courts want is an exemption from the law for homosexuals.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            You’re free to marry a man if you wish. No unequal treatment.

          • Gary

            And you are free to marry a woman, if you can find one that will have you. There is no unequal treatment with the current laws.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            How about your daughter?

          • Gary

            No, not my daughter. But if you cannot find a wife, then there is nothing wrong with remaining unmarried.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            So you don’t want a gay man marrying your daughter but you’re more than happy for him to marry somebody else’s. Got it.

          • James Grimes

            You have NOTHING! And how about his daughter? A father has every right to be concerned about his daughter, especially if there’s a chance of her entering into a depraved lifestyle. You should know that.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            You’re the one who said I was free to marry any woman.

          • James Grimes

            Not in this lifetime.

          • Gary

            That is a decision other fathers will have to make. Would you tell a man you are a sodomite and want to marry his daughter?

          • SFBruce

            So a gay man’s completely undesired freedom to marry a woman isn’t quite as free you claim, is it? Under your logic you’re free to marry a man in certain states, but since it’s one you’d never want to exercise, it’s kind of a meaningless freedom, isn’t it?

          • Gary

            So what. There exists no right for me to marry a man anymore than such a right exists for anyone else. If a man cannot find a woman he wants to marry, and who wants to marry him back, let him remain unmarried.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            That’s not how it works, Gary… you know this.

            Why are you so willingly ignorant?

          • SFBruce

            Unless and until a gay man finds another gay man willing to marry him, he, too, will remain unmarried. No one is suggesting the state has to find us a mate; all we want is equality.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “There exists no right for me to marry a man”

            Yes there is – in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and a number of countries.

          • Gary

            There is no such right granted by God, or by the US Constitution.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Agreed.

          • Fundisi

            His point was and it is quite true, gay men are not denied the right to marry, it is a false argument that they are denied this right, but only as marriage is defined by the people of the state, as they define the minimum requirements for a host of things and by those definitions, some are denied such licenses.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “gay men are not denied the right to marry”

            Agreed. They are, however, restricted from marrying the consenting, non-closely-related, adult of their choice. In that, there is inequality. As courts for years have ruled, inherent in the right to marry is to choose one’s spouse.

            “as they define the minimum requirements for a host of things and by those definitions, some are denied such licenses.”

            Agreed. In turn, any restrictions the state places on the rights of citizens must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons.

            Do you have any rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons why two citizens of the same gender should not be allowed access to the civil right of marriage?

          • Fundisi

            Heterosexuals are likewise restricted from marrying people of their own gender. So nether are denied the right to marry and both are restricted from marrying people of the opposite gender, so there is equality under the law.

            Arguments: http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage

            http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/traditional-marriage-a-compelling-government-interest/

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Heterosexuals are likewise restricted from marrying people of their own gender. So nether are denied the right to marry and both are restricted from marrying people of the opposite gender, so there is equality under the law.”

            Very similar to the argument made regarding laws banning interracial marriage:

            It’s not just blacks that are restricted from marrying someone of a different race. It is whites as well. Therefore, equality.

            The argument didn’t fly then, it doesn’t fly now.

            Inherent in the right to marry is the right to marry the consenting person of one’s choice. So to suggest that is equality when some are allowed to marry the consenting person of their choice, while others are not, is false.

            The arguments against same-gender marriage provided on debate.org basically boil down to: “we don’t like it”; “they can’t reproduce between themselves”; “it’s disgusting”; “the children” – none of which, from a legal standpoint, are rational, compelling, or legally valid.

            The arguments presented on WND, suggest that civil marriage is tied to reproduction. It is not. Marriage does not require reproduction nor does it guarantee that children will be raised by their biological parents, nor does reproduction and being raised by biological parents require civil marriage. Finally, NOT allowing same-gender marriage does not result in more opposite-gender marriages nor does it affect the number of children raised by their biological parents. In turn, allowing same-gender marriage does not result in fewer opposite-gender marriages nor fewer children being raised by their biological parents. The arguments presented are not rational, compelling, nor legally valid for denying two citizens of the same gender access to a civil marriage license.

          • James Grimes

            Just thinking about what he said; it is so gross. This is what consumes him. Is this what a disgusting mind does with its free time?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Kind of like how the Lovings wanted an exemption from the law, huh?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Awww… Gary, you lost another one. You should come back over to the Christian Post and whine and cry with the rest of your brethren…

      • Gary

        The only thing I have lost is some freedom to live my life without being bothered by people who want to bother me. I will have to deal with them in some way. And I should not have to do that.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          There is zero benefits, privileges, rights given to gay citizens that you don’t also have.

          This idea that somehow christians are “special” is dying. That’s the real reason you’re so upset.

          • Gary

            Christians are special to each other and to God.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            BWA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!

            But in America… you’re just another citizen, no better than any others.

            Oh… you’re awesome, Gary!

          • Gary

            That is all we have ever tried to be. We are not asking you to go by laws that we don’t go by as well.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Liar.

            Civil Rights Act.

          • Gary

            I don’t agree with the civil rights act. I would repeal it if I could. It is your allies in government who make it stay the law.

          • SteveN

            You’re only happy that this judge unilaterally made a decision that affected millions without a referendum, because you happen to agree with it. What if a judge decided to outlaw being gay altogether? I’m guessing you wouldn’t like that.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Millions?

            Sweetie, there are only ~800,000 people in South Dakota, and none of them are affected unless they wish to marry someone of the same physical gender.

            Your scenario was once true… Then Lawrence v. Texas happened.

            Good grief.

        • Spoob

          You are not being “bothered” by homosexuals. They have no interest in you at all. And if you weren’t constantly trying to attack them and strip them of human rights you would be a much happier person, and so would they.

          • Gary

            I have never in my life tried to deny anyone their ACTUAL rights. The problem is that some people think they have rights that they do not really have.

          • Spoob

            No, what’s happening is you don’t like gay people and don’t want to extend to them the rights you currently enjoy. Fortunately that’s why we have courts of law.

          • pax2u

            Poor angry Gary, so filled with hatred and violence, even James Grimes and Nieman/Fundisi are trying to reign him in, since he has gone so far off the tracks.
            He has spoken of physicially fighting the Government because his hatred is not shared by others, sad, I hope that he does not have a gun, or children for that matter.

          • Spoob

            I suspect he suffers from mental illness so I don’t want to pick on him too much. Grimes and Neimann however should know better, theirs is bigotry for the sake of bigotry.

          • pax2u

            grimes and neiman have poured gas on gary’s fire and when he gets out of control it is too late for them to call the fire department

          • Gary

            Your support for homosexuals has not been unnoticed. Not by God, and not by those people who read your comments.

          • pax2u

            sin is the act not the person, your hate consumes your soul

          • Gary

            I don’t have the right, granted by God, or by the US Cons., to marry another man. How then am I denying them rights that I have?

          • Spoob

            Since not every person is created heterosexual Gary, what do you think the solution is? Other than killing them, which I know is your preference.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “The only thing I have lost is some freedom to live my life without being bothered by people who want to bother me.”

          No such freedom is guaranteed in our constitution.

          “And I should not have to do that.”

          You are suggesting that you shouldn’t have to deal with anything that bothers you. So when we make laws, we should check with you first to determine if something bothers you and, if so, not pass the law, correct? Wow. You are incredibly sell-absorbed and selfish. Welcome to Garyland.

          • Gary

            I should not have to protect myself from people like you who want to deny my right to associate only with those of my choosing.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I have no desire to deny you the right to associate only with those of your choosing. You are free to decide who you want to associate with and who you don’t.

  • James Grimes

    Liberal judges will always rule in favor of the depraved. It’s a feather in their cap. Curious though, female judges will rule in their favor as well. Are most women Liberal?

    • Spoob

      When you call homosexuals “depraved” you forfeit your right to be called a human being.

      • MattFCharlestonSC

        When reading comments by James Grimes, it is best to think of him as human being who is astonishingly stupid in an amusing fashion.

        • Spoob

          I wish I could, but the hate that runs out of his mouth like a leaky faucet is no laughing matter.

      • Fundisi

        But, everything he said was truthful and quite accurate. Depraved: Morally corrupt/debased and homosexuality perfectly fits that description.

        • Spoob

          There is nothing morally wrong with two consenting adults loving one another, and to say otherwise is absurd.

          • Gary

            Prove it. Either prove it, or shut your lying mouth.

          • Spoob

            There is nothing to prove and no one is lying. Hate is indefensible.

          • Gary

            You cannot prove a thing you say. You can’t prove homosexuality is moral, and you cannot prove hate is indefensible. You are an empty suit.

          • Fundisi

            God says He hates sin, is that indefensible?

          • Spoob

            Whose definition of sin? Yours or someone else’s?

          • Fundisi

            God’s definition and it is so simple, any disobedience to His Word, any rebellion against Him is sin. It certainly has nothing to do with the atheist, relative morality and situational ethics you endorse.

          • Spoob

            No, Fundisi. You are not using God’s definition, you are using your own, and that is the reason you are coming across self-righteous and arrogant. Your beliefs are yours alone, they have nothing to do with God.

          • Fundisi

            A. Prove I am wrong.
            B. What would an atheist know about God?
            C. Why am I arrogant?
            D. Prove my beliefs having nothing to do with God.
            D. As I have never claimed a righteousness of my own nor it being superior to any other, how can I be self-righteous?

          • James Grimes

            The Bible supports what you have said. Depraved minds have no clue. If they understood, they would deny it. It is so pathetic.

          • Fundisi

            “Romans 1:28 Furthermore,
            just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of
            God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what
            ought not to be done.”

          • James Grimes

            Absolutely. No debate on this.

          • Spoob

            A. It’s very easy to prove you are wrong, you’re not giving any authoritative sources at all, you’re only stating your opinion. That’s not authority. That’s you saying I should believe something because you say so.
            B. Who ever said I was an atheist? Certainly not me, because I’m NOT an atheist. So my question to you is, if you’re making THIS assumption and claiming to be correct, what else are you making assumptions about where you’re ALSO wrong?
            C. You are arrogant because you claim to speak for God, and you don’t recognize that some of your own beliefs may be contrary to God’s teaching. Here’s one – God says not to judge, and you are judging.
            D. You are self-righteous because you’re speaking as though you are God himself.

          • Fundisi

            A. I have offered many scriptural proofs before of what sin is, which is the ONLY authoritative source: See this link for a more complete discussion: http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-sin.html
            B. The fact that you oppose every Christian here, defend gay marriage and homosexuality and defend the false idea of separation of Church and State, not submitting everything you believe to God’s Word, proves you are at minimum a practical atheist.
            C. I have NEVER claimed to speak for God. Whatever I have stated as my beliefs have been supported by God’s Word.
            D. That is a lie that I have ever spoken as though or believe I am God, in fact many times admitting I am only a sinner saved by grace.

          • Spoob

            A. You are in fact saying that your definition of sin perfectly matches that of the Bible. However you are doing it for things that are not mentioned in the Bible at all, proving your statement to be fraudulent. Added to the fact that gotquestions.org is hardly an authoritative source, it is in fact a garbage source with garbage information.

            B. No True Scotsman fallacy. You do not get to dictate who is and is not a Christian, and you have been told this several times. You don’t like homosexuals and the separation of church and state, and that is the only statement you are qualified to make. You cannot state this is God’s opinion because it’s not, and cannot be proven as such.

            C. You are saying that your beliefs are God’s beliefs. Every Christian on earth makes that same statement, and many of them are at huge variation with your beliefs, so what does that tell you? Or are you going to tell me that they are all false Christians and you are the only true one? Once again, that is the No True Scotsman fallacy and it’s taken to an absurd extreme. Your brand of Christianity is not better or truer than anyone else’s.

            D. You put your own hateful words in God’s mouth and try to give the illusion to the rest of us that they are one and the same. In fact they are NOT one and the same. You seem to need to be told over and over that you are not God and you have no right to speak for God.

          • Fundisi

            Okay, your nonsense has already worn out your welcome. You have not proven a single charge against, never shown how I am wrong based on God’s Word, you do you refute what Got Questions has to offer, with 16 scriptural references therein, you just hate them and that is your answer.

            First, repent of your sins, then ask Jesus to be your Savior and Lord, accept His salvation by Grace alone, seek His Holy Spirit in your life, then rely on God’s Word and then get back to me.

          • Spoob

            On the contrary, I think I HAVE proven (very effectively too, with many examples) that your authority is nothing more than your own opinion. You are a blowhard Christian supremacist who thinks he is God. But you AREN’T God. In fact, you need to repent of your own sins rather than be focused so strongly on what you think are the sins of others.

          • James Grimes

            Ignore the clown. He is insignificant on this forum. Proverbs 26:4 speaks of him.

          • Fundisi

            By whose standard? Yes, by your atheist, liberal, godless measure I suppose you would find love based on vile, perverted sickening sexual relations to be morally acceptable to you; but, Christians prefer to apply a standard higher than themselves, one that is unchangeable, not subject to the shifting winds of moral relativism, but by One Who is Holy and the Judge of us all.

          • James Grimes

            Very well said. Thank you.

          • James Grimes

            Very well said. Thank you.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          It is truthful and accurate only for those who share his views as to what is morally corrupt.

          • Fundisi

            It is truthful based on God’s immutable, perfect, unchanging Word.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            More accurately put: “It is truthful based on WHAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE IS God’s immutable, perfect, unchanging Word.

            That you have chosen to believe that God’s word is accurately expressed in the Bible, does not make it so. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • Fundisi

            It is truthful based on God’s immutable, perfect, unchanging Word.

        • James Grimes

          These clowns have no clue. Morality in this country is deteriorating at an unforeseen rate because of people of this ilk. Example: I heard on the radio yesterday that the Liberty Council has determined that the incidence of man-boy relationships (assaults) are at an all-time high. These depraved individuals wants us to think this is normal and that we should accept it.

          Anyway, the Bible has determined what depraved behavior is. That is the standard that I will hold to.

          MattFCharlestonSC thinks my comments are amusing? Does he have a “standard” that he follows? Probably not. But… he is permitted to continue in his delusion and he has plenty of the depraved as company.
          Thank you Fundisi.

          • Fundisi

            We are increasingly living in a wholly depraved world, the enemy our our souls is taking full control over the world. One of his greatest weapons is his appeal to the lusts of our flesh, mostly deviant sexual lusts that fallen man craves like a drug, it gets them high for short moments and leaves them empty and dead inside. Sadly, he is making inroads into the professed, carnal Christian Church as well.

          • Gary

            Of those who claim to be “Christians”, only a small percentage actually are real believers.

          • Fundisi

            Let us praise God that it is not because we are better than others, we are all gross sinners, but praise Him that by His Grace only are we saved. We must remember our fallen state and how much we owe God and not rejoice ever that so many have not taken the narrow way, but only rejoice that God’s mercy has touched our lives. If we do, if we remember we deserve hell as much as any other sinner and do not deserve the least of God’s kindness and mercy, we will continually give to Him the heart felt thanksgiving He alone deserves and acknowledge glory that belongs to Him alone.

          • Gary

            You are right. All of us deserve damnation. Thank God He lifted the scales from the eyes of some of us.

          • Tom Rintjema

            You are right Fundisi. We are NOT any better than anyone else. I know I have sinned in many ways. Praise God he sent his Son so that my ( our ) sins are nailed to the cross. Hell is a terrify place. We are called by God to tell others about Christ, His love, His forgiveness.

      • Gary

        Go to Hell.

        • James Grimes

          Gary, don’t worry about this clown. He has a place there with his name on it. I won’t respond to his nonsense. It’s not worth my time or my effort. On this forum, he is meaningless and very insignificant.

          • Gary

            I agree that he is worthless. And that God has made space available for him in Hell.

        • Spoob

          See you there. I’ll save you a seat.

          • Gary

            I won’t be there.

          • Spoob

            You will if you keep attacking God’s children.

          • Gary

            I don’t attack God’s children. You are a child of the devil.

      • pax2u

        gary is an angry and violent creature

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      What about the conservative judges who have ruled in favor of striking down laws which harm citizens? Also a feather in their cap?

    • BarkingDawg

      Were you aware that many conservative judges have ruled that the state bans are unconstitutional as well?

  • Gary

    There will come a point that we will no longer accept the abuse of the Constitution like “Judge Karen”, and other wicked judges are now doing. When we reach that point, life in America will change dramatically.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      What will you do, little Gary?

      Details please!

      • Gary

        Not going to reveal any plans to you.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Didn’t think you had anything…

          Big words for such a little guy.

          • Gary

            You don’t know what I have. Yet.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            If you had anything, you’d fess up… or are you a bigger wus than your cousins in ISIS?

          • Gary

            LOL.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      So you believe a time will come in America where citizens are not allowed to challenge laws in court and the judiciary is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

      If so, you are certainly correct that America will change dramatically.

      • Gary

        The time will come when citizens will not tolerate a judiciary that makes rulings that are unsupported by the US Constitution. The courts will continue to do that until they go too far. I don’t know exactly when that will happen, but it will happen. Despots tend to keep abusing their power until they are stopped.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Quite ominous. Let me know how that goes.

  • Fundisi

    Fellow Christians, there is no stopping this, it will become the Law of the land. Our official state religion, our national Church is Secular Humanism, by any other name it is atheism. The Spirit of the anti-Christ is now ruling this once mostly Christian nation, Satan is America’s now god and a spirit of deception is ruling the hearts and minds of most of our people.

    We Christians are now tasked with: (a) Praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ. (b) Praying for our family members, friends and associates to find Christ to get ready for the return of Christ. (b) Pray for our enemies, like Pollos Hermanos below, our country and the world. (c) By prayer and the Word putting on the full armor of Christ that we can stand in this time of evil that has come upon the world. (d) If we truly believe in God, we need to pray for absolute surrender to the Spirit that we might be fully conformed into the image of Christ.

    • Gary

      I have no intention of letting a bunch of ungodly tyrants bully me. And I will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure it does not happen.

      • Fundisi

        Brother Gary, do your serve God or yourself? There is surely a place and ways to resist tyranny and while obeying the law, oppose them; but, when you try and take back ground by the power of self, it will only bring self destruction. I do understand and appreciate your anger at how the Devil is gaining ground, but God told us that for a season he will win, that when it gets to a certain point, God will remove His Church from this earth and He will unleash hell on earth in the form of His Divine and Holy Wrath.

        I cannot tell another man how he should react and act, I can only tell you that the battle is the Lord’s and if we step in without His leading us, Her will step back, he will not share His glory with anyone.

        • Gary

          A tyrant is a tyrant. Whether it be Herod, the King of England, Hitler, a US Federal Judge, a US President, or military or police.
          I understand that we are living in the last days, and that God is soon going to pour out his wrath on his enemies. But as I have always done, I will do everything in my power to keep my neck, and the necks of those I care about, out from under the boot of evil men. If that means evil men kill me, then so be it. I won’t be abused by anyone without a fight.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So what are you going to do to “not be abused?” Not get gay married?

  • gregkliebigsr

    What God, our Creator says:
    ROMANS 1 : 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    NEW TESTAMENT !

  • The Lone Ranger

    Men must be ruled by God or they will be governed by tyrants. William Penn.

    • dark477

      What’s the difference?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      The God of the Bible says:

      You must believe that he is the only God
      You must obey every rule he put down
      You must not speak against him
      If you do anything of those things, you will be punished for all eternity

      How is that not tyrannical?

      • Tom Rintjema

        However there is forgiveness for those who ask for it and repent. Please don t make Christianity a religion of works. This is called legalism which is a sin in itself

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          So the things I mentioned AREN’T required in Christianity?

      • ArielMalek

        Wow, where did you get your ideas of God and the Bible? Man, you have a great misunderstanding about God and His ways.
        Tis late, but very succinctly, God is God and man broke His laws of love given for man’s benefit. And all have sinned-and deserve to die in Hell. But that’s just it-Father God sent Jesus in His love to take the horrible punishment on Himself that we deserve.
        Pray for understanding-for that is the greatest act of Love in all of history. When we clearly deserved the punishment but God took it on His son.Do you have a son or daughter? Or if not consider another loved one. Consider-if someone broke in, raped and murdered your most beloved family member-God forbid- but if that person got the death penalty, would you be willing to let your only other beloved child take the murderers place and get executed so the killer could go free? I’m not saying we all committed murder, but that analogy very much parallels what we have done and God has done. I could also mention how Jesus clearly said He came to set us free-not put in in bodage, to give us fullness of Life-not religion, love, peace and joy, purpose in life, etc etc. I could go on and on. Just to say hundred of millons of us have experienced that through a love relationship by faith (not works or legalism -which is religion-as Tom below mentions.

        I don’t know you, but I know this world can so often be hard and cruel and break our hearts. But know Papa God loves you and wants to share His great love, peace, joy, restoration and healing with you. Our earthly fathers may have been angry and even cruel. But Daddy God is tender and loving and weeps at the pains and sorrows you have gone through. He loves you. TAke care, peace to you.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “Tis late, but very succinctly, God is God and man broke His laws of love given for man’s benefit. And all have sinned-and deserve to die in Hell. But that’s just it-Father God sent Jesus in His love to take the horrible punishment on Himself that we deserve.”

          That is what you have CHOSEN to believe. While I certainly respect your right to believe as you choose and to share those beliefs, because you have chosen to believe the biblical version of God, does not make it true. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          “But know Papa God loves you and wants to share His great love, peace, joy, restoration and healing with you. Our earthly fathers may have been angry and even cruel. But Daddy God is tender and loving and weeps at the pains and sorrows you have gone through. He loves you.”

          I do believe that.

          Take care and peace to you, as well.

  • gregkliebigsr

    HEBREWS 13 : 4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

    REVELATION 21 : 8. But the fearful, and UNBELIEVING, and ABOMINABLE, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    THE GODLY UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN IS THE ONLY BLESSED UNION BY GOD OUR CREATOR : EVERYTHING ELSE IS ABOMINATION AND SIN !!!
    THAT IS WHY HE CALLED THEM : WHORES, WHOREMONGERS, ADULTERERS, ADULTRESSES, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDOPHILES, RAPISTS !

    AND YET, THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST WILL FORGIVE AND DELIVER ALL FROM THEIR SIN ! SO, REPENT BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE, BECAUSE YOU WILL STAND BEFORE HIM ON JUDGEMENT DAY!

    • Guest

      I agree. However whats not talked about much anymore is what Jesus said. ” Whoever marries someone who divorced commits adultery ” This is just as bad as a gay marriage. These marriages are allowed in many churches.

    • Tom Rintjema

      I agree with this. However what is not talked about much anymore is what Jesus said in in Matthew 19 : 8 and 9. ” Whoever divorces his wife ( or husband ) except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery , and whoever marries someone who is divorced commits adultery “. This is just as wrong as gay marriage.

  • jmichael39

    Personally, as a Christian and a Patriot, my view on this fairly different than most. While I will forever identify homosexual behavior as sin and seek to help lead anyone trapped in any sin to the foot of the Cross, I think fighting this fight over whether the government should ‘allow’ two people to marry or not to marry is the wrong fight.
    I personally think that the government has no place in telling any two people whether they can be married or not. Let me explain. Anyone getting married is required by law to obtain a license from the county or state to do so. What IS a license? In simple terms, in this particular instance, it is the state giving you permission to do something you would otherwise have no right to do. Look it up for yourself in Black’s Law Dictionary. If you have a fundamental right to do something, who gave the government the authority decide who has permission to do it?
    The courts have decided numerous times that we all have a fundamental right to enter into a contract with another person. That, essentially, is what marriage is…a covenant…a contract. Unless you are contracting to do something that is illegal, there is no fundamental requirement to obtain government permission.
    It USED to be that a man would seek permission to marry a woman from the woman’s father or closest male relative. Chauvinistic, yes, but none the less revealing as to what is still happening now. Instead of seeking permission from the father or closest male relative, we now seek permission from the state. If it was wrong to think that a woman in ‘owned’ by her father and needed his permission to marry, why is now okay to think she and the man are the property of the state and require THEIR permission to marry?
    BUT, but acquiescing to the government’s call to obtain their permission, we are essentially including them in the contract process. Which is why you will also find virtually every court case about marriage referring to it as a THREE party contract. Which is why, of course, the state gets a major say-so in how we run our marriages and the by-products of that marriage (our children), They are party to the contract and have powers and rights and obligations just like the husband and wife do.
    So, what would like to see happen? I would like to see the government OUT of the marriage business. Get your stinking hands out. The consequences of that? Yes, it means that if two men want to enter in a marital contract or two women do, that they can do that with or without the government or our permission to do so.
    By acquiescing to this reality of freedom, I, as a Christian, am NOT accepting homosexuality as somehow some way no longer a sin. I am merely accepting the free will of every human and every human’s right to be personally accountable before God. I will still preach that it is sin. I will still seek to guide them, as with any sinner, to the cross of Jesus. I will still be an ambassador for Christ.

    Does this mean that I will stand idly by while some activist homosexuals try to force business owners to violate their own personal consciences to perform services they do not believe God would want them to perform? No. I will still fight against that as well. But while I agree with all my brothers and sisters here that homosexual behavior is a sin, I will not stand in opposition to anyone entering in a marital contract should that be what they wish to do. And here’s why. Just as you and I could not legally enter in a contract to do something otherwise illegal (say to murder somebody), two men or two women cannot enter into a contract, in the eyes of God, to do something outside of HIS law. Just as the government will not honor a contract to violate one its laws, God will not honor a contract to violate one of His laws. That doesn’t stop people from entering into illegal contracts, but they do so with the full realization that the contract is no enforceable…in a gay marriage…under God’s law. God will not bless it. He will not honor it. The rest of His laws for marriage do not govern it. It is as if, just like a contract to commit murder is not recognized as a legitimate contract in the eyes of our earthly laws, that marriage does not exist in the eyes of God.

    So feel free to enter into that contract, knowing that it is not recognized or honored in the Kingdom of Heaven. If that doesn’t matter to you, so be it. It will sooner or later.

    • Gary

      Most of my opposition to legal ssm stems from fearing that the government will require me to accept it as being both legal and valid. And I refuse to do that. If I was free to voice my rejection of ssm and homosexuals, and not have the government try to bind me in any way by their decision, then I would not care as much about what they want to do. However, I think the government has every intention of trying to force everyone to accept both homosexuals and ssm, if they won’t volunteer to accept it.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Sweetie, you’ll never be forced to “accept” anything… like your cousins in the Klan. Do you think they “accept” interracial marriage as “legal and valid”? No… no one can force them to think that way.

        Nor you.

        • Gary

          The government has discrimination laws that try to prevent rejection of people who are interracially married. Everyone is free to THINK what they want. But expressing your beliefs is a different matter.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            How does it “reject” anything?

            What are you talking about.

            Acceptance is nothing more than thought.

          • Gary

            If I am forced to associate with you against my will, then that is much more than thought. If you come into my place of business, and I am not free to make you leave, then you are being forced on me.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Wait… let me get this straight.

            I am forced by federal law (the Civil Rights Act) to “associate” with christians in public accommodations…

            But it’s “bad” for gay citizens to have the exact same protections?

            Oh… Hypocrisy, thy name is FUNDY!

            Such hypocrisy should hurt.

          • Gary

            No one, including you, should be forced to associate in any way with those they would rather not associate with.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Then why aren’t you taking up the cause and trying to eliminate your own special rights?

            As long as those special rights exist in the Civil Rights Act, you are a hypocrite for decrying them for other citizens.

          • Gary

            If it were up to me, the Civil Rights Act would be eliminated today.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Since you are not “forced” to own a business, you cannot be “forced” to associate with people you don’t want to.

          • Gary

            The government does not force me to breathe either. But if I want to live, I have to. And if I want to live, I have to make a living, and the government does interfere with that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “And if I want to live, I have to make a living, and the government does interfere with that.”

            The government is interfering with you being employed and earning a living? How so?

      • jmichael39

        Frankly, I think your concern fits nicely in with how Jesus looked upon the laws of Rome regarding taxes. Non-Romans were forced to pay taxes as a homage to Caesar. In this regard, if the government says we have to accept these contracts as legal IN THIS WORLD, then we render to Caesar his right to create the rules for this kingdom. If in the course of them enforcing their rules they decide they feel the need to persecute us for disagreeing with them, oh well, that’s what happens to ambassadors to hostile nations. And sadly, that’s what we seeing happen here. While for the first 175+ years of this country’s existence it was more than friendly towards the Kingdom of God…it is has, in the past 75 years or so because increasingly hostile towards our King. Yet, we’re still ambassadors here.

        • Gary

          I am one ambassador who will not tolerate being persecuted. And I will not accept that Caesar has any right to do wrong.

          • jmichael39

            Seriously?! Then you’d better hope for an early death. Because, brother you WILL be persecuted for your faith. Our Lord guaranteed it.

          • Gary

            I expect to die at the hand of someone who works for the government. Unless I go out with the Church.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

            Do you get 72 virgins at the end of it all?

          • Pollos Hermanos

            In reality you’ll probably die crapping in a bag while sitting in a government paid for Hoveround right after complaining that the (government) mail service doesn’t deliver your (government) Social Security checks on time.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “from fearing that the government will require me to accept it as being both legal and valid.”

        Why do you “fear” having to accept that something is legal? Is your “fear” sufficient to deny citizen’s rights?

        “And I refuse to do that.”

        If you can refuse to do that, then what is your fear?

        “and not have the government try to bind me in any way by their decision”

        You are not bound by their decision. No one can force you to accept something. You are free to accept or not accept whatever you care to.

        • Gary

          I do not deny the ACTUAL rights of anyone.
          If I am free to reject the civil rights laws, then why are Christians being prosecuted for rejecting them?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If I am free to reject the civil rights laws, then why are Christians being prosecuted for rejecting them?”

            You are free to reject them. You are not, however, free from the consequences of doing so. I can reject a 65 MPH speed limit. If, however, I choose to exceed the speed limit, I can be held accountable for my rejection of it.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Awesomesauce!!! Life just KEEPS getting better and better!!!

    • Gary

      That won’t last.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Really? And what, dear Gary, is going to happen?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        How interesting that you never give more than vague concepts… one would think your confidence in your god would mean you’d be more clear in your replies… but, your choice to ignore questions tells us a lot about your confidence in your deity.

        • Gary

          One day, and probably sooner than you hope, you will die of some cause. When you die, ALL of your enjoyment will cease. Gone forever. And God is the One who will make that happen.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Ah, the threat of christianity.

            How cute.

          • Gary

            LOL. Ignore reality if you please.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Reality can be proven with tangible facts.

            Show me a fact that will prove your hell exists.

          • Gary

            All in good time.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Didn’t think you could, Gary.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            If all the gays go to hell, does that mean that brunch will be served every day? Count me in.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Not just brunch…..a fabulous brunch.

          • Gary

            There is no food in Hell. No water either. No light. No relief. And no hope.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Thanks for informing me Gary. Gays don’t really eat much at brunch anyway, so I’ll plan accordingly. You’ll probably be headed south for the afterlife also — so did you want to take this opportunity to RSVP for foodless/waterless brunch?

  • Maggi Esamilla

    Why vote anymore when judges are just going to legislate from the bench. In other words, there is no more democratic voting. They can put issues on the ballots but your votes mean absolutely nothing. They will be settled according to the admin’s platform. More and more our votes mean absolutely nothing. Sad

    • Tedlick Badkey

      You folks act like this is the first time this has happened…

      The constitution is the supreme law of the land… not your vote.

      The only sad thing is how little understanding of that fact you have.

      • Gary

        The Constitution does not require that ssm be legal. Claiming it does, does not make it true. A judge saying it does, does not make it true.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          You must provide a rational legal argument why the 14th amendment does not apply to the protections and benefits of marriage… even for gay citizens.

          You’ve failed to do that. Repeatedly.

          It’s not “a” judge… it’s over 50 judges now. Your saying it’s not true does not make it not true.

          • Gary

            Ho-moes have always been free to legally marry, by the same rules that everyone else has to go by. You want sodomites to be exempted from the rules.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Awwww… and before 1967, folks in 14 states were free to legally marry by the same rules as everyone else.

            It don’t work that way, Gary.

            And now, you too can marry someone of the same gender.

            See? Equal rules apply to you too! There is no exemption.

          • Gary

            I am very pleased by your future.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Good one! Is that copyrighted? I would like to use it.

          • Gary

            Help yourself.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “The Constitution does not require that ssm be legal. Claiming it does, does not make it true”

          No judge has said that. What the judiciary has said is that rules banning two citizens of the same gender from entering into marriage are unconstitutional. If a state decided to get out of the marriage business all together, no judge could force the state to marry two people of the same gender by saying the constitution requires it.

          “A judge saying it does, does not make it true.”

          Which is why we have an appeals process, so that a single judge’s ruling does not have to stand on its own. So far, the balance of the judiciary, with few exceptions, disagrees with your assessment.

          • Gary

            The judiciary is wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional in marriage being heterosexual only. And I defy you, or anyone else to prove me wrong using the actual text of the US Constitution.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The judiciary is wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional in marriage being heterosexual only”

            You are certainly entitled to you opinion.

            “And I defy you, or anyone else to prove me wrong using the actual text of the US Constitution.”

            Please refer to the 14th amendment, as well as the text from judicial rulings on this matter, for further information.

    • Gary

      You are exactly right.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Why vote anymore when judges are just going to legislate from the bench.”

      No judge has written legislation.

      “In other words, there is no more democratic voting.”

      Yes there is. Did you not notice that we just had a big election in November?

      “They can put issues on the ballots but your votes mean absolutely nothing.”

      Not true. In the vast majority of cases, laws passed by the people remain in effect.

      “They will be settled according to the admin’s platform.”

      The judiciary does not decide cases based upon the “admin’s platform”. I’m assuming you have not read any of these rulings to see the legal rationale put forth. You should try that – you might learn something.

      “More and more our votes mean absolutely nothing.”

      Examples?

  • James Grimes

    Too many depraved clowns on this forum… They need to be ignored.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Sour grapes much?

      What a fine whine they do make!

  • the christian

    marriage is nowhere mentioned in the constitution…….vile liberals “there everywhere”.

    • Pollos Hermanos

      ^their

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Actually it’s “they’re.” But nice try, both of you 🙂

        • Pollos Hermanos

          Shhh, I was trying to confuse him.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh, well then, by all means. Continue 🙂

  • robertzaccour

    Here’s an excellent video supporting traditional marriage.

  • robertzaccour

    Here’s an excellent video supporting traditional marriage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvvvK_lcBXI

  • Reason2012

    “Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry,”

    The plaintiffs already have the right to marry one person of the same gender. They are the only ones denying themselves this right they already have and pretend they’re then being denied this right.

    They are using this lie to demand a special right that no one has.

    It is unconstitutional to demand the government redefine religious institutions that have been around long before any goverments, passing laws to establish this new state religion, which in turn criminalizes Christian beliefs, who are now sued, fined and businesses shut down unless we pledge our support for this new state religion of perversion.

    Ready to get back to God yet? See how easy it is to destroy this country one piece at a time? This is what God gives us up to when we give Him up. We can now see that His judgment against perversion is the truth and we can see the results of those who love this perversion shoving it upon society by force of law.

    2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “They are using this lie to demand a special right that no one has.”

      They are demanding to marry the consenting, non-closely-related person of their choice. That is a right every opposite gender couple has. So, no, they are not demanding a “special right that on one has”.

      “It is unconstitutional to demand the government redefine religious institutions that have been around long before any governments”

      Civil marriage is not a religious institution. It is a secular institution. If it were a religious institution, then atheists would not be allowed to marry. They are. Each religious organization remains free to define marriage in accordance with their beliefs.

      “which in turn criminalizes Christian beliefs”

      Please cite one law that makes it a crime for a person to believe in the Christian faith.

      “who are now sued, fined and businesses shut down unless we pledge our support for this new state religion of perversion.”

      No such pledge is required.

      Your extensive use of hyperbole removes credibility from your arguments.

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Marriage is not “marry whoever you want” – marriage is one man and one woman, defined by God since the beginning.

        It’s not called “civil marriage” or “civil unions” (which they had and rejected) – it’s called marriage and as such is their attempt to re-define religious institutions, get government to establish this new state religion, criminalize Christian beliefs, and in fact criminalize everyone who does not agree with this new state religion.

        Civil unions was a secular institution – they rejected it b/c they want the ultimate government enforcement of it and government criminalization of all opposing beliefs.

        I didn’t say it criminalizes “the Christian faith” – but people are sued, fined for not supporting this ACT of a same-gender marriage. Are you honestly ignorant of people getting fined for not pledging their support of the ACT of a same-gender marriage?

        The pledge is your demanded ACTION of SUPPORTING same-gender acts if there is such away they can force to you do so (bake a cake for the act, photograph the act, host the act). And the cases of people being sued and fined by the government for this now criminal behavior is growing.

        Facts remove credibility from your arguments.

        Thank you for posting.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “Marriage is not “marry whoever you want””

          Nor did I ever suggest it is.

          “defined by God since the beginning.”

          Civil marriage is defined by man.

          “It’s not called “civil marriage””

          Actually, civil marriage is called civil marriage. Did you not know that?

          “I didn’t say it criminalizes “the Christian faith””

          Nor did I. What you did say was: “”which in turn criminalizes Christian beliefs””

          I’ll ask again – please cite one law that makes Christian beliefs a crime.

          “The pledge is your demanded ACTION of SUPPORTING same-gender acts if there is such away they can force to you do so”

          Since no one is forced to own a business, no one can be forced to participate in such acts.

          “And the cases of people being sued and fined by the government for this now criminal behavior is growing.”

          Anti-discrimination laws were put into place long before same-gender marriage was legal. They were put into place either through a vote of the people or their elected representatives. A process that many seem to view as the final say. Do you believe citizens should not be held accountable to the law?

          If you don’t agree with ant-discrimination laws, you are certainly free to work to get them repealed.

          “Facts remove credibility from your arguments.”

          What facts are you referring to and in what way do they remove credibility from my argument.

          At least you weren’t foolish enough to attempt to disagree with my comment that your hyperbole removes credibility from your post. I appreciate that.

          • Reason2012

            No, marriage is not called civil marriage and civil marriage is not called marriage, no matter how much you want to claim it’s so.

            I said: “I didn’t say it criminalizes “the Christian faith””

            You said: Nor did I.

            Yes, you did. You said “Please cite one law that makes it a crime for a person to believe in the Christian faith.”

            To which I respond again I did not say it criminalizes “The Christian faith” – you know: believing in it.

            It criminalizes part of it: the part defined by God: marriage: one man and one woman. If you do not instead violate your Christian faith promote the act of a same-gender marriage you are fined many thousands of dollars by the government.

            “I’ll ask again – please cite one law that makes it Christian beliefs a crime.”

            Must be the same-gender marriage law you are promoting: bakers, flourists, photographers, those who host marriage are sued and fined many thousands of dollars if they do not violate their Christian faith and SUPPORT the ACT of a same gender marriage.

            Again, are you honestly ignorant that this is going on? Of course not – you’ve been told this before.

            “Since no one is forced to own a business, no one can be forced to participate in such acts.”

            Ah so since no one is forced to own a business, then it’s ok to be fined many thousands of dollars for not violating your Christian faith and supporting anti-Christian ACTS. Where’s the law that backs that up? First Amendment is what protects them from this tyranny.

            “Anti-discrimination laws were put into place long before same-gender marriage was legal.”

            Can a black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people be forced to bake cakes for ACT of a “whites are supreme” celebration? No.

            And likewise can a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals be forced to bake cakes for anti-Christian ACTS, like a same-gender wedding? No.

            But to force black bakers to do this under the false, dishonest pretense of “anti-discrimination laws” is a farce that people are waking up to.

            Homosexual marriage is only sought to criminalize any other beliefs, which pretty much means criminalizing Christian beliefs.

            It’s also a violation of the Constitution for the government to redefine religious institutions and then establish this new state religion by force of law, which simultaneously is criminalizing Christianity.

            Again facts that you ignore remove credibility from your arguments.

            I didn’t need to ‘disagree’ with judgment of my comments b/c your judgments are without merit to begin with since you cannot refute my points.

            Thank you for posting – it helps you showing others how activists will twist truth and laws to promote their agenda, and I appreciate you showing it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “No, marriage is not called civil marriage and civil marriage is not called marriage, no matter how much you want to claim it’s so.”

            From ask.com: Civil marriage is a marriage performed, recorded, and recognized by a government official.

            “Yes, you did. You said “Please cite one law that makes it a crime for a person to believe in the Christian faith.”

            That is not saying it does. That is asking you to provide proof of YOUR statement that there is a law that makes it a crime for a person to believe in the Christian faith.

            “It criminalizes part of it: the part defined by God: marriage: one man and one woman.”

            Please cite one law which criminalizes marriage between one man and one woman.

            “If you do not instead violate your Christian faith promote the act of a same-gender marriage you are fined many thousands of dollars by the government.”

            You do not promote same-gender marriage. Have you been fined “many thousands of dollars by the government”? If not, then your statement is false.

            “Must be the same-gender marriage law you are promoting”

            Same-gender marriage laws are distinct from anti-discrimination laws. A case in point being Oklahoma. Same-gender marriage is legal in Oklahoma, but there is no law there which includes sexuality as a covered category in anti-discrimination laws. Regarding the examples you gave of public accommodation, the issue is anti-discrimination laws – not same-gender marriage laws.

            “Ah so since no one is forced to own a business, then it’s ok to be fined many thousands of dollars for not violating your Christian faith and supporting anti-Christian ACTS. Where’s the law that backs that up?”

            Whether it is “OK” or not is a matter of opinion. It is, however, the law in some places. They are called anti-discrimination laws.

            “First Amendment is what protects them from this tyrrany.”

            The courts have ruled otherwise regarding religious beliefs being a valid rationale for violating anti-discrimination laws.

            “Can a black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people be forced to bake cakes for ACT of a “whites are supreme” celebration? No.”

            Correct. Political viewpoints are not a covered category.

            “And likewise can a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals be forced to bake cakes for anti-Christian ACTS, like a same-gender wedding? No.”

            Correct. They cannot be “forced”. They are free to no longer offer wedding cakes as a part of their business offerings, and they are free to longer operate a bakery that is open to the public. They are not “forced”.

            “But to force black bakers to do this under the false, dishonest pretense of “anti-discrimination laws” is a farce that poeple are waking up to.”

            They aren’t forced to do so, as noted above.

            “Homosexual marriage is only sought to criminalize any other beliefs, which pretty much means criminalizing Christian beliefs.”

            Since same-gender marriage is legal in many places, and in none of those places is it criminal to believe that it shouldn’t, your statement is false hyperbole.

            “It’s also a violation of the Constitution for the government to redefine religious institutions”

            Religious marriage continues to be as each religion determines it to be. It has not been redefined. Your statement is false.

            “since you cannot refute my points.”

            I have refuted every point you have made.

            “it helps you showing others how activists will twist truth and laws to promote their agenda”

            What “truth” do you believe I have twisted? I do not have the ability to “twist laws”. How laws are applied is up to the judiciary.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Always so interesting to see how some people are so adamant that same-gender civil marriage should not be legal because of what the Bible says, yet you do not see any such fervor put into making divorce, for reasons other than infidelity, or marriage of people who got divorced for reasons other than infidelity, illegal.

    Seems quite hypocritical.

    • Reason2012

      Hello. You do not see the government fining Christians many thousands of dollars for not baking cakes for the acts of celebrating divorce, do you?

      You do not see the government fining Christians many thousands of dollars for pledging their support that marriage should be for life, do you?

      You do not see activists going into kindergarten classrooms and promoting to kids that divorce and having multiple partners is ok, do you?

      Yet all of this is what same-gender marriage activists are illegally forcing upon society and Christians. Huge difference.

      The government has not defined marriage, so why should they also define divorce – it’s between each person and God. But getting the government to re-define marriage and then pass laws to establish this new state religion, which Criminalizes Christian beliefs or anyone who does not share that belief is a violation of the Constitution, both the establishment clause and establishing a new state religion where anyone opposed is criminalized.

      Thank you for posting.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Ah, religious hypocrisy. YOU receive the same public accommodations protections you decry being given to others.

        It only helps MY side when you act this way… such attitudes are what is driving folks away from the church.

        • Reason2012

          Hello. What protections? Please be specific. Thank you.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

            Your public accommodations protections are spelled out right there in the Civil Rights Act.

          • Reason2012

            You mean the First Amendment of the Constitution where government cannot prohibit the free expression of religious beliefs, but now it’s being criminalized by the passing of same-gender marriage?

            Cite one from that document and let’s talk.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            No. You’re not very bright.

            I gave you the link. The Civil Rights Act spells out public accommodations protections for those who choose to follow a mythology. The first amendment does not.

            I cite nothing for you. Read it. Search it for the term “religion” and have fun.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Cite one from the document, and let’s talk. What public accommodation? So you cannot get specific to back up your claim?

            The First Amendment guarantees us the right to free exercise of religious expression – that government cannot pass laws prohibiting it. With now fining Christians many thousands of dollars for following their beliefs, they are violating the First Amendment. By also passing laws to establish a new state religion with a new religious institution of what a marriage is, that’s another violation.

            You cannot cite it b/c there is no such specific accommodation.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Remain ignorant then my friend. The concept of public accommodations is spelled out… Your special rights therein defined. Your ignorance of it will only lead to losses that surprise you. I’ll not be surprised.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. So in other words you cannot cite a specific case – you just want to pretend we have such “public accommodations”. If there are so many in that document, why can you not cite a single ONE? Just ONE?

            Thank you for posting.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Maintain ignorance. It’ll just be more fun for me.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Yet the fact is you avoid citing even ONE when that link supposedly has many – the facts betray your claims.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            You can read it yourself… if you choose not to, that’s on you, not me. The facts are right there… even if you’re too lazy to go see for yourself.

            This harms you in the end, not me.

          • Reason2012

            There aren’t any in there. So prove me wrong and cite ONE that is and we’ll talk. You won’t b/c you cannot. Thank you for posting.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Sure they are… the definition of “public accommodations” is right there… as is special protection for religion.

            You’re amazing!

            Just check out “TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION”… there you’ll see both.

          • Reason2012

            So prove me wrong and cite ONE that is and we’ll talk. You won’t b/c you cannot. Thank you for posting.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Nope.

            Just check out “TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION”… Therein you will find discrimination banned in public accommodations based on “race, color, religion, or national origin”.

            It’s all there… black and white.

            It’s not that I cannot… I choose not. You need to educate yourself and quit relying on others.

          • Reason2012

            So prove me wrong and cite ONE that is and we’ll talk. You won’t b/c you cannot. Thank you for posting. Easy to prove me wrong – you cannot do so because it’s false there are any in there.

            “Show me proof”
            “I refuse – so there – and that proves I’m right”

            Thank you for proving you’re wrong.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It’s all there.

            You want it, you educate yourself. I’ve not attempted to prove anything wrong. I also never said those words.

            I thought lying was a sin before your sky monster.

          • Reason2012

            See how he cannot show it. He just continues to lie that it’s there and cannot refute the fact when you point out it’s not. It just shows how dishonest those who hate God typically are.

          • Bob Burke

            Hmmm the first amendment is what protects those who believe in same gender marriage just as much, and the government can’t even pass a law that would put one citizen’s beliefs above another.

            That’s First Amendment 101.

            You have a gender of spouse you think you should marry, then do or one you shouldn’t then don’t. But your right to free exercise stops at the tip of the next citizen’s nose where their right to free exercise begins.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, marriage has to come from a religion, it’s holy book written thousands of years ago, not just someone just now saying “I believe in 3 woman, 1 man marriages”

            First Amendment: government cannot pass laws establishing this new state religion of “2 men is a marriage”, then in turn cannot criminalize other religions on the matter, yet they’re trying to do both.

            Marriage was defined at the beginning – government does not define it. So there is no “right” being denied here.

            Every single person already has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who’s denying you this right? Yourself.

            No one has the right to marry one person of the same gender. No one. That’s a special right no one has. Who says you have the right to get the government to establish a new state religion, then criminalize any contrary to beliefs to it?

            The First Amendment says you do not have that right to do so.

          • Bob Burke

            No, they just have the same name – the secular civil contract of marriage has nothing to do with religion. That you think it does seems to be the sticking point here. My state is constitutionally prohibited from having anything to do with religion, its civil contract is 100% religion free and that is the kind of contract the Supreme Court is evaluating.

            And ‘criminalize your religion’? You will never be forced to marry anyone you don’t want to, regardless of their gender. But, of course, everyone who doesn’t share your religious beliefs can do as they wish within the limits of the law.

            And again, there is no use of the word ‘opposite’ in the statutes which is just an awkward attempt to treat two totally different things as if they were. Sorry, saying that only some citizens can have husbands and only some citizens can have wives is special rights, and the 14th amendment gives all citizens a promise to be treated equally under the law.

            Yes, everyone has a right to marry, and yes people have a right to marry any gender they want. Again, you are confusing your religion with someone else, and that is what’s unconstitutional.

            The law serves us all regardless of belief.

          • Reason2012

            Oh so now you’re claiming they’re different but just happen to have the same name.

            (1) You just unwittingly admitted a man and a man is not really a marriage.

            (2) That they hated it having any other name like “civil union” but demand it be given the same name shows it’s really about trying to redefine what God defined, that no government defined.

            No, everyone has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender. NO ONE has the right to marry more than one person or the same gender. So where is this right you’re being denied? Nowhere. Trying to create a brand new ‘right’ that no one has is the real issue here – and criminalizing Christian beliefs in the process is a dual violation of the Constitution.

          • Bob Burke

            They have always been different with the same name – the government has no part of religious rituals.

          • Reason2012

            Everyone has the right to “marry one person of the opposite gender.”

            NO ONE has the right to marry more than one person or the same gender.

            So where is a person being denied the right to “marry one person of the opposite gender”? Please cite where this right is being denied.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “You do not see the government fining Christians many thousands of dollars for not baking cakes for the acts of celebrating divorce, do you?

        You do not see the government fining Christians many thousands of dollars for pledging their support that marriage should be for life, do you?”

        No, I don’t. In order for the government to fine people for breaking anti-discrimination laws, a complaint must be filed and a determination made that the decision was in violation of the law.

        Are you aware of any complaints being filed regarding the examples you gave? Are you aware of any laws that protect people who are divorced from discrimination? Are you aware of any laws that make it illegal for people to pledge their support for something?

        “You do not see activists going into kindergarten classrooms and promoting to kids that divorce and having multiple partners is ok, do you?”

        No, I’m not. How is that relevant to the issue of same-gender marriage?

        “Yet all of this is what same-gender marriage activists are illegally forcing upon society and Christians.”

        No one is being forced to make a cake celebrating divorce. No one is forced not to make a cake stating their support of male/female marriage. No school board is forced to include certain topics in education.

        “The government has not defined marriage”

        They have defined civil marriage.

        “But getting the government to re-define marriage”

        If, as you said, the government has not defined marriage, then it would be impossible for them to redefine it.

        “which Criminalizes Christian beliefs”

        Please point to any law that criminalizes Christian beliefs.

        No “state religion” is being created.

        “where anyone opposed is criminalized.”

        You are opposed to same-gender marriage. Have you been subject to any criminal action against you?

      • Reason2012

        @ thoughtsfromflorida

        “In order for the government to fine people for breaking anti-discrimination laws, a complaint must be filed and a determination made that the decision was in violation of the law.”

        You completely ignored the point.

        The issue you brought up “yet you do not see any such fervor put into making divorce, for reasons other than infidelity, or marriage of people who got divorced for reasons other than infidelity, illegal. Seems quite hypocritical.”

        And I point out the reason why they do not do these things: because the government is not fining people for standing up against those things or passing laws to encourage them, hence there’s nothing to stand up against.

        And now, they didn’t define civil marriage, or civil union – they trying to redefine MARRIAGE. That’s a violation of the establishment clause. Making it illegal to have contrary beliefs is a violation of the prohibition clause.

        You’re not interested in the truth, so posting my response so others can see how your claims are easily refuted.

        Thank you for posting.

    • Gary

      How does not asking for changes in the divorce laws justify ssm?

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        It doesn’t. Rather, it is an example of the hypocrisy of those who believe marriage laws should be based upon biblical teachings.

  • Reason2012

    (1) Marriage was defined by God, not man.

    As if that’s not enough,

    (2) Marriage is a religious institution that has existed since the beginning of time.

    (3) The government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined thousands of dollars.

    (4) Marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing.

    (5) Any pro-creation should be within a marriage – same-gender ‘marriages’ are forced to go outside the ‘marriage” 100% of the time by design.

    (6) Kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father – same-gender marriages deny them this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (7) Kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father.

    (8) Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is – that this is what a family is.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Your god does not matter.

      It is an issue of civil law, nothing more.

      And it has nothing to do with procreation. Using that argument is why your side is losing.

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Actually God does matter as they’re bringing up a topic of God’s and passing laws to try changing it.

        No, civil unions was an issue of civil law – creating contracts to deal with legal aspects of people staying together is civil law. Marriage itself is a religious institution.

        Without procreation, society dies out. Without families that pro-create, society dies out. It most certainly has to do with the possibility of procreation.

        Thank you for posting.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          No, your god does not matter.

          Marriage is the purview of ciivl law, not mythology. Atheists… mustlims… hindus… etc… all wed without your mythology.

          Procreation won’t stop. Only a fool would equate gay marriage with 7 billion people ending the art of making babies.

          However, there is zero requirement for procreation in US marriage laws.

          Good grief.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. God does matter when you insist laws be passed to redefine religious institutions – things God created before there were ever any laws. If you do not want God in the equation, then cease trying to pass laws to redefine what He defined to begin with.

            No, marriage has existed since the beginning. Please show me documentation even older than the OT that says a man and another man is a marriage.

            Procreation is non-existent where two men are concerned, 100% of the time. You were unaware of this? There’s no government incentive to promote men being with men – you can do so on your own but there’s no incentive for government to promote it.

            Government offered legal contracts but it was not enough because the activists are after the ultimate stamp of approval that in turn criminalizes any opposing beliefs – hence the need for government to redefine the religious institution of marriage and pass laws to establish this new state religion. In this way any opposing beliefs are now criminal and met with lawsuits and fines in the thousands of dollars.

            Of course there’s zero requirement of marriage for procreation – but we all know how poorly that turns out of the children when you have children that are born without their mother or father. Making it two fathers now and no mother doesn’t change that reality.

            Laws have always ruled in favor of biological parents, and in the case where one is against the other, the one that had another parent to provide the child with a mother AND a father won out as well. History is against this anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-children state religion.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            God only matters because you have chosen to follow the belief.

            Marriage is a civil contract. I am a married gay man. Your denial of that changes nothing. It is a marriage in every legal sense.

            Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Ever. In any state. By your crazed logic, the government should ban those who voluntarily have surgery to prevent children from being married. No matter how many times you bring it up, it will fail in court. Parenting is merely an option, via by childbirth or adoption. It’s a totally separate thing.

            The federal government never offered legal contracts. That is a lie. Isn’t lying a sin before your deity?

            History is being made right now. And you’re on the losing side.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, God matters in this case b/c activists are trying to pass laws to redefine what He defined.

            No, marriage existed before there were ever governments or laws. The civil contract that merely provided legal benefits to those who were married came after the fact.

            Civil unions were not marriage and it still is not even if they try to legally establish a state religion that says so.

            Never said it was a requirement – but it’s what makes a family and what makes a marriage. Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature re-iterates what God defined.

            Did I say federal government offered these contracts? Please quote where I said federal, since you’re claiming I am.

            Hitler thought History was being made too, and he was right – just not in the way he longed for.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Gary

            God inserts himself into your life whenever he pleases. You are only breathing because God allows it. Whenever he wants, he can put an end to your life. You have to be an incredible fool to not believe that God exists. And you are an example of such.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Zero physical evidence to back any of that.

            All just mythology.

          • Gary

            Continue on in your stupor.

  • Gary

    The ungodly will never accept any moral reason that would keep them from getting what they want. The majority of federal judges are ungodly, as are the majority in Congress. They have shown their willingness to lie about the US Constitution in order to get what they want. They did it with abortion, and now they are doing it with homosexuality. Legally, there may not be a way to stop this madness right now. It will be stopped in the future, but in the short term, it may continue.
    It really irritates the heathen that Christians will not support their ungodly beliefs and behavior. They will use the civil law to try to punish us for not supporting their sin. What we have to do is try to find a way to keep them from harming us so that we can live our lives in peace. But that may not be possible.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Your support is not necessary, Gary, just like folks not WASP don’t need the Klan’s support.

      It will be stopped? How so, Gary? The law is not on your side.

      • Gary

        Jesus Christ is coming back to earth soon. When he arrives, he will put himself in charge. Man-made laws will no longer be valid, or enforced.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          So the claims have been for over 2,000 years.

          All myth… no substance.

          • Reason2012

            A secular historian Josephus wrote about Him.

            Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote about Him, calling the Christianity Jesus founded as evil. (Annals 15 -44).

            Phlegon, a Greek writer provided further evidence, mentioning the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. (Origen and Philopen, De. Opif. Mund. II21)

            Suentonius, another Roman writer, wrote about Christ as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (Calu., xxv).

            The Jewish Talmud, refers to Jesus having been crucified on the eve of Passover.

            The gospel accounts.

            And for a man that you claim never lived, billions currently profess faith in Him. No one who’s ever lived could claim such a monumental reaction in all of history.

            Changed lives from the inside out the moment profession of faith in Christ is made.

            You’re free to pretend He didn’t exist – or even to instead not believe His claims – but that’s between you and God.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Meaningless. It in no way explains a threat thousands of years old.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Proves He existed. We have a mere fraction of a fraction of such proof that people far older existed and we believe those, which shows our bias on the situation when we will not believe a person existed where we have many times the amount of proof.

            Not to mention the “coincidence” of the eclipse happening during the crucifixion.

            We’re free to not believe what He said, but to claim He did not exist is flat out false.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            “he” dose t matter. “He” doesn’t prove the unfulfilled threat.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. He fulfilled 300+ prophecies written as much as thousands of years before His factual birth. He will fulfill the rest when He returns.

            Of course many will not believe it, but when it happens it will be too late. Forgiveness is available now to whosoever will call upon Him. Of course it’s between each person and God.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            “Prophecy” is easy to “fulfill” in hindsight… Nostradamus has a better track record than your book of fables.

            The issue is marriage… a civil contract. No fables or mythology necessary.

          • Reason2012

            @ Badkey
            Over 300 of them, written hundreds and thousands of years before it took place – ALL of them fulfilled, not just one, not just 10, not 100, not 300, ALL of them. Just willful ignorance to pretend it’s “easy”. Willful ignorance to ignore no one’s even done 10 thousands of years later. Feel free to prove it’s been done when it never has.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Just think… soon, same-gender marriage will be legal in all states, and all this wailing and gnashing of teeth will be over. No one will be harmed, many will benefit.

    Life just keeps getting better and better!

    • Gary

      The opposition to homosexuality and ssm will not end.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Meh… you’re stopping nothing now.

        That won’t change… so do what thou will.

        You will change nothing.

        • Gary

          We might not stop it right away. But it will be stopped. And YOU will be stopped.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Nah…

            The evidence to support that simply does not exist.

          • Gary

            Convincing you beforehand is not a goal.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            You can’t.

            There is no evidence that gay marriage will be stopped… or ended once it has begun.

            You sling the threat of your mythology, but that’s all you have.

          • Gary

            Opinions vary.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Ah…

            You remind me of good old Jim Liberatore! “There will be NO GAY MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA!!!”, he’d shout.

            How’d that work out for him?

  • James Grimes

    Here is truth from God’s Word: “So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.””John 8:31-32 NASB

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Truth? Nah… it cannot be proven, so it cannot be truth.

    • James Grimes

      This comment is meant for my Christian brothers and sisters. Atheists would not understand it nor would they care about it.

    • James Grimes

      For Christians who want to view an excellent educational video about the self-sufficiency of God, follow this link – http://www.ligonier.org/learn/daily-video/2015/01/12/the-aseity-of-god/

  • Tedlick Badkey
  • Gary

    The judge should be impeached. She has abused her office. She has lied about the US Constitution. The only legitimate ways for ssm to become legal in any state, are either for the people to vote it in by referendum, or for the legislature to vote it in. Federal judges have no authority to make the laws of SD, or any other state.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      If what you say were in any way true… why do you keep losing?

      PS: No law was made… a bad law is being killed.

      • Gary

        The law that the court overturned was fine, and completely constitutional. The judge lied about the US Constitution, and for that she should be impeached. But she won’t be because the WHOLE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM is corrupt and is run by thieves, liars and reprobates.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Yeah, we went over your logic below. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny… and is a fine example of why you’re losing.

          • Gary

            There is not one word in the US Constitution that supports what you believe. Maybe you are in denial of that, or maybe you are just too stupid to understand the Constitution.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Marriage = protections, benefits delivered from the government… Constitution definitely mentions those.

            It’s not real complicated.

          • Gary

            Marriage existed long before there were “benefits delivered from the government”, so that is not what marriage is.
            Christians will never, NEVER accept ssm as being legal, or valid, or justified, or legitimate. And our behavior will demonstrate that.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Marriage existed long before your mythology.

            It changes. How’s that for shocking?

            Your acceptance is not necessary. You affect nothing by “not accepting” SSM. Not in any way. Your behavior will change nothing.

          • Gary

            Marriage started with Adam and Eve, as recorded in the Bible.
            Stay out of my space. I will tolerate no attempt to force me to accept homosexuality, or validate it. If you can live your perverted life without involving me or my fellow Christians, then have at it. But I’m warning you, and all of your allies, if you try to affect my life with your crap, there will be consequences that will be very unpleasant for you.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Oh goody… more myths. This time: how the world was populated by the incestuous offspring of some folks named Adam and Eve! How awesome!

            What a sham.

            Your god is not needed for marriage… your religion is not needed for marriage. You don’t have to “accept” anything… and you change nothing by “not accepting” SSM.

            You don’t have to validate it. And you change nothing by not doing so.

            You know, for a religion that’s supposed to be positive, so many of you folks are bitter, angry, and hostile. Is that how your god is?

          • Gary

            I hope that Christians are able to live without involvement in the lives of homosexuals. But from what I have seen, the homosexuals and their allies are going to make that difficult.
            God makes belief in Christ a positive thing for those who believe. Everyone else is left to fend for themselves in this life, and to suffer everlasting punishment after this life.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            The thing is, not all christians are as hostile as you are.

            Many are openly involved in the lives of the gay people they know. Yes, I know you’ll condemn them. Yes, I know you follow the only “true” christian path… we all know about your “No true Scotsman” fallacy that you live under.

            Gays will get married.
            Gays will raise families.
            Gays will live their lives along side you, you not knowing day to day who they even are.

            The world will go on.

            Difficult? How so? Are you decrying public accommodations laws again? Well, sugar, as long as you get ’em, there’s no reason other groups of citizens shouldn’t. Start your effort to ban the Civil Rights Act today… or accept that others will have the same protections. It’s one or the other.

          • Gary

            By outlawing discrimination against sexual perverts, the government is trying to force acceptance of you. That requires that we have to find ways around the law in order to avoid prosecution and lawsuits. It can often be done, but it does limit our involvement in some businesses. But we will find a way to survive the current laws. I expect more laws are coming that will make avoiding sodomites more difficult. We will cross that bridge if we have to. And we will continue to oppose those politicians who are trying to eliminate our rights.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Outlawing discrimination for gay citizens is absolutely no different than outlawing discrimination against christians (or jews or muslims or hindus etc…). Such hypocrisy should hurt.

            Do you own a business? If not, what “prosecution and lawsuits” would you be avoiding?

            Again… avoid us all you wish. You change nothing for us.

            Your rights are no better than mine, sweetheart… and that’s what you’re learning.

          • Gary

            No, I’m not learning any such thing. You are nothing more than a pervert. And that is how I will treat you.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Sure you are… you obviously don’t like it, but you are learning that you’re no better than anyone else.

            I’m a US citizen, entitled to the same treatment, benefits, protections, and obligations as you are.

            You don’t have to like it… but you can’t stop it.

            You won’t really “treat me” any way at all… I’m nothing more than text on the screen to you.. and vise-versa.

          • Gary

            Hopefully, this is a close as I will ever get to you. But there are some homosexuals in the area where I live. I have tried to avoid them, and I know where a few of them live. I probably will continue to avoid them, unless circumstances change. I understand what is going to happen to them, and I am in full agreement with that.
            I also understand that the current circumstances with the courts and the law regarding homosexuals is temporary. Some major changes are coming, and probably even sooner than I expect.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            You can just FEEL the Christian Love™ in this one!

            There are homosexuals everywhere, my friend.

            You can’t avoid them if you don’t know them. You deal with them every day you go out, you just don’t know it.

            Nothing temporary about it, your changes have been screamed about by your kind for over 2,000 years… there’s no “second coming”, little one. The world is what you have.

            Take it… or leave it.

          • Gary

            I’ll leave it. You can’t stop Jesus from coming back. You can’t stop him from taking over. You can’t stop him from putting you in Hell. You have only a very short time left. Pervert in a hurry.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            SCOTUS will hear arguments from all appeals from the 6th Circuit the week of April 27th!

            Things just keep getting better!

            I’ve been to Hell… Michigan’s not so bad.

            I’ve all the time left in my life… same as anyone else.

          • Gary

            You have no clue what Hell will be like. But that will change shortly.
            You also have no idea how much time you have left. But I can say for certain that you are more than half way to the end. Then comes the really bad part.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            So says your faith in mythology. That’s all it is.

            Whatever will you do in this world when gay marriage is legal in all states?

  • Reason2012

    We give God up as a nation and God gives us up to_sexual immorality. And it’s unfolding right before our eyes.

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
    Romans 1:18-32

    When we get back to the truth of God, the proliferation of perversion comes to a standstill.

  • John Mark IB

    but there is hope folks, and here it is, please pass it on to your friends, give them the Good News and leave it to GOD Himself to deal with the nonsense after all the battle is His and He’s already won the victory amen! give to all your so called “gay friends” even though the word “gay” has been sickly twisted and hijacked same as the word “homophobic”, especially if you simply have a difference of opinion/disagree with the new “in-tolerant im-moral majority” but here folks at least fellow believers who care enough to spread the seed of faith and hope pass this on and let GOD grow His increase thanks to those who allow us tom have this forum and for allowing me to post and try to spread truth GOD bless you with love joy and peace always in Jesus name thanks again, and remember we all know that the little god of this earth is satan who is being allowed to run things under the mighty Hand of GOD Himself so as hard as it is to accept that we have no control we just have to be salt and light and suck it up ha ha! 🙂 sorry my opinion, but hopefully based on Scripture! anyways,
    Proverbs 21:27; Psalms 9:17; Psalms 33:12; Proverbs 14:34; Proverbs 29:2
    so we battle not against flesh and blood as it is written in His Word see:

    Ephesians Chapter 6
    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ephesians-Chapter-6/

    http://faithsaves.net/truth-for-gay-friends/

    http://faithsaves.net

    http://www.pillarandground.org/home/?page_id=36

    http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

    http://vimeo.com/76784982
    http://www.cpflorida.com/2012/08/30/why-voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils-is-always-wrong/

    • Tedlick Badkey

      As a civil contract, your deity is not required for marriage.

      • Gary

        You can say it is none of God’s business, but you cannot keep God out of it. He does what he wants. I’m sure you would like for God to leave you alone and stay out of your life, but that won’t happen either. He will judge you.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Sure I can. The civil contract never even mentions it.

          I can exclude it from whatever I wish.

          • Gary

            Well, think of it this way: You can try to live as long as you can, you can hate death, you can pretend you are going to live forever, you can claim that death is not real, you can think and say whatever you want. But regardless of what you think, believe, say, or do, one day you will die. You cannot avoid it. God is like that. You can deny his existence, you can curse him, you can believe or think whatever you want, but nevertheless, someday, you will be judged by God. There is nothing you can do to keep from dying, and there is nothing you can do to keep from being judged by God. So believe whatever you want. It won’t change your fate.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            I don’t hate death… that’s stupid. Everybody dies.

            The rest… that’s just your faith in a given collection of myths.

          • Gary

            Fine. Your fate is sealed.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            So says the myth!

  • klgrube

    The best answer to “Why vote anymore” is this recent election. We now have a Senate majority who will not be approving any liberal federal judge or Supreme Court nominees for the foreseeable future. This reign of judicial tyranny is going to end. Just keep a watch out on the nominations and the votes. I guarantee you things will start changing, and more so after 2016 when we have a new President.

    • Gary

      You’re kidding, right? I wish what you said were true, but sadly, it is not.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      ROFLOL!

      Gary’s right… it won’t change, because the courts are doing their job just fine.

      • Gary

        The courts are doing a very poor job. That is one of the reasons the country is in such a mess.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          They’re doing just fine!

  • ArielMalek

    It’s time for states to rise up against the rising tyranny of centralized, Federal government which is a violation of the Constitution. At this late hour, I don’t recall the specific Constitutional aspects, but the Constitution I understand does give the states remedies for reigning in on an increasingly tyrannical central government-in particular one that tramples on the True and Legitimate rights of citizens-not those manufactured artificial rights used as a pretext to eradicate the Constitution.

    But first we the people beginning with the Church must wake up. We need a new Great Awakening and Reformation lest Adolph Hitler the II and Josef Stalin, Jr rise up and level the final blow to our noble experiment in freedom.

    Folks, time to pray up, wake up, and rise up!