Supreme Court to Rule on Whether States Have Right to Ban Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Supreme_Court WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that would determine whether or not the U.S.Constitution provides states the right to ban same-sex “marriage”—a decision that could have massive ramifications nationwide.

The high court made the announcement on Friday that it would hear cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee—all within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As previously reported, last November, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld state bans on same-sex “marriage” in the four states, reversing a year-long trend in the federal courts to strike down such state restrictions as being unconstitutional.

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

The court 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,” Sutton explained. “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.”

But the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who agreed on Friday to hear the matter. The case is set to for oral argument in April with a decision in June.

  • Connect with Christian News

The Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said following the announcement that the court should uphold states’ rights as it suggested in its DOMA decision.

“The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws,” stated Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks. “Consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor decision, which said that ‘states have the essential authority to define the marital relation,’ the 6th Circuit rightly concluded that the Constitution does not demand that a new view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone.”

“We are hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of the people to affirm marriage,” he said.

As previously reported, officials in Utah, Virginia and Oklahoma submitted an appeal to the court last year in an effort to overturn rulings that forced them to either recognize or legalize same-sex “marriages” in their state, but in October, the court announced that it declined to hear the cases. The justices also recently declined to hear an appeal out of Louisiana.

Many states and colonies passed laws criminalizing homosexual behavior even before the founding of America. William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wrote in The Great Law in 1682, “And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that if any person shall be legally convicted of the unnatural sin of sodomy or joining with beasts such persons shall be whipped and forfeit one third part of his or her estate and work six months in the house of correction at hard labour, and for the second offense imprisonment as aforesaid during life.”


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

    If the SC follows the US Constitution, then ssm will be legal only in those states where the legislature has legalized it, or where it has been legalized by referendum. We will see if the court follows the Constitution or ignores it.

    • eddie munster

      The word ‘marriage’ does not appear in the Constitution. State laws and state rights are trumped by federal law – that’s in the Constitution. The SCOTUS won’t be ignoring anything, they’ll be doing their job.

      • Gary

        You mean they must rule that ssm be legal in every state because the US Constitution requires it? But that is not true. They cannot justify a ruling based on a lie. They might try to do that, but people will know they are liars if they do.

        • eddie munster

          The Court makes determinations on the constitutionality of a law. If the answer is not spelled out in the Constitution, they interpret applicable standing based on precedents and their interpretation of the Constitution. There are nine justices, not one. There is the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution which requires to states to respect legal standings from other states.

          • Gary

            Full faith and credit clause requires all states to recognize licenses issued by any other state? Does that apply to other things a state licenses? For instance, if someone is licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Montana, is that license recognized in New York? And if not, then that kind of makes it untrue that all states are required to respect the legal actions of other states.
            What the sc needs to make clear is, who has the Constitutional right to regulate marriage. And they need to be able to prove what they decide from the text of the US Constitution. If they cannot offer proof for their decision from the text of the Constitution, then we can all conclude they have made a bad decision. And bad decisions should not be law.

          • Bob Burke

            Marriage is a civil contract that causes a change in legal familial status, like an adoption.

            The Feds will decide on two issues –
            1) can a state refuse to recognize such a legal familial relationship created in another state?

            2) can a state refuse to allow citizens to initiate such a contract because of the sexes of the contract’s cosigners?

            The answer to 1 is probably ‘no’, answer to 2 involving different issues and can go either way.

          • Gary

            If every state recognized the legal actions created in another state now, I might agree with you about number 1. But states are selective about what legal actions of other states they recognize. That might not matter to a majority of the SC, but it should.

          • Bob Burke

            One of the things the Supreme Court has done is rule how disruptive state actions are to the union, and not recognizing other state’s legal established familial relationships easily can do that.

            They will go for universal recognition of all established familial relationships – a spouse will be a spouse in any state just as all states recognize dissolution of these same familial relationship proceedings no matter what state they occur in.

          • jmichael39

            doesn’t matter…won’t ever change the fact that its a sin in God’s eyes and you know it

          • Bob Burke

            Actually God isn’t concerned with secular contracts and you know that.

          • jmichael39

            if that were true then why are you concerned with secular contracts? But then again, we both know is directly concerned with everything that effects our lives….even, as your put it, secular contracts.

            I’m still waiting for you to show us all where God ever authorizes, encourages, blesses or ever once speaks positively of homosexual behavior of ANY kind.

          • Bob Burke

            I’m concerned with it for the same reason parents adopting children are, its a contract that legally establishes a familial relationship for doing things in this world.

            And I think His opening marriage to those of any sexes in the body of Christ is completely positive. And you have yet to show a situation where homosexual behavior is condemned that heterosexual behavior wouldn’t also be.

            That there is a blanket condemnation of homosexuality is a creation of your own mind that has no basis in Scripture or the Spirit.

          • Taussig

            you’re right…it doesnt matter because isnt needed in order to married

          • jmichael39

            only in God’s eyes…and if you don’t care what God thinks, so be it. You will care sooner or later.

          • Gatorlaw92

            The marriage laws are objectively constitutional , see my posts above. Also, the full faith and credit clause allows congress to regulate what states have to accept from other states, and the part of doma still in effect, allows states to ignore ssm from other states. This is clearly const, also, since the bans on ssm are const.

      • dark477

        Remember the 9th amendment? Just because something isn’t mentioned specifically doesn’t mean it isn’t a right.

        • eddie munster

          Exactly, and the 14th Amendment goes even further in establishing the ability of the Court to recognize unenumerated rights not called out in the first eight amendments.

          • lawngren

            The 14th Amendment says absolutely ZERO about “unenumerated rights not called out in the first eight amendments.”

            BTW, whoever wrote that phrase has faulty grammar – (“rights not called out”) and faulty math: “the first eight amendments”. There3 are ten amendments in the “Bill of Rights”, all of which were appended to the US Constitution before the state governments of the time would ratify it. Or are you personally annulling the last two of those?

      • lawngren

        Wrong. The states created the fed gov’t, and put it on a very short leash. Therefore the fed gov’t has no authority at all over internal state matters.

        The Founders werre so (correctly) afraid of a central government that they refused to ratify the US Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added to it.

        • eddie munster

          Once the states ratified the Constitution it became the framework for the Union going forward. There is plenty of precedents for the federal government to hold authority over the “internal matters” of the states. There was a war between the government and some states that comes to mind. When the rights of citizens are not recognized, abridged or denied in any state, the federal government has Constitutional authority, granted by the states, to intervene.

          • lawngren

            There is plenty of precedents for the federal government to hold authority over the “internal matters” of the states. Yes, illegal precedents.

            There were many precedents for slavery, too, but it was wrong, and thank God, it exists no more in America.

            There are many precedents for submitting to islam, also, but so far, thank God, we still retain some slight degree of the freedom that was once the hallmark of America.

        • Fundisi

          Exactly right!

  • John Boyt

    If we go by previous decisions of the SC, they will rule in favor of. I would be very surprised if they decide to do what is right. There are very few judges out there that still abide by the Constitution and tent to rule based on political correctness.

    • Gary

      I agree. I also think their decision will eventually lead to all, or almost all, of the requirements for marriage being unconstitutional.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        LOL!

      • Spoob

        LOL

        • Jeff Varney

          Laugh all you want, trolls/libs/atheists/homophiles/whoever or whatever you are, but our Maker will have the last laugh and the last word on everything especially on the Day of our Judgment. Capisce? I was a bit like you (but not very much) before my conversion to the Son of Man though I learned some lessons from all this in my life.

          • Spoob

            Have fun worshiping your God of hate. Mine is a God of love and acceptance.

          • Jeff Varney

            I don’t think so…it’s YOU who are worshipping your god of hate. Not me, and, besides, I’m not a religious man.

          • Spoob

            “Our maker will have the last laugh..”

            Not a religious man? Jeff Varney, I suggest that you are a liar.

          • Jeff Varney

            Wanna see who’s lying? Look in the mirror. It is true; I’m not a religious man. If I am/was, I’d be like the Pharisees, and I would not be part of their group(s). I’ve been hypocritical before and may end up doing it again, but I’ve learned valuable lessons from that experience. If a holier-than-thou starts getting in my face going way overboard with their Christian faith and act like a Pharisee (when the NT was written), then I would remind them “When was the last time/Since when you were crucified and died for our sins?” Ask them that if they get that way to you.

          • Spoob

            Christianity is a religion.

          • Jeff Varney

            No, genius, it is NOT a religion. It is a relationship with Jesus. To the holier-than-thous, it is a religion. I am not one and I am distancing myself (staying away) from them so I won’t get the Bible rammed down my throat (we know how they are and what they do/say) and avoid taking part in their religion. That’s exactly how I see it and had experienced this religious situation in the past.

          • Spoob

            Yes, genius, it IS a religion. Watch how fast it becomes a religion when they try to take your tax-free status away.

          • Jeff Varney

            You think/say you know all the answers. I have news for you; you haven’t asked all the questions. Go troll somewhere else and leave us alone, know-it-all! I’m no genius anyway.

    • Bob Burke

      The situation has changed. Previous rulings were about hypothetical possibilities, this court will be ruling if a legally recognized familial relationship contractually established in one state must be recognized in another. Saying no would be like saying a state could ignore an adoption done in another state.

      At the least I think they will require all spouses to be recognized no matter what state they were contracted in.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    It’s about time the Supreme Court put this issue to rest once and for all. While the Windsor v. United States decision was a victory, SCOTUS punted on some of the details. For example, what happens if a legally married Gay couple in Iowa, for example, decide to relocate south to Missouri because of a good job opportunity? Does Missouri have the right to declare their marriage null and void? If so, does the couple lose their survivor
    benefits under Social Security? Would this be a violation of the “Full Faith & Credit” clause?

    Personally I’m optimistic that by the end of June Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will FINALLY be treated equally, as the 14th Amendment demands.

    • SteveN

      It has never been about equality; It continues to be about changing public morals and elevating homosexual rights ahead of the privacy rights and religious
      liberties of others.

      • Bob Burke

        No one will ever be forced to marry someone of a gender they don’t want to. And there is no right to religious discrimination, the first amendment’s right to free exercise shields all from that.

        • SteveN

          ‘forced to marry someone of a gender they don’t want to’

          Try to pay attention, that is not even close to what my statement said.

          • Bob Burke

            That’s the sole privacy and religious liberties issue. The universal right to religious freedom prevent religious discrimination and the only issue marriage has regarding privacy is who each citizen marries.

            The promises of the civil contract of marriage can be made regardless of the sexes of the cosigners – that isn’t ‘homosexual rights’ that’s just citizen rights.

          • Gary

            There is no right to ssm in the Constitution. And it isn’t a right given by God.

          • Bob Burke

            But there is a right to marriage, a fundamental right that has been recognized and the right to access to the civil contract that legally recognizes the spousal relationship. That takes this into contract law and yes, if two citizens can make the same promises then its difficult to keep them from being legally allowed to make them.

            And if your religion doesn’t recognize same gender marriage, that’s great – don’t marry someone of the same gender. But plenty of religions do recognize marriage between people regardless of their gender and they have a constitutional right to their free exercise too.

          • Gary

            There is a right for a man and a woman to marry each other, if they meet the other qualifications. But no right to ssm for anyone.

          • Bob Burke

            No there is a fundamental right to marriage, a civil contract and in the majority of states that contract is available to two citizens regardless of their genders.

          • Gary

            Temporarily. We will see what the SC says. And even if the SC agrees with you, it will still be temporary because Christ will eliminate the entire issue when he returns.

          • Bob Burke

            Of course He will, there will be no marry or marriage after the resurrection, we will all be as the angels in heaven. No husbands, no wives, or marriage – no intercourse at all for that matter – it is 100% an of this world issue.

          • Gary

            I am talking about during the 1,000 years Christ will reign on earth. The Bible says God will rule with a rod of iron. That is not Heaven, but right here on earth. I’m confident there will be no ssm then. Most likely because Jesus will remove all the homosexuals to their everlasting punishment.

          • Bob Burke

            Revelation is about 1st century Rome, its already happened. The 1000 years started when Christianity became the state religion of Rome. Shoot, we know that 666 was the numerological sum of the imperial title initials of Nero.

            Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation by Elaine Pagels will clear that up for you.

          • Gary

            I disagree. The Bible plainly says Christ himself shall reign. Not talking about Rome. Of course, by that time, you will very likely already be in Hell, so you won’t get to see what happens.

          • Bob Burke

            No one stays in Hell, it destroys both body and soul. Eternal life is only in heaven. And since God will forgive us as we forgive others, the deal in the Lord’s Prayer, I think you might be mistaking where your vantage point might be.

          • Gary

            If you are right, then both your soul and body will be destroyed in Hell, because to Hell you will go. God hates sexual perverts and damns them all.

          • Bob Burke

            An interesting opinion, that and $5 could get you a latté. We’ll see, or at least I will anyway 😉

          • Gary

            Yes, we will see. I have studied this issue for many years. I well know what the Bible says about it. If God does not put you in Hell, then He is a liar. But I know God is not a liar.

          • Bob Burke

            Yes yes, I’m sure you think you were with God at His laying of the foundations of the earth. Again, we will see. 😉

          • Gary

            Try to get in as much sodomizing as you can. Time is short.

          • Bob Burke

            You do realize that the vast majority of ‘sodomizing’ is done by male female couples, right? A good % of them married.

          • Gary

            Nevertheless, that in no way justifies what you do.

          • Bob Burke

            What do you think I do?

          • Gary

            Engage in homosexuality.

          • Bob Burke

            Homosexuality is an orientation, not an act. What act do you think I am doing that thousands more married couples aren’t?

          • Gary

            A married couple consists of a man and a woman who are husband and wife.

          • Bob Burke

            And two husbands and two wives, there is no male or female in the body of Christ or didn’t you get the memo?

          • Gary

            Your theology is as perverse as your sexuality.

          • Spoob

            I have the perfect country for you to live in, Gary. Saudi Arabia. Or Nigeria.

          • Bob Burke

            Word of God, Gary, its the Word of God. He knew precisely what He was saying…

          • Gary

            The verse you referenced has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

          • Bob Burke

            All roles are open to all regardless of gender, including marriage. You don’t think that verse would be used to justify a master marrying a slave which was illegal in the Empire?

            I know you desperately wish it didn’t do what it does, but sorry Gary it does. Gay Christians marry just fine.

          • Gary

            Thank God for Hell. Otherwise there would be no place to put you.

          • Spoob

            Playing God again, Gary? You don’t get to put people anywhere. That is, not unless you want to go to jail.

          • Gary

            I understand that you know nothing about God, or how he does things. But you will learn. Your place in Hell as been reserved.

          • Spoob

            You, who know only anger, hate, revenge, and bigotry, are the one who should be concerned about it.

          • Bob Burke

            Reminds me of that joke about the wall in heaven, the angel says to lower your voice near it and when asked why says ‘Gary’s over there, he thinks he’s the only one here.’

            You have a good forever 😉

          • Spoob

            Marriage predates Christianity, Gary. Your rules don’t apply here.

          • Gary

            Marriage began with Adam and Eve. It is an invention of God.

          • Taussig

            not anymore…gay couples are being married right and left across the nation….you can put your fingers in your ears and yell LA LA LA LA all day and it wont change the fact that these marriages are in fact occurring and are legally recognized by the govt.

          • Spoob

            Really Gary, do you STILL not realize, even after all your years of “study,” that homosexuality isn’t an act, it’s a state of being? You can never touch another human being and still be homosexual.

          • Fundisi

            Homosexuality may be a state of mind, but homosexual conduct, acting on those desires is a willful, free will act, like any other sin. It is that conduct that God hates!

          • Spoob

            No Fundie, God doesn’t hate two people being in love.

          • Terry Roll

            Then he shouldn’t have created people that are gay. It is no more a choice than it was your choice about your sexual orientation.

          • SteveN

            If you’re gonna try to argue your gays views Biblically, then you can’t get past all the clear, concise statements made in the old and new testaments regarding homosexuality. So try another approach, but the fact is it doesn’t hold water no matter which way you try to justify it. The laws can force people to live with it, but you will never get what you really want, which is honest acceptance on par with heterosexuals in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people on earth.

          • Bob Burke

            The word and concept of homosexuality didn’t even exist – all old testament and new are about idolatrous and ritual activity, wrong for any gender combination. Gay Christians marry just fine and once married the marriage bed is undefiled.

          • Spoob

            What have you been studying for many years, Gary? Law or The Idiot’s Guide to Bigotry?

          • Terry Roll

            You have an obsession with punishment for people you don’t like. I am failing to see the love that Christ seemed to preach coming out in you.

          • Terry Roll

            What a loving deity. He creates you that way, then punishes you eternally for it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Then why do you care at all about the legal issue?

          • eddie munster

            There’s no right to marriage in the Constitution. There’s no mention of God or the Bible in the Constitution.

      • Taussig

        nope..just more right wing talking points

    • Gary

      The 14th Amendment does not demand any such thing. Anyone who reads it can see that. If they want to.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        You seem angry, Gary?

        If you’re so confident, why the anger?

        • Fundisi

          Why don’t Christians have a right to be angry that this once mostly Christian nation has turned its back on God, has approved of the gross sexual deviancy and moral cancer of homosexuality and the perversion of God ordained marriage, by condoning the false and thoroughly wicked thing called gay marriage? After all, they love their families and friends and hate the idea they will now being living in a morally degenerate, morally dissolute, Christ hating country and world, wherein their everlasting souls will be in constant danger.

          Why shouldn’t they be angry that gays and liberals are destroying this country and leading hundreds of millions of souls into Perdition and everlasting torments in hell. It is a righteous anger that is shared by God. Even Jesus in Romans raged against lesbianism and homosexuality and in Revelations expressed his hatred for sexual immorality.

          No Gary is not confident the Constitution will be upheld or that the Court will not approve gay marriage, he is only lamenting the fact you gays and liberals are destroying our Constitution.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            You have every right to act like a spoiled child, always given special consideration, that has found they’re no longer special.

            It’s petty and pathetic, but you have that right.

          • Fundisi

            So it is the act of a spoiled child to hate evil? I suppose that those opposing Nazism were spoiled children? When we tolerate evil, even the gross, depraved evil of homosexuality, then tolerance becomes evil.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Gay folks being evil is just your childish opinion. Gay marriage will come, and you will be unharmed by it.

            Your attitude is why people are leaving the church, especially the young.

          • Gary

            People leave Christianity because they are evil. No other reason.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            LOL! Gary, you’re always good for a laugh!

          • Fundisi

            It is God’s Word, not my attitude, like it or not. If people leave the Church and are lost, that is their free will choice. God spoke of a great falling away at this time in history and a great deception falling upon the world. You gays are helping fulfill that prophecy and bringing down God’s wrath on this world.

            Your immoral, degenerate conduct corrupts the morals of the world and endangers many souls, so we are harmed morally and spiritually as a people by your deviancy.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            I like you. You help people like me. You’re making the world a better place with each person you turn from your religion.

            Thanks friend.

          • Fundisi

            A. I am not your friend.
            B. I am not part of any religion, I am a Christian.
            C. You will not be laughing when God pours out His wrath on this world and you awake in utter darkness, completely alone forever and suffering torments without end.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Aw, you hurt my feelings!
            If Christianity isn’t a religion, then the first amendment protections do not apply. Cool!
            Spooky mythology is spoooooooooooky!

          • Fundisi

            Talk about childish, you are the gay poster boy for childish behavior.

            I am saddened that you are rushing headlong into hell and refuse to be saved. The price you will pay for your wicked lifestyle, unless repented before you die, is more horrific than you can imagine in your worst nightmares. You will scream, cry and beg there for forgiveness and no one will hear you, there will be no escape and it will never end. Huge price to pay to satisfy your sexual lusts.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Uh huh.

            Thanks!

          • Taussig

            it saddens me that folks like you need the threat of eternal damnation to do the right things in life….very sad

          • Fundisi

            What right things have you done and then what wrong things, do you think it is all a score card, add up the good, deduct the bad or vice versa and if the good even fractionally outweighs the bad you are a good person?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Say, Old Pal, why do you always flip flop on everything?

            Neiman (fundi) to Clairvoyant • 16 minutes ago

            I do not call myself a Christian…

          • Fundisi

            You continue to be the most evil, lying person I have ever encountered. What you just posted is a most damnable lie.

            Folks, this person is demon possessed, please ignore him, he is thoroughly evil and a most damnable liar.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Leave these good people alone, Old Pal.

            No one drives more away from Christ than you and your hatred for people that are not you.

          • Terry Roll

            Disagree=demon

          • Bob Burke

            And as all Christians are commanded to love their enemies, you would be a friend to any follower of Christ.

            And on that note, Jesus said that the wicked would be consumed body and soul in Hell so don’t worry to much about the punishment, all you really would be missing out on is eternal life and you weren’t expecting that anyway, right? Losing something you never thought you had will probably not be that big a deal to you, am I right?

            God bless.

          • Spoob

            What it is is you putting your opinion in God’s mouth. God doesn’t hate his own creations.

          • Fundisi

            Where did I say He hates His own creation?

            By the way, only Adam was created, everyone else was procreated, through normal intercourse and impregnation. So while God through Adam can be said to have created the human race. He did not uniquely create every human being and through free will, they have perverted His creation.

            Here you will find what and whom God hates: http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-hate.html

            I put nothing in God’s mouth, I only quote His Word.

          • SFBruce

            Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you’ve misheard.

          • Spoob

            Your religion is hate.

          • Fundisi

            No, it is God’s love for lost souls, to want to see them repent and find healing and salvation and eternal life in Christ. It is you that hates homosexuals, you would rather see them in hell
            than for them to be healed by the Love of God and to find eternal life in Christ. You hate them with every fiber of your being because you have rejected God.

          • Spoob

            There is no “healing” necessary because they are not sick. Your fraudulent fundamentalism has suckered you into believing something hateful, ridiculous and anti-science.

          • Fundisi

            More proof you do not know God and of His hatred of all sin and especially homosexuality, because it is grossly immoral and a form of idolatry. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism, it is God’s Word. No Christian can read Romans One and come to any other conclusion.

            Now, I have played your game, you have lost and you are trying to lead these precious souls into hell. Reply all you want, I will not reply, you are paving your own path to hell and it is unfortunate that you are so filled with self-loathing and hatred for homosexuals.

          • Spoob

            Sir, I have told you over and over, your religion does not fool me. Your faith is hatred, your god is intolerance, your entire belief system is a house of cards, it’s a farce. REJECT fundamentalist Christianity, it is brain cancer.

          • Gary

            The God of the Bible hates you. And He will prove it to you forever.

          • Spoob

            I don’t have any desire to know your God of hate. And neither should you.

          • Gary

            You will only know Jesus Christ as your judge and executioner. Never as your God or savior.

          • Spoob

            And neither will you because your God is a hateful fraud.

          • Gary

            God judges the wicked, and you are one of them.

          • Spoob

            You are the psychotic one who wants to send people to hell. You need professional help.

          • Gary

            It does not matter what I want. But it does matter what God wants. And God does not want you in Heaven. That only leaves one alternative.

          • Spoob

            You are NOT GOD.
            Stop putting your evil words of hatred in His mouth, you hypocrite.

          • Gary

            Everything I am telling you is in the Bible. I did not invent it, I read it.

          • Spoob

            Utter nonsense. If all Christians thought the way you do, Christianity would be illegal. We wouldn’t be able to keep up with all the murders, the slander, the torture and the chaos.

          • Terry Roll

            Being gay is akin to being a Nazi……really?

          • Fundisi

            Please show me wherein I compared Nazism to homosexuality.

            You need remedial reading courses.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Nobody’s soul is in danger from living in a country that has gay marriage. That’s not a sin.

          • Fundisi

            It is obvious you know not God nor the cancerous nature of homosexual sin on our nation.

          • Spoob

            It is obvious you do not recognize the cancerous nature of your hateful religion.

          • Fundisi

            No, it is you that hates homosexuals, you would rather see them in hell than for them to be healed by the Love of God and to find eternal life in Christ. You hate them with every fiber of your being because you have rejected God.

          • Spoob

            They aren’t going to hell. That’s your silly little scare tactic. God would not send anyone to hell for simply falling in love, that would be very cruel on His part. You must reject fundamentalist Christianity to be rid of this cruelty.

          • Fundisi

            God will send no one to hell, they go there by their own free will choice. Love won’t be the cause, but unrepented sexual depravity, gross sexual immorality. You are headed on the same path because of your hatred of these precious souls and preferring they be in hell that to repent, be healed and saved.

          • Spoob

            No one voluntarily sends themselves to hell, that’s a ridiculous statement that only a fundamentalist would make. You are basically forcing people to adopt your belief system, but I do NOT adopt it, it is ridiculous and offensive, and the only person who needs to fear hell is yourself.

          • Gary

            Do you not understand that you are going to Hell? If you would read the New Testament, you could learn what God does with people like you.

          • Spoob

            Do you not understand that you are speaking utter nonsense? Go to hell yourself.

          • Gary

            No, I won’t go. But you will. And there is nothing you can do about it.

          • Spoob

            Not your decision to make. You are not God.

          • Terry Roll

            If hate gets you to hell, I think we will see you there as well then.

          • Fundisi

            Please document and prove wherein I have expressed hatred for anyone.

          • Gary

            You are going to find that God is very cruel. You are one object of His cruelty.

          • Spoob

            Too bad you are not God and don’t get to make decisions for him. Your little temper tantrum here is just a paranoid revenge fantasy.

          • Gary

            God has already made the decision. You would know that if you read and believed the Bible.

          • Spoob

            So God is your big bully friend who carries a big stick, and you dance around beside him going “Yay God! Go beat up all those meanies for me!” You are sadly mistaken about the nature of God. All the vengeance you are prescribing is from your own fevered mind, it has nothing to do with God.

          • Gary

            Prove it. And if you cannot, and you can’t, then you will confirm you are a liar.

          • Spoob

            Your posts prove it.

          • Terry Roll

            Prove God exists. And if you cannot, and you can’t, then you will confirm you are a liar.

          • Terry Roll

            Seriously? Stop calling yourself a Christian. You are ridiculous.

    • Keith Brooks

      Chuck during the formation of the United States in 1887, marriage laws were given to the States to decide and manage not the US Government. This is why we have states where the legal age is 16, 14 and 18 along with various residency and divorce requirements. You can get a divorce in Nevada if you reside in the State for less than six weeks while another state it can take upwards of six months. Nevada you can get married within 24 hours, other states require you be a resident of the state. the 14th amendment has nothing to do with this case it is all about what the US Government and the states agreed to in 1887 a judge nullifying the state marriage laws because of his liberal views is not following the laws and the constitution as agreed upon by the states and government thus possibly nullifying the constitution of the united states.

      • Bob Burke

        What you are missing is that the states will still recognize the spousal relationship if married in another state or even if divorced in another state. e.g. Washington doesn’t allow first cousin marriages performed but will recognize them by arrivals to state.

        • SteveN

          Before one can argue the legal ramifications, one must first determine if being gay is normal or healthy to begin with. You’re way ahead of yourself and assume that everyone thinks it is.

          • Bob Burke

            Irrelevant, nobody loses their rights because they are ill or unhealthy.

          • Spoob

            The American Psychological Association and many others of its ilk HAVE determined that being gay is normal.

          • SteveN

            It is a disturbing, potent example of the vulnerability of the human mind to dangerous deception.A person can become conditioned to accept the perverse, the degrading, as normal. Without an accurate gauge of measurement, his perception gets distorted. The AMA was radicalized in this way back in the 70s.

          • Spoob

            It might have been a radical concept in the 70s. Now it’s widely accepted. Even if you want to throw the APA out the window there is still practically every other medical organization out there that agrees. There’s nothing dangerous about it. It’s a normal variation in human sexuality, and we know much more about it now than they did when they wrote the Bible.

          • Gary

            You will never convince Christians to accept homosexuals until you can prove from the Bible, that homosexuality is moral.

          • Spoob

            The Bible is silent on the matter and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. And even if it were relevant, this is not a matter for religion to decide but the courts.

          • Gary

            You are a liar. And I can prove it. Marriage is a moral issue even more than it is a legal one.

          • Spoob

            Not according to the Supreme Court, Charlie. And that is the ONLY thing that matters here. Not your stupid, ignorant, hateful morality.

          • Terry Roll

            I see no mention of it in the New Testament outside of what Paul wrote. I don’t see Jesus being quoted on the issue. BTW he was a dude that traveled and hung out with a huge group of dudes. It says something about him loving one of them unlike the others……hmm gay perhaps? Maybe just curious.

  • Fundisi

    Sadly, to the complete destruction of the moral/spiritual fiber of this once great country, I have no doubt that SCOTUS picked this case to force gay marriage on every state. The 1st Amendment is dead, the rights of states to establish minimum requirements for various contracts/licenses are dead. The god cursed gays and liberals in league with Satan will win this one. I also expect the Court to not be clear, as is their habit.

    • Spoob

      Interesting choice of words, “force gay marriage on every state.” When you make something available to people, you are not FORCING anything!

      • Fundisi

        Your side, the Christ hating, wholly immoral liberal side of this country is not making gay marriage available – it is forcing the states to approve of gay marriage.

        • Spoob

          It’s so typical – any Christian who dares to tell you that your beliefs are crazy is told by you that we are “Christ haters.” You are no example for ANY Christisn. You make mockery of Christ’s teaching of peace and try to turn it into hatred and intolerance. I see through you and I expose your lies.

          • Fundisi

            Jesus said, “34”Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35″For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; . . .” Matthrew 10

            Did Jesus teach we are to make peace? I have shown you many passages wherein God said He hates sin, where Jesus said He hated sin, isn’t God intolerant by your definition? Isn’t it then true, by your definition, that Jesus is not a Christian?

            You cannot prove any hatred on my part nor any lies and your saying I do hate and I do lie, is a lie itself.

            I am still waiting for you to give me one, just one passage from God’s Word wherein He approves of or condones homosexuality of gay marriage. Where is your proof I am wrong?

            Calling yourself a Christian does not make it so, not when you oppose God’s Word and defend evil.

          • Spoob

            Matthew 10:34 does not give you carte blanche to beat up people with your Bible. It means that you can expect to encounter people who will disagree with you, things aren’t always going to be sunshine and roses. You are taking this beautiful peaceful religion and trying to turn it into a means of beating people up, hurting them, oppressing them, all the things Jesus was against. You are out of your mind, in other words. You are the kind of person I’d use as an example to little children of the dark side of Christianity, what bigotry and hatred do to pervert its peaceful and loving message.

          • Fundisi

            So you reject God’s Word in Matthew 10, was he lying? Was he not saying that just by preaching against sin, calling people to repentance and preaching the Gospel that it would cause His own children to be hated, by people just like you that refuse to condemn sin and call people to repent and turn to Christ? Didn’t Jesus foretell of this very fact that even people claiming His Name would hate and kill His children? That is not a message of peace, is it? The fact is, just opposing sin that some might repent is called hate by people like you, even though that is what His children are called to do in HIS LOVE.

            Why are you so timid and NEVER answer my questions?

            Of course, I disagree with your characterizations against me and I have no reason to believe you are a Christian at all, your every word betrays an atheist.

            What of John the Baptist, was he beating up on people and not being a very good Christian example, was he nuts when he said, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say
            to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
            Was he saying Jesus would not be a Spoob type Christian?

            What about, John The Baptist when he publicly called Herod and his wife adulterers, which is, just like homosexuality, gross sexual immorality? What about Jesus, was He a good Spoob type Christian when he kicked over the money changers tables and drove them out using a whip made of cords, or when he called people snakes, when he called Peter a son of the Devil, when He spoke of the fires of hell and the just condemnation of sinners? Was Jesus being a peacemaker on those occasions? Were neither of them good Spoob type Christians?

            Oh, what’s the use, you are not devoted to Christ, you have not His Spirit and you do not hate sin. You will just ignore most of what I have written and launch a fresh, hate filled attack against me.

          • Spoob

            Let me put it to you this way. If you really interpret the Bible this way (and I know VERY few people who do), then you must accept and acknowledge that Christianity is a religion of hatred. It’s either that, or you are understanding it VERY wrong. People like you are the reason that so many people consider themselves to be atheists, because if it’s one-tenth as hateful as you are making it out to be, you’d have to be crazy to believe in it, or a member of the KKK.

            NO ONE would turn to the “Christ” you are painting because THAT Christ would be a crazy, hateful maniac. I’m not saying Christ is a crazy hateful maniac. I’m saying through YOUR eyes and understanding, that’s exactly what He is.

          • Fundisi

            No, I do NOT accept and acknowledge that Christianity is a religion of hatred. But, let me explain it this way, as regards opposing sin with strength and conviction, which God does throughout Holy Writ, including things like homosexuality, which is in reality the only true love, the love of God.

            If a man has a cancer and is in desperate need of surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy or whatever to save their lives. You know that telling them is going to strike fear in their hearts and often anger. Now does the good physician water down the truth, risking the patient not seeing the grave consequence’s of his illness, thinking there is time and perhaps decide for alternative treatment that may cost him his life or say no it is really not cancer at all; or, does the good physician speak out clearly, strongly, making sure the exact nature of the illness and its potentially fatal consequences are clearly understood and that patient is sufficiently shocked by the news, so that they will immediately seek the recommended treatment and live?

            From the Great Physician – Jesus, through His children, by the Holy Spirit, the good Christian likewise speaks out clearly and strongly against all sin, in this case homosexuality, against which God has expressed special anger; and, like the cancer spoken of above, especially sexual immorality, a truly fatal spiritual disease, we do so that the sinner may face the true dangers of their sins and not ignore the only true prescription and seek healing. Like cancer, the sinner must be made to face the truth which causes us to speak out against it strongly, that some might agree (repentance) it is fatal and involves great suffering and turn away from that sin and seek Christ as their only treatment and cure. That is not hate, that is true love, the love of God to seek to save the sinner/lost, in this case homosexuals. To stay silent, to not speak clearly and strongly would be hate.

            We are also told by the Lord that most will refuse to hear the truth, they love their lusts too much and will, by their own choice in refusing, choose death and everlasting suffering. We are also told most of them will call us hateful and attack us, but we are to speak out boldly no matter their reaction. Further, we are told that people like yourself will say they are God’s Children, but want to call that which God calls evil as being good and by their lies lead many souls into hell with themselves.

            I notice that you did not deny or refute the passages I gave you with God’s Word, you only chose to attack me. So, pardon me for saying in both cases, it is you that is operating in hate and know not the Love of God.

            The Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin that leads to death.

            “The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27
            teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html#ixzz3PDMDoFyI

          • Spoob

            You are trying to have it both ways, but you can’t have it both ways. Either make the claim that God wants to punish gay people and Catholics and any other group YOU happen not to like, and call your faith a faith of hate, or acknowledge that you may be taking some of the passages you keep quoting out of context. And you wonder why I’m not responding to your scripture posts! I’ve done battle with the likes of you many times in the past, you twist scripture, make it mean anything you want it to mean, ignore context, use bizarre ideas regarding the translation, etc. I have seen it all.

            “If a man has cancer…” Is there any point in me reading any further, when your premise begins with comparing homosexuality to cancer? Or any other type of illness? Science knows that it is NOT an illness, and here you are blithely ignoring this important FACT.

          • Fundisi

            A. I said it was a spiritual cancer, not physical.
            B. I am still waiting for you to offer a single biblical passage that says God approves of homosexuality and/or gay marriage or wherein he denies that it is a sin.
            C. You cannot defend your beliefs, only attack and insult.

            Go away and keep lying to gays and you will pay for your lies on Judgment Day.

          • Spoob

            A. Oh, a SPIRITUAL cancer! How much nicer! Either way you’re claiming it’s an illness which it is NOT.
            B. Who gives a damn, OK? Seriously who cares? The Bible is occasionally WRONG about things, flat out wrong. Bats are not birds, the earth is not flat. It is not possible for a snake to talk because it does not have a voice box. OK? And to that list you can add whatever YOU think it claims to say about gay people. We have knowledge now that we didn’t have then, and science.
            C. If you keep saying such crazy things, yes, I will attack and insult, because it’s all you deserve. Homosexuals are human beings with a sexual attraction the polar opposite of yours, there’s nothing they did to make that happen, it has nothing to do with sin. It’s just how they were wired. And they deserve to fall in love like everyone else on earth.

          • Fundisi

            Thanks. Item “B” provides all the evidence one needs to prove with absolute clarity that you are in your heart an atheist. If the Bible is wrong about these things, God lied and as God cannot lie, having no motive, your denial of His precious Word proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that you are an atheist and an enemy of Christ.

            No more needs to be said, you are an atheist and have no part with God. May God awaken you before it is to late, if He does not you are bound over for hell everlasting and torments without end. I feel sorry for you . . . as bad a person as you are, I take no pleasure in thinking of you going to hell.

          • Spoob

            Oh, so you think bats are birds? Do you also think snakes can talk? Do you think the earth is flat?

            Yes, I would say A LOT more needs to be said, specifically your answer to these questions which will reveal more about you than I think you want anyone to know.

          • Fundisi

            I believe in God and that in the original manuscripts they are without error, God does not lie and He does not make mistakes. See, I believe in God and you do not.

            Flat Earth
            http://www.gotquestions.org/flat-earth-Bible.html

            Serpents talking
            As we have records of demons, even in Jesus time inhabiting swine, even begging for such a place, it is possible that it was a demon spirit in the serpent, but if God wanted a serpent or a donkey to talk for some special reason, He Who created all things would not find it impossible or even difficult.

            Bats are birds
            http://www.blogos.org/theologyapologetics/Leviticus-rabbits-grasshoppers.php

            You remain an atheist!

          • Spoob

            All you have proven is that you are not of perfectly sound mind.

          • Gary

            You don’t know anything about Christ, or his religion.

          • Spoob

            I know it’s not a religion of hatred and persecution. That puts me one up on you.

          • Gary

            If you could prove, from the Bible, that opposing homosexuals and ssm is wrong, then you could change our minds and make friends of us instead of enemies. Can you?

          • Spoob

            The Bible is SILENT on the issue. You have no leg to stand on and certainly nothing to base your hatred on, using the words of the Bible.

          • Gary

            The Bible is not silent on the issue. Of course you would know that, if you ever bothered to read a Bible.

          • Spoob

            The Bible is silent on the issue. You lose Gary.

  • gregkliebigsr

    TO THOSE SITTING ON THE BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT:

    Micah 6:8. He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but TO DO JUSTLY , and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

    Proverbs 14: 12. There is a way WHICH SEEMETH RIGHT unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. 16. A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.

    I DON’T CARE WHO YOU ARE OR WHO YOU THINK YOU ARE , YOU WILL STAND BEFORE THE GOD WHO MADE YOU AND YOU WILL GIVE ACCOUNT OF YOUR LIFE!!!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Since we’re not a theocracy, why should they care?

    • Gary

      Some know they are accountable to God and don’t want to do wrong lest they suffer God’s wrath. Others know they are accountable to God, but hate God so much they delight in doing evil, even though they know God’s wrath will be poured on them. I am sure there are some on the SC like the latter. I wonder if there are any like the former.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Gay marriage willFINALLY be legal nationwide! Woo hoo! Life just KEEPS getting better and better!

    • Jeff Varney

      You wish! We will see about that.

      • Taussig

        what are you going to do?

        • Jeff Varney

          You’ll see, dummy! Wait and see.

  • gregkliebigsr

    WE , AS A NATION , CAN NOT AND MUST NOT ENDORSE SIN OF ANY KIND!
    WE MUST NOT GIVE SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE WORD OF OUR GOD AND CREATOR!
    GOD NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL BLESS SIN!!

    “Thou shalt NOT lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination!” says the LORD GOD.

    LEVITICUS18: 22. SO, LET ME MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR , HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION!!!

    “Thou shalt NOT lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination!” says the LORD GOD.

    LEVITICUS18: 22. SO, LET ME MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR , HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION!!!

    Deuteronomy 23:17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel.

    18. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a DOG , into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
    Revelation 22: 15. For without are DOGS, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    NOW, SO AS NOT TO LEAVE OUT :

    ROMANS CHAPTER 1: 16 – 32

    WELL JUST READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Scream often?

      I sense you’re upset. Why? What harm is going to befall you?

  • Gary

    This is an issue of good and evil. The good is marriage as God has defined it. The evil is any other arrangement.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Your religion has nothing to do with civil marriage laws.

      • Gary

        So you say.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          No, Gary, the law says. Atheists we’d all the time. Simple fact… No civil law calls for your religion in order to get married.

          • Bob Burke

            And this issue is only about the 100% secular civil contract of Marriage. People can and do religiously marry whom ever they want, shoot whatever they want.

    • Spoob

      You are making this all about your opinion. The courts don’t care about your opinion, they care about fairness to all people.

      • Gary

        No, they don’t.

        • Spoob

          I suppose you are going to say they have been deceived by Satan?

  • BarkingDawg

    7-3 striking down the bans based on the Equal Protection clause.

    Remember, you heard it here first

  • Gary

    The two sides will never agree on anything. So it all boils down to this: 1. whether ssm is legal or not, it will always be considered illegitimate by people who believe the Bible. 2. unless it is amended, the US Constitution will never offer any reason for the legalization of ssm.

    • Bob Burke

      Just as Catholics don’t recognize civil divorces – their right but has nothing to do with this contract. And that is what the Supreme Court will be ruling on, legal contracts that do go from state to state. They will rule that the states must recognize legal contracts and the status changes they cause since it just is unworkable to have two people being a spouse in one state and not in another.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Then why are you losing, Gary?

      And nobody cares what you call illegitimate… You change nothing.

    • Spoob

      Why do you think you are losing then, Gary?

  • lawngren

    10th Amendment. The supremes should to be told to shove their decision, no matter what it is. The federal government only exists because the state governments gave it existence and a very limited authority. Therefore the feds don’t have any right to decide on any internal state matters at all.

    • Taussig

      civil rights should not be up to a vote by the majority

      • lawngren

        This has wound up being a strange response. Blame it on my lack of sleep tonight.

        I can’t be certain from your reply what your point is, so I’ll take a guess, given the topic of the article, and respond to what I think you’re saying. If I’m not reading you right, let me know, although this is my last comment for the night. I should have been asleep long ago.
        If you choose to reply, I’ll respond early next week sometime due to a busy schedule for the next few days.

        In order for a stable society to exist, first there must be either force enough to make citizens conform to a political structure, or there must be sufficient consensus among a sufficient percentage of the population that internal strife is minimal. What’s happening in America is that we are fragmenting, Balkanizing, and our chances of survival are diminishing rapidly. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

        Force is, IMO, a poor choice for a society to build on.

        It seems to me that consensus is most efficiently discovered and expressed by voting. I don’t think you can get any majority to agree that civil rights should be up to the vote of the minority.

        Consensus (about such things as what civil rights are, and who pays how much taxes, end-of-life issues, etc.) is not possible in a diverse society. It’s true – diversity is death, because diversity is the opposite of consensus.

        When discord reaches some unknown level in a society, that society is in trouble; likely doomed. Other societies are always watching, and some of them are predatory.

        So (in my opinion) we can talk, argue, brawl, or fight with each other about issues like calling homosexual relationships marriage, but without consensus we are facing the death of our nation. There are already massive hostile forces embedded in this nation, tearing the foundation apart as fast as they can. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever you like, but I advise everyone to get acquainted with the New Testament fast, because (IMO) America is about to explode, the death toll will be shocking, and God does not rule the next life by consensus.

  • John Watson

    No matter what decision a group of people in black robes make…
    Homosexuality will NEVER be right, correct or moral in any form. The results of such a lifestyle is one thing…. Eternal damnation in HELL.
    So, scream about your “equality”. The truth is, this has absolutely nothing to do with “equality” it is looking for state approval of an immoral lifestyle..
    But you will NEVER have God’s approval.

    • Taussig

      it has everything to do with equality. god wasnt at my wedding 15yrs ago and wasnt invited. your holy man is no prerequisite for marriage

      • John Watson

        Well if God wasn’t there or invited…. sure Satan was on the front row.

        • Taussig

          shame…. neither he nor your holy man exist

          • John Watson

            You are nothing but a LIAR and a FOOL…

    • Gary

      As you can see from the comments, there are a lot of people who openly hate God. And then there are some who wallow in their sins and claim God approves of their behavior.

      • Spoob

        You are unbelievable. We hate bigotry and stupidity and attacks on basic human freedoms, we don’t HATE GOD.

        • Gary

          And you define bigotry and stupidity as anything that disagrees with what you want.
          What is the name of the god you love? I ask its name because I know it cannot be the God the Bible talks about. If you loved the God of Abraham, Moses, David, Elisha, Daniel, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and James, you would not support homosexuals.

          • Spoob

            This isn’t difficult to figure out. I say leave people alone. You want to kill them, beat them up, chastise them, torture them, make them unhappy. You are CLEARLY not on the side of Jesus. And it doesn’t take a Bible to figure that out.

          • Gary

            You like to ignore the Bible, so you have no idea who is on the side of Jesus. But those of us who both read the Bible, and believe it, know you to be a child of the devil.

          • Spoob

            If letting people live their lives free of bigotry and religious persecution makes me a child of the devil, so be it. But I’m not. Just because you have things so crazy and ass-backwards doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Continue to believe your religion of hate. Just don’t be surprised when the rest of us fight you tooth and nail on it. Your day will come.

          • Gary

            You ARE a child of the devil. And you are a fool to think you will come out a winner.

          • Spoob

            You are crazy. Out of your mind. Go to a doctor.

  • Reason2012

    Wrong thing to be debating on. It’s not whether states have the right to ban marriages except for one man and one woman, because marriage by definition IS one man and one woman. The issue is whether the states have the right to

    – REdefine religious institutions (they don’t)
    – pass laws to establish this new state religion (they don’t)
    – criminalize all other beliefs to the contrary, namely Christianity (they don’t)

    • Bob Burke

      Marriage is s 100% secular civil contract, you are confusing the religious rite of marriage with the civil contract that legally registers a spousal familial relationship.

      Everyone has a right to their own free exercise, anyone of any belief can have a spouse of a gender that seems right to them. Obviously we have no right to tell others what their beliefs should be.

      Framing this as religious argument is an instant fail since every citizen has a right to their own religion and the government must treat them the same regardless.

      • Reason2012

        No, marriage exists whether there are laws or not. The legal contract comes after the fact.

        Civil Unions, which was not marriage, is a civil contract.

        Hello. You can BELIEVE two men is a marriage, sure. But show me what religion has defined marriage as two men, documented from 3,500 years ago, existing since the beginning.

        It wouldn’t be a religious argument if they stuck with “civil unions” – trying to instead re-define what marriage is is a violation of the establishment clause: passing laws to establish a new state religion that everyone by force of law are required to support it if the opportunity arises, which brings us to our second violation of the First Amendment: criminalizing the belief that marriage is one man and one woman, being fined many thousands of dollars if you dare violate this state religion.

        They are treated the same by the government: every single person is already allowed to marry ONE person of the opposite gender. Don’t want that right? Then don’t pretend it’s the government denying you that right, and then demand instead a special right NO one has.

        • Bob Burke

          Petulance will get you nowhere. The government civil contract titled Marriage is 100% secular, the government can have no part in anything overtly religious and atheists marry just fine.

          Yes some citizens can register with a husband, others a wife, two sets of special rights. Marriage equality is about letting all citizens do what some could already do, equal rights.

          If you just want to have the government license civil union contracts fine with me. Won’t change anything though, couples will still marry regardless of gender.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. What petulance? It was quite judicious. Ad hominem will get you nowhere – it only shows you already lost the argument.

            No, marriage existed before governments did, proving your implication wrong that it’s government that defines it.

            You mean there are men who are not allowed the right to marry one women? Where?
            There are women who are not allowed the right to marry one man? Where?
            No, they all have the same right – you need to falsely pretend they do not.

            Don’t want that right? Fine. Pretend you’re being denied that right? False. Trying to demand a NEW right that NO ONE has, as if it’s a right you’re being denied that others have? (they don’t) False.

            The government DID offer civil union contracts – it wasn’t “fine” with activists – they spit on it and demanded government redefine the religious institution of marriage instead.

            No, they won’t “marry” – they’ll live together and get a legal contract called “civil union”.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Bob Burke

            You are confusing the religious rite of marriage with the secular contract. And thank you for confirming that allowing men and women to do different things is special rights.

            And if the spousal registration contract is titled Civil Union then all will have civil unions but anyone that wants will still get religiously married as they wish.

            Again it’s a civil contract that can make the promises required regardless of their genders. You want to change its name, I’ve no problem with that but everyone will use the same spousal registration contract.

          • Reason2012

            You are confusing civil contracts with marriage. People get married, then they get a contract to cover the legal aspects of it. They can do both at the same time or separately.

            No, a marriage is one man and one woman, so two men do not “get” married any more than 5 men “get” married.

            So again: You mean there are men who are not allowed the right to marry one women? Where?
            There are women who are not allowed the right to marry one man? Where?
            See how you’re claim is wrong that some do not have the same right?

            No, marriage existed before governments did, proving your implication wrong that it’s government that defines it. Please show where a government defined marriage, before God ever did.

          • Bob Burke

            you are switching terms. There are many religions that marry couples regardless of gender.

            And men are a subset of citizens, if they are the only ones that can register with s wife that is a special right. Marriage equality is for all citizens to be able to contract with a wife.

            This is only about the civil contract titled marriage, that us the only ‘marriage’ the Supreme Court or government has authority over. Religiously couple of all sexes can marry there is no way to prevent it as no law can interfere with their free exercise b

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Please cite documentation of a religion that has it in their holy book that two men can be called married. Pointing out that false religions will allow it (although it’s nowhere in their religious book either) doesn’t address the question.

            Women have the same type of right as men do: marry one person of the opposite gender. In that regard every person has that right.

            No, when the contract was titled “civil union” it was scoffed at as some sort of insult and they demanded they re-define marriage instead.

            I thought you said marriage came from our government. Now it came from Roman law? Which is it?

            And no, marriage existed long before Rome did.

            5 men can have a wedding all they wish – does that make it a marriage? No. Neither does same gender.

            But do what you wish in private – try to get the government to re-define religious institutions and establish a state religion which criminalizes Christianity and welcome to the resistance of this anti-Christian movement.

          • Bob Burke

            So many things you don’t know:

            The government civil contract of marriage has nothing to do with a religious institution, it is a 100% secular civil contract. You seem hell bent on confusing the religious rite, which the government has nothing to do with, with the civil contract that it does.

            And yes, stay with me here – our government civil contract of marriage is based on secular law and the majority of our secular law regarding marriage has its roots in pagan Rome and AngloSaxon.

            And yes, religious marriage existed long before Rome did but this issue of government registration of spouses is about the secular civil contract of marriage only – there is no religious component to it.

            And no, no state in the union uses ‘civil unions’ for its spousal registration – all use a civil contract titled marriage. If you are referring to the ‘separate but equal’ secondary contracts that some states had, those are not equal and pointless – if two citizens are making the same contractual promises there is no constitutional justification for separate contracts.

            And again, thank you for showing that there were two sets of special rights – male citizens could only register with a wife, female citizens only register with a man. Marriage equality is about all citizens being able to do what other citizens can already do, no special rights. You can register with a wife, so can every other citizen.

            And finally, that your sect doesn’t allow two people of the same gender to marry has nothing to do with the ones that do. Gay Christians marry just fine since there is no male or female in the body of Christ, any role a man can fulfill a woman can too and vs versa.

            You are, of course, free to disagree but the government can’t show favoritism. You don’t want to have a husband for a spouse that is your choice, but everyone else has a right to choose differently.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Please cite documentation of a religion that has it in their holy book that two men can be called married. Pointing out that false religions will allow it (although it’s nowhere in their religious book either) doesn’t address the question.

            So you admit there is no such religion?

          • Bob Burke

            False religions? Sorry this is America, there is no such thing as a ‘false religion’ in the eyes of the law. And Christianity lets two men marry just fine as God said there is no male or female in the body of Christ so any role one gender can have the other can too. Which makes sense – there is no marry or marriage after the resurrrection, we will all be as the angels in heaven.

            Are you from some pick and choose version of Christianity that doesn’t acknowledge that all Christians, gay or straight, can marry their spouse just fine? That’s ok, its your right as an American to believe that way. I prefer the Word of God, but then He did give you the right to be wrong.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, Christianity doesn’t let them do it – it’s nowhere in the Bible. False teachers let them do it, but still does not make it a marriage. If a false teacher let a man marry his parents, would that make it a marriage? No.

            There’s only one version: the Bible – that’s where marriage is defined and has been defined for 3,500+ years.

            So you admit there’s no religion that has a book they’ve been following for thousands of years that says two man is a marriage. End of story.

          • Bob Burke

            No, you are admitting you don’t respect other people’s right to their own religions, which seems to have been the issue al long

            Again, Gay Christians marry just fine, you have a right to disagree but the government has to treat all points of view equally.

          • Reason2012

            What religion has defined for thousands of years two men as a marriage? None. Please stop pretending it’s a religious issue in some posts, then a secular issue in others – you only help show others how dishonest the activists like you are.

          • Bob Burke

            Of course it is different, the religious rite of marriage and the secular civil contract are completely different things. This is only about the secular contract, any religion can perform their religious rites as they like.

          • Reason2012

            First you say “Our legal traditions derive from pagan Roman and Anglo-Saxon law.”

            Now you say “And yes, religious marriage existed long before Rome did”

            So which is it? Did it come from Roman law or not, because you made both statements, which are contradictions of each other.

          • Bob Burke

            You can’t really understand the difference between religious marriage and legal marriage? They are two different things. This is only about legal marriage, not the religious right of marriage. There is no religious component to the civil contract of marriage in the United States.

          • Reason2012

            You ignored the question.

            First you say “Our legal traditions derive from pagan Roman and Anglo-Saxon law.”

            Now you say “And yes, religious marriage existed long before Rome did”

            So which is it? Did it come from Roman law or not, because you made both statements, which are contradictions of each other.

          • Bob Burke

            Our legal civil contracts came from Rome and anglosaxon traditions. Would it be better if I call it the religious rite of matrimony? Would help you realize that religious rite and secular contract are two completely different things?

          • Reason2012

            You contradicted yourself again: “Our legal civil contracts came from Rome and anglosaxon traditions”

            First you say “Our legal traditions derive from pagan Roman and Anglo-Saxon law.”

            Which is it? Did it come from their LAWS or their TRADITIONS? You continue to change your story every time you post.

            But again, you said “And yes, religious marriage existed long before Rome did”

            How can it come from Roman TRADITION or Roman LAW if “marriage existed long before Rome did”?

            You contradict your own claims and can’t even admit you did that. You clearly have no intention to be honest here.

            Take care.

          • Bob Burke

            Pedantic evasion like that is just funny. That you are saying you don’t understand how our current laws derived from legal traditions is just being deliberately and obviously obtuse.

            So real simple.

            Our body of English and European based laws are traced back to AngloSaxon and Roman origins, including the civil contract of marriage. They most certainly don’t trace back to Christian or Jewish law, or Babylonian, Etruscan, etc. Our civil contract titled marriage used for the legal recognition of spouses and the similar adoption contract for the legal recognition of a parent child relationship come from these origins. The are 100% secular and most certainly do not relate in any way to the religious rite of matrimony from any particular religion.

            Yes I know you want to somehow claim the secular civil contract as belonging to your belief system but unfortunately for you it doesn’t any more than it belongs to Mormons, Scientologists, Wiccans, Muslims, Christians or Catholics.

            The civil contract is now, for the majority of Americans, available to all citizens to register with a husband or wife, and after the Supreme Court rules it will be available to 100% of those citizens in all the US lands.

          • Reason2012

            Now you claim “Our body of English and European based laws are traced back to AngloSaxon and Roman origins, including the civil contract of marriage.”

            But earlier you said: “Our legal civil contracts came from Rome and anglosaxon traditions”

            First you say “Our legal traditions derive from pagan Roman and Anglo-Saxon law.”

            Which is it? Did it come from their LAWS or their TRADITIONS or is it now “contracts”? You continue to change your story every time you post.

            But again, you said “And yes, religious marriage existed long before Rome did”

            How can it come from Roman TRADITION or Roman LAW or roman “civil contracts” if, according to you, “marriage existed long before Rome did”? That’s hardly a minor detail that’s a flat out complete contradiction.

            You contradict your own claims and can’t even admit you did that. You clearly have no intention to be honest here.

            Take care.

          • Bob Burke

            Do you really not understand that precursors of something are called ‘traditions’ even it their exact form isn’t the same now? The inability to generalize simple terms and use them in a discussion is an indication of… something, as a rule.

            If you can’t understand how law has underpinnings then you will never have the understanding necessary to really ‘get’ why your side will lose in this legal case.

            Further discussion is pointless, anticipate your victory 😉

          • Bob Burke

            You are stating it wrong. There is no such objective thing as an ‘opposite gender’ there are just males and females. And all citizens, whether they be male or female, have a right to register with a spouse be they male or female. No special rights for just some – all citizens with the same right to a male or female spouse as the two of them wish.

            Using the term ‘opposite gender’ would be no more valid than saying someone had to have the ‘right race’.

          • Jeff Varney

            I agree, Bob. It is odd and it may have hijacked this Christian website preventing us to block trolls and annoying posters (you’re not annoying, Bob).

          • Jeff Varney

            That’s how I see it, so far.

          • Reason2012

            You said “.. government registration of spouses ..”
            You just refuted your claims right there, backing up exactly what I’ve been saying.

            The government only registers spouses after the fact. The government never defined WHAT makes two people spouses to begin with, they only register spouses after the fact.

            To demand the government for the first time in history start defining what makes people spouses, to enter the realm of religion and create their own religious institutions and establish this new state religion by force of law is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

            Government cannot only not create a state religion, they cannot show favoritism towards this new state religion, criminalizing those who hold to Christian doctrine of one man and one woman, fining Christians many thousands of dollars for doing so.

            Hope this helps.

          • Bob Burke

            No, the commitment to be spouses is in the contract for the legal status as spouse, they aren’t legal spouses till the commitment has been completed. People can religiously marry the dead, polygamy, spiritual beings, etc. This isn’t about any of those.

            Again, there is no religion in registering the familial relationship of spouse. And if your religious idea of marriage differs from some other citizens that’s great, but every single citizen has a right to not share your views on that and the government is obligated to serve people of all faiths equally.

            I think you are confused what free exercise means – you can marry who you religiously think you should but that doesn’t give you the right to tell someone else that they have to share that religious view or to treat them in the public arena as if they had to. Just like Catholics can think secular divorces aren’t ‘real’ they still have to treat civilly divorced people as divorced in the public arena.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. So if a man “commits” to marry his parents, that makes it a marriage? No.

            If a man “commits” to marry 5 women, that makes it a marriage? No.

            You’re not a spouse until the religious institution of marriage says you are: one man and one woman.

            As I said: “.. government registration of spouses ..”, as you stated, refuted your claims right there, backing up exactly what I’ve been saying. Government only registers spouses after the fact – they never defined what spouses are to begin with and cannot start doing so now.

          • Bob Burke

            Of course those could all be religious marriages – the government can’t regulate religion. Shoot nuns all religiously marry the same guy, Wiccans religiously marry nature totems, Mormons and Middle Easterners practice polygyny – my neighbor is the second religious concubine of a Somali Muslim man.

            And no a spouse is a commitment, and the contract is about legal recognition of that commitment but religion has nothing necessarily to do with it. Atheists enter ‘marriage by declaration’ common law marriages in 9 states, no religion not contract even.

            You just don’t understand what the Supreme Court will be pulling on – your sect can still religiously marry anyway you want.

          • Reason2012

            “.. government registration of spouses ..”, as you stated, refuted your claims right there, backing up exactly what I’ve been saying. Government only registers spouses after the fact – they never defined what spouses are to begin with and cannot start doing so now.

          • Bob Burke

            Of course they can just as they can define what a parent child relationship is with adoption contracts. Can people have religiously wed things that the legal contract doesn’t allow? Sure, again nuns all marry the same guy – good luck getting legal registration of that marriage.

            But the situation here is we already have citizens registering with men and women and all marriage equality is about is letting all citizens do what these citizens are already able to do. Same contract, same promises, no constitutional reason for exclusion.

          • Reason2012

            Where is marriage defined as a man and a man – need such a religious definition first from a religious text that’s been around for thousands of years before you can claim you’re married – Religion defined it, more specifically God defined it. Not: “it’s marriage today b/c I said so”.

            No one’s being excluded: every single person has the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Where is that right being denied? Let me know and I’ll speak out against it.

          • Bob Burke

            No, someone could start up a religion last week and their beliefs are just as valid as as any other religion here in the United States.

            And again, gay Christians marry just fine as per the Word of God. That you don’t think so is irrelevant to me and the government and irrelevant to this discussion – this is about the 100% secular civil contract of marriage available to citizens whether their beliefs popped up yesterday or 10,000 years ago or even if they have none at all.

          • Reason2012

            Since you keep ignoring it: No one’s being excluded: every single person has the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Where is that right being denied? Let me know and I’ll speak out against it.

          • Bob Burke

            Unfortunately for you that isn’t how it works – you have a right to a husband so does every other citizen. 14 th amendment baby.

          • Reason2012

            No, that’s not the right. The right is not “you can all have a husband” – the right is “you can ALL have a spouse of the opposite gender”.

            You hate that right. So be it. Trying to pretend you’re being denied that right is false. 14th Amendment: you already have that same right. Lying about it doesn’t change that.

            And guess what, using your logic, NO man has the “right” to marry a man. So where is this “right” that others have that you do not? Ooops.

            Take care.

          • Bob Burke

            Sorry you got it wrong as you will see.

          • Reason2012

            You mean some men have the right to marry another man and and others do not? Cite please.

            You mean some women have the right to marry another woman and others do not? Cite please.

            So we do all have the same rights. You demand a special right no one has. The proof is the fact you cannot cite your implications.

            Take care.

          • Bob Burke

            Nope all citizens have a right to marry a spouse regardless of their gender.

          • Reason2012

            Wrong. No man has the right to marry another man. None. So no one has this right that they are then denying you.

          • Bob Burke

            every citizen has the right to marry a man if any does and has a right to the same civil contract licensed for the registration of this spousal relationship.

          • Reason2012

            Not one man has the right to marry a man. So what man has this right you’re being denied to marry a man? No one. So it’s a special right you’re demanding.

          • Bob Burke

            All citizens being able to do the same thing is the opposite of a ‘special right’. All citizens have the same right to marry with a spouse, be they man or woman. Just say no to special rights.

          • Reason2012

            No man has the right to marry a man – so to pretend you’re being denied that right is false and is instead demanding a special right that no man has.

          • Bob Burke

            Every citizen regardless of their gender has a right to register with a husband if any citizen does. Ditto a wife.

          • Reason2012

            @ Bob No one’s denying a man the “right” to marry another man. No one has that right. So no one’s denying certain men that “right” and it’s instead a special right you’re demanding.

            No one’s denying only some women the “right” to marry another woman. No woman has that “right”. So no one’s denying just you any sort of “right” and it’s instead a special right you’re demanding.

          • Reason2012

            So again: You mean there are men who are not allowed the right to marry one women? Where?
            There are women who are not allowed the right to marry one man? Where?
            See how you’re claim is wrong that some do not have the same right?

          • Bob Burke

            No I mean there are citizens not allowed to marry one woman, just as there are citizens not allowed to marry one man. That’s special rights for the ones that can. Marriage equality is about letting all citizens do what other citizens can already do. You can register with a wife (or husband) so can any other citizen.

          • Reason2012

            So you admit every man has the same right and every woman has the same right. So the claim that some are being denied a right is false.

          • Bob Burke

            Right, you keep identifying two subgroups with different, ‘special’ rights and marriage equality is about the entire group having equal rights. Letting men and women do different things is special rights, not equal rights. That you keep supporting my contention and acting like you think you aren’t is very odd.

          • Reason2012

            You mean all men have the right to marry one person of the opposite gender, but all women do NOT have the right to marry one person of the opposite gender? Where are they denied that same right?

          • Bob Burke

            The rights are for men to marry women and women to marry men. Special rights – equal rights is all citizens being able to marry a man or a woman.

          • Reason2012

            So you admit every single person has “the right to marry one person of the opposite gender”. I rest my case.

          • Bob Burke

            No, there is no legal term ‘opposite gender’. This is about some citizens being able to license the civil contract with men, and others being able to with women – special rights.

          • Reason2012

            I never said it was a legal term. So you admit every single person has “the right to marry one person of the opposite gender”. I rest my case.

          • Bob Burke

            I’m glad you are resting it, it’s a tired old horse that died long ago.

            Thank you for admitting it isn’t a legal term, no one has a gender of ‘opposite’ in the eyes of the law, just ‘male’ or ‘female’. And that is why, legally, restricting spouses by gender is unconstitutional, a violation of the 14th amendment. You can cosign a civil contract to have legally recognized spousal relationship with a wife, so can everyone else.

          • Reason2012

            Doesn’t matter it’s not a legal term – the fact is every single person has the exact same right to marry one person of the opposite gender. I suppose if you want to pretend we do not know what that means, have at it. Common senses wins out in the end. Take care.

          • BarkingDawg

            so you are a polygamist?

          • Reason2012

            No. And sin was not in the Bible to condone it, but to show the consequences of it.

    • Gary

      Homosexuals, and their equally perverted allies, want to change whatever they don’t like, marriage being one. You are correct that what a marriage is cannot be changed, only perverted and counterfeited. God invented marriage, and in doing so He defined it as the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. A husband can only be a man, and a wife can only be a woman. Obviously, a lot of people are in rebellion against what God has decreed. They ignore the consequences of their actions and beliefs. But those consequences come, even if they don’t want them to.

    • BarkingDawg

      how do you get all that out of this?

      the issue is about civil marriage licenses.

      What part of “Civil” don’t you understand?

      • Reason2012

        Hello. No, marriage comes first – the legal contract is after the fact.

        The issue is about them trying to legally redefine religious institutions by force of law, and establishing this new state religion that in turn criminalizes the Christian institution of marriage being one man and one woman only.

        • Terry Roll

          It isn’t exclusively Christian! You can refuse to marry gays in the eyes of your religion, but not the state

          • Reason2012

            Hello. It’s not about “homosexuals” or “heterosexual” – marriage is not “heterosexual may marry, a homosexual cannot”

            Marriage is: every person has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender. “Heterosexuals’ have this right – those who currently prefer “homosexuality” have this exact same right
            That was defined before there were any governments or laws and it’s documented in the Bible.

            The state cannot criminalize the belief that marriage is one man and one woman, fining Christians many thousands of dollars who do not violate their beliefs are act on supporting this new state religion.

  • BarkingDawg

    7-2 with Scalia and Thomas as the dissent.

    State SSM bans will be declared a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

    deal with it.

    • Gary

      They may be declared a violation of the equal protection clause, but they still won’t be.

      • BarkingDawg

        Waa waa waa

    • Jim Howland

      And the Full Faith & Credit clause. If states don’t have to recognize other states’ marriage licenses, why should they have to be required to respect business licenses, or drivers’ licenses, or–dare I say it–gun permits issued by other states?

      My company is located in Georgia, but the majority of our projects and clients is not. I do not look forward to collecting another 49 business licenses. But hey, this is the precedent the “Ya’ll may be married in Massychoositz, but that don’t mean squat here ‘n Gyorgia” people want to set.

  • jonathanbartlett

    Why is a Christian news site following along with the same secular terminology as everybody else? There is no such thing as a gay marriage “ban”. There are no bans on square circles. If someone calls a circle a square, they are either misinformed or lying. I would not support a gay marriage ban, I do not support gay marriage for the same reason I do not support square circles – I am not a liar, and my words carry real meanings. As long as Christians continue to tout the “ban” language, we will lose this issue, because we have already conceded it by treating gay “marriage” as if it were a possibility and not a logically fallacious idea.

    • Gary

      I agree with you, but many federal judges, including some on the SC, think that “gay marriage” really is a possibility. Whether there are at least five of them on the SC will be revealed later this year. But even if ssm is legalized, it will always be considered illegitimate by people with functioning brains.