Bush Judge Declares Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional

Biblical marriage II pdMONTGOMERY, Ala. — A federal judge nominated to the bench by then-President George W. Bush has declared Alabama’s marriage amendment unconstitutional, thus paving the way for two lesbian women to obtain legal recognition as the parents of a nine-year-old boy.

As previously reported, Kimberly McKeand and Cari Searcy have been in a relationship for 15 years, and traveled to California to “wed” in 2008 after winning a contest held by the San Diego Convention and Visitor’s Bureau.

In 2005, McKeand conceived via a sperm donor and gave birth to a baby boy that she named Khaya. However, neither the hospital nor the state would recognize Searcy as the parent because of Alabama’s constitutional marriage amendment, also known as the “Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.”

“Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman,” it reads in part. “As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.”

The amendment was passed in 2006 with 81 percent approval from voters.

According to AL.com, Searcy filed paperwork with the Mobile County Probate Court in 2011 in an effort to legally adopt the child. She was denied due to the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage,” and the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

McKeand and Searcy then sued Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn the law. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade, nominated to the bench in 2001 by then-President George W. Bush, struck down Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment as unconstitutional.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Careful review of the parties’ briefs and the substantial case law on the subject persuades the court that the institution of marriage itself is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and that the state must therefore convince the court that its laws restricting the fundamental right to marry serve a compelling state interest,” she wrote.

“If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children,” Granade continued. “Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the state as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.”

But while homosexual advocacy groups cheered the decision, officials in Alabama vowed to fight the ruling.

“It is outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Act,” House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) said in a statement. “The legislature will encourage a vigorous appeals process, and we will continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live.”

Attorney General Luther Strange immediately requested a stay of the ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court plans to take up the matter this year.


A special message from the publisher...

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

Print Friendly
  • Mike843

    Sanctity: the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.

    The state has no business imposing “sanctity”.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Marriage is a civil contract. Nothing more.

      • Harry Oh!

        Is the sun shining today on your home planet?

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Yup… Earth.

          America.

          Where marriage is a civil contract, and atheists we’d all the time.

          • Harry Oh!

            Hahaha….very funny. You and your ilk are not from earth

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Sure we are. Not sure what is funny about a simple fact.

    • Harry Oh!

      ‘Hedonism’ is much better right?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Awesome! Life just KEEPS getting better and better!

    • Fundisi

      I see you two gays, you and Mike843 were the first posting here, rejoicing in evil, doing the happy dance because you are making a joke of marriage.

      • Mike843

        I’m not gay … my wife and I will be celebrating our 20th anniversary this year … a union that hasn’t been damaged at all by same-sex marriage.

        • Fundisi

          Married? Nice cover for your homosexuality.

          • BarkingDawg

            Hatred like yours is very toxic to the soul.

          • Fundisi

            It is you that hate homosexuals and God, clean up your own house first.

        • BarkingDawg

          Congratulations.

        • Ashley

          Don’t even worry about what others say. Others who were raised to believe marriage is only between man and woman and children should have a mother and father are naive. I too am happily married ( I am a WOMAN, married to a MAN) and see no affect this has on heterosexuals. Children grow up EVERYDAY with a dead beat parent or drug addicted parent. Why can’t children have two mom’s or dad’s? At least they get the love they deserve. Why can’t two mom’s or dad’s happily in love get married and both be on the child’s birth certificate? I believe in God but I also believe in no judging others when I’ve never been in their shoes. People are quick to jump the gun and say when something isn’t right BECAUSE they THEY don’t think it’s right. Why don’t those judging realize it isn’t their job, it’s God’s. I will not look down upon those who want the same happiness I have.

          • Fundisi

            No, you do not believe in God, at best you are a practical atheist.

            God calls Christians to make “righteous judgments” between good and evil.

            God hates sin, including my own. He hates all sin and He has spoken of His anger against homosexuality as being sexual immorality and idolatry.

            Love for children that leads them away from God and into hell is not love, it is hate.

          • Ashley

            For one, you don’t know me. You spew hate to everyone because they have differing opinions. For your information, I am a Christan but UNLIKE you, I leave the judgment to the only person who matters. I don’t go around spewing gate because I believe something is wrong or I oppose something. Why does it matter what we think? Do we determine who gets into Heaven? You think your rude comments will get you into Heaven quicker? If anything, you’ll be looked down upon because YOU tried doing God’s job for him. It isn’t up to you to decide anything. It’s up to you to follow the Lord and love ALL his children (aka, YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS) instead, you don’t agree so you run off at the mouth calling out people. You are not my judge. Your words don’t mean a thing to me. I am a child of God, not you. I know right from wrong but I CHOOSE to let my Father in Heaven be the judge. You should try it sometime.

          • Fundisi

            I do know you by your words. If you really believed in God, if you were really a Christian – you would obey Him and not man. You would hate sin just as He hates sin and you would want to be used of God to rescue homosexuals, not condemn them by your toleration of evil. That is our ministry, expose evil, cal these souls to repentance and by God’s Grace see some of them find Christ, salvation and healing.

            One of the most widespread arguments against Christians is that they are “judgmental” or “always imposing
            their views on others.” Often, this criticism comes in response to Christians who speak out against behaviors and lifestyles that God judges as “sin” and has declared to be an outrage to Him (see Proverbs 16:1). We live in a society where “everyone [does] what [is] right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25)—where
            people insist that there are no moral absolutes, that each man should decide for himself what is right or wrong, and that we should “tolerate” (meaning “celebrate”) sinful activities. Those who take seriously the biblical warnings against sin and dare speak out against evil are written off as religious fanatics, and all Christians are, ironically, judged as being “judgmental.”

            The Christian must “judge” or discern between good and evil (Hebrews 5:14)! We must make spiritual evaluations of the words and behavior of others, not to find fault, but to effectively guard our hearts against error and sin (1 Corinthians 2:14-15; Proverbs 4:23). In fact, immediately after Jesus warned His disciples against hypocritical judgment, He says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs” (Matthew 7:6). How is the Christian supposed to know who the “dogs” and the “pigs” are unless he or she exercises discernment? Furthermore, Jesus warns His
            disciples just a few verses later, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). This admonition is given not only with regard to “false prophets” but also concerning anyone who comes in the name of Christ but who, by his actions, denies Christ (Titus 1:16; cf. Matthew 3:8).

            According to Jesus, this kind of judgment is considered “right judgment” (John 7:24) and is strongly encouraged. We are to be “as wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16), and wisdom demands that we be discerning (Proverbs 10:13). And when we have discerned rightly, we are to speak the truth, with love being the motivating factor (Ephesians 4:15). Love requires that we confront those in error with the truth about their sin with the hope of bringing them to repentance and faith (Galatians 6:1). “Whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death” (James 5:20). The true Christian speaks the truth—not merely what he believes to be the truth, but the truth as plainly revealed in God’s Word. The truth, especially the truth about good and evil, exists independently from what we feel or think (Isaiah 5:20-21).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christians-judgmental.html#ixzz3PrB53vUs

          • Faithwalker

            Amen!

          • Spectrum

            Very well said, Fundisi. If Ashley still maintains her stance after all that, she is truly mis-led. And deluded.

          • Spectrum

            You cannot be a “gay Christian”, neither ( in your case ), can you be a Christian while at the same time giving moral and / or material support to homosexuality…….

            Romans 1:27 “……and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error….”.

            and….1:32 “……Though they know cGod’s righteous decree that those who practice such things ddeserve to die, they not only do them but GIVE APPROVAL to those who practice them……”.

            Aren’t YOU giving approval to those that practice homosexuality ? The very thing that we are admonished NOT to do in Romans. It should be clear to you that you are being deceived. If the gay agenda that I linked you to, hasn’t convinced you of this, then the above extracts from scripture certainly should. Continuing in your defiance of God by insisting that you know better than Him, and that God has got it wrong on this issue, will only lead you to hell. You need to reassess your belief system on this for your own sake !

          • Ashley

            No sin is greater than another, you spewing hatred about homosexuals is NO different than being a homosexual. You just contradicted yourself and yet you say I don’t believe in God. I repent for my sins but I also know none are greater than another. Grab your Bible and read it. Just because you know a verse or two doesn’t make you anymore of a believer in God than someone else. Your hatred is not wanted.

          • Fundisi

            Your first lie, I do not hate homosexuals – you do. I want to see them saved, healed and have eternal life; you by tolerating their sins and defending those sins would rather see them in hell than repent.

            No sin greater than any others? What about blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Why did God so strongly express His anger against homosexuality, condemning that lifestyle? He hates all sin and you do not, it is that simple and why you are an atheist.

            I have read the bible much more than you, for many decades.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            But your religion is not necessary for marriage.

            Your religion is not civil law.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Why did God so strongly express His anger against homosexuality, condemning that lifestyle? ”

            Unless you ARE God, you have no way of knowing for certain how God feels about the issue. You have chosen to believe that the Bible accurately reflects God’s views. There is no proof of that. Your choosing to believe that does not make it true. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            To suggest that if someone doesn’t believe in the God you believe in, they therefore do not believe in God at all, is quite arrogant. You have no more, nor no less, basis for stating that your beliefs are factual, than anyone else does.

          • Spectrum

            It is not judging to identify and expose evil. If you ( supposedly ) believe in God you would know that.

            “……I will not look down upon those who want the same happiness I have……”.

            It’s not what WE want, we should be focused on what GOD WANTS, and to please Him. Again, if you ( supposedly ) believe in God, you would know that.

            By supporting gay “rights” you are supporting the act of homosexuality ITSELF. Because the two are mutually inclusive ( unless you also support celibate marriages ). This is the Trojan Horse by which the homosexual movement dupes the straight majority into accepting their sick behaviour. And you’re one of those straights that HAVE been duped. It may not be your fault, as you’re probably not aware that this is the aim of a well planned marketing campaign designed to achieve this result…..

            ( quote ) ……“At least in the
            beginning”, they write, “we are seeking public desensitization and
            nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect full ‘appreciation’ or
            ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average America. You can
            forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good
            thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing,
            with a shrug of the shoulders, then your battle for legal and social
            rights is virtually won…..”. ( end quote ) http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page92/hom-tactics.html

            And doesn’t the above quote describe what’s been happening over the last few decades ? Wake up and realise that YOU are one of those that Jesus warned : “do not be deceived”.

        • Spectrum

          Which wife might that be ? Because in the future this is what we can expect ; http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/supremes-new-morality-means-justice-for.html

      • Tedlick Badkey

        How has your marriage changed?

        How has any “traditional marriage” changed?

  • Fundisi

    Because of that most damnable “full faith and credit” nonsense and because the courts have forced gay marriage on so many states, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will force gay marriage on the nation . It is a done deal and the evil of homosexuality and gay marriage is only the beginning.

    • BarkingDawg

      “Because of that most damnable “full faith and credit” nonsense”

      The “Full Faith and Credit” clause is not “damnable nonsense.” It is an integral part of our Constitution and is one of the key parts of it that binds all the states into a single nation.

      In any case, you are wrong. The Court did not address the Plaintiff’s “Full Faith and Credit” argument. From the decision:
      “For all of these reasons, the court finds that Alabama’s marriage laws violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

      • Fundisi

        I was speaking about an argument that you anti-Christs usually use

      • Gary

        The US Constitution does not require that ssm be legal.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Correct. It does, however, require that the state justify any restrictions it places on the ability of citizens to access a right offered by the state. There has not been any legal argument put forth that the constitution specifically states that SSM be legal.

  • BarkingDawg

    How many states are left?

    read this opinion carefully, people.

    http://media.al.com/news_mobile_impact/other/Searcy%20ruling.pdf

    the SCOTUS opinion will be very similar.

    • Mike843

      13 plus Missouri, which recognizes all marriages, but same-sex couples can only marry in St. Louis.

    • Spectrum

      SCOTUS opinions that I’m sure you’d agree should be fair and unbiased, right ? In which case you’ll be one of the first to protest about THIS (….er, won’t you ? ) http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/150119

      Let me know when the demonstations start outside the Supreme Court building, and I’ll meet you there. Deal ?

  • BarkingDawg

    I like how the above article destroys the common hate-wing meme that these decisions are all being made by “Liberal Obama Judges.”

  • Rey G

    Marriage was created or invented by God of creation/Jesus Christ and Him only, not a govt or a state or no one else and is for God honoring people only. You do it God’s way/the bible or nothing. No state, govt or judge has the authority to impose their opinion over God’s instruction from the bible.

    • Fundisi

      These people do not care about God’s Word, but please keep using it to testify against them.

      • Mike843

        No “god’s word” is the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution is.

        • Fundisi

          If it is not based on God’s Law it is sin and unjust.

          • Better AndBetter

            And you are the reason christians aren’t made special in our government.

            You’re terrifying. Christian Taliban at it’s best.

          • Fundisi

            No proofs, no defense of your lies, you just find it easy to lie. It is because you do not know God and you hate both Him and the Truth.

          • Better AndBetter

            The defense is a government that never mentions your mythology.

            You wish to put fundie above other citizens… baby Taliban, waiting to grow up.

            Can’t hate something I don’t believe in… however, I don’t hate the concept. People like you make the idea of a loving deity into a hateful monster, so look inward.

            Truth can be proven… you can prove nothing.

          • ArmedPatriot

            “Truth can be proven… you can prove nothing”
            ==============
            Dont give up your day job, idiot…
            Truth cannot always be proven to everyones satisfaction, moron.

            Either black holes exist as some believe or they dont. One or the other is TRUTH. Now PROVE the case either way here and now.

            yeah…thats right…you CANT…and so your ‘truth can be proven’ nonsense is just that….nonsense.
            There isnt enough DATA to prove one thing or another, clown…and its the same for a great many TRUTHS in this universe.

          • ArmedPatriot

            And yet you animals embrace the very cretin that would hack your idiot heads off….while your crying like spanked little girls over marriage debates.

        • SundayWorshipistheMARK

          And that “Constitution” is being officially trashed as we speak.

        • alnga

          which is dedicated to the Supreme Creator., funny how we forget these little things. But the USA is not the first nation to forget and it will not be the last either. We are paying a price for this in our Chaos..

          • Mike843

            Where?

            WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

            The words “god” and “creator” are not in the Constitution.

    • BarkingDawg

      er, wrong.

      Marriage was created by the state as a way to legally control the process.

      prior to that, people just shacked up.

      or a man took as many wives as he could pay for.

      • ArmedPatriot

        uh…actually dolt, people used the Bible to marry and still do today.
        We make OUR covenant marriages before God…with or without your idiotic ‘licensing’.

        • BarkingDawg

          So people that are not followers of the Christian Bible can’t get married?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Marriage is a civil contract.

      Atheists we’d all the time. No religion needed.

      • James Grimes

        “Atheists we’d all the time.” Really? Maybe you should do an edit.

        • Better AndBetter

          Auto correct.. Fact remains… Atheist get married all the time. No religion is required.

          • James Grimes

            OK, no problem. It happens. I have to ask though, as an Atheist, why would you want to stalk a Christian site?

          • Guest

            To know those who make themselves my enemy. To celebrate wins against said enemy.

          • James Grimes

            Very arrogant. Celebrate all you want. You can celebrate all the way to hell.

          • dark477

            I look forward to seeing you there.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/EyrtheFyre Regina Forbes

            How is Christianity your enemy when atheism presupposes they have no enemy as they believe there are no supernatural deities?
            Therefore, if you believe that the Judeo-Christian God doesn’t exist, your supposed enemy doesn’t exist. ipso facto you have no enemy.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “How is Christianity your enemy”

            Guest didn’t say that Christianity was the enemy. He said “those” which refers to people. Not the faith itself.

      • Reason2012

        Marriage is not “you must believe in God” – marriage is one man and one woman. No, marriage is a contract offered after the fact to deal with legal aspects of a marriage after the fact – it never defined marriage.

        • Better AndBetter

          Marriage is a civil contract open to same-sex couples in 36 or so states. You ignoring that fact changes nothing.

          • Reason2012

            I thought you said it was “civil marriage”? Now you call it “marriage”, which is you unwittingly admitting it’s marriage and it’s the religious institution the government is trying to redefine and establish this new state religion by force of law.

            There’s no such thing as “same_gender” marriage – calling it that changes nothing. The government has been violating the Constitution, establishing a state religion, criminalizing Christian beliefs on marriage, and violating the rights of children.

            Activist judges have been ignoring the will of the people and forcing this anti-Christ state religion on the people – give it time: as the hate of activists becomes evident as well, the tide will turn.

            Let alone when we face God we’ll be reminded that those who claim marriage is other than that which God defined lost a great deal more than that specific battle.

          • Better AndBetter

            Marriage is a civil contract.

            Come back when a lawyer uses your nonsense in court.

            My state voted in favor of me marrying… We get full state and federal recognition with all protections, benefits, and obligations as any other married couple. You can’t chage that, even with your denial.

            Your Christ is meaningless. the tide HAS turned. You lose.

          • Reason2012

            No, marriage is marriage – the legal contract is only for those who are married – it never defined it.

            No, judges overturn the will of the people – when it’s voted on, the people vote to not allow the government to redefine religious terms and not violate the Constitution by allowing government to establish their own state religion, let alone to then criminalize Christian beliefs on marriage.

            You can have all the state and federal benefits with your legal contract of “civil unions” – you rejected it and demand government redefine marriage instead and criminalize Christian beliefs on marriage instead. On that account, you’ll lose.

            The day we face Him, we will all find out we lose if we did not repent and turn and trust in Him, believing on Him as the only way to be reconciled to God. But thank you for showing what the real motivation of homosexual marriage is: utter hatred for Christ/God.

            Take care.

          • Better AndBetter

            Why hasn’t your “they’re making state religion” argument been use in court? You don’t touch that one.

            As for voted on, Maine did vote in favor. No judges. Same in WA, and ME. Are you denying that? That, my dear, is how I got married.

            The rest was bunk… Tossed out in court, or not allowed in due to it being mythology.

          • Fundisi

            If you are gay and joined yourself legally to a person of the same gender, it was NOT marriage, it was a perverted version on marriage.

          • Better AndBetter

            What does your denial of legal reality change? How does it affect me?

          • Fundisi

            You gays are free to be joined together legally and call it whatever you want, but marriage was instituted by God and as homosexuality is declared a sin by God and He only declared marriage to be between one man to one woman, to call yourself married is a direct attack against God and the Christian faith. You might say, well aren’t atheists married or people of other faiths and the answer remains no, they are not. They and you may call your legal contract whatever you want, even marriage but it will never be a marriage – it is a perversion of marriage and blasphemous.

          • Better AndBetter

            Man, you make me glad we have a secular government.

            Claiming such special levels of culture and society mark you as a very dangerous, ant-American horror show and a great reason to remain secular.

          • Fundisi

            Grow up!

          • Better AndBetter

            Tell me, sweetie… what does your refusal to acknowledge my marriage do to me? How does it affect me?

            How does it affect anybody? Anything?

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Why don’t better arguments get used in court every time first time around? Sometimes it takes time to properly refute the deceptive tactics of the opposition.

            I thought you said your state voted to call two men a marriage? When that’s pointed out to be false that a judge overturned it instead, you start looking for other states. So you admit you were lying?

            And so 34 states had marriage forced upon them against the will of the people. Are you denying that?

            I thought you said you were voted in by the people? Now you’re saying the court did it? You seem to change our story from sentence to sentence to suit your current claims.

            Calling Christ “mythology” – and therein is the TRUE motive of this entire movement: utter hatred for God, Christ, Christianity and Christians.

            Again, the lies and deceptions by these activists are being noticed and the proper arguments will be brought to bear. But either way, it’s a loss when we face God when we die as we’ll be guilty before God if we’re not found covered by what Christ did on the cross.

            Please think again.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Why don’t better arguments get used in court every time first time around? Sometimes it takes time to properly refute the deceptive tactics of the opposition.”

            Then by all means, forward your the arguments you believe to be clearly sound on to the various teams that are arguing this issue in court. No doubt they would be very appreciative given their lack of success to date.

            “And so 34 states had marriage forced upon them against the will of the people.”

            There are plenty of people in those states who supported allowing two citizens of the same gender to access the legal status of marriage. Nothing was forced on them against their will. Further, since no person is required to marry someone of the same gender, what is it you suggest is being “forced” on those who do not agree with allowing two citizens of the same gender to access civil marriage?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “the legal contract is only for those who are married”

            How did they get married?

            “You can have all the state and federal benefits with your legal contract of “civil unions””

            That is not true.

            “you rejected it and demand government redefine marriage instead and criminalize Christian beliefs on marriage instead.”

            There is no effort to criminalize Christian beliefs on marriage. Christians are free to hold to whatever beliefs they care to on marriage. You have made your beliefs clear – have you been subject to criminal action?

          • Reason2012

            @ *TFF* They commit to love each other, until death do they part and had people attend their proclamation as witnesses. They are now married.

            To get legal benefits and protection for the marriage, they need to sign the marriage contract, needing only claim you did such a thing and had witnesses, and they’ll now sign a contract to get it (including witnesses).

            It’s trivial to change contracts to make them offer same legal benefits in protections in the same state they would have instead offered the marriage contract. To pretend it’s “impossible” is false.

            And yet those who believe marriage is as God defined are FORCED to promote same-gender weddings with any business they have if TOLD to, otherwise they will be fined many thousands of dollars like a criminal. They have no problem serving those who profess homosexuality but are still charged like a criminal and sued if they do not do as they are told and promote the ACT of a same-gender wedding.

            Those who own businesses are targeted and told they must promote the act of a same gender-wedding are then criminalized if they dare refuse – these same people who have no problem serving those who prefer homosexuality. Criminalization of Christianity one piece at a time.

            Might as well tell Christian photographers they MUST take_pornographic photographs as well, and sue they if they don’t because “that’s discrimination”.

            Thank you for the chance to refute these claims so others can see it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They commit to love each other, until death do they part and had people attend their proclamation as witnesses.”

            So any couple who proclaims that they love one another, until death do they part and had people attend their proclamation as witnesses, are “married”? If that’s the case, then why do those people also get a state issued marriage license? There would be no need, as they are already married. What about people who don’t make such a proclamation? Who, rather, simply go to the state and get a civil marriage license? Are they not married?

            “To get legal benefits and protection for the marriage, they need to sign the marriage contract, needing only claim you did such a thing and had witnesses”

            You are mistaken. To receive a civil marriage does NOT require that the couple claim they previously proclaimed before witnesses that they “love each other until death do they part”.

            “And yet those who believe marriage is as God defined are FORCED to promote same-gender weddings with any business they have if TOLD to, otherwise they will be fined many thousands of dollars like a criminal.”

            Since no one is “forced” to own a business and no one who owns a business is “forced” to offer services for weddings, no one can be “forced” to promote same-gender marriage.

            “Criminalization of Christianity one piece at a time.”

            Please, spare me the hyperbole and unwarranted persecution complex. Christianity is not being “criminalized”. Please point to one law in our nation which makes it a crime to be a Christian.

            “Might as well tell Christian photographers they MUST take_pornographic photographs as well”

            Your analogy is flawed. Taking pornographic pictures is not a service that most photographers offer. Now, if a photographer offered the service of taking pornographic pictures, but then denied a person who was black, then that would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws. But choosing to not offer pornographic picture services at all does not violate the law.

            “Thank you for the chance to refute these claims so others can see it.”

            I’m happy to offer you chance to refute my claims. Perhaps at some point in the future you will actually do so. So far, however, you have not.

          • Fundisi

            1. Yes, the tide has turned against Christ and the Church. Guess what, He said it would and that evil would rule the hearts of men at this stage in human history, in things like gay marriage. One more yes to you, we will not change the fact that you people have high jacked marriage and defiled it with your false state of marriage, but that will never make it real marriage not right in the sight of God.

            2. While Christ is becoming increasingly meaningless to a majority of people in your godless socialist states of America, He is not becoming meaningless at all to people of faith nor will He be on Judgment Day.

            3. No lawyer will appeal to God’s Law, because he knows this country has turned against Nature’s God and our Creator, making secular humanism the official national religion.

            So, for a season your side, the anti-Christ side, has and will win this argument; but, it will be a short season and not only end up with your side losing, but the price will be everlasting suffering in Perdition. So, pardon me if I do not see that as really winning anything.

          • Better AndBetter

            1. Your mythology has not been changed.

            2. As we are not a theocracy, the views of your mythology are as relevant as those of Hindus, Scientologists, etc… People of your faith live under the same law as everyone else.

            3. Mythology, see above, is not a rational defense in our Republic. Natures God? Cerrunos? Vishnu? All are equal. Creator? Odin… Vishnu… All equal.

            The threat of your mythology does not scare me.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, marriage comes first, the contract that deals with legal aspects of it in our country comes next.

            What court? The government cannot redefine religious terms and then establish this new version of religion by force of law, so the Constitution already covers this.

            No, your state voted against your government redefining religious institutions like marriage and then further violating the Constitution by establishing this as a new state religion. A homosexual activist judge violated that will of the people and by a further violation of the Constitution, in a blatant display of judicial tyranny, redefined it anyway and established that new state religion anyway.

            Thank you for admitting it’s all about hatefully attacking Christ. Interesting how you’re so hatefully obsessed with Christ and denying Him when it’s supposed to be about your “rights” and “how will this affect anyone else”.

            Thank you for posting.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “No, marriage comes first, the contract that deals with legal aspects of it in our country comes next.”

            How does a couple become married first?

            “No, your state voted against your government redefining religious institutions like marriage and then further violating the Constitution by establishing this as a new state religion.”

            No such vote was taken. The only issue that was voted upon was whether to restrict the legal license of marriage to only a man and a woman.

            “A homosexual activist judge violated that will of the people”

            Ruling that a law is unconstitutional does not “violate” the will of the people. The people are not empowered to enforce laws that violate protections provided by the constitution. It was the people who voted in favor of these laws who attempted to violate the rights of other citizens. Further, there were plenty of people who either didn’t care enough about the issue to vote, as well as plenty of people who voted against the law. Therefore to suggest that “the will of the people” was violated is without merit. SOME of the people are not getting their way – but not “the people” as a whole.

            “Thank you for admitting it’s all about hatefully attacking Christ.”

            Oh, please. Spare me the false persecution complex and hyperbole. Are laws which allow divorce in cases other than infidelity also about “hatefully attacking Christ”? Are laws that allow people to believe in religions other than Christianity about “hatefully attacking Christ”? Are laws which allow people to take the Christian god’s name in vain also about “hatefully attacking Christ”? Are laws which allow people to have sexual relations without being married in a religious rite also about “hatefully attacking Christ”?

            You seem to believe that any law that allows something that is inconsistent with Christian beliefs is paramount to “hatefully attacking Christ”. Perhaps you would be happier living in a country where the government operates as a Christian Theocracy.

    • James Grimes

      Yes, marriage was instituted by God in the Garden and it is only between one man and one woman. Any other “marriage” is a depraved activity only condoned by depraved individuals, whether they be judges or Atheists who comment on this site.

    • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

      Civil marriage is not for religious purposes. It’s for the purposes of government recognition. My church does not recognize my marriage. There are tons of legal marriages the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize, and most of those aren’t because of the gender of the spouses.

      But once government started relying on the marriage relationship as a determinant of so many other things – automatic inheritance rights, tax designations, property rights, etc. – then religious institutions couldn’t be the ones determining access to those things.

      But the legal recognition of one’s marriage should NOT dictate what religions do.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      The legal contract of marriage was created by the State. It is the legal contract that is the issue.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “No state, govt or judge has the authority to impose their opinion over God’s instruction from the bible.”

      Since the US is not a Christian Theocracy, they do have such authority regarding the laws of our nation.

  • Rey G

    Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family. (‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭23-24‬ NET)

    • Tedlick Badkey

      And what requirement in America is there for your religion in marriage?

      • Reason2012

        Marriage existed long before laws and government did – government never created marriage – for them to start doing so now, in effect creating a state religion which then criminalizes Christian beliefs on marriage is a dual violation of the Constitution.

        • Better AndBetter

          Your mythology is younger than government forms on this planet.

          Your mythology simply is not required for civil marriage in any way.

          No religion created for civil marriage as it simply is not needed. As for fundies, they can continue their religious ceremonies. Nothing has changed that.

          If there one shred of validity to your insane posts, those arguments would be made for your side in court.

          They’re not.

          Why is that?

          Will you ignore this question yet again?

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Please prove governments came first and no one married until there was government. People have been getting married long before there was governments. Even in the “evolutionism” belief systems, was there government before people committed together for life and raised families? No.

            What “civil marriage” – we’re talking about the government redefining the religious institution of marriage. The legal contract dealing with the legal aspects of it as it pertains to our laws comes after the fact.

            Not talking about religious “ceremonies” – talking about marriage. No “ceremony” is needed for it: just a man and a woman committing to be together for life.

            Calling others insane, fundies, or other condescending, hateful things does not make your points true yet it’s typically all you can fall back on that. Why is that?

            Every single man has the same right to marry one woman.

            Every single woman has the same right to marry one man.

            Saying “they’re invalid (because I said so)” doesn’t make it true.

            The issue is falsely phrased as “states have the right to ban same-gender marriage” – this assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.

            The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution, which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another violation of the First Amendment).

            And on both counts, states do not have any right to do any such thing – we’re protected from such judicial religious tyranny by the Constitution of the United States of America.

            Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is a lie.

            Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

            Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

            Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

            Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

            Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

            Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

            Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

            Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

            John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

            John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

            The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

            As if that’s not enough,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Even children who grew up forced to be in homosexual “households” condemn it and expose it for the depravity is truly inflicts on children.

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

            Where is this right being denied anyone?

            Will you continue to ignore this question for months now yet again?

          • Better AndBetter

            You didn’t answer my question, and your scripture is meaningless mythological bunk.

            I can find you the children of those like you who say the same thing.

            The right to equal protection and my partner.

            That question is answered in every court case.

            Mother? Father? Procreation STILL. Good grief.

            Your little game of mental masturbation is worthless. You change nothing.

            Because your views don’t even warrant bringing up in court.

            Sweet home Alabama shows how worthless your whining is.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Ignoring my answer does not mean I didn’t answer it.

            No, you won’t find children that have a mother and a father that say they were legally denied the right to be raised by their own parents – you’ll find that 100% of the time in such dysfunctional same-gender setups.

            Then get a legal contract and call it “civil marriage” for your “legal protection” – but you guys spat on that and demanded government redefine marriage instead – that action contradicts the claims that you want equal “protection”.

            No, biological mother, biological father: a.k.a., not adultery. Being raised by a mother and a father – not a group of fathers.

            “mental m******n”, you say? Why such sick, perverted hatred?

            Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them go away. I leave you to your hate. Post reported for your lewdness.

          • Better AndBetter

            Why hasn’t your view been represented in court?

          • Reason2012

            Same ready why any other things ever not been brought to court the first time around – correct refutations of deceptions are not always immediately obvious.

          • Better AndBetter

            Why aren’t you petitioning attorneys and state legislatures with your “rationale”?

          • Reason2012

            @ Better You just convinced me to start sending it to lawmakers.

            Meanwhile I’m just showing others how easily the activists arguments are debunked and refuted. Education is the best defense against the false claim of the activists and the anti-Constitutional judicial tyranny of the activist judges.

            This is not a case of correct law being applied by the activists – it’s a case of the judicial tyranny, so obviously those who are violating the Constitution are homosexual activists and couldn’t care less about our laws nor our Constitution and hence no one’s refutations of the activists’ logic – they ARE some of the activists.

            But others are rising up so it’s only a matter of time.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Meanwhile I’m just showing others how easily the activists arguments are debunked and refuted.”

            Amazing, then, that the hundreds of lawyers and multiple AGs who have and are arguing these cases in court have never used your legal rationale.

            Either they are all pretty dense regarding the constitution, you are really insightful regarding the constitution, or your arguments don’t have any legal merit.

            Hmmmm….I wonder which one of those it is.

          • ArmedPatriot

            probably because christians arent as petty, childish and litigious as you freaks of nature are..

          • Kristine Rowland

            “The right to equal protection and my partner.”

            Congratulations on finding love. I hope nothing but the best for you and your partner.

          • Kristine Rowland

            If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and

            ostracize LGBT people, and to deny them loving, committed relationships then it

            is morally reprehensible for Christians to continue to do so.

            What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and

            suffering to gay persons, by:

            Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts

            and spiritual fruits of the church.

            Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of

            the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage.

            Damaging the bonds between LGBT people and their straight family members,
            thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both
            gays and their families.

            Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that

            all homosexual relationships are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing

            to the cruel persecution of a minority population.

            Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend

            that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a

            clear directive abouthomosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy

            Bible. They assert that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful,

            instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-

            repentant sinners(including LGBT people, but apparently not including morbidly

            obese gluttons), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or atleast resolutely)

            denounce homosexual acts. But not morbidly obse gluttons. Or multiple divorces.

            Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the

            Christian community’s treatment of LGBT people is a clear violation of what

            Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as one-half of God’s

            most important commandment: to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

            The gay community has cried out for justice from Christians, who have a

            biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the suffering imposed on gay

            persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and

            ostracize LGBT people. would have to be clear and explicit in the Bible. If

            there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian

            mistreatment of LGBT people is morally indefensible, and must cease.

            Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as

            justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins”

            that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting

            for themselves a standard ofrelative morality for those sins listed in the

            clobber passages that they do routinely commit (like eating too

            much…gluttony).

            Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible’s 31,173

            verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the

            “clobber passages,” since they are typically usedby Christians to “clobber” LGBT

            people.) The fact that homosexuality isso rarely mentioned in the Bible should

            be an indication to us of the lack of importance ascribed it by the authors of

            the Bible.

            While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content

            is devoted to how a Christian should behave. Throughout, the New Testament

            insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over

            compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to

            determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their

            obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior

            toward gay, lesbian, and transgender persons, especially in light of the gay

            community’s call to them for justice?

            “The greatest of these is love” (I Corinthians 13:13)

            The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love, Jesus
            preached love, Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the
            will of Jesus are morally obligated to always err on the side of love.
            Taken all together, the evidence—the social context in which the Bible
            was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul’s time,
            the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the
            clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority
            population, the injustice of exclusion from God’s church on earth and
            from human love as the punishment for a state of being over which one
            has no choice—conclusively shows that choosing to condemn and exclude
            gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice.

            Regarding the law:

            Romans 2:1-4

            If you judge someone else, you have no excuse for it. When you judge another

            person, you are judging yourself. You do the same things you blame others for

            doing. We know that when God judges those who do evil things, he judges fairly.

            Though you are only a human being, you judge others. But you yourself do the

            same things. So how do you think you will escape when God judges you? Do you

            disrespect God’s great kindness and favor? Do you disrespect God when he is

            patient with you? Don’t you realize that God’s kindness is meant to turn you

            away from your sins?

            Galatians 2:19-21

            “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have

            been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The

            life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and

            gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness

            could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

            Galatians 3:1-14

            You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ

            was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from

            you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what

            you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you

            now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in

            vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and

            work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you

            heard? So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as

            righteousness.”

            Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture

            foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel

            in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”So those who

            rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

            For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written:

            “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book

            of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God,

            because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on

            the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

            Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it

            is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order

            that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ

            Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

            Regarding love:

            “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will

            also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not

            forgive your transgressions.”

            Matthew 6:14-15

            “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil

            with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a

            blessing.”

            I Peter 3:9

            “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbors and hate your enemy.’ But

            I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may

            be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and

            the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those

            who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing

            that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than

            others? Do not even pagans do that? ”

            Matthew 5: 43-47

            “For if you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even

            the tax collectors do the same? “If you greet only your brothers, what more are

            you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? “Therefore you are

            to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

            Regarding “truth”:

            When your truth degrades people, it’s not loving.

            When your truth reduces relationships to sex acts, it’s not loving.

            When your truth makes people want to hurt or kill themselves, it’s not loving.

            When your truth incites people to bully, abuse and murder, it’s not loving.

            When your truth makes the gospel something that is only available to people who

            believe like you, it’s not loving.

            When your truth pushes people away from Jesus instead of toward him, it is not

            loving.

            And if your truth isn’t loving, is it really truth?

          • ArmedPatriot

            uh….actually, son, religion existed eons before ANY civilization did….so get a clue.

            Secondly you are correct, we dont need government or some idiot license to tell us when we are married. OUR marriages are before God and that is the ONLY authority that matters.
            The licensing we tolerate to protect our spouses in financial matters. We dont see those worthless pieces of outhouse paper as marriage….not in the least.

        • James Grimes

          You are correct. Don’t let The Useless tell you otherwise.

          • Reason2012

            Thank you for the support. The hate some of these activists put forth is not to be believed.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          The legal contract of marriage was not around prior to governments, as it was governments that created the legal contract. The legal contract of marriage is the only one under discussion.

          Please cite one instance where criminal charges have been brought against someone merely for holding to a certain belief. In addition, please cite one law that criminalizes beliefs.

      • ArmedPatriot

        our religion doesnt recognize any authority save Gods in marriage.
        Getting that worthless ‘license’, son, neither makes us married or even confirms it.
        The ONLY reason we tolerate that meaningless piece of paper is for ONE reason…..it protects our spouse in legal and financial purposes….which is the ONLY reason we even bother to get it.
        OUR marriages are before God alone. We dont need government to tell us we are married or not.

  • Gary

    Not surprised that this wicked judge was appointed by George W. Bush, who at least knew about 9/11 in advance, and probably had a role in it. His father, George H.W. Bush had a major role in assassinating JFK.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Oh, Gary, your bitterness in all thing is so sad.

    • BarkingDawg

      Look out for Chemtrails. they are releasing a secret substance that will turn you gay. you can protect yourself with one of these

      http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      And don’t forget the role Elvis played in the 2014 elections!

  • SundayWorshipistheMARK

    And who brought ideas and views like this abroad…these people:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgUL0kHzIx0

    • pax2u

      so is this your Seventh Day Adventist report

      • SundayWorshipistheMARK

        Proverbs 28:5, “Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the Lord understand all things.”

        • pax2u

          so ellen g white was a fraud and a for profit prophet, thanks for letting us all know

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Proverbs 9:8, “Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.”

          • pax2u

            I always notice that the Seventh Day Adventist are ashamed of their for profit ellen g white

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Psalm 35:4, “Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.”

          • pax2u

            I suppose that the Seventh Day Adventist are always ashamed to have ellen g white as their for profit prophet

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Ecclesiastes 9:16, “Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.”

          • pax2u

            so your Seventh Day Adventist for profit prophet ellen g white said that she spoke for God?

            Matt 7

            15″Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Acts 2:17, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,
            I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your
            daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your
            old men shall dream dreams:”

          • pax2u

            did the Seventh Day Adventist for profit prophet ellen g white speak for your god, but not the Christian God Jesus Christ, sorry

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Proverbs 26:4-5, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
            Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

          • pax2u

            so how long have you been in the Seventh Day Adventist Church

    • Frank

      Pssst.. The churches founded by the apostles worshipped on… Sunday… woohoo!!

      • SundayWorshipistheMARK

        Actually the church was founded by Jesus, the sure foundation. But since you say the apostles worshiped on SUNday, let’s dive into your claim, shall we?

        I’m sure this is the verse you will use…

        Acts 20:7 “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

        This meeting was held at night. If you read on you also find in the next verse it mentions the “many lights in the upper chamber.” Later in verse 11 it also states after they ate, Paul “talked a long while, even till break of day.” The question then is, are they saying this a church service because they broke bread, and since it was on the “first day” it must mean the Sabbath was changed? Problem with that thought is, in Acts 2:46 it says that they normally continued “…daily …breaking bread from house to house.” Since they define this is a church service, this must be the format the church must emulate today. If Acts 20:7 is the definitive proof we need to validate Sabbath being changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week, then all Sunday keeping churches must…

        Hold church at NIGHT

        Hold church EVERY NIGHT

        Hold church TILL THE BREAK OF DAY

        The Jews were looking for any opportunity to kill the apostles, ESPECIALLY Paul. If Paul was breaking the Sabbath, then all ISRAEL would have stoned him with stones. If the Sabbath was changed then Paul would have clearly addressed that. Better yet, JESUS would have address it. Sunday is nothing more than the mark of the Roman Catholic Beast whom you pay homage to. When the USA passes a national Sunday Law, it will BECOME the mark of the beast. And do you know what happens next?

        Revelation 14:9-12

        9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast (ROME) and his image (501c3 churches), and receive his mark (SUNDAY LAW) in his forehead, or in his hand,

        10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

        11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

        12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the COMMANDMENTS of God, and the FAITH of Jesus. The devil does not care if you keep the Commandments
        (like physical Israel claims to do) or have the faith of Jesus (which is what the rest of “believers” claim to do). He does not want you to do BOTH…that’s when you become a THREAT. The mark of the beast is RAPIDLY approaching and when the USA passes a national SUNDAY Law, national apostasy will follow because it will be time for God to work since they have made void thy LAW.

        • pax2u

          so you worship the saturn day?

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Isaiah 66:22-23

            22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

            23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one
            SABBATH to another, shall ALL FLESH come to worship before me, saith the Lord

            Shewing the UNCHANGED ORDER of the Days and the true Position of the SABBATH, as proved by the combined testimony of Ancient and Modern Languages.

            LEGEND: No. LANGUAGE (Where Spoken, Read, or Otherwise Used 1 2 3 4 5 6) Name of the SEVENTH DAY

            1 Shemitic Hebrew Bible world-wide

            Day One

            Day Second

            Day Third

            Day Fourth

            Day Fifth

            Day the Sixth Yom hash-shab-bath

            Day the Sabbath

            2 Hebrew (Ancient and Modern)

            One into the Sabbath
            Second into the Sabbath

            Third into the Sabbath

            Fourth into the Sabbath

            Fifth into the Sabbath Eve of Holy Sabbath

            Shab-bath Sabbath

            3 Targum of Onkelos (Hebrew Literature)

            Day One

            Day Second

            Day Third

            Day Fourth
            Day Fifth

            Day the Sixth Yom hash-shab-bath

            Day the Sabbath

            4 Targum Dialect of the Jews in Kurdistan

            Day One of the Seven

            Day 2nd of the Seven

            Day 3rd of the Seven

            Day 4th of the Seven

            Day 5th of the Seven

            Day of Eve (of Sabbath) yoy-met sha-bat kodesh

            Holy Sabbath Day

            5 Ancient Syriac

            *Each day proceeds on, and belongs to the Sabbath One into Sabbath Two into Sabbath Three into Sabbath Four into Sabbath Five into Sabbath Eve (of Sabbath) Shab-ba-tho Sabbath

            6 Chaldee Syriac Kurdistan and Urdmia,

            Persia One into Sabbath Two into Sabbath Three into Sabbath Four into Sabbath Five into Sabbath Eve (of Sabbath)

            Shap-ta Sabbath

            7 Samaritan (Old Hebrew Letters) Nablus, Palestine
            Day One

            Day Second
            Day Third
            Day Fourth
            Day Fifth
            Day Sixth

            Shab-bath Sabbath

            8 Babylonian Euphrates & Tigris Valleys Mesopotamia (Written lang. 3800 B.C.)

            First

            Second

            Third
            Fourth

            Fifth
            Sixth
            Sa-ba-tu Sabbath

            9 Assyrian Euphrates and Tigris Valleys, Mesopotamia
            First

            Second

            Third
            Fourth

            Fifth
            Sixth

            sa-ba-tu Sabbath

            10 Arabic (Ancient and Modern) Westn. Asia, E,W
            & N. Africa

            The One
            The Two

            The Three
            The Four

            The Fith

            Assembly (day, Muham) as-sabt

            The Sabbath

            11 Maltese, Malta

            One (day)

            Two (and day)

            The 3 (3rd d.)

            The 4 (4th d.)

            Fifth (day)

            Assembly Is-sibt.
            The Sabbath

            12 Urdu or Hindustani (Muhammadan and Hindu, India) (Two names for the days) One to Sabbath.

            Sunday 2nd to Sabbath.

            Moon-day 3rd to Sabbath.

            Mars 4th to Sabbath.

            Mercury 5th to Sabbath.

            (Eve of Juma) Assembly (day) sanichar –

            Saturn shamba – Sabbath

            13 Pashto or Afghan Afghanistan

            One to the Sabbath
            Two to Sabbath

            Three to Sabbath

            Four to Sabbath

            Five to Sabbath Assembly (day)
            khali – Unemployed-day,

            Shamba – Sabbath

            The 7th day could be called chicken nugget day. Its still the 7th day of the week.

          • pax2u

            so did the Seventh Day Adventist for profit prophet ellen g white speak for God?

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Revelation 12:17, “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
            testimony of Jesus Christ.”

            Revelation 19:10, “And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do
            it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

          • pax2u

            so ellen g white was really a fraud? ok

        • Frank

          I did not say church. I wrote churches. I was not refering to that verse.

          Here is an excellent early church history website and this page deals directly with the sabbath and has links to quotes by bishops and such appointed by the apostles and others from the early church:

          http://www.christian-history.org/sabbath.html

          The SDAs have a distorted misunderstanding of sabbath.

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Then physical Israel has a distorted understanding too, heh? But I’ll take your history lesson and raise you another.

            http://www.remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm

            As soon as I saw this “The Apostles’ Churches Did Not Keep the Sabbath” I knew right away that this guy was lying. Paul spoke of the falling away even in his day and it has come to a full bloom in our day. All of the disciple kept it. Paul kept it. Jesus kept it and if He changed it He would have made it know.

            The Sabbath Commandment identifies WHO you worship. Right in the heart of Commandment 4 the Lord is identified as the Creator. No other deity on earth can make this or has made this claim, not even ‘Allah’. If you declare that its done away with, then you might as well say the other 9 Commandments are too, which you will because this is what you have been taught and it was what I was taught for 30 years, because you will say Jesus fulfilled the Law…meaning its ok for us to lie, kill, steal, disrespect parents…as born again Christians…ok…

          • Frank

            Its the SDA judiazers are lying completely and purposely dishonestly. He wasn’t lying as you suppose. He actually exposes and refutes your view directly from the bishops the apostle Paul and John appointed and others, including the Scriptures. You as other Sabbath Judaizers and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day have a faulty understanding of the Sabbath. That website quite succinctly explains it.

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            No that website owner clearly gives his own private interpretation by giving a “half” of Scripture here and a “half” there. Only way someone can refute Scripture is with Scripture to show and prove what is taken out of context. And for something as important as a Commandment, you would think he would have more Scripture to support his belief. Nice try though, but I’ve seen better efforts.

          • Frank

            It’s not taken out of context. I’ve known about the sabbath judaizing problem of the SDAs long before I read what he wrote. And God spoke to me about it through Scripture long before. He is speaking the plain truth of scripture on the issue. And very well and straight to the point. Demanding Saturday worship is nothing more that legalistic judaizing which is spoken heavily against all through the Scriptures. Same as demanding circumcision. The early church didn’t practice it.

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            Demanding is a demand…but the Sabbath is a Commandment. Circumcision is in the carnal law of Moses written on paper. The eternal Law of God was written by the very finger of God, in STONE. You don’t have to keep the Sabbath Day holy. That is your free will decision to do so, but let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecc 12:13) Why? The very NEXT verse says

            Ecc 12:14, “For God shall bring every work into JUDGEMENT, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

            The Commandments are the Law of the land in heaven. What kingdom you know doesn’t have a law? Why you you suppose the devil got kicked out of it in the first place? Because he SINNED, and sin is transgression the law (1st John 3:4). Jesus did not die for you to take away to Law, He died to show you that it can be kept (tempted just like us yet He never sinned) and with faith in Him, He will HELP you keep it.

            Hebrews 10:16, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my LAWS into their hearts, and in their MINDS will I write them;”

            2 Corinthians 3:3, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with INK, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy TABLES of the HEART”

            So God forgot to write Commandment #4 on the heart? Really?

            Its not so legalist as you claim, because if it was you justify murder, lying, and stealing…words that Jesus used to refer to the devil!

            And this fact is verified all over the Scriptures, but since I believe it wise to give a few more verses to back it up.

            1 John 2:3, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”

            Revelation 11:18-19,

            And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be JUDGED, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

            And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

            Notice whats in the temple…the LAW that you say is a demand…The Pharisees was so “zealous” of the Law that they STONED Stephen when he boldly proclaimed that they were not KEEPING the law (Acts 7). They, like the SDA body today, keep is just for legal purposes. I keep it because I love Him and I know that when I do mess up, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

          • Frank

            A christian is not under Law but under grace. Acts 15:19-21 shows it is not demanded to keep the law as the SDAs put forth. You yourself even equate how you and the SDAs keep the Sabbath is legalistic just as the Pharisees. That is not in keeping with the law of the Spirit of Life. And Hebrews 4 more fully explains the Sabbath keeping is not in line with legalism as the SDAs and Pharisees do. Even Jesus showed this by all the miracles He did on Saturdays. Like circumcision the Saturday Sabbath was a foreshadowing sign of things to come in the Spirit, not the demanded legalistic keeping of the Law. What is termed the Sermon on the Mount shows also the Ten Commandments are a foreshadowing of the Spiritual fulfillment that was to come. A sign as circumcision and Saturday Sabbath. Jesus came to expand and fulfill the Law. We are to rest in Jesus not observe days and months and years. The Sabbath is fulfilled and expanded in Jesus. Not legalistic observance of Saturday. Jesus is Lord of the Sabath. The early Christian churches as founded by the apostles were not Satuday keepers. They met on Sundays and sometimes every day. The Christians were kicked out of the Satuday synagogue. Like the restrictions of the law on eating of meat was transitioned, expanded and fulfilled in Jesus so was the Saturday legalistic restriction of Sabbath. Even Jesus when He made His resurrection appearances it was 8th day, Sundays.

          • SundayWorshipistheMARK

            For real? If you are going to use the “not under the Law but grace” argument well can you at least complete the verse?

            This is how the World (you and every other false under grace pastor) preaches this verse… Romans 6:14-15, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace…”

            AND THEY STOP!

            But let us continue on and finish the verse shall we…

            Romans 6:14-15, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the
            law, but under grace. What then? SHALL WE SIN, because we are not
            under the law, but under grace? GOD FORBID.”

            Popular theology is that if we sin AFTER salvation we can no longer loose our salvation or keep the Law of God because we are under grace. So many verses prove that to be a bogus lie… My favorite verse is of course…

            Hebrews 6:4-8, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing;whose end is to be burned.”

            What is Paul talking about when he says were not UNDER the Law? What does under the law mean? FIRST we need to define SIN, Frank.

            The definition of sin = 1 John 3:4, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin IS the transgression of the law.”

            The penalty of sin = Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

            The cost of sin = 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 1 Corinthians 6:20, “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

            To be “under the Law” means to be “under the curse” of the Law, and according to
            Roman 6:23, the wages of sin is DEATH.

            Biblical fact is…

            Daniel 9:11, “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, (to transgress = sin) even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us…
            because we have sinned against him.”

            Daniel is rather clear here. To transgress the law (sin) means the CURSE is poured upon us. We are then under the curse of the law when we break it!

            Galatians 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

            Galatians 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:”

            Here it’s made quite clear to be a Christian we are REDEEMED from that curse. But my favorite passage on explaining this is…

            Deuteronomy 11:26-28, “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A
            blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.”

            So.. according to Deuteronomy, there is..

            A Blessing if you keep the Law

            A Curse is you break it

            The only way someone is UNDER THE LAW is when they BREAK IT. What you do then is deny God’s GRACE. So.. how can you still be UNDER GRACE, when sinning?

            You’re either under grace (not sinning)

            Or under the Law (sinning)

            Romans 2:12-13,16, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

            To further address the “Once saved always saved” issue. Read this passage…

            John 5:14, “Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

            This verse amply proves as did the passage I shared earlier in Hebrews 6. IF WE CHOOSE TO SIN after becoming “made whole” then a worse thing will come unto us! The ULTIMATE verse for this rebuttal has to be the following…

            Romans 1:5, “By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:”

            Yes, it’s true we have been blessed with grace in the age of the church. But according to the Word of God, that grace is what helps us to be OBEDIENT to the faith! Look at Adam and Eve. They are what man was meant to be before the fall. But WHAT was the fall? They were DISOBEDIANT! Many believe all they have to do is believe in Jesus to gain Heaven. They fail to realize that Adam and Eve SAW JESUS face to face in the garden everyday. They had no problem BELIEVING in Him. Even the “devils believe and tremble,”- James 2:19. It was disobedience that caused Adam and Eve’s fall.

            One last verse from one who is known as the end time prophet…

            Ezekiel 33:13, “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust
            to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.”

            Frank, iniquity is actually KNOWN SIN.

            If we are no longer under the law but under grace, and SIN as many assume is ok to do, why does Ezekiel say they die for their KNOWN SINS? Because that’s Old Testament?

            It CAN’T be talking about sinners, they DON’T know what sin is UNTIL they find Christ and His perfect Law.

            Romans 3:20, “…for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

            Romans 7:7, “…I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

            So it MUST be talkingabout people claiming to be God’s people Sinners that have no clue of what the law is, can’t commit KNOWN SIN! Only believers do that. Need I remind
            you of the believers Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7…

            Matthew 7:21-23, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

            They called Him “Lord” in this passage did they not? And at the same time Jesus called
            them workers of iniquity. Had they been simple sinners unaware of Christ or His Law, they never would have called out, “Lord, Lord” would they?

            Being “Under Grace” means simply that.

            For example… Picture being pulled over by a cop for speeding. You are not “under” the law until you SPEED. You broke the law and now the “curse” of the law is your just desert, which in this case is the ticket. However, if you ask the cop for mercy, and he gives it… are you allowed to speed now?

            No, of course not!

            You are under his GRACE right? So you are then extra careful NOT to break the law now. You don’t pull away spraying gravel on the cop because you don’t want to insult his
            MERCY. It’s THAT simple.

            BTW if you rest in Jesus why do you work? Did not Jesus proclaim it is GOOD to do good things on the Sabbath…which He did? The Sabbath is not about sitting on your rear all day. It is about remembering the Creator God and worshiping and praising Him nd doing things that are pleasing in His sight and glorify His mighty Name. To set aside 24 hours to spend with God.

    • BarkingDawg

      You are losing the Gay Marriage fight so you are looking for someone to blame?

      • SundayWorshipistheMARK

        You fail to realize that its not a fight. The media and the courts may portray to the world that it is, but for those with eyes that see, we realize that prophecy is being fulfilled. Prophecy makes it plain, in the latter days before the return of the Son of Man, the world will be overrun with sodomite activity as it was in the days of Lot and Noah. Events like this simply add more confirmation to the 100% accuracy of biblical prophecy, and the beast in Rome is spearheading the movement.

        • BarkingDawg

          Is insanity common in your family?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Sweet home Alabama! Where the good guys win again!

  • Johnny Christensen

    Sorry but this article is far too difficult to read ! I will not strain these old eyes because of inconsideration !

  • Reason2012

    The issue is falsely phrased as “states have the right to ban same-gender marriage” – this assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.

    The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution, which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another violation of the First Amendment).

    And on both counts, states do not have any right to do any such thing – we’re protected from such judicial religious tyranny by the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is a lie.

    Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    As if that’s not enough,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even children who grew up forced to be in homosexual “households” condemn it and expose it for the depravity is truly inflicts on children.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

    • Better AndBetter

      Again. Where is this religious nonsense in court?

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Again, I thought you said it was voted on and approved. So now you admit you were making a false claim?

        Again, the proper arguments are not always brought to bear the first time around – as the deceptive tactics of activists are properly identified, the refutations follow.

        Government is not allowed to “recognize” a state religion, let alone criminalize Christian beliefs on the matter.

        It wasn’t about God until activists demanded the government redefine marriage instead. And now that Christian beliefs on the matter are also being criminalizes in your hatred and greed, not content to be happy to have gotten away with getting a state religion passed, you are waking a sleeping giant. You’re kidding yourself if you think hundreds of millions of Christians are going to remain silent on what is clearly showing itself to be a hateful, blatant attack on God/ Christ/ Christianity and Christians.

        • Better AndBetter

          No false claim.

          In ME, WA, and MD citizens voted in favor of it. http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/06/politics/both-sides-of-gay-marriage-question-optimistic-as-polls-close/?ref=search

          What is it about you that makes you refuse to research anything?

          Your god does not mater.

          Your argument would fail in court or you’d be pushing it to people who could put it there. You know it.

          Marriage, as a civil contract, requires zero religion.

          Not remain silent? Tell us… exactly what is it you’re going to do?

        • Reason2012

          @ Better AndBetter Hello. Yes, they hold vote after vote after vote until they finally tire them out of voting and activists jump state lines to add to the vote count.

          So, you admit only THREE states voted for it the rest were forced on the people by judicial tyranny? Interesting that you unwittingly admitted this.

          And you rebuke yourself in another way and didn’t seem to notice: Don’t you always denounce voting when in 47 states they vote AGAINST it? You pretend voting on it is irrelevant when the votes do not go your way. But when three states, after voting over and over again finally get a positive count now you tote voting as the “end all be all”? You continue to contradict yourself. But thank you for proving that it is for the people to vote on – and not over and over again until you get the desired count by tiring people out of going to vote on it again and again and again. And hence thank yuou for proving that the Constitution was violated by a homosexual activist judge who overturned the will of the poeple and allowed the government to establish a state religion that criminalizes Christian beliefs on the matter.

          I already pointed out these facts in another post. You ignoring it does not equate to me “not doing research”. Glad you “did research” and unwittingly admit that 47 states vote against it and the rest of the states that had it approved were done so by judicial tyranny.

          You say “your god does not matter”

          And therein lies your motivation, your utter hatred for God, Jesus, Christians and Christianity.

          Why do you hate that which you do not believe in so much?

          I put the arguments out there so that those in position to use it would do so. Soon enough they will be used – I’m sure others can just as easily figure them out and sooner or later they will.

          Marriage occurs and occured even when there’s no government – and that fact you continue to ignore refutes your claim that it’s not a religious institution but somehow a construct of government. It’s never government that defined the religious institution of marriage to begin with and hence America in particalur cannot hence change that definition, let alone establish this new state religion. And they prove it’s a state religion even more when they criminalize other reliigious beliefs on the matter, namely Chrsitianity.

          And something else you keep ignoring: Earlier you said: “i have never made the claim that people should be free to marry whoever they care to.”

          Yet you implied two consenting adults should not be “closely related” to get married, which is you denying people the “right to marry someone they care to”.. Looks like even you realize pro-creation is part of being married. Double hypocrisy as you always try to use the argument that “pro-creation” is not necessary for marriage yet clearly that’s the reason you see a “problem” with two “closely-related” people and hence demand they be denied marriage.

          Why the hypocrisy?

          You cannot even be honest about what you say, which only proves you have no intention of being honest on the issue of marriage. You denies others the “right” to get married and hope no one notices the hypocrisy.

          You also compares what I say to a lewd solo_sex act, and then when called on it ask “what hate?”.

          It’s nothing but hate and dishonesty activists can bring to the table, and for weariness of their hatred, others allow them to have judges enforce these anti-Constitutional state-religions on all the states where 47 states vote AGAINST allowing the government to redefine what God defined, that exists even when no government does.

          • Better AndBetter

            Three states voted for it. Three states will be unaffected by any SCOTUS ruling defending the bans.

            Neat, huh?

            I never “denounce” anyone for voting against it… I’m proud to live in a state where the citizens voted for it… but it’s unnecessary.

            The vote is not the final say… it is not supreme law of the land.

            Our government has trumped the vote before… and will do so again.

            Marriage is a civil contract. Your god does not matter… is not required.

            The discussion is not incestuous marriage. Please don’t change the subject (it only demonstrates your lack of argument against same-gender marriage).

            Marriage requires no procreation… procreation requires no marriage. Both are choices, independent of one another. A ban on mutant children is not the same as a ban on people who cannot procreate. Your shallow mind simply can’t get your head around it, primarily because you refuse to read the cases you’ve lost. Your questions have come up in court… and have been answered. There is no need for me to rehash dead arguments here.

            Those with an understanding of law support nothing you dribble… as demonstrated by your continued losses.

            I look forward to your inevitable loss… Oh, whatever will you do?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Don’t you always denounce voting when in 47 states they vote AGAINST it? You pretend voting on it is irrelevant when the votes do not go your way. But when three states, after voting over and over again finally get a positive count now you tote voting as the “end all be all”? ”

            Voting to grant a right is completely different, under our constitution, than voting to restrict a right. It is not the vote that is the issue – it is law the vote puts into place that is the issue.

            “and not over and over again until you get the desired count by tiring people out of going to vote on it again and again and again.”

            Which states had votes on allowing same-gender marriage “over and over” again and again and again?

            “And yes, the state government activists judges will be called on to stop breaking our Constitutional and the right thing will be done.”

            In order to do that, a challenge to an existing law would have to filed. What law would be challenged?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “this assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.”

      If it doesn’t exist, then there should be no issue, should there?

      “Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is a lie.”

      Similar in logic to “every single white person has the right to marry another white person. Every single black person has the right to marry another black person. See? Equality!” therefore no basis upon which to strike down laws banning interracial marriage, and claims that such laws violated the rights of citizens were a lie, correct?

      ‘Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:”

      irrelevant to our laws. The US is not a Christian Theocracy.

      Do be a dear and pass along your points 1-7 to the various legal teams arguing these cases in court. No doubt they will be enormously grateful to have such ironclad legal arguments to present. Incredible they haven’t thought of them before!

  • Christopher Chance

    A little ridiculous since it mentions the judge was seated by Bush twice, make me think there is an underlying agenda. I blame both sides for the trouble we are in, so it doesn’t bother me that they are blaming a Bush judge but why be redundant?

    As for the actual case I agree with this statement, “It is outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Act,” House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) said in a statement. “The legislature will encourage a vigorous appeals process, and we will continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live.”

    Judges cannot litigate from the bench! Plain & Simple.

    • Better AndBetter

      Correct. They are not.

    • BarkingDawg

      “Judges cannot litigate from the bench! Plain & Simple.”

      True, judges don’t litigate from the bench, they adjudicate.

      The Plaintiff and Defendant litigate.

    • BarkingDawg

      “It is outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Act.”

      Your elected representatives appointed the judge. Judge Granade was appointed to the bench by George W Bush on the recommendation of Senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby.

      Federal Judges are accountable to Congress which has the power to impeach them should they choose. Since the GOP now holds the majority in both the house and the Senate, I suggest you get busy and encourage your representatives to start impeachment proceedings.

      Only 697,591 voters voted for the amendment. That’s not much out of the total population of 4.8 million.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Only 697,591 voters voted for the amendment. That’s not much out of the total population of 4.8 million.”

        161,694 voted against. That’s difference of about 500,000 – gosh that’s about 10% of the voting population. Can’t get much more “will of the people” than 10%, huh?

        • BarkingDawg

          All of the states ratified the 14th amendment.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            My post was in support of your position.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            My post was in support of your position.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      ““It is outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Act,””

      So you believe that citizens should NOT be allowed to challenge laws in court and that the judiciary should NOT be allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws? You believe that if a law was put into place by a majority of those who voted that the law should not subject to legal challenge?

      “Judges cannot litigate from the bench!”

      Correct. To “litigate’ means to take a case to court. Judges don’t take cases to court. They rule on cases that others have brought before them.

  • BarkingDawg

    The US Constitution requires that laws provide due process and equal protection to ALL United States Citizens.

    it really is that simple sometimes.

    • Gary

      The marriage laws have always done that. Same rules for everyone. Saying that the traditional marriage laws have denied equal protection to all is a LIE. Stop lying.

      • BarkingDawg

        No, the Alabama amendment specifically targeted a group of citizens and denied them both due process and equal protection.

        • Gary

          Limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not deny anyone due process and equal protection.

          • Better AndBetter

            What legal reason is there for such a limitation?

          • Gary

            What is the legal reason for ssm? There isn’t one. It is not in the Constitution, and it isn’t a part of American history.

          • Better AndBetter

            Nice non answer. You can’t give one, can you?

            You can’t help your side without a rational legal reason to uphold SSM bans.

            Thanks, Gary! You’re a powerful ally!

          • Gary

            The courts are not going to accept any reason. The filthy judges have already decided to support the perverts. The judges already know that there is no legal reason why ssm has to be legal. They know it is not required by the Constitution. None of that matters to them.

          • Better AndBetter

            Okee dokee.

            Yet the fact remains… you have yet to explain why it should remain illegal to any logical satisfaction. You give a lot of supposition with zero credibility or support. Nothing more.

            What legal basis is there for restricting marriage to only opposite gender couples?

          • Gary

            The legal reason is that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires ssm to be legal. You have no legal standing. You have no proof that ssm should be legal. It is your side that wants to change the law. The burden of proof is on you as to why that should happen. And you have no legal argument to make.

          • Better AndBetter

            There is nothing BANNING it either… so you either have a rational reason why the bans should be upheld, or they will be lifted.

            Come on, Gary… you’re smarter than this. Your words are so meaningless that they’re easily turned around on you.

            The ban has been challenged… the burden of proof is on YOU, as our case is made and winning. You offer nohthing.

          • Gary

            There is nothing in the Constitution that tells states how they can define marriage. Again, it is your side that wants the law to change, so, it is your side that must provide the reason for the change. I have the law and history on my side. It is your burden to prove why the law should be changed. And so far, you have offered no valid reason.

          • Better AndBetter

            They’re not defining marriage… just who can take part in the civil contract.

            We’re not changing the law at all… just who can take part.

            How has ANY marriage changed?

            How has YOUR marriage changed?

            You have neither law nor history on your side… you’re just sour, bitter, and love to see gay people treated as somehow less than you. The benefits from allowing members of the same gender to wed are more than covered in judicial findings you refuse to read.

          • Spectrum

            “……I have the law and history on my side…..”. Exactly. That’s LEGAL PRECEDENT.

            Sounds like Better AndBetter is on the “wrong side of history”. lol

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “There is nothing in the Constitution that tells states how they can define marriage.”

            Yes there is. States can only define marriage in ways which do not violate protections provided to citizens under the federal constitution. Any restrictions the state places on the ability of citizens to access a right offered by the state must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons. If the state is unable to present any rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for a restriction, that restriction is stuck down.

            Do you have any rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons why the state should deny a civil marriage license to two citizens based solely upon the gender of those citizens?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “What is the legal reason for ssm?”

            It is a right offered to citizens. They are citizens. No other legal reason is necessary.

          • BarkingDawg

            It denies some people who want to get married the benefits of due process and equal protection.

            that is a violation of the constitution.

          • Gary

            But no one is denied the right to marry, or denied due process or equal protection. The qualifications for marriage have always applied to everyone. There is no violation of the Constitution.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The judiciary disagrees. But, of course, it is possible that you are more well versed in constitutional law than they are. If so, you should offer up your thinking to those who are arguing these cases in court. No doubt they would be most appreciative of your legal insights, given their lack of success.

      • Better AndBetter

        What is the rational legal reason you put forard to uphold bans on gay marriage?

        • Gary

          Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

          • Better AndBetter

            That fails.

            It in no way justifies denying same-sex couples from marrying.

            No wonder you’re losing… Not to mention it is legally false.

          • Gary

            Nobody has proven that a right to ssm exists for anyone. The courts are claiming something is true when there is no evidence to back up their claim. The courts are trying to pull a hoax on the American people. But millions of us are not buying it.

          • Better AndBetter

            Nobody has put forward a legal argument why the fundamental right of marriage should be excluded from gay citizens.

            Including you.

          • Gary

            Homosexuals have never been excluded from marriage. You should stop lying.

          • Better AndBetter

            Nobody has put forward a legal argument why the fundamental right of marriage should be excluded from citizens of the same gender.

            Including you.

            Is that better, Gary?

          • Gary

            Everyone has the same right to marry that I have. As long as we all meet the qualifications.

          • Better AndBetter

            That does not offer a rational legal argument supporting restricting marriage to opposite gender couples only.

            What rational leagal argument do you offer that supports restricting marriage to between one man and one woman, thus excluding a man or woman from marrying someone of the same gender.

            You’re doing wonderful things for those you dispise, Gary… you help your enemies! Thanks!

          • Gary

            The burden is on your side to show why the law needs to change.

          • Better AndBetter

            Done. 60+ judges have found in favor of those discussions.

            You wish to stop it… yet you put forward nothing to do so.

            Good.

          • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

            Except no.

            In this Alabama case, for example, the state lost at the summary judgment level. That means that the judge found that as a matter of law, there was NO set of facts (no matter how good for the state) under which the state could win.

            There was therefore no trial. Summary judgment MEANS that as a matter of law, the state had no case.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Actually, that is incorrect. There is no burden on citizens to prove why they should be allowed to access a right offered by the state. That is not how our form of government works.

            Rather, it is upon the state to prove that any restrictions the state puts into place are based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons.

            Accessing rights does not require defense. Restricting rights does.

  • Better AndBetter

    Marriages begin tomorrow! Congrats to all the happy couples!

    • Spectrum

      “…….that all who have not believed the truth, but have approved wrongdoing
      may be condemned……”

      Remember that you sodomite atheists have only a 50-50 chance at best that there is no God. Yet you want to gamble your ETERNAL destiny on that fact. Brave or stupid ? Either way it’s reckless.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Oh, dear, you seem to think that the only two possibilities are that God exists as you believe him to, or that he doesn’t exist at all. There is, of course, a third option – that he exists in a way that is different from what you believe.

  • Gary

    We are not going to accept ssm. The judge can go to Hell, along with the wicked George W. Bush who nominated her.

    • BarkingDawg

      You don’t have to accept it. The law does, however.

      • Gary

        The law does not have to accept it. There is no legal reason for it.

        • Better AndBetter

          But it IS.

          Because there’s no reason not to.

    • Better AndBetter

      And by not accepting gay marriage, what do you affect? What do you change?

      • Gary

        I don’t know what I would change. The point is that the scam is not going to work on everyone.

        • Better AndBetter

          What does that mean? “Work on everyone”?

          Who cares? If you affect nothing, if you change nothing, if you take not one thing away from married gay couples, how is your statement ANY different than howling at the moon in frustration?

          • Gary

            If all you and they want is tax benefits, then our refusal to cooperate might not have any affect on that. But if you want support, endorsement, and acceptance, then you won’t get that from a lot of people.

          • Better AndBetter

            Tax benefits? Sugar, my taxes went UP when I got married. Ever hear of the “marriage penalty”?

            I don’t care about your support.
            I don’t care about your endorsement.
            I don’t care about your acceptance.

            None of those things have any affect on my life.

            In effect, not “working on everyone” changes nothing.

          • Gary

            If you don’t care about any of that, then why are you on here trying to argue for your point of view?

          • Better AndBetter

            My point of view isn’t being argued… it’s winning.

            Thus, that brings me here for two reasons: know those who make themselves my enemy, and celebrate wins.

            It’s not very complex.

          • Gary

            Well you certainly have an enemy in me. And I am always looking for opportunities to hurt my enemies.

          • Better AndBetter

            Squeeeeee!

            He’s SO cute in his bitter anger and frustration!

            What state will be next, Gary? GA? MI? KY? Oh, wait… TN! Oh, that’d be funny.

          • Gary

            What is happening now is temporary.

          • Better AndBetter

            You are! In that way that children are cute in their innocence and ignorance of the world around them.

          • Gary

            I am not innocent, or ignorant of the world. I know what is going on. The judges are doing what their superiors tell them to do. The courts have been bought.

          • Better AndBetter

            Oh, but you are! You get asked a direct question and you answer in a fashion totally unrelated… letting everyone know you have no hope of stopping gay marriage… then, in our ever-so-cute innocence, you get upset because you don’t understand changes in the world around you.

            So cute! Oh, and the conspiracy theories (you know, the ones you have zero support for)? Even cuter! Such angst!!!

          • Spectrum

            It doesn’t necessarily matter what you as an individual, care about. The gay activists and their corporate backers care VERY MUCH about our endorsement and acceptance of your deviant behaviours.

            So much so that they’ve executed a detailed agenda and spent hundreds of millions of dollars, in an effort to indoctrinate us to this end. Disturbingly, they’ve been extremely successful in converting many who don’t know any better, but should.

            ( quote ) “…….A media
            campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols
            which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard,
            and which enhance the plausibility of victimization”.

            ( quote ) “…….Straight viewers
            must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must
            be given no extra excuses to say, ‘they are not like us.”

            …….and doesn’t this part sound familiar with the current court cases going on ? ( quote ) ( capitals added for emphasis )

            “……..It is
            especially important for the gay movement TO HITCH ITS CAUSE to ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF LAW AND JUSTICE because its straight supporters must have
            at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The
            homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of
            religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter
            dogma WITH PRINCIPLE.”

            Need any more be said ?

            Intro. to the agenda here ; http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page92/hom-tactics.html

            more detail of the agenda here ; http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

          • Better AndBetter

            ROFLOL!

            Just… wow… anybody else out to get ya?

          • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

            I’m not sure how you can demonize tactics taken by gay people to decrease discrimination while trying to justify ill treatment of a group of people using religion.

      • Spectrum

        It’s not what WE affect and change. It’s what YOU affect and change.

  • Matthew

    1 Timothy 1:8-11

    8* We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, 9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,10 the unchaste, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God

    2 Thessalonians 2:1-12

    1We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,2 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.3Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition,4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god—5 do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?6And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time.7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene.8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord [Jesus] will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming,9the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie,10 and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved.11 Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie,12 that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned. Read the bible, it gets better and better

  • Dr. Dee Tee

    i guess you cannot rely upon judges to adjudicate cases objectively any more

    • Gary

      The judges are the servants of their rich masters. They are doing what they have been told.

  • Paulette Stanek

    We are quickly becoming a Godless society. Very sad.

    • Gary

      The government has been godless for many years. And the population is becoming increasingly godless as time passes. The US Government is close to being as corrupt as it is possible to be. The rich have succeeded in buying the people they need to own in order to get what they want.

    • Spectrum

      More than sad. Disturbing in the extreme.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/EyrtheFyre Regina Forbes

    According to Exodus 23:32, 34:12, Deut. 7:2, and Judges 2:2 we are not to make a covenant with those who do not share our faith. According to the wording of state marriage licences, birth certificates, and social security- that is exactly what one is doing, making a covenant with their gov’t. That wouldn’t be so bad if the US gov’t were following the principles outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which btw, if this gov’t were following those documents, there would be NO licensure as it is a violation of them)
    However, as this gov’t has become increasingly pagan, it is in the best interest of every God-fearing man, woman, and child to disassociate ourselves from them and their entanglements. Therefore, 1. Follow God’s law as the supreme law of the land (10 commandments, etc) 2. Follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights as set out by our Founding Fathers 3. DO NOT get a marriage license, birth certificate, or social security number (or any other entangling legal document) if it can be helped.
    We must be as Abraham and not as Lot.
    As for those who do not obey God and want to make covenants with their gov’t- all I can say is, they are asking for favors from satan himself…good luck with that! LOL

  • Gary

    Why do the rich people, who control the federal judges, want ssm to be legal? What is their reason? Is it a diversion? Is it an attempt to divide the country? Is it a combination of several reasons? I don’t know for sure, but I am looking for the answer.

    • Better AndBetter

      Who are these rich people?

      But… to play along… maybe they know it harms none and benefits many.

      History? Like banning women from voting? Like Jim Crow? Slavery? Those are all part of “history”.

      Your lack of legal acumen is stunning.

      • Gary

        Unlike you, and this corrupt judge, I understand that there is no Constitutional reason why ssm has to be legal. Neither you, nor the corrupt judge cares what the Constitution actually says. You just want what you want, and you are willing to lie in order to get it.

        Historically, since the beginning of this country, marriage has been the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. That means I can point to historical and legal precedent as confirming what I say about marriage.

        You scoff at the idea that judges are corrupt. But you also scoff at the text of the Constitution, which proves you don’t understand what you should be scoffing at.

        • Better AndBetter

          But you still lose.

          Your propaganda and paranoia change nothing.

          • Gary

            The courts have made it clear they intend to legalize ssm. They don’t care what is written in the US Constitution. So, ssm will be legal. For now. But that will not cause millions of people to accept it as being valid. The action of the court will also cause many people to lose respect for the courts, which will lead to a loss of support for the system of government now in place. There are people, of which I am one, who are constantly telling whoever we can get to listen that the government is corrupt and needs to be either fixed, or replaced.

          • Better AndBetter

            The courts are making that decision due to the lack of rational reasons why they shouldn’t.

            Oh, that again… don’t accept it then, my bitter old friend. You change nothing.

            Your kind lost respect for the court in Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas… who cares?

            Loss of support for our republic? Wow… you really do hate America, don’t you?

            Tell us bitter old one… what would you do to fix it? What would you replace it with?

            This oughtta be funny…

          • Gary

            Since you are part of the problem, all you need to know is that the problem will be eliminated within a few years, and possibly much sooner. You should change your name to “Worse and Worse” because that is how things are going to go for you and your “friends”.

          • Better AndBetter

            Uh huh… sure.

            And unicorns will come flying in from outer space.

          • Gary

            Your unbelief only means you will offer less resistance. But it does not matter how much you resist. It won’t change a thing.

          • Better AndBetter

            Okee dokee.

          • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

            Have you read the reasoning consistently used by federal courts in funding these bans are unconstitutional?

            What was it you disagreed with, specifically?

          • Better AndBetter

            “Marriage is between a man and woman”.

          • Gary

            That is correct. Every marriage must consist of a husband and a wife. A husband must be a man, and a wife must be a woman.

          • Better AndBetter

            You poor thing.

          • Gary

            The “reasoning” of the federal courts is nonsense. It has no basis in the US Constitution. They mostly claim the 14th Amendment has been violated by limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

          • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

            That’s what the cases and decisions have been based on, yes.

            But by saying that, you seem to be negating your numerous prior claims that it has no basis in the Constitution.

            The Equal Protection Clause always applies. The disagreement you have is with the decision, which was that the state cannot justify it’s unequal treatment. You’r not saying there’s no basis, you’re just saying the states can meet their burden.

          • Gary

            The equal protection clause is not violated by heterosexual-only marriage laws. The clause only requires that the laws apply to everyone the same, and traditional marriage laws do. The claim that the defenders of heterosexual marriage have to prove anything is nonsense. The homosexuals want the laws to change, therefore, the burden to prove why the laws should change falls on them. The judges are trying to rig the rules so that the homosexuals win by default. But it makes no difference what the defenders of real marriage say, the judges have already decided to rule in favor of ssm.

          • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

            That’s the argument, actually, yeah. Granted, it’s an argument only a handful of federal judges have agreed with, but one can hardly say that the proponents of that position have “no basis in the Constitution.”

          • Better AndBetter

            Told ya.

  • Nedd Kareiva

    I cannot think of one issue where public opinion as expressed at the ballot box has usually been so heavily one-sided, yet some F-ing judge thinks he or she knows better. It’s heartening that state officials are doing the right thing in appealing; so many of them in other states refuse to do so.

    • Better AndBetter

      Interracial marriage. 16 states with statues banning it all overturned by the court.

      Next question?

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Rightly so. One can change who he or she has coitus with. One cannot change one’s skin color.

        Next comment?

        • Better AndBetter

          Who cares? It answered the question put up perfectly.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            In your left thinking mind, of course. You’re entitled to your view. You’re not entitled to the facts.

          • Better AndBetter

            You pondered “I cannot think of one issue where public opinion as expressed at the ballot box has usually been so heavily one-sided”… the answer is simple.

            Interracial marriage. 16 states lost laws against it when it was overturned in 1967, including constitutional amendments. It’s not about race, it’s the “public opinion” part.

            You guys just aren’t very smart.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Equal treatment under the law does not require that one has a trait that is innate – it only requires that one is a citizen.

          Are you suggesting that if a person were able to change their race, then those who wanted to marry a person of a different race should have just changed their race, rather than attempting to get laws changed banning interracial marriage?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            Are you suggesting that you really want a change of heart & mind on this issue or are you just trying to trip me up? Because if the latter is true, I’m not going there. Sorry.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “I cannot think of one issue where public opinion as expressed at the ballot box has usually been so heavily one-sided,”

      You mean like in Alabama where there are 3,000,000 registered voters, less than 30% of them voted on the issue and the amendment passed by a 20% differential of registered voters? That kind of one-sidedness?

      “yet some F-ing judge thinks he or she knows better.”

      So you don’t think that a member of the judiciary is in a better position to examine the constitutionality of a law than the people are? How many voters do you know who are well-versed in constitutional law?

      “It’s heartening that state officials are doing the right thing in appealing; so many of them in other states refuse to do so.”

      Please name one state that has not appealed a judicial ruling on this issue.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Pennsylvania

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Good catch. I forgot about Pennsylvania. Others? You did say “so many of them in other states”, indicating plural.

          Why is it the “right” thing to appeal the rulings? Does your not agreeing with allowing two citizens of the same gender to access a civil marriage license make it “right” that the decisions are appealed and “wrong” if they aren’t?

          • Nedd Kareiva

            You want me to validate a behavior that has been known in all cultures of the world to be evil, thus you want to trip me up. Sorry, I’m not going there.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you are not aware of any other states that have not appealed. Got it.

            So you aren’t able to explain why it is “right” to appeal the rulings. Got it.

            “You want me to validate a behavior”

            No, I don’t. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion about homosexual behavior, you are not in a position to validate it, nor does it require validation.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I am not aware of any other states that have not appealed, big deal! I can easily explain why it’s right to appeal but all you’re looking to do is debate rather than accept the volumes of evidence why we as a nation should not codify a lifestyle that is disgusting, unnatural, shortens men’s lives and causes persecution to those who reject it. It was President John Adams who said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We don’t need to validate a gross behavior that one can walk away from if he or she chooses. One cannot walk away from one’s race or skin color.

            Again, you’re not looking for answers. You’re looking to justify disgusting human conduct. Shall we codify adultery into law? What about polygamy & polyamory? Where does it end?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I am not aware of any other states that have not appealed, big deal!”

            So your earlier statement was false. Unfortunate that you do not view making false statements as no “big deal”.

            “why we as a nation should not codify a lifestyle”

            No “lifestyle” is being codified. It is just not being restricted.

            “that is disgusting, unnatural, shortens men’s lives and causes persecution to those who reject it.”

            The first two are your opinions, and you are certainly entitled to them. The third is untrue. The last one has nothing to do with the legality of same-gender marriage. It is an issue of anti-discrimination laws, which are distinct and separate. In addition, no one has faced persecution for not agreeing with same-gender marriage. A small number of people have faced consequences of violating anti-discrimination laws. Those consequences are based upon actions they took, not their personal beliefs.

            It was also John Adams who said: “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

            “We don’t need to validate a gross behavior that one can walk away from if he or she chooses.”

            You are certainly entitled to you opinion that homosexuality is “gross”. What you seem to be suggesting is that you should be consulted when determining how other citizens should pursue their happiness and anything that you find “gross” should not be allowed. Quite a display of hubris.

            “You’re looking to justify disgusting human conduct.”

            I don’t find it disgusting and it needs no justification.

            “Shall we codify adultery into law?”

            Adultery is not illegal.

            “What about polygamy & polyamory?”

            Distinct and separate issues from allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage.

            “Where does it end?”

            The “slippery slope” argument is not a legally valid one. We do not determine rights in this country based upon what might happen later. Allowing two citizens of the same gender to access civil marriage provides no legal argument for allowing other forms of marriage.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            What you want is an ACLU type society, no restrictions on anything, no right or wrong, no standard of truth. Societies like that are unstable and ultimately collapse. Just look at the old Roman Empire. History is replete with examples.

            All you want to do is argue and then you have the gall to tell me I am full of hubris. Look who’s talking.

            I’m not going to bother engaging you in any further conversation because you don’t want to be persuaded. This discussion is adjourned.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “What you want is an ACLU type society, no restrictions on anything, no right or wrong, no standard of truth.”

            That is simply not true. Please indicate what I have said that would lead you to state that I want “no restrictions on anything, no right or wrong, no standard of truth”.

            “Just look at the old Roman Empire.”

            When the Roman Empire collapsed, Christianity was the official religion and its laws were based upon that. You might want to study up on your history a bit more thoroughly before you cite it to attempt to prove a point.

            “History is replete with examples.”

            Really? History is “replete with examples” of societies that have fallen because they embraced there being “no restrictions on anything, no right and wrong, no standard of truth”? If it’s “replete” with such examples, I’d enjoy seeing some of them. What would those be?

            “All you want to do is argue and then you have the gall to tell me I am full of hubris. Look who’s talking.”

            You would benefit from gaining a better understanding of what “hubris” means. You suggested that since you found something “gross”, that should be a basis for laws which affect all citizens and that somehow your opinion is so important that you get to choose what is valid, and what is not, for others. That is a display of hubris.

            “This discussion is adjourned.”

            Another display of hubris. I do, however, understand that you would not want to continue the discussion. It is no doubt embarrassing when each of your arguments is shredded.

            Enjoy the day.

          • Nedd Kareiva

            I’m the one who shredded your arguments, buzzard. You can make your claims & I will make mine. You haven’t provided proof to your points. It’s your word vs. mine. You just want to argue cuz you have nothing better to do. I can’t help you if you want to walk in darkness. You will answer to God one day as we all will. Adios!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I’m the one who shredded your arguments, buzzard.”

            Ahhhh….name calling. Did you learn that in Sunday School?

            Let’s review your claims:

            “so many of them in other states refuse to do so.”

            Although you indicated there were multiple states you were only able to name one.

            “yet some F-ing judge thinks he or she knows better.”

            When asked “How many voters do you know who are well-versed in constitutional law?”, you did not reply.

            “state officials are doing the right thing in appealing”

            Yet when asked what makes it the “right” thing to do, you could not provide an answer.

            “You want me to validate a behavior”

            It was clearly pointed out you are not empowered to “validate” a behavior, nor that I care if you do.

            “You’re looking to justify disgusting human conduct”

            I pointed out that while you are free to your opinion regarding homosexual behavior, in our nation it does not need to be “justified”.

            “shortens men’s lives”

            You provided no proof of that claim, because none exists.

            “causes persecution to those who reject it.”

            Clearly a false statement as you, and many others, reject it but have not been persecuted.

            “We don’t need to validate a gross behavior”

            Validation is not yours to provide.

            “Just look at the old Roman Empire.”

            As noted, homosexuality had nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire – that is historical fact.

            “History is replete with examples.”

            Yet you were unable to provide any such examples.

            So, yes, dear, i did shred all of your arguments and no, dear, you did not shred any of mine.

  • Reason2012

    @ Better andBetter (so others can learn from this)

    Only three states voted on it? And yet in other states you admit a judge overturned their vote, which shows they all voted on it.

    Sure you denounced it – you will make claims like “It’s not right to vote on civil rights” or some other claim. But as soon as the vote goes your way, you tote that result as if voting is suddenly now an end-all be-all, which is not consistent.

    The vote is not the final say… it is not supreme law of the land.

    And this after you just got done pretending it’s over and we lost because of a vote.

    “Our government has trumped the vote before… and will do so again.”

    And this after you just got done pretending it’s over and we lost because of a vote.

    And yes, the state government activists judges will be called on to stop breaking our Constitutional and the right thing will be done.

    Marriage is a civil contract. Your god does not matter… is not required.

    Already addressed it. Ignoring the refutation of it suggests you realize I’m right and you cannot hence refute it.

    The discussion is not incestuous marriage.

    So in other words, you have your own reasons for denying people the right to marry who they want. So much for your claim of “equal rights for all”. And so much for you doing the very thing you’re against: denying others supposed marriage rights.

    And who said they have to pro-create? Isn’t that the argument you always tote around? It’s not “incest” unless they have_sex.

    Please don’t change the subject (it only demonstrates your lack of argument against same-gender marriage).

    No, it just exposes the hypocrisy of activists quite well, which makes it very relevant, but uncomfortable for the activists, who must change the subject at all costs.

    It also proves how when we allow the government to redefine what they never defined and pass a new state religion, there’s no rational reason to deny that or polygamy without being a hypocrite and hence it will soon be “anything goes”.

    Marriage requires no procreation…

    Yet you’re calling a man marrying his dad “incest” – cleary you think marriage is all about procreation and_sex, this after pretending for hundreds of posts it’s not.

    procreation requires no marriage.

    Yes, the seflish do not care they deprive kids of parents or a family – not something we should be promoting as a good thing.

    I look forward to your inevitable loss… Oh, whatever will you do?

    The inevitable win/loss will come when we face God. I do not look forward to your inevitable loss if you refuse to repent and turn back towards God. He offers forgiveness now to whosoever will may Come. Please think carefully on this.

    • Better AndBetter

      Your track record speaks for itself, sweetie.

      And your God is still meaningless.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    “officials in Alabama vowed to fight the ruling.”

    They are just putting off the inevitable and wasting taxpayer money in the process.

    • Gary

      Since death is inevitable, why waste money on healthcare?

      • Better AndBetter

        Gay marriage is comparable to death?

        Oh, you poor unhappy, bitter old man.

        You make bunny cry.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Your analogy is flawed. Spending on healthcare impacts quality of life thus the money spent results in the desired outcome.

        Spending on fighting a lawsuit that is highly likely to succeed does not produce the desired outcome and most certainly does not positively impact quality of life.

        • Gary

          Doing the right thing is always worthwhile.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            What makes it “right”? Because you agree with it?

  • William Tyndale

    The two Bush Presidents together undoubtedly appointed as many rad left judges to the federal courts as did either Clinton or Obama. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and yes, even Reagan, also appointed their share. Political affiliation and appointment by Republican Presidents sadly is no guarantee of strict constructionist judges being appointed to our federal courts.