Thousands ‘March for Marriage’ in D.C. as Churches Nationwide ‘Stand for Marriage’

March 2015WASHINGTON — Thousands marched for marriage on Saturday while churches nationwide participated in ‘Stand for Marriage Sunday’ today as the U.S. Supreme Court gears up to hear oral argument surrounding states’ rights pertaining to the definition of marriage.

Today’s effort had been organized by the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, which urged its “Watchmen on the Wall” network of over 45,000 pastors to show a video about biblical marriage, distribute bulletins about the issue and spend time in prayer with their congregations over Tuesday’s court hearing.

“The consequences this decision could have on our religious freedom, the freedom to believe and live according to those beliefs, are staggering,” said President Tony Perkins in a statement earlier this month. “Should the court redefine marriage, our religious liberty—the foundation for all of our freedoms—will be at risk.”

“The nation will not accept a redefinition of marriage from the court. Similar to the court’s inability to ‘resolve’ the issue of abortion for the nation in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the court will not resolve this issue either,” he continued. “Religious liberty is in jeopardy. The threat is not hypothetical; it is a clear and present danger.”

As previously reported, David Lane of the American Renewal Project and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also sent out email to pastors nationwide calling upon them to preach about biblical marriage today and to hold a prayer service on Tuesday during the court hearing.

“We know that marriage is intended to be sacred, beautiful, and nourishing. If you do not influence your congregation’s understanding of marriage, who will fill the void? Hollywood? Divorce courts?” Cruz asked. “The Church has not shared the truth about marriage well; it is time to repent and commit ourselves to courage on this front.”

On Saturday, thousands marched in the nation’s capital for the “March for Marriage,” which was organized by the National Organization for Marriage. According to reports, the crowds, which were bussed in from across the country, marched from the capitol building to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a variety of ages and ethnicities present.

  • Connect with Christian News

“What we stand for is that marriage is between a man and a woman the way God ordained,” James Hankins, 26, of Detroit told reporters. “That’s why we stand here. That’s why we march.”

Hiram Garcia, 49, of Philadelphia told the AFP that sanctioning nuptials between those of the same gender would create “a Godless society, where people are far from God.”

Josh Duggar of the popular reality television show “19 Kids and Counting,” who also works for the aforementioned Family Research Council, was among those who addressed the crowd.

“The people of every state should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” he stated, according to Cleveland.com “The court has the opportunity to affirm what these states and many others did in affirming marriage in their state constitutions.”

Matt Staver of the legal organization Liberty Counsel was also present, and noted that the Supreme Court has made ungodly decisions in the past, including to affirm slavery and to permit sterilizations of those who states deem unfit for reproduction.

“When an earthly law collides with a higher law, we have no choice but to obey the higher law,” he declared.

Reports state that there were very few present who expressed an opposite view, except for a small group of homosexual advocates who held signs and attempted to rush the stage at one point to disrupt the event.

Photo: March for Marriage/Flikr


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

    I don’t get it. What on Earth is it about law-abiding, taxpaying adult Gay couples getting married that terrifies so many people? These are couples who are in love, who have made a commitment to one another’s happiness and well-being. These are couples who in most cases already share a life together. Unless the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) applies only to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), I can see no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    What are people so fearful of? The marriage equality movement was never some sinister effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone. It won’t cause otherwise Straight people to marry other persons of the same sex. It will not require anyone to attend weddings for Gay couples. Conversely, denying Gay people the right to marry is not going to make Gay people turn Straight!

    Is not love and commitment far more preferable to loneliness and promiscuity? I thought getting married was far preferable to just shacking up together. Why does the joy of Gay couples getting married make so many people angry?

    • Bill

      Its simply a matter of our faith. We are told to not participate in others sin.

      • weasel1886

        Then you must completely drop out of society

        • bowie1

          How about we force you to pray by any legal means necessary since those on your side do so to bakers and other marriage supporting businesses against their will. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?

          • Bill

            you have no legal means to make us do that

          • bowie1

            Convenient for you. However, it was a theoretical question.

          • uzza

            We have no legal means to force bakers to do anything. Every person has the right to not become a baker if it conflicts with their morals.

          • Lacunaria

            Bakers are legally forced to bake for select protected classes.

          • uzza

            It’s just a crying shame how they march them at gunpoint down to City hall and force them to apply for a business license, and the bank confiscates all their funds to invest in a bakery. Just a shame.

          • Lacunaria

            Your sarcastic strawman describes a different compulsion than the one at issue.

            Free association, like free speech, is a moral right. It would be like saying, you are free to talk, but if you do, then the government will force who you talk to.

            You are misdirecting attention to the nominal freedom rather than the subsequent compulsion.

          • uzza

            Actually it’s more like saying you are free to offer your services to the public, but if you do, then the government will force you to serve the public.

          • Lacunaria

            You make it sound like fraud which would indeed be immoral, but such a public offering of service has never been a commitment of individual service.

            Even now vendors are free to deny service to anyone for any reason other than the select protected classes.

          • uzza

            Exactly. Sexual orientation is a protected class in Oregon, meaning the vendors are not free to deny service, which is why the courts found her guilty and fined her. She was advertising a service that she had no intention of providing—yes, fraud. yes, immoral.
            If she had been true to her supposedly deeply held beliefs, she would have closed her business the day Oregon passed that law.

          • Lacunaria

            Yes, she was found guilty of violating the anti-discrimination law, but no, there is no fraud, as I preemptively explained to you but you ignored for some reason.

            Advertising a service is not a commitment of service and never has been. How else do you explain that vendors may refuse service for any other reason aside from the protected classes? How else do you explain economic history before the anti-discrimination laws?

            So, your fraud argument is specious.

            You don’t actually make a moral argument, just an assertion, but it is morally far worse to compel someone’s labor than it is for them to be selective in who they choose serve with their labor, regardless of their reasons.

            Your suggestion that Melissa should have preemptively closed her business once sexual orientation was added as a protected class is an irrational non-sequitur.

          • uzza

            “Bakers are legally forced to bake for select protected classes.” Non-bakers are not. Knowing that, why would a person willingly compromise their religious beliefs by becoming a baker? Because they are lying hypocrites is why, who agreed to those terms while having no intention of honoring them. There is no license to do business that allows you to serve only certain classes of the general public, and you know it.

            You keep repeating that “vendors are free to deny service to anyone for any reason other than the select protected classes”, which since the select protected classes are what we’re talking about, proves my point.
            Then you claim that advertising something for sale doesn’t mean you have to provide it for sale, which is in fact immoral to any non-christian. As a good Christian, what you’re supposed to do is claim you don’t have to obey the law, because Jesus. Try to keep up.

          • Lacunaria

            “Bakers are legally forced to bake for select protected classes.” Non-bakers are not. Knowing that, why would a person willingly compromise their religious beliefs by becoming a baker?

            They are not compromising their beliefs until they were asked to violate them. Baking itself doesn’t do it, nor does the law, particularly when it changes beneath their feet.

            Bear in mind that they probably thought that there was religious freedom in the US and the case would come down in their favor. You erroneously assume the conclusion in a way they could not.

            Certainly, now, that judgment will have a chilling effect on all Christians and their potential businesses, maybe some Muslims, too.

            Because they are lying hypocrites is why, who agreed to those terms while having no intention of honoring them.

            Agreed to what terms? If you are again referring to the law that changes beneath their feet, then perhaps you should look into how often you do or would (even morally) break laws and whether that makes you a lying hypocrite.

            There is no license to do business that allows you to serve only certain classes of the general public, and you know it.

            A business license doesn’t force you to do business with certain people, anti-discrimination law does.

            There are in fact many classes which are not protected. You could exclude everyone with tattoos from your business and it would be perfectly legal. Or you could choose to only serve people with tattoos.

            You keep repeating that “vendors are free to deny service to anyone for any reason other than the select protected classes”, which since the select protected classes are what we’re talking about, proves my point.

            Our conversation extended to fraud and morality as well, which you keep ignoring. Rather than debating the Oregon baker, we could debate Indiana’s RFRA and businesses there where the law would be against you. Does that help your sense of perspective? This debate is both larger and less resolved than you would like it to be.

            Then you claim that advertising something for sale doesn’t mean you have to provide it for sale, which is in fact immoral to any non-christian.

            “for sale” to whom? Advertising doesn’t mean you have to provide it for sale to everyone. Indeed, there have even been mistakes in advertising and they don’t have to provide it for sale to anyone.

            To maintain your position, you need to explain how businesses can arbitrarily refuse sale to people, despite advertising to the public.

            Advertising has never been an individual commitment of service. You are inventing that strawman commitment to improve your weak position of forcing people’s labor.

            As a good Christian, what you’re supposed to do is claim you don’t have to obey the law, because Jesus. Try to keep up.

            Well, there is civil disobedience for unjust laws, as in this case. Your continual strawmen and insults do not help your case.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Baking itself doesn’t do it”

            Oh, great, then there is no issue with baking the cake, which was all the baker was asked to do.

            “Bear in mind that they probably thought that there was religious freedom in the US and the case would come down in their favor.”

            If so, they were woefully unaware that no court has ever supported that conclusion when religious belief as been put forth as a basis for violating anti-discrimination laws.

            “Certainly, now, that judgment will have a chilling effect on all Christians and their potential businesses, maybe some Muslims, too.”

            So you believe that all Christians oppose providing services for a same-gender marriage, but only some Muslims?

            Let’s look at the case of the baker. Do you think that when asked to do a wedding cake for an opposite-gender couple, that they inquired if the either of the couple had been divorced for reasons other than adultery and turned down the order if they had? Do you think they inquired when asked to do a cake for a baby shower if the mother-to-be was married? Do you think when asked to make a cake for an engagement party they inquired if the couple were having sexual relations and then refused the order if so? Do you think when asked to do a wedding cake they inquired if the couple were having a Christian ceremony and then refused the order if not?

            All of those examples would involve situations of Biblical sin. If not violating their religious beliefs is so important to them, then it would reasonable that they would make such inquiries and refuse those orders. Yet, I doubt they did. If not, then they are certainly applying their religious beliefs very selectively in determining who they serve and who they do not, which makes the provision of service hypocritical and the rationale for not provided service for a same-gender wedding specious and disingenuous.

          • Lacunaria

            “Baking itself doesn’t do it”

            Oh, great, then there is no issue with baking the cake, which was all the baker was asked to do.

            The baker was not only asked to bake something, but to bake a particular cake for a particular purpose and to sell it. Those additional factors may be pertinent bakers, just as it is pertinent to photographers what they photograph and how their photographs will be used, such as for propaganda.

            “Certainly, now, that judgment will have a chilling effect on all Christians and their potential businesses, maybe some Muslims, too.”

            So you believe that all Christians oppose providing services for a same-gender marriage, but only some Muslims?

            No, I believe that Christians commonly oppose SSM and that many would prefer not to contribute to it with their close, custom labor. Those Christians have a difficult decision to make regarding whether to compromise those beliefs in order to avoid unjust punishment. Muslims are not a favorite target for these suits, so I wonder if they will be similarly chilled.

            Let’s look at the case of the baker. Do you think that when asked to do a wedding cake for an opposite-gender couple, that they inquired if the either of the couple had been divorced for reasons other than adultery and turned down the order if they had? Do you think they inquired when asked to do a cake for a baby shower if the mother-to-be was married? Do you think when asked to make a cake for an engagement party they inquired if the couple were having sexual relations and then refused the order if so? Do you think when asked to do a wedding cake they inquired if the couple were having a Christian ceremony and then refused the order if not?

            Your examples are not generally representative of Christian morals. e.g. Christians do not oppose weddings of other faiths, or marriage after pre-marital sex, etc.. Christians are forgiving of past sins. SSM is categorized as a present and future sin which they do not want to contribute to.

            Moreover, the baker might simply not have those particular beliefs. I don’t think Melissa was being disingenuous. But this idea that we should have to prove our religion to other people highlights to me that we do not have sufficient general protections of our freedoms.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “but to bake a particular cake”

            Does anyone order a non-particular cake?

            “for a particular purpose”

            Does anyone order a cake for a non-particular purpose?

            “and to sell it.”

            Yes, that is what bakeries do. Have you ever seen a bakery that just gives all of its goods away?

            “Those additional factors may be pertinent bakers, just as it is pertinent to photographers what they photograph and how their photographs will be used, such as for propaganda.”

            Absolutely. And if they turn down all such orders then they are fine. But if they provide a product for weddings, but then refuse based upon a covered category, they have broken the law.

            “No, I believe that Christians commonly oppose SSM”

            Based upon what? Polls certainly don’t back that up.

            “Those Christians have a difficult decision to make regarding whether to compromise those beliefs in order to avoid unjust punishment.”

            So you believe that providing punishment for violation of anti-discrimination laws is unjust?

            “Your examples are not generally representative of Christian morals.”

            Really? So despite the Biblical prohibition against divorce except in cases of adultery, Christians don’t have that as a moral they follow? Despite the Biblical prohibition on sexual relations outside of marriage, Christians don’t hold to that as a moral? Yet, they hold to the moral that two individuals of the same gender should not enter into a legal marriage (not a religious ceremony mind you – a civil marriage), which is prohibited NO WHERE in the Bible. The ONLY prohibition that is relevant in the Bible is regarding two people of the same gender engaging in sexual relations. They take that prohibition, twist it into a prohibition against two people of the same gender entering into civil marriage (not religious marriage, mind you, CIVIL marriage), and say they can’t possibly violate that – but the other specific ones….well we just don’t view those as being immoral.

            Ridiculous. Hypocritical. Disingenuous. Specious.

            “SSM is categorized as a present and future sin which they do not want to contribute to.”

            So is being divorced for reasons other than infidelity. It is a state of sin that does not go away and those who get divorced for reasons other than infidelity are not allowed to remarry. The Bible is crystal clear on that.

            “Moreover, the baker might simply not have those particular beliefs.”

            And there’s the rub. Religious beliefs are very personal and anyone can claim anything as being their religious belief. Allowing discrimination in public accommodation based upon religious belief basically guts anti-discrimination laws, as there would be no way to challenge what a person put forth as their religious belief. Unless, of course, you want the courts determining what is a valid religious belief and what is not.

            ” that we should have to prove our religion to other people highlights to me that we do not have sufficient general protections of our freedoms.”

            What freedom do you believe exists that allows a person to operate a business outside of the law?

            If you believe that anti-discrimination laws infringe upon freedom of religious expression then, by all means, work to repeal them. But the courts have been clear that the government’s goal of ensuring that citizens are not subject to discrimination based upon certain criteria does not unduly burden religious expression.

          • Lacunaria

            Does anyone order a non-particular cake? Does anyone order a cake for a non-particular purpose?

            UmustBKiddinMe, do you honestly believe that I was referring to the set of all particular cakes, such that the logical negation would be the set of all non-particular cakes?

            No, I was referring to a particular cake in contrast to other particular cakes.

            You continuously insult me and waste my time with your inane and intentional misinterpretations. It indicates that you are a dishonest debater who is not really interested in honest communication but rather in the vague appearance of your own superiority.

            But you can overcome this habit. Do your best to address what people mean rather than what you can twist their words to mean for your own satisfaction.

            “Those additional factors may be pertinent bakers, just as it is pertinent to photographers what they photograph and how their photographs will be used, such as for propaganda.”

            Absolutely. And if they turn down all such orders then they are fine. But if they provide a product for weddings, but then refuse based upon a covered category, they have broken the law.

            Yep. That doesn’t make it right.

            “No, I believe that Christians commonly oppose SSM”

            Based upon what? Polls certainly don’t back that up.

            Fair enough that it is no longer a majority.

            “Those Christians have a difficult decision to make regarding whether to compromise those beliefs in order to avoid unjust punishment.”

            So you believe that providing punishment for violation of anti-discrimination laws is unjust?

            Yes, anti-discrimination laws are unjust except in extreme circumstances.

            “Your examples are not generally representative of Christian morals.”

            Really? So despite the Biblical prohibition against divorce except in cases of adultery, Christians don’t have that as a moral they follow?

            Divorce is your closest analogy in certain circumstances where remarriage may be considered immoral, but Christians can vary significantly on that. e.g. if you pick and choose verses as you are doing, you might even conclude that all divorce is prohibited and that you can’t even divorce your husband if he beats you, for example.

            And in that case, you are right that such Christian bakers might not bake a cake for any such remarriage that they knew to be immoral. Your other examples were not so good.

            “that we should have to prove our religion to other people highlights to me that we do not have sufficient general protections of our freedoms.”

            What freedom do you believe exists that allows a person to operate a business outside of the law?

            By definition there is none under the law, but morally there are many good arguments stemming from freedom of association, property rights, relative harm done, etc.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “do you honestly believe that I was referring to the set of all particular cakes, such that the logical negation would be the set of all non-particular cakes?”

            I have only your statement to go by. With that said, I’m glad we agree that every cake is a particular cake and that every cake is ordered for a particular purpose, thus your attempt make a point about a wedding cake being unique in that aspect was, well, pointless.

            “But you can overcome this habit. Do your best to address what people mean rather than what you can twist their words to mean for your own satisfaction.”

            It is not for me to determine what you mean. It is up to you to communicate clearly what you mean. To shift your lack of clarity and specificity on to me shows that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own style of communication. You can overcome your habit of being general in your statements by being more careful in the selection of your words.

            “That doesn’t make it right.”

            What is considered “right” would be a matter of personal opinion. If you don’t believe that is right, then, by all means, work to change it.

            “Divorce is your closest analogy in certain circumstances where remarriage may be considered immoral, but Christians can vary significantly on that”

            Why would they vary significantly? The Bible is quite clear.

            “if you pick and choose verses as you are doing”

            You seem to be confused. Picking and choosing verses is what some Christians are doing. What verses of Biblical teaching did I pick regarding divorce only being allowed in cases of adultery that are countermanded elsewhere in the Bible?

            “you are right that such Christian bakers might not bake a cake for any such remarriage that they knew to be immoral.”

            There is an easy way to know. Just ask.

            “Your other examples were not so good.”

            Given the rationale provided regarding not baking a cake for a same-gender marriage – the belief that same-gender marriage is a sin (despite it not being labeled as such in the Bible) and thus baking a cake would be endorsing or participating in that sin, what possible rationale would there be for baking a cake for a couple where either had been divorced for reasons other than adultery (and we’ll even throw in your “because the spouse was beating his or her spouse, even though that is not specified in the Bible and in Biblical times – as they were in the US for over two centuries – women were considered property with the husband pretty much able to do as he pleased) engagement party for a couple who were having sexual relations outside of marriage? Or for a baby shower for a woman who was not married? Or for a couple who puts another god before the Christian god?

            “By definition there is none under the law”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “but morally there are many good arguments stemming from freedom of association, property rights, relative harm done, etc.”

            Then, by all means, make those arguments in efforts to repeal anti-discrimination laws. Let me know how that goes.

          • Lacunaria

            I have only your statement to go by. With that said, I’m glad we agree that every cake is a particular cake and that every cake is ordered for a particular purpose, thus your attempt make a point about a wedding cake being unique in that aspect was, well, pointless.

            “particular” means “separate and distinct from others of the same group”, so one “particular cake” can be distinct (unique!) from another “particular cake”.

            So, what you are ignoring is that not every particular cake is the same (e.g. some may be obscene), nor is every particular purpose for a cake the same, just as not every particular photograph is the same, nor every particular use of a photograph the same.

            For example, I’ve spoken to many photographers who would not take particular photographs due to their offensive content, or knowingly contribute to taking photographs that would be used for particular propaganda purposes.

            It is not for me to determine what you mean. It is up to you to communicate clearly what you mean. To shift your lack of clarity and specificity on to me shows that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own style of communication. You can overcome your habit of being general in your statements by being more careful in the selection of your words.

            If you have some learning disability rather than intentionally and dishonestly misinterpreting me, then I apologize, but in either case I do not have the time to continue indulging your semantic games and explain to you things like what the word “particular” means and how it is used.

            Your confusion over “force” may be a bit more honest, but I cannot be sure and your habitual behavior makes me not trust you.

            You seem to be confused. Picking and choosing verses is what some Christians are doing. What verses of Biblical teaching did I pick regarding divorce only being allowed in cases of adultery that are countermanded elsewhere in the Bible?

            Matthew 5:32 mentions a sexual immorality exception to divorce, but Luke 16:18 doesn’t include any exception. Some Christians use Luke to argue that all divorce is immoral.

            The writ of divorce was commanded in the OT when putting out a wife. The writ was permission to remarry. It was created due to the hardness of men’s hearts and that is the context within which Jesus addresses divorce in the NT, placing the blame on the man for all sin that comes from it.

            There’s more detailed context and reasons for Christian disagreement on divorce, but I don’t trust you to receive them honestly. Look them up for yourself if you are interested.

            Given the rationale provided regarding not baking a cake for a same-gender marriage – the belief that same-gender marriage is a sin (despite it not being labeled as such in the Bible)

            Biblically, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman due to children. SSM is not explicitly addressed because it is impossible given that definition. SSM is more of a modern invention.

            engagement party for a couple who were having sexual relations outside of marriage?

            Marriage legitimizes their sex. It is after the fact of their sin, not contributing to their sin.

            Or for a baby shower for a woman who was not married?

            Again, that is after the fact of the sin. Celebrating the birth of a baby and helping the mother in raising him or her is good, regardless of any past sin.

            Or for a couple who puts another god before the Christian god?

            While it is a Judeo-Christian moral that God is above all other gods, it is not a Judeo-Christian moral to force other people to believe, and there is no Judeo-Christian moral that you shouldn’t contribute to a wedding just because the bride or groom are not Christian. Marriage is a moral good even for people of other faiths.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “I’ve spoken to many photographers who would not take particular photographs due to their offensive content”

            As have I. With that said, if a photographer is asked to photograph a white couple in the nude in certain poses and agrees, the photography wouldn’t have a legal basis for refusing to photograph a black couple in the exact same poses.

            “If you have some learning disability rather than intentionally and dishonestly misinterpreting me”

            I would not be so presumptuous as to believe that it would be reasonable for me to interpret what you mean. Further, why would you want to rely on my interpretation to provide clarity of your point? What if my interpretation is different than your intent? Does that mean that my interpretation is correct because that’s how I interpreted it? How about this – how about you just clearly state what you mean and don’t leave it up to me to figure out? That’s called communicating with clarity.

            “I do not have the time to continue indulging your semantic games and explain to you things like what the word “particular” means and how it is used.”

            Well, apparently that is false since you just took the time to discuss what “particular” means.

            “your habitual behavior makes me not trust you.”

            What “habitual behavior” have I exhibited that would lead you to conclude that I am not trustworthy? Have I lied?

            “Matthew 5:32 mentions a sexual immorality exception to divorce”

            Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

            Seems pretty clear to me. Where exactly is the confusion? How would it be possible to provide a cake for a wedding where the man was marrying a woman who got divorced for reasons other than adultery not be participating in the sin of adultery?

            “There’s more detailed context and reasons for Christian disagreement on divorce”

            So disagreement on divorce, even though Biblical passages are clear, is something that is reasonable, but if Christians have disagreement on same-gender civil (not religious – CIVIL) marriage, which isn’t mentioned in the Bible, those Christians who do not oppose the legal contract of marriage provided by the secular state are not “real” Christians and are not following what God says. Yes, of course, makes perfect sense.

            “Biblically, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman due to children. ”

            Really? Where in the passages about marriage being between a man and a woman does it say that is due to children? Jesus makes clear in Matthew that his statement regarding a man leaving his family and marrying a woman only applies to those who can accept it. Specifically, he point to eunuchs who, at that time, included not only castrated males, but males who had no sexual desire for women – i.e. homosexuals. Prized by those in power as they were well suited to watching over women without concern regarding having sexual relations with those women. Jesus makes clear that “from their mother’s wombs” certain eunuchs were created. in other words, born homosexual, and they were not required to marry women.

            “SSM is not explicitly addressed”

            Agreed.

            “SSM is more of a modern invention.”

            Well, not really. There is a significant amount of historical evidence that same-gender marriage was a part of many societies in the past. The whole “being gay is evil” thing is, in historical terms, relatively recent with the rise of Christianity in the Western world.

            “Marriage legitimizes their sex. ”

            The engagement party takes place before the marriage. If the couple are having sexual relations outside of marriage how would be possible that the engagement party would not condoning that sin, but providing a cake for a same-gender civil marriage, which is not prohibited by the Bible, most definitely would be of sign of condoning that “sin”.

            Since the baby is a sign of the sin that took place, how would providing cake for that event not be viewed as condoning that sin?

            “While it is a Judeo-Christian moral that God is above all other gods, it is not a Judeo-Christian moral to force other people to believe”

            Then why are so many Christians intent on forcing others to adhere to their views on marriage? If it is not a moral to force other people to believe, then why would it be reasonable to force legal restrictions on people according to Christian morals?

            Aren’t those who refuse to accept the Christian God and seek redemption through Christ living in sin? Why yes, I believe they are. So, therefore, to participate in an event where the couple are living in sin should be unacceptable to a Christian, should it not? Or does that just apply to the sin of having sexual relations with a person of the same gender?

            How about this – the Bible is clear that it is a sin to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender, which is the only mention of sin regarding homosexuality. Therefore, it should be perfectly fine to bake a cake for a same-gender marriage if the two people are not engaging in sexual relations, yes?

            “Marriage is a moral good even for people of other faiths.”

            What about atheists and agnostics? How about Wiccans or Satanists? Is marriage a moral good for them as well?

            What if a baker didn’t share your “liberal” view that marriage is a moral good even for people of other faiths? What if the baker believed that only marriage before the Christian god was a morally right? Should the baker then be legally allowed to turn away customers of other faiths, or of no faith?

            What if the baker believed that the races should not mix? No issue with turning away an interracial couple? What if the baker believed left-handed people were possessed by the devil (as the Pilgrims did) – no issue with turning them away?

            Oh, here’s a good one: A mother comes in to order a wedding cake for her daughter. The baker asked for the names of the couple. The mother says: Susan and Chris. The mother pays for the cake, the baker makes the cake. One the day of the wedding, the baker shows up with the cake and realizes that “Chris” is not a man but – horrors! – a woman! I’m assuming you would be fine with the baker putting the cake back in her van, taking it away, and refunding the money. No harm done there, right?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            OOOPS did not mean to up vote you.

          • Bill

            aw and here i thought i won you over

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            Sorry but no. lol 🙂

          • weasel1886

            I don’t know what this has to do with my post

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “since those on your side do so to bakers and other marriage supporting businesses against their will.”

            No one is “forced”. Opening a business is a choice. What products you choose to offer through your business is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

          • Wheeler

            As is sexual relations in every single way or it is nothing short of RAPE. All sexuality is a learned behavior, one is acceptable as it has potential to procreate offspring, such is the purpose of the blood binding ritual of marriage between a man and a women. That blood oath has been subverted perverted and manipulated into nothing but a legal piece of paper whose sole purpose was to give a tax benifit for married couples to assist in raising children produced by that marriage. Same sex have NO natural ability to procreate anything but their filthy animal lust actions of amoral anti society anti religion anti life equation. Sodomites are filth that choose filth for their sexual perversion, just as rapists and pedophiles choose

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “All sexuality is a learned behavior”

            What is your basis for that?

            “such is the purpose of the blood binding ritual of marriage between a man and a women.”

            Civil marriage is not a “blood binding ritual”.

            “a legal piece of paper whose sole purpose was to give a tax benifit for married couples to assist in raising children produced by that marriage.”

            There are over 1,200 legal benefits, rights, and protections that accrue to those who are legally married. Very few of them have anything to do with whether or not the couple has children.

            “Same sex have NO natural ability to procreate anything”

            Neither do heterosexual couples who are infertile. Neither to heterosexual couples who are past child bearing years. Should they also be banned from entering into civil marriage?

            “Sodomites are filth that choose filth for their sexual perversion”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. How is that opinion relevant to the law?

          • Lacunaria

            You stopped too soon. Forcing occurs in the next part — who you are forced to sell to.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            No one is “forced” to sell anything. Opening a business is a choice. What products the business offers is a choice. There is no “forcing”. Further, laws covering public accommodation are distinct and separate from marriage laws. For example, it is legal in Oklahoma for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. It is also legal in Oklahoma for a business to turn away a customer based upon sexuality.

            So, no, allowing same-gender marriage does not “force” anyone to sell something to someone they do not want to.

          • Lacunaria

            You stopped again before the compulsion. As I said to uzza below, free association, like free speech, is a moral right. It would be like saying, you are free to talk, but if you do, then the government will force who you talk to.

            You are misdirecting attention to the nominal freedom rather than the subsequent compulsion.

            Public accommodation could be separate from marriage laws, but many of these cases hinge on the recent redefinition of the word “wedding” which derives from the redefinition of “marriage”.

            Some wedding photographers, for example, are being forced to photograph gay weddings because of that redefinition.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            ” As I said to uzza below, free association, like free speech, is a moral right.”

            You are certainly free to view those things as being “moral” rights, but in the US they are constitutional rights.

            “It would be like saying, you are free to talk, but if you do, then the government will force who you talk to.”

            Not at all. What it is like, however, is saying: “You have a right to free speech, but you are not allowed to stand out in front of your house at 3 in the morning with a bullhorn.” All rights have limits.

            “Public accommodation could be separate from marriage laws,”

            Not “could be” – they are.

            “but many of these cases hinge on the recent redefinition of the word “wedding” which derives from the redefinition of “marriage”.”

            Several of the cases were brought in states prior to same gender marriage being legal. So, your statement is inaccurate. Further, anti-discrimination laws are not tied to marriage laws, as is the case in Oklahoma as well as several other states.

            “Some wedding photographers, for example, are being forced to photograph gay weddings because of that redefinition.”

            Please cite one photographer who has been forced to photograph a gay wedding.

          • Lacunaria

            You are certainly free to view those things as being “moral” rights, but in the US they are constitutional rights.

            Are you referring to a chaotic living Constitution or a more stable originalist Constitution?

            In any case, yes, I view them as moral rights, the justifying basis for the Constitution and for law.

            “It would be like saying, you are free to talk, but if you do, then the government will force who you talk to.”

            Not at all. What it is like, however, is saying: “You have a right to free speech, but you are not allowed to stand out in front of your house at 3 in the morning with a bullhorn.” All rights have limits.

            Substitute “bake” for “talk” and my analogy is perfect. Yours is inapt. No harm is done by your refusing to photograph my wedding. You are not invading my property, as with a bullhorn. Indeed, your analogy is precisely opposite the facts since I would be invading your property by compelling your labor at my wedding.

            Even if you would try to ferret out some harm, there is certainly not enough to warrant my forcing you.

            Several of the cases were brought in states prior to same gender marriage being legal. So, your statement is inaccurate. Further, anti-discrimination laws are not tied to marriage laws, as is the case in Oklahoma as well as several other states.

            You are playing semantic games. Obviously the laws are distinct but the cases are a confluence of both marriage and public accommodation factors. Without the popular redefinition of “wedding”, these cases would not exist.

            Please cite one photographer who has been forced to photograph a gay wedding.

            Either you are unaware of Elaine Hugenin of Elane Photography, which I find hard to believe, or you do not consider suits and fines to be a use of force.

            Or, given your pattern of argument above, I also wouldn’t be surprised if you were continuing your semantic games, suggesting that no one was physically forced (whipped or something?) to photograph a gay wedding.

            Which is it?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Are you referring to a chaotic living Constitution or a more stable originalist Constitution?”

            I’m referring to the first amendment.

            “I view them as moral rights”

            You are certainly entitled to view them however you care to. I also believe that is moral to allow people to enjoy freedom of speech and religion, within certain parameters. The legal ability to do that is determined by the laws of each nation. Our constitution provides that legal ability.

            “Obviously the laws are distinct”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “but the cases are a confluence of both marriage and public accommodation factors.”

            Many states/counties/cities had anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation in place long before same-gender marriage was legal. So, no, they are not a confluence of both marriage and public accommodation.

            “Either you are unaware of Elaine Hugenin of Elane Photography”

            Did either of those business photograph a same-gender marriage? The answer is no. So they were not “forced” to photograph a wedding ceremony involved two citizens of the same gender.

            “or you do not consider suits and fines to be a use of force.”

            I do not, since the photographers were not forced to photograph the wedding of two citizens of the same gender. The businesses are completely free to not offer photography services for weddings. They cannot be forced to do so.

          • Lacunaria

            I’m referring to the first amendment.

            And I was pointing out that interpretation is the essential issue which you avoid addressing.

            You are certainly entitled to view them however you care to. I also believe that is moral to allow people to enjoy freedom of speech and religion, within certain parameters. The legal ability to do that is determined by the laws of each nation. Our constitution provides that legal ability.

            Yes, and I’m asking you to make your moral argument for those parameters.

            It’s important to build our rational arguments from basic moral principles when we are debating what the law should be, rather than base it on the law itself because that tends to be speciously circular.

            “but the cases are a confluence of both marriage and public accommodation factors.”

            Many states/counties/cities had anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation in place long before same-gender marriage was legal. So, no, they are not a confluence of both marriage and public accommodation.

            I had hoped it would be clear to you from context that I was referring to the wedding-focused cases, such as Elane Photography. My fear is that it was clear to you and yet you intentionally chose to misunderstand me and instead address strawmen.

            “Either you are unaware of Elaine Hugenin of Elane Photography”

            Did either of those business photograph a same-gender marriage? The answer is no. So they were not “forced” to photograph a wedding ceremony involved two citizens of the same gender.

            So, you would consider Christians to be “forced” when they compromise their beliefs and actually do photograph a gay wedding, rather than choosing to be perpetually fined, put out of business, or thrown in jail?

            Do you really think this is not already happening? Elaine’s case will have exactly this chilling effect upon many Christian wedding photographers. We only hear about the cases where people are honest and explicitly oppose the law, not cases where the force of law successfully achieves forced compliance.

            The force used against Elaine is representative of the forced used against those who comply. Or do you not even consider such compliance to be a use of force? Is force impossible in your mind as long as multiple options are given?

            “or you do not consider suits and fines to be a use of force.”

            I do not, since the photographers were not forced to photograph the wedding of two citizens of the same gender. The businesses are completely free to not offer photography services for weddings. They cannot be forced to do so.

            Fines are a use of force regardless of whether they achieve compliance by threat or whether people instead pay the fines and go out of business. You are just reinforcing that you are playing puerile semantic games regarding “force”, rather than addressing the real issue which is whether that use of force is morally justified.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “And I was pointing out that interpretation is the essential issue ”

            Wouldn’t interpreting be indicative of a “chaotic living Constitution”?

            “and I’m asking you to make your moral argument for those parameters.”

            I believe that legally protecting the right of free speech and religious belief is moral.

            “It’s important to build our rational arguments from basic moral principles”

            What is considered “moral” and what is not depends on personal views, which are often speciously circular.

            “My fear is that it was clear to you and yet you intentionally chose to misunderstand me and instead address straw men.”

            It was clear to me. How would someone “intentionally chose to misunderstand” something? Either one understands something or one does not. What straw men do you believe I addressed?

            “So, you would consider Christians to be “forced” when they compromise their beliefs and actually do photograph a gay wedding, rather than choosing to be perpetually fined, put out of business, or thrown in jail?”

            Since no one is forced to offer photography services for weddings, no one can be forced to photograph a gay wedding. You seem to be suggesting that a person should be free to choose to open a business, choose to offer certain services, and then be free to turn away customers, in contravention of the law, using religious beliefs as a valid rationale. If so, you are mistaken.

            “not cases where the force of law successfully achieves forced compliance.”

            You seem to be suggesting that there are businesses which do not want to perform these services but are doing so anyway because of laws. What is your basis for that?

            “Is force impossible in your mind as long as multiple options are given?”

            By it’s definition, “force” means that the person must do something and has no option not to. So, yes, if options are available not to do something, then “force” is an inappropriate word.

            Again, what is considered “moral” and what is not would depend on one’s belief system. I believe that it is better for society if citizens know that they are able to patronize any business of public accommodation and not be denied services based upon certain criteria.

            If we allow a business of public accommodation to make decisions about who they will serve and who they will not based upon the owner’s religious beliefs, we basically gut all anti-discrimination laws since it would be impossible to challenge what a person says is his/her personal religious beliefs. Unless, of course, you want the courts to be involved in determining what is, and what is not, a reasonable personal religious belief.

            If you feel that anti-discrimination laws are immoral, then you are certainly free as a citizen to challenge those laws in court (if they affect your personally) or to work to have those laws repealed.

          • Lacunaria

            “And I was pointing out that interpretation is the essential issue ”

            Wouldn’t interpreting be indicative of a “chaotic living Constitution”?

            No, interpretation is required for all text. The question is whether the interpretation is consistent with the original meaning or whether a new meaning is interpreted from the text without changing the text.

            “and I’m asking you to make your moral argument for those parameters.”

            I believe that legally protecting the right of free speech and religious belief is moral.

            Great! But I was asking you about the limiting parameters that you mentioned.

            “It’s important to build our rational arguments from basic moral principles”

            What is considered “moral” and what is not depends on personal views, which are often speciously circular.

            That depends upon the argument. None of the moral arguments I have made are circular. One example is the simple comparison of harm done.

            “My fear is that it was clear to you and yet you intentionally chose to misunderstand me and instead address straw men.”

            It was clear to me. How would someone “intentionally chose to misunderstand” something? Either one understands something or one does not. What straw men do you believe I addressed?

            “misunderstand” means “to understand incorrectly; misinterpret.”

            There are multiple ways to interpret what I say, each being a different understanding of my words. If you pick one that you do not believe I intended but nevertheless fits what you want, then you are intentionally misunderstanding (misinterpreting) me.

            You say it was clear to you that I was referring to recent wedding cases, yet you continued to respond as though I was including some other nebulous legal cases presumably in order to score some easy points against your own straw man rather than against my actual assertion.

            If so, then you should work to get the law changed – that is your right as a citizen.

            That is an appeal to the lobbying process, not the morality of the law. And ironically, SSM has only partly taken that legitimate path and partly taken the path of judicial activism.

            “not cases where the force of law successfully achieves forced compliance.”

            You seem to be suggesting that there are businesses which do not want to perform these services but are doing so anyway because of laws. What is your basis for that?

            That’s how laws work to compel people. Lots of people don’t want to pay taxes but they do anyway because of the law. Taxes are a use of force.

            Elaine, et al., show that many people do not want to service gay weddings. It’s not a stretch to assume that some people will compromise their beliefs when it is destructive to their ability to earn a living. That can be one of the endearing functions of a free market, but it’s an insidious use of government.

            I’ve also discussed this with a few photographers, one of which implied that he probably would photograph a gay wedding because he didn’t want to be sued. Other options discussed included simply avoiding or lying about the reason for declining to photograph a wedding. It’s actually rather remarkable how honest these Christians were about their motivations.

            “Is force impossible in your mind as long as multiple options are given?”

            By it’s definition, “force” means that the person must do something and has no option not to. So, yes, if options are available not to do something, then “force” is an inappropriate word.

            What do you mean “no option not to”? Whatever the circumstances, we have the option to kill ourselves. Does that mean we are never forced since we always have that option?

            How about a cop threatening to put you in jail if you don’t pay him off? Since you have options are you not forced?

            Again, what is considered “moral” and what is not would depend on one’s belief system. I believe that it is better for society if citizens know that they are able to patronize any business of public accommodation and not be denied services based upon certain criteria.

            It would be better if you could justify that belief from moral principles rather than just asserting it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I”m referring the Constitution as it presently exists. The “originalist Constitution” does not exist as a distinct governing document due to the amendments. What is a “chaotic living Constitution”?

            “Substitute “bake” for “talk” and my analogy is perfect.”

            Since no one is forced to bake, your analogy is far from perfect.

            “No harm is done by your refusing to photograph my wedding.”

            As a nation, we have determined that it is harmful to society to allow for discrimination in public accommodation based upon certain factors.

            “there is certainly not enough to warrant my forcing you.”

            Again, there is no forcing. Opening a business is a choice and the determination of what products the business will offer is a choice.

            “You are playing semantic games.”

            I’m not playing any games, nor is it a question of semantics. It is the reality of the situation. Your attempts to tie marriage laws directly to anti-discrimination laws is without merit, as you admit in your post.

            “Obviously the laws are distinct”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “but the cases are a confluence of both marriage and public accommodation factors.”

            No, they are not, as I clearly pointed out. Many of these cases were brought before same-gender marriage was legal in that state, and discrimination is still allowed in states that allow same-gender marriage.

            “Without the popular redefinition of “wedding”, these cases would not exist.”

            Anyone can stage an event and call it a wedding. That is unrelated to marriage laws.

            “Either you are unaware of Elaine Hugenin of Elane Photography”

            So Elaine was forced to photograph the wedding? She went to the wedding, against her will, and photographed it?

            “or you do not consider suits and fines to be a use of force.”

            They are not. Filing a suit does not force anyone to provide a service. The only thing it forces them to do is respond to the suit. Fines must be paid. They do not force anyone to do anything. If I am caught speeding I am required to pay a fine. That does not mean that I am forced to not speed.

            Elaine is completely free to no longer offer wedding photography services and focus instead on other aspects of the photography business. She is free to no longer offer her photography services through a business of public accommodation. She is not “forced” to do anything.

            If you believe that anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodation are unjust, you are certainly free to work to change them. You can begin with working to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until those laws are repealed, people who CHOOSE to open a business of public accommodation are required to abide by them.

          • Lacunaria

            I’m referring the Constitution as it presently exists. The “originalist Constitution” does not exist as a distinct governing document due to the amendments. What is a “chaotic living Constitution”?

            “Originalist Constitution” does not refer to the US Constitution prior to amendments, it refers to a method of interpretation called “originalism” that strives to maintain the original meaning of the constitution and later amendments at the times they were agreed upon.

            All words must be interpreted to have meaning. Semantics is that mapping of words to meaning.

            While legislators write the words of governing documents, the courts (and executive) interpret them. Much of the time, the courts interpret the words consistent with the original meaning (originalism), but sometimes, for various reasons, the executive or courts change the interpretation to what they want the words to mean (living constitution) rather than what they originally meant and what was agreed to. That then becomes the precedent which is followed.

            The latter is chaotic because the meaning (and therefore application) can change at any time without actually changing the letter of the law. If the courts or the president doesn’t like a law, he could just reinterpret the law, and *poof* it means something else now. Originalism grounds the meaning of a text and requires people to actually vote on any meaningful changes.

            It is like my asking you to paint my room “blue”, but despite knowing what I meant, you decide to interpret that your own way and paint the room a shade of blue so dark that it is essentially black.

            Technically, you may have painted it blue in some sense, but it was nevertheless dishonest because you knew what I meant and decided to change it anyway because you like black better.

            Perhaps ironically, this is also an example of a semantic game.

            “Substitute “bake” for “talk” and my analogy is perfect.”

            Since no one is forced to bake, your analogy is far from perfect.

            Read it again. If they choose to bake (talk), then the government forces who they must bake for (talk to). Although you dispute the meaning of “force”, its role is perfectly analogous between the two scenarios.

            “No harm is done by your refusing to photograph my wedding.”

            As a nation, we have determined that it is harmful to society to allow for discrimination in public accommodation based upon certain factors.

            That is an example of the circular argument I warned you about. You are relying upon the law to justify the law. That is not an argument that the law is moral.

            Moral arguments are particularly apt here because one of the issues is whether the legally protected classes should or should not be expanded.

            “there is certainly not enough to warrant my forcing you.”

            Again, there is no forcing. Opening a business is a choice and the determination of what products the business will offer is a choice.

            And again, you ignore the subsequent force. Would you feel forced if you were free to talk but the government would dictate who you talked to?

            “Without the popular redefinition of “wedding”, these cases would not exist.”

            Anyone can stage an event and call it a wedding. That is unrelated to marriage laws.

            Yes, but it is related to public accommodation laws and which service someone is providing. Should a “wedding photographer” be expected to photograph a boxing match? How about if we call the boxing match a “wedding”?

            The definition of “wedding” is essential to what services are being offered. That definition has changed because of SSM.

            “Either you are unaware of Elaine Hugenin of Elane Photography”

            So Elaine was forced to photograph the wedding? She went to the wedding, against her will, and photographed it?

            You are confused about the semantics of “force” but I addressed that in a previous reply. I’d appreciate it if we could somehow reduce these multiple overlapping threads to just one.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “it refers to a method of interpretation called “originalism” that strives to maintain the original meaning of the constitution and later amendments at the times they were agreed upon.”

            So do you mean that the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms would apply only to arms that were available at that time? Or that 1st Amendment’s prohibition against laws prohibiting religious expression referred only to religions that were being practiced at the time? Or that the 1st amendment’s right of free speech referred only to the ways in which speech was expressed at the time – ruling out electronic communication?

            No, I do not believe that “originalism” is an appropriate way to view the constitution. Neither did the founders. The Constitution was not designed to be a document that enumerated all rights. It was designed to protect rights in general and to set limits on governmental actions. The ways in which those protections would be utilized is not limited to only situations that existed at the time.

            The US legal system is based upon common law. From David Strauss:

            “A common law approach is superior to originalism in at least four ways.

            The common law approach is more workable. Originalism requires judges and lawyers to be historians. The common law approach requires judges and lawyers to be-judges and lawyers. Reasoning from precedent, with occasional resort to basic notions of fairness and policy, is what judges and lawyers do. They have done it for a long time in the non-constitutional areas that are governed by the common law.

            The common law approach is more justifiable. The common law ideology gives a plausible explanation for why we should follow precedent. One might disagree, to a greater or lesser extent, with that ideology. Perhaps abstract reason is better than Burke allows; perhaps we should be more willing to make changes based on our theoretical constructions. Sometimes the past is not a storehouse of wisdom; it might be the product of sheer happenstance, or, worse, accumulated injustice. But there is unquestionably something to the Burkean arguments. And to the extent those arguments are exaggerated, the common law approach has enough flexibility to allow a greater role for abstract ideas of fairness and policy and a smaller role for precedent.

            Originalists, by contrast, do not have an answer to Thomas Jefferson’s famous question: why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today? Originalists do not draw on the accumulated wisdom of previous generations in the way that the common law does. For an originalist, the command was issued when a provision became part of the Constitution, and our unequivocal obligation is to follow that command. But why? It is one thing to be commanded by a legislature we elected last year. It is quite another to be commanded by people who assembled in the late eighteenth century.

            The common law approach is what we actually do. Originalists’ America-in which states can segregate schools, the federal government can discriminate against anybody, any government can discriminate against women, state legislatures can be malapportioned, states needn’t comply with most of the Bill of Rights, and Social Security is unconstitutional-doesn’t look much like the country we inhabit. In controversial areas at least, the governing principles of constitutional law are the product of precedents, not of the text or the original understandings. And in the actual practice of constitutional law, precedents and arguments about fairness and policy are dominant.

            The common law approach is more candid. This is an important and easily underrated virtue of the common law approach, especially compared to originalism. The common law approach explicitly envisions that judges will be influenced by their own views about fairness and social policy. Common law judges have operated that way for centuries. This doesn’t mean that judges can do what they want. Judgments of that kind can operate only in a limited area-the area left open by precedent, or in the circumstances in which it is appropriate to overrule a precedent. But because it is legitimate to make judgments of fairness and policy, in a common law system those judgments can be openly avowed and defended, and therefore can be openly criticized.

            Originalism is different. An originalist claims to be following orders. An originalist cannot be influenced by his or her own judgments about fairness or social policy-to allow that kind of influence is, for an originalist, a lawless act of usurpation. An originalist has to insist that she is just enforcing the original understanding of the Second Amendment, or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and that her own views about gun control or religious liberty have nothing whatever to do with her decision.

            That is an invitation to be disingenuous. Originalism, as applied to the controversial provisions of our Constitution, is shot through with indeterminacy-resulting from, among other things, the problems of ascertaining the original understandings and of applying those understandings to the modern world once they’ve been ascertained. In the face of that indeterminacy, it will be difficult for any judge to sideline his or her strongly held views about the underlying issue. But originalism forbids the judge from putting those views on the table and openly defending them. Instead, the judge’s views have to be attributed to the Framers, and the debate has to proceed in pretend-historical terms, instead of in terms of what is, more than likely, actually determining the outcome.”

            “If they choose to bake (talk), then the government forces who they must bake for (talk to).”

            There is absolutely nothing analogous between free speech and operating a business of public accommodation. Apples and oranges. If we use your analogy, then the fact that a business is required to serve a black person means that people are required to speak to black people. Without merit.

            “You are relying upon the law to justify the law.”

            No. I am relying upon the decision of the people to explain why a law is in place.

            “That is not an argument that the law is moral.”

            Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Again, if you believe that anti-discrimination laws are immoral, you are free to work to get them changed. If you are able to convince enough people to agree with you, then the laws can be changed.

            “Yes, but it is related to public accommodation laws and which service someone is providing.”

            No, it is not. Marriage laws, as you have acknowledged, are distinct and separate from anti-discrimination laws. In states where same-gender marriage is not legal, but there are protections in place regarding sexuality, it would still be illegal to turn down a couple who wanted to purchase a wedding cake based solely on the sexuality of the customer.

            “Should a “wedding photographer” be expected to photograph a boxing match?”

            I am unfamiliar with any photographer that only provides services for weddings and refuses other types of photography. However, if that were the case, then the photographer would be free to refuse to a request to photograph a boxing match, because they do not photograph ANY boxing matches. However if they did photograph boxing matches involving two white fighters but refused to photograph a boxing match involving two black fighters, that would be a violation of the law.

            “The definition of “wedding” is essential to what services are being offered. That definition has changed because of SSM.”

            How so? A wedding involves a ceremony where two people celebrate their joining as a couple. Allowing two people of the same gender to enter into civil marriage does not change the definition of wedding. It changes who is allowed to enter into marriage. Using your logic, a baker should be allowed to refuse an order from an interracial couple if the baker holds to the religious belief that the races should not mix, and further that allowing interracial marriage changed the definition of marriage in those states which prohibited it.

            “You are confused about the semantics of “force””

            Not at all. The meaning of the word “forced” is quite clear. If someone is forced to do something that means they have no option to not do it. That is not the case in these situations. In these situations the providers do have choices. Rather, it is you who is attempting to utilize the word “force” when it is not accurate.

            “I’d appreciate it if we could somehow reduce these multiple overlapping threads to just one.”

            As would I. Any suggestions in that regard?

        • Bill

          Don’t be stupid.

          • weasel1886

            Tell me one thing you do that does not support someone else’s sin?
            We all pay taxes that go to sinful things, we buy products from countries that do many sinful things. Even driving a car puts harmful chemicals in the air that harm others

      • Angela Mc Afee

        Did you even think your statement through before you wrote it?
        “We are told to not participate in others sin.”
        Here is an easy solution for you, don’t marry a gay person, don’t participate in whatever you “think” is sin. Simple.

        • Rona Apolinario

          Did you think your statement through? You tried being a Christian baker trying not to participate in their ‘wedding’ recently? Easily said than done.

          You see the news networks attacking Christians day in and day out simply because they know they won’t show up on their door step threatening to bomb their building and threatening with violence. Yet all these people are doing is marching…

        • bowie1

          It’s not about marrying someone of the same gender. It’s about support personnel e.g. bakers, limousine services who do not recognize same sex marriage. Try not to twist the argument.

          • Bill

            if your job requires you to do someone that conflicts with your beliefs then find a new one or get over it

          • bowie1

            Since I am retired I am mostly concerned about others affected. Same Sex Marriage has been legal in Canada for some years now (my country of residence) but of course it is not something that God blesses, and I don’t think it is good for the kids, anymore than single parenthood of which I know quite a few.

          • uzza

            As a fellow victim of religious persecution I can sympathize. When I opened a whorehouse and tried to hold to my religious beliefs against fornicating, people ran me right out of business.

          • Angela Mc Afee

            ROFLOL!!! Oh you poor persecuted Christians, you are being feed to the lions on a daily basis. . . LOL

            Let’s make this simple. In order to go into public business, you must have a state license. The state says you cannot discriminate against the public regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc.

            Stop trying to wrap your hate filled soul around religion. The religious argument is a lie, it is just a hook upon which to hang your bigotry. If you truly believe you must obey your bible, then let me list a few more people you can’t give service to.

            If you are a “Christian” business owner you can no longer be doing business with the following persons; nor permitting them in your establishment:

            1. Divorcees. Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

            2. Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline. Leviticus 20:6: “As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.”

            3. Anyone with a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 “You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.”

            4. Anyone born illegitimately. Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately. If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you. Deuteronomy 23:2 “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

            5. Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public. Matthew 6:5-6 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

            6. Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry. Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all. 1 Timothy 2:9 “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.”

            7. Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged. (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you’ve had a vesectomy, or testicular cancer, I can’t serve you. I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.) Deuteronomy 23:1 “A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.”

            8. Please don’t bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut. Leviticus 19:27 reads “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.”

            9. No one who celebrates Christmas welcome either. Jeremiah 10:3-4 “For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.”

            10. If you’re left handed (south-paw) no service for you either! . . . . ROFLOL!!!!

          • bowie1

            I assume you would have no problem doing business then with, for instance, an Al Qaeda sponsored business, or neo-nazis, or any other hate group should they ever set up shop in your neighbourhood? P.S. I’m not sure how your quotes apply to this comment but you have your opinion.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        The sin that is mentioned in the Bible is having sexual relations with someone of the same gender. Is anyone being asked to do that?

    • John Chaplow

      While we participate in our own…the world forgot what true Christianity reallybis

    • mark

      Fear. It’s the conservative way. Freedom and less regulation but only if you’re a white protestant.

      • lorac odraned

        No one is “afraid.” It was you godless, bullying liberals who invented the term “homophobe.” My term for you is GODOPHOBE!

        • mark

          I’m not atheist

    • bowie1

      But it does affect those in the marriage serving business who support only one man and one woman arrangements when they cater.

      • Pollos Hermanos

        They shouldn’t hold a public business license if that’s their feeling then.

    • dafatman2000

      Lips like those you must suck alot of cock

    • dafatman2000

      Oh and there is no such things as love with gays they have a high divorce rate than straights!

      • Bill

        that do you have to support that?

        • dafatman2000

          I know it I know it because my brother was adopted by gays his father has had 8 men in the past 13 years so I know what I am talking about plus humans national health report warns of possible diseases if they dont stop!

          • Bill

            yeah sue. tell me are on any kind of medication?

          • dafatman2000

            Ok dumb ass! You aparently didnt learn from history! So I guess you will learn the hard way when America is in ruins. You say there is no god because it make you feel ok about your self it is you who needs to be on medication

          • Bill

            all the countries that have gay marriage seem to be doing well so I think we’ll be fine

          • dafatman2000

            Good keep thinking that way when America burns to the ground! And other countries are like that because America marched into other countries and forced it on the people That is why God will cut the sin from the Root America is the root of gays

          • Bill

            America marched into the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, Luxembourg and Finland? who the hell taught you history?

          • dafatman2000

            Gays are selfish they only care about themselves why? because when God says it is wrong then you deny it is a god because you dont want anything to get in the way of your selfish gay sex! And leave the F***ing children alone! they dont need to know about sex until 18 or 20!

          • mark

            You’re being selfish considering not everyone believes in your God. Have you ever traveled abroad? We live in a big world and to deny someone with different ways of doing things just because it doesn’t suit your own religious beliefs is the epitome of selfishness.

          • roald

            Divorcees are selfish. Sunday shoppers are selfish. Non-Christians are selfish.

    • lorac odraned

      There is no fear at all. These gays have no right to marry someone of the same sex because God did not give them that “right.” Homosexuality is a sin. Sin does not merit the reward of marriage. If this was God’s will, it would have been so since the beginning of man on earth. Why in this century should it be allowed? No man is any smarter than God today than any man 3000 years ago. A moral is a moral, a sin a sin. We have become so godless in today’s society that many have become pagans. We don’t want our children being taught this in public schools, but it is happening. Say what you want but God is watching us. Each of us will have to answer for our sins.

      • Bill

        it doesn’t matter what your god thinks.

      • roald

        Do not confuse Marriage with holy matrimony. Marriage is a civil contract. Divorce except in the case of adultery is every bit as much a sin as gay marriage. Where is the outrage? Adultery is a sin. Where is the outrage? Going grocery shopping on Sunday is a sin. Where is the outrage? Why do you choose to condemn only the “sins” which you and your peers do not commit? Why should we care in a sectarian society.

        Marriage is a fairly recent convention and, by your reasoning, polygyny is the norm.

    • Lacunaria

      Your “love and commitment” argument connotes a private contract while legal marriage imposes upon society to recognize and subsidize it.

      The legal discrimination in favor of marriage is thoroughly oriented toward traditional heterosexual marriage, where one spouse works and the other stays home to raise children.

      That is the reason for the marriage bonus, for example. It makes no sense to force people to subsidize one spouse of a gay couple to stay home when there is no chance of becoming pregnant. Similarly, social security death benefits exist because that one spouse would stay home with the children and not earn explicit pay resulting in accrued SS benefits.

      Due to the potential for procreation, heterosexual marriage has a profoundly different impact upon society than homosexual marriage. So much so that it serves as a rational basis for discrimination.

    • Jade

      Well said Chuck!

  • weasel1886

    I cannot understand how gay marriage threatens anyone Else’s marriage

    • Bill

      it doesn’t but they need a scapegoat

  • Bill

    yeah sure. how much do you wanna bet that it’s only a few hundred at best?

  • Machiavellian

    They should be marching to stop divorce instead.

    • mark

      We wouldn’t dare do that! There’s always a justifiable exception, as long as your straight, Christian (and preferably white).

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Don’t be a racist. There are more colored Christians than white Christians in the world today anyway. America turning into a Sodom is the worst horror on earth for now.

        • mark

          Yep I’m scared.

      • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

        Oh your one of them who hates (((((WHITE Christians))))))) Now I understand than you making that clear.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      No one glorifies divorce. One must be ashamed of sins. No government can force people to commit the sins of endorsing homosexuality.

  • Names_Stan

    “The consequences this decision could have on our religious freedom, the freedom to believe and live according to those beliefs, are staggering,”
    –Tony Perkins

    I sure wish he would’ve explained how on earth other people getting married have ever, or will ever, impact the “freedom to believe and live according to those beliefs”.

    Plenty of people used faith as an excuse to block interracial marriage. Let’s go back to the day that stopped being against the law and see if we can find anyone who lost their “freedom to believe” over it.

    Somebody explain how this “staggering” guy is not a complete liar on the basis of his statement?

    • LilySmith

      Haven’t you been reading the news? Christian businesses targeted and fined by state officials for refusing to take part in gay marriages. A pizza shop owner simply voicing her opinion an gay marriage had to shut down for days because of threats and intimidation. A mechanic shop owner who came out against dealing with openly gay individuals on Facebook has had threats and damage done to his business. In other countries, pastors who preach against sexual immorality as the Bible describes are arrested as haters.

      Those who want to end all semblance of the Christian morality this country was founded on will not tolerate any form of it. There is no compromise for them. Christians can voice their opinion and accept that not all will live by Christian principles. They have been doing it for centuries. Those who oppose those principles will not tolerate decent to their view. It’s as easy as that.

      • Names_Stan

        Well, Lily, it would be that easy if the quote I posted said “our business freedom”…

        Or if the very first sentence didn’t say this was about “the definition of marriage” and states rights,

        Or if this was a “March for Business Freedom”.

        It wasn’t. It was a “March for Marriage”. This has nothing to do with bakers and florists….and I read the pizza shop girl made a fortune in donations, so…

        Again, how does it impact your freedom of religion to a “staggering” amount, if the dudes who live down the street TODAY, get a piece of paper that says “marriage”, tomorrow?

        All I can figure is that a ton of Christians must have same-sex attraction, and that’s why they fear “recruiting” or whatever. I’m as hetero as can be, haved shared apartments with gay guys and have many gay friends. Not a one of them ever saw me as anything other than a guy who liked girls.

        Since I have no attraction to people of my sex, I’m not the least bit threatened by them.

        • LilySmith

          Well Stan, I believe I did answer your question. If you want to know why Christians oppose gay marriage on religious grounds that’s another question. But you wanted to know wanted to know how gays marrying “impact the ‘freedom to believe and live according to those beliefs.'” That’s the question I answered.

          • Names_Stan

            Your basis for “answering” is businesses and their actions.

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only way you’ve given an honest defense of Tony’s statement is if business freedom is at issue in Tuesday’s oral arguments. Can you document that being at issue?

            To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of the scope of oral arguments is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has absolutely nothing to do with business freedom.

            The fate of flowers and photos and cakes, along with the businesses that
            put out a shingle to sell them, have absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. That excuse is also not contained in the above story that I can find.

          • lorac odraned

            The constitution does not trump the word of God now, never will. God did not give man the “right ” to “marry” someone of the same sex. All rights come from God

          • Names_Stan

            You may think that is true if you weren’t exposed to civics as a student. But you saying it holds no validity in the eyes of the law.

            This is one reason we’ve thrived as a country as long as we have. Because we have no state-sponsored religion, we have no risk in the Denomination-of-the-Moment making decrees on the basis of their interpretation of scripture.

            Thus we have no danger of having Americans stoned, women forced to cover their faces, all front porches sporting prayer wheels, or any court proceedings that don’t prioritize constitutional law.

            The cases at issue are covered by the last one.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “Christian businesses targeted and fined by state officials for refusing to take part in gay marriages”

        Those situations are a function of anti-discrimination laws, not laws which allow same-gender marriage. For example, in Oklahoma it is legal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. It is also legal in Oklahoma for a business owner to refuse service to homosexuals. That is also true in many other states which allow same-gender marriage.

        If you have an issue with anti-discrimination laws, then you are certainly free to work to get them changed. They are, however, distinct and separate from marriage laws.

        “A pizza shop owner simply voicing her opinion an gay marriage had to shut down for days”

        “Had to”? Really? What would have happened if they had stayed open? What has changed that has now allowed them to reopen?

        “Those who want to end all semblance of the Christian morality this country was founded on”

        Given that the protections of the constitution directly conflict with 7 of the 10 commandments, it is without merit to suggest that the country was founded on Christian morality.

        “There is no compromise for them.”

        Who is “them” that want to erase “any form” of Christianity in the US?

        “Christians can voice their opinion and accept that not all will live by Christian principles. They have been doing it for centuries.”

        Not willingly in many cases. It has taken the efforts of others to wrench us away from the yolk of being controlled by the Christian faith.

        • LilySmith

          The recent addition of sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws and the call for gay marriage are the same push to legitimize the behavior of homosexuality in American culture. We now have anti-discrimination laws to protect a behavior rather than a person. It was forced on us by the lie that Matthew Sheperd was brutally murdered by two young men who had been swayed by Christian teaching against homosexual behavior. In reality he was murdered by two men who were a part of the same gay community and fellow drug dealers. The murderer had been using meth in the days prior to the brutal murder. It was all a scam.

          Our government isn’t based on Christianity because Christianity has no law for government purposes. Our nation, however, is based on Christianity so that the people have a moral basis to do the right thing since our government is “by the people.” Now, you want to kick that moral underpinning out from under our society. What do you want to replace it with? You have no idea, do you. You just want, “… to wrench us away from the yolk of being controlled by the Christian faith.” Thanks for proving my point.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “We now have anti-discrimination laws to protect a behavior rather than a person.”

            Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. Heterosexuals are also protected by anti-discrimination laws which cover sexuality.

            “It was forced on us”

            Anti-discrimination laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives. They can be removed by the same process. They were not “forced” upon us.

            “Our government isn’t based on Christianity”

            Agreed. Case closed.

            “so that the people have a moral basis to do the right thing since our government is “by the people.””

            You seem to be suggesting that only Christianity provides moral codes. That would be untrue.

            “What do you want to replace it with?”

            Since, as you stated, our government is not based upon Christianity, there is no replacing going on. People are free to hold to whatever moral beliefs they care to.

            “”… to wrench us away from the yolk of being controlled by the Christian faith.””

            Yes, I do, because, as you stated, our government isn’t based upon Christianity.

            “Thanks for proving my point.”

            What point of yours do you believe I proved?

          • LilySmith

            Engaging an various forms of sex is a behavior. Engaging in homosexuality and sodomy is a behavior. Adding a behavior to anti-discrimination laws was based on a lie concerning the Matthew Sheperd case, and the lie that homosexuality is genetic. Both have been proven to be false.

            Christian morality was deemed by the Founders to be the best moral foundation for our nation. This is a separate matter from the government. It’s the moral foundation of our nation. Now you want a nation where everyone is free to pick their own moral foundation. But you’re not telling me the truth. You don’t want people to hold to their traditional Christian views and will take them to court if they don’t participate in gay weddings. How can everyone choose their own moral code when you insist on anti-discrimination laws that force people to take part in other people’s chosen morality, or immorality as the case may be.

            You proved my original point that, “Those who want to end all semblance of the Christian morality this
            country was founded on will not tolerate any form of it. There is no
            compromise for them.”

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Engaging an various forms of sex is a behavior.”

            Agreed.

            “Engaging in homosexuality”

            How does one “engage in homosexuality”?

            “and sodomy is a behavior.”

            Agreed. A behavior that over 60% of the heterosexual population engages in. Did you have a point?

            “Adding a behavior to anti-discrimination laws”

            Behavior is not a part of anti-discrimination laws. Sexuality – both hetero and homo – is a part of some anti-discrimination laws. It matters not how the person behaves or whether or not they are having sexual relations.

            “Both have been proven to be false.”

            In order for you state that sexuality is not genetic you would have to know the functioning of all genes, something science is not yet aware of. If, however, YOU have figured out the functioning of every gene, then by all means, please share that with the science community. It will save them considerable time and effort.

            “Now you want a nation where everyone is free to pick their own moral foundation.”

            Please state a time in the history if the US, or the world, when people have NOT been able to pick their own moral foundation.

            “You don’t want people to hold to their traditional Christian views.”

            That is not true. I fully support each person’s right to hold to whatever views they care to.

            “and will take them to court if they don’t participate in gay weddings.”

            If people break the law, I support holding them accountable. Do you not?

            “How can everyone choose their own moral code when you insist on anti-discrimination laws that force people to take part in other people’s chosen morality, or immorality as the case may be.”

            I have no ability to “insist on anti-discrimination laws”. Those laws are put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives.

            Owning a business is a choice. The products a business offers is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

            “You proved my original point that, “Those who want to end all semblance of the Christian morality this country was founded on will not tolerate any form of it. There is no
            compromise for them.”

            Since I fully support the right of each person to hold to whatever moral views they care to, I proved no such point.

    • lorac odraned

      That is a worn out poor excuse for a comparison. It is not a sin to be black. Homosexuality is, homosexuals who practice homosexuality are sinners. People who refuse to be a part of/ condone these pretend “marriage” are being sued, forced to close and threatened.That’s how. It’s not an excuse, it’s believing the word of God over some liberal, godless mortals.

      • Names_Stan

        Your fatigue of the argument has no bearing on the law.

        Neither does any particular denomination’s definition of sin, or separate case dealing with businesses, as I’ve already said.

        How many of those lawsuits have there been by the way?

        As to your comment that it’s “not a sin to be black”, that’s quite easy to say in 2015. But an entire major denomination, the Southern Baptists, owe their creation to championing slavery on the basis of scripture. A hundred years later, many in that denomination and others fought tooth and nail against civil rights legislation and integration.

        And once again, nobody has told me how it affects their freedom, on a legal basis, for the dudes living together down the street to go from partners to spouses.

  • The Last Trump

    The United States is coming apart at the seams. On so many levels.
    If the Supreme Court forces this through, America will truly be finished.
    If it is not too late, already. 🙁

    • weasel1886

      Chicken little come to mind?

      • The Last Trump

        It would.
        To a weasel.

        • weasel1886

          Isn’t fear mongering a sin?

    • Machiavellian

      How so? Look at Canada. It has allowed same-sex couples to marry for more than a decade, if I’m not mistaken, and that country hasn’t collapsed yet.

      Why would same-sex marriage bring doom to the US?

      • mungkim

        First think where gays come from.. Marrige between man and woman… Is it right? And where you are you from..Think about it.

    • mark

      Right… Gay marriage is legal right this instant in over of the u.s. and besides reading a bunch of Christian gossip “news” websites, how is it affecting YOU personally? You. Not some baker.

    • Pollos Hermanos

      I don’t think you truly understand the depth of contempt normal thinking Americans have for you. We’re tired. We’re tired of coddling your silly superstitions and we’re tired of pretending that your hatred of the president is anything other than what we all know it is.

      Just. Shut. Up already.

      • The Last Trump

        Says the LGBT troll on the Christian website.
        Stop. The. Gaytred. Already.

        • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

          Don’t ever keep silent . It is what they want for us to keep silent.

        • Pollos Hermanos

          You poor oppressed thing.

    • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

      I know you are right about that. 🙁

    • Paul Hiett

      Oh yes, gay marriage is the catalyst for the downfall of America. It wasn’t slavery, or the civil war, or the genocide of the native Americans…nope, it’s gay marriage that’s the worst atrocity of all!!!!!

  • weasel1886

    Thousands of people killed in an earthquake and this site chooses to focus on these people that hate others

    • mark

      It’s the republican way. Besides, most of those people in Nepal are Hindu or Buddhist anyway so they’re all in hell. Yes, I have read people say that!

    • Elat

      hate?? the only one hating here is you. Standing up for marriage between one man and one woman is all about love. Real love.

      • weasel1886

        By wanting to hurt gay people? Just admit it you hate gay people

        • Elat

          sorry you want to believe the lies Christian-haters tell you. I’ll pray for you.

          • weasel1886

            All i have to do is read these posts and the nasty things Christians say

          • Elat

            nice try. I think we all know that the LGBT activists are the biggest bullies around. The smear campaigns against anyone who dares to disagree is truly gigantic. Just look at what happened in Indiana with religious freedom law. the lies, the hate,… astounding. Scary.

          • weasel1886

            When you don’t share an opinion it’s called bullying when you share their opinion it’s called free speech. No one forced Indiana to cave just public pressure. I can’t help it if the right is weak on the issue

  • dafatman2000

    Gays are so sick they are child molesters they go into school and teach kids about sex and trannies they wont let kids be kids they are child molesters therefore ban gays!

    • weasel1886

      Your statement is to idiotic to even attack

      • dafatman2000

        go suck some weasel cock!

  • weasel1886

    Perkins has been and will always be a hate mongering bigot

  • dafatman2000

    you dumbassess you wont have gays rights if you keep supporting musliums and sherriah law dumbasses at least christians tolerate your sickness musliums kill gays!

    • uzza

      God hates spelling and punctuation?

      • dafatman2000

        muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims muslims Good enough for ya

      • mark

        Why do the conservatives think we all love Muslims? Lol

    • weasel1886

      What is with the mixing of Muslims with gays?

  • Elat

    When thousands march for something pop culture and corporate owned media disagree with then of course there is no coverage. So much for democracy and showing everyone’s view.

    • weasel1886

      Is the big bad media hurting your feelings.
      There are at least 12 or 13 religious Tv and radio stations in this city and every radio talk show host is on your side.
      I can’t help it if no one wants to here your message.
      News services are in business to make money not promote democracy or show everyone’s view

  • Brenda Golden

    This is not about love or equal rights or any of the other crap that is being touted. Queers don’t care about a sacrament given by GOD, which states one man and one woman. They reject GOD and GOD’s word to make themselves feel better about what they are doing because they know they are wrong. They target christian businesses to get attention and you guessed it — MONEY. They could care less about marriage they want the benefits which is money. Thus they wrap it in the homo whine and cry victim to try to force others to participate in their behavior, while vilifying those who don’t goose step to their tune. Truthfully no one cares if you play hide the pickle in some other mans butt, or rug munch. People really don’t want to know about your sex life and the only reason they know about it is because you push it at them daily. If my post offends you GOOD. You need to be offended on a daily basis as you go out of your way daily to offend others. Before you waste your time responding to my post I don’t read responses or reply that way you can think you have won.

    • mark

      Spoken like a true Christian woman.

      • Pollos Hermanos

        True Christian women don’t speak at all (as the Bible dictates).

        • mark

          I know, i was being sarcastic

    • Pollos Hermanos

      Why does your caps lock stick when you type god?

    • weasel1886

      So much hate and evil in your words

  • Julie Fitzgerald

    Why can’t we have civil unions for ALL? We already get a license from the state to be married. That would be legal in the eyes of the law. If you also want to be joined in Holy Matrimony, which is a contract between you, your spouse and God, then that should be between you and your pastor.

    For the record I support same-sex unions and I also support Christian businesses not wanting to participate in those weddings.

    • Aislynn

      My religion sanctions holy matrimony between consenting adults who are in love with each other. By preventing me from joining those people in legally recognized holy matrimony the state is denying my religious freedom. If you hold a state sanctioned business license, you must abide by discrimination guidelines. You can’t refuse a service you offer (baking cakes for example) to a mixed race couple just because your religion states that blacks marrying whites is immoral. You also can’t refuse someone because they are a woman, or a handicapped person, wiccan, gay person, or transgender person. Bake them a cake just like you do for everyone else.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “Why can’t we have civil unions for ALL?”

      We do. It’s called civil marriage.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    Wow. Thousands. Out of 300,000,000. No way to ignore a mandate like that!

  • weasel1886

    I noticed the “God hates Fags” people were there. Why not show photos of them

  • FoJC_Forever

    Truth: homosexual “marriage” is not honored in the sight of God, homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, homosexuals should not be allowed to force other to participate in their sin.

    Judgement is coming.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Truth: homosexuals are much like those with bipolar disorder, happy when they’re getting their way, but angry and aggressive when they’re not – one extreme to the other.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      Sounds like Christians who want to restrict the rights of citizens to enter into marriage. All happy when they are getting their way, but angry and aggressive when they’re not.

      • Richard

        Should we now allow parents to marry their consenting and of age children? Surely, if love and happiness are the only requirements for marriage, you shouldn’t have a problem with incest.

        How about marrying your consenting pet?

        How about marriage between multiple people?

        Why not lower the age of consent to 4 so that ped o files can marry their naive victims?

        Why not allow child porn? If if makes the viewer happy?

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          ” Surely, if love and happiness are the only requirements for marriage, you shouldn’t have a problem with incest.”

          I’ve never stated, nor do I believe, that love and happiness should be the only requirements for marriage.

          • Richard

            Many have. What are your reasons for gay marriage?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Many have”

            That is more of a general slogan than a statement that any two people in love should be allowed to marry. Just as those who say “marriage is between a man and a woman” are not meaning to include any man and woman – they are not supporting marriage between family members, for instance.

            “What are your reasons for gay marriage?”

            I only have one – to establish legal standing for the couple. The exact same reason that heterosexual couples enter into civil marriage.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The right thing to do!!

  • Mircea Enciu

    If any of you has a legal dispute against another, do you dare go to court before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or don’t you know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest cases? Don’t you know that we will judge angels — not to mention ordinary matters? So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge? I say this to your shame! Can it be that there is not one wise person among you who is able to arbitrate between his brothers? Instead, believer goes to court against believer, and that before unbelievers! Therefore, to have legal disputes against one another is already a moral failure for you. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you act unjustly and cheat — and you do this to believers! Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭1-11‬ HCSB) Now the goal of our instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have deviated from these and turned aside to fruitless discussion. They want to be teachers of the law, although they don’t understand what they are saying or what they are insisting on. But we know that the law is good, provided one uses it legitimately. We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching based on the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me. (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1‬:‭5-11‬ HCSB)