Tennessee County Calls Upon State to Interpose Against ‘Lawless’ U.S. Supreme Court ‘Gay Marriage’ Opinion

Sullivan County Courthouse Credit Brian Stansberry-compressedBLOUNTVILLE, Tenn. — Officials in a Tennessee county are calling upon the state to interpose against the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion regarding same-sex “marriage” and to uphold the biblical definition of marriage.

According to reports, the nearly unanimous resolution had been introduced by local resident Steven Warhurst. He provided sample text and exhortation to Sullivan County Commissioners.

“[T]o force [the Supreme Court’s] definition of—what we believe is a perverted definition of marriage—on the American people is contrary to the constitution, contrary to Scriptures and unjust,” Warhurst said during the public comment period of the Commissioner’s meeting on Dec. 14.

“We are going to ask you to interpose, to stand between us the people of Sullivan County and the Supreme Court,” he declared. “And we’re going to ask you to ask the legislature, the Tennessee General Assembly, to interpose between us and the Supreme Court’s unjust and lawless judgement.”

Patrick Hines, pastor of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church in Blountville, also spoke up during the meeting.

“Lord Jesus said in John 7:24, ‘Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.’ Every law without exception that is enforced by the government is itself a condemnation of certain behaviors,” he said. “While there is a popular slogan today, ‘You cannot legislate morality,’ the fact is there is nothing other than morality that is legislated.”

“It is not bigotry to identify certain behaviors as wrong when one has clearly thought out and good reasons for doing so. It is, however, presumptuous and outrageous to attempt to change the very essence of the definition of marriage and of family, in the name of what are quite simply perverted and immoral sexual desires,” Hines added.

  • Connect with Christian News

During the meeting, commissioners voted on a resolution similar to that which had been submitted by Warhurst and sponsored by Commissioner Baxter Hood. Only one commissioner out of 24, Eddie Williams, voted against the measure. Pat Shull decided pass on voting and Kit McGlothlin was absent.

“[T]he Board of Commissioners of Sullivan County Tennessee, this 14th day of December 2015, calls the Tennessee General Assembly and governor to keep their oaths to uphold the Tennessee Constitution and the Constitution of the United States (1) by refusing to accept the lawless opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case, and (2) by continuing to uphold the Tennessee State Constitution which says: ‘The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state,'” the resolution reads in part.

Matt Trewhella, pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church and author of “The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine” applauded the passage of the resolution.

“What these commissioners have done provides a template for people in every state in America to do the same in their county,” he wrote in a blog post. “These resolutions are so important because they prod the higher state authorities—the legislature, attorney general, and governor—to interpose.”

As previously reported, a bill is also pending in the Tennessee legislature that would defy the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Rep. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, and Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet, filed the “Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act” in September.

“Whereas, not all orders claiming authority under color of law are in fact lawful,” the bill reads. “Whereas, unlawful orders, no matter their source—whether from a military commander, a federal judge, or the United States Supreme Court—are and remain unlawful, and should be resisted.”

“Natural marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman as recognized by the people of Tennessee remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary,” it says. “Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including [Obergefell v. Hodges], is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”


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
  • Ambulance Chaser

    “Whereas, not all orders claiming authority under color of law are in fact lawful,” the bill reads. “Whereas, unlawful orders, no matter their source—whether from a military commander, a federal judge, or the United States Supreme Court—are and remain unlawful, and should be resisted.”

    You don’t like a court ruling? Appeal it. Oh wait, it’s a Supreme Court ruling? I guess you’re out of luck, then.

    “Natural marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman as recognized by the people of Tennessee remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary.”

    No it doesn’t. That’s kind of the opposite of how our system works.

    “Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including [Obergefell v. Hodges], is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”

    Why? Because you say it is?

    • afchief

      Ahhhhh the Mr. “Make believe lawyer” with his non-constitutional statements!!!! For the umpteenth time. COURTS DO NOT MAKE, CHANGE OR STRIKE DOWN LAWS!!!!!! ONLY the legislative branch can do so!!!

      “No it doesn’t. That’s kind of the opposite of how our system works.

      “Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including [Obergefell v. Hodges], is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”

      Why? Because you say it is?”

      You are proving to be a huge liar who has NO understanding of Constitutional law. NONE!!!!!!! Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

      If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change? Five homo friendly judges CANNOT CHANGE THE LAW!!!!!

      Does that register in that little liberal cranium?????

      The right to get “married” based solely on who one chooses to copulate with is one of the most short-sighted “opinions” in the history of the world. Liberty is not licentiousness. You have no God-given right to do that which is wrong.

      Homosexual marriage is not now, nor will it ever be, “legal” in America. You know it, I know it, and heck, even the homosexuals know it. They don’t want to get married…they just want to destroy marriage.

      KNOW THE LAW!!!!!!!!!

      • Guest

        And that you don’t understand that courts absolutely can strike down laws that are unconstitutional makes conversation pretty much impossible.

        • afchief

          Liar!!! The Word of God is soooooo true about people like you….”who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”!!!

          • Guest

            Actually I think God was talking about people like you Russ. Actually we know that since your love of emphatic expletives will lead to your eventual judgement, each and every one as per the Word of God.

            I feel sorry for you Russ.

          • afchief

            Keep feeling sorry for me!! Because I KNOW the truth!!! And I KNOW YOU are a liar!!!!

          • Guest

            Actually the more you talk the more you prove otherwise.

            Take care Russ, may you someday find the truth.

            Proverbs 26

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies………..satan!!!!

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Go away, please. The adults are talking.

        • afchief

          No, the heathen are talking who do not know truth. Who are liars!!!!

    • Josey

      Courts are suppose to enforce laws not make them

      • Guest

        No law was made only unconstitutional laws rendered null and void.

        No new door was created just an unconstitutional blockade was removed. All that happens subsequently is because there is now legal access to the civil contract which isn’t changed at all.

        • afchief

          You are a liar and have NO understanding of our laws and Constitution. NONE!!!!

  • Reason2012

    It’s a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America for the government to redefine religious institutions like marriage and then pass laws to establish this new State Religion. The government only ever dealt with legal aspects of marriage after the fact – it never defined marriage to begin with and cannot redefine what it never defined but which has existed in the entire existence of the human race. That’s the only legal argument they need.

    Not to mention adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

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

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • gizmo23

      A state marriage license has nothing to do with Biblical marriage so your entire rant is pointless

    • Guest

      So many mistranslations and wrong interpretation, no wonder you’re confused.

      The issue is about Marriage, the 100% secular civil contract licensed by the state to legally recognize a spousal familial relationship. In this regard it is similar to an adoption contract.

      All the SCOTUS did was declare one of the licensing restrictions on the contract unconstitutional. There is no right to limit access to the civil contract because of the sexes of the licensees.

      Your religious beliefs won’t let you enter this contract with someone of the same sex then don’t! But everyone else has a right to their own beliefs on the issue.

      This is a waste of time and is doomed to fail in our constitutional republic.

      • Reason2012

        Calling them mistranslations doesn’t make them so. But you do show as usual the whole movement is nothing more than an attack on God, Christianity and Christians as that’s the first thing you resort to: an attack on the Bible.

        And thank you for proving you know it’s an issue because it IS defined by God, as your first attempt again is to pretend that it’s not true.

        The SCOTUS is trying to redefine what no country ever defined to begin with. Marriage is not something America defined, or any government defined – it has existed since the human race has existed.

        If people want to live with a person of the same gender and play pretend house, then go for it. To instead try to attack what God defined, redefine religious institutions that existed thousands of years before this country ever did, they’ve crossed the line and violated the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.

        The only thing that will doom our constitutional republic are those who think the government has the power to pass laws to establish their own State Religion and force it upon the people.

        • Guest

          God and Christians have no problem with marriage of Christians regardless of their ‘male or female’, fear nothing further.

          The SCOTUS isn’t ‘defining’ a civil contract, they merely declared a common licensing restriction as unconstitutional, the civil contract wasn’t changed one iota.

          As far as your mistranslations (example the word that was erroneously translated as ‘sodomites’ in Deuteronomy was really a term for the priests and priestesses of a Caanite religion – has nothing to do with sex or the town but religious persecution.)

          There are only 3 places that same-sex relations are spoken of in the New Testament – Romans which is about heterosexual idolators punished by God with sexually libertine desires, and Paul making it clear in 1 Corinthians and Timothy that adultery – with women or with men – is not right for those under the New Covenant. Has nothing to do with those married in the eyes of God which those of us who walk in the next world can do regardless of our male or female.

          Again, you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex no one will ever force you – that is the extent of your religious rights since everyone else has a constitutional right to NOT share your view on the subject.

          • afchief

            “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

            Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent = homosexuality

            Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance = homosexuality

            Void – having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain = homosexual marriage

            Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

            Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

            Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

            What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

            Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…well…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

            All the hubbub over homosexual marriage is a cleverly designed smoke screen. Who cares what the Supreme Court says? They are merely rendering their “opinion”. The people of Alabama and 30 other states have already spoken on this issue. No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people. Did anyone vote to give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg the power to change the institution of marriage?

            COURTS CANNOT CHANGE, MAKE OR STRIKE DOWN LAWS!!!! ONLY the legislative branch can, period!!!!!

          • Guest

            You can scream all you want Russ, but yes the courts can review the constitutionality of laws and render them null and void as it has in this case. Again, no law was made, this is a nullification of an unconstitutional licensing restriction on this 100% secular civil contract.

            And your examples of animals just shows you don’t understand the issues involved. This is about a civil contract and no animal yet is allowed to enter into a civil contract. Some day if the Vulcans arrive we might have to visit the legal issues of interspecies marriage, but until then its not going to happen.

            Now if you are talking about the religious rite, someone could marry their dog today if they wanted to do so.. Catholic nuns go through a religious marriage to Jesus, each and every one – no law is being broken.

            This is about citizens of the United States being able to license a civil contract between themselves, and a husband or wife and the state. This only about letting all people do what some have always been able to do, nothing new is happening here.

          • afchief

            Liar!

          • Guest

            Did that work even in 3rd grade let alone in an adult conversation? Ever?
            Why not stomp your feet and put your hands over your ears too just to complete the set?

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!! It is homosexuals defining characteristic!!!!

            The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

            Did YOU HEAR THAT????? The executive and legislative branches HAVE TO BACK IT’S DECISIONS!!!!!!!

            Does it resister with the little liberal cranium??????

          • Guest

            Ah I see you have deserted the 1803 case – you must have realized it was about this power of the courts you like to pretend doesn’t exist.

            And the court hasn’t forced anything – there is no sex-based licensing restriction on the civil contract of Marriage and as such no legal reason to deny people license because of their sex. No one is forcing anything – the existence of the civil contract and the 14th amendment already insure access to the civil contract.

            A door wasn’t opened, a barrier was removed and everything after that requires no change or new law at all.

          • afchief

            Yes, you are quite the liar and there is NO truth in you. You serve the father of lies…..satan. It is quite obvious by your lies!!!!

          • NGN

            wrong again chef russ

          • Reason2012

            // God and Christians have no problem with marriage of Christians regardless of their ‘male or female’, fear nothing further. //

            It’s not about the marriage of Christians – it’s about attacking what God defined and creating a new State Religion by the government, which is a violation of the Constitution.

            // As far as your mistranslations (example the word that was erroneously translated as ‘sodomites’ in Deuteronomy was really a term for the priests and priestesses of a Caanite religion – has nothing to do with sex or the town but religious persecution.) //

            Nothing was erroneously translated sodomites. It comes from the original Hebrew texts. Feel free to cite an exact verse and exact English word that was “erroneously” translated sodomites. Cite the exact word(s) it was translated from, then I’ll address your claim.

            // There are only 3 places that same-sex relations are spoken of in the New Testament //

            Wrong – homosexual behavior was condemned all throughout the Bible. See above.

            // Again, you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex no one will ever force you //

            That’s about as useful as saying “If you don’t want to marry an animal, no one will ever force you” as a way of promoting government redefining marriage to also be between a person and the pet they love.

            But now that homosexual marriage has been unconstitutionally forced upon us, people continue to be condemned with hate speech, or fined as criminals if they do not support the ACT of a same-gender marriage (even if they have no problem serving those who felt the need to declare they are into homosexual behavior) or even dare speak out against it, which shows the real reason they wanted a government established State Religion, to go after those who do not get in line with supporting it.

          • Guest

            The word in hebrew has nothing to do with the town of sodom, Qadhesh
            was the plural for the priest and priestess class of the Caanite religion which did involve sex rites. It was about religious prostitution at most, not sexual orientation.

            I did see above, most of those aren’t referring to same sex behavior and all and I have never been under the Old Covenant and certainly am not now.

            Ah but there is the difference – we have always let people civilly marry husbands and wives, this isn’t something new (like an animal) this is just more of the same.

            Again, you have a right to your religious views, everyone else has a right to theirs. We, the people, have said that there is freedom of belief in the public arena – can’t sell a service or product to people regardless of their beliefs the solution is to not offer it to the public at all – sell it as a private club or non-profit which can engage in religious discrimination like this if they like.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “If people want to live with a person of the same gender and play pretend house, then go for it.”

          So what’s the problem, then? Minus the insulting language, this is all we’re asking for.

          • Reason2012

            No, you’re asking for the government to redefine religious institutions, which is a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.

          • Guest

            You are confusing the religious rite of marriage with the 100% civil contract titled marriage. Your church can have nuns all marry Jesus if you like, multiple spirit wives, whatever you want with whatever restrictions you want. Has nothing to do with the civil contract at any time.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, we’re absolutely not. Your churches will remain free to discriminate against anybody they wish. Obergefell only discusses the legal, civil definition of marriage.

          • afchief

            And it is ONLY an opinion!!!! It is NOT law, Mr “Make believe Lawyer”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so I’m a “make believe lawyer.”

            Who is a real lawyer? Who is licensed to practice law in some state and thinks that Supreme Court rulings have no effect?

          • afchief

            You couldn’t pay me for you to represent my dog!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why don’t you answer the question? It’s a really simple question; which lawyer should I go to to learn about law? Since I’ve apparently been doing it wrong for 10 years.

          • afchief

            Yes you have!!!! You are quite the fraud and liar!!!

        • NGN

          your god is not now nor ever has been needed for a marriage to happen. you can pretend that it has all that you want but it wont make it anymore true. marriage is a man made construct for legal reasons. your god not needed

      • afchief

        Marriage has already been defined!!!! You cannot redefine marriage just because two men, or three men or a man and his dog want to get married.

        Call it something else, because it will NEVER be called marriage. NEVER!!!

        • Guest

          Russ, comparing your spouse to a dog and using caps and !!!!! isn’t going to convince anyone.

          Marriage is defined – a 100% secular civl contract licensed by the state that establishes a government recognized familial relationship of spouse so that it can be treated distinctly from other such relationships or none at all.

          The civil contract that nothing to do with the religious rite of the same name – people can have gone through either or both.

          • afchief

            Liar!!!

          • Guest

            I am not shocked that the truth sounds like lies to you Russ.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies…………satan!!!!

        • Bob Johnson

          Does the Sixth Amendment, the right to speed and public trial, only apply to men or has “his” and “him” been redefined?

        • rcvj

          Pretty well everyone in Canada calls it marriage, if they think about it at all. After all we have had it for 10 years and our society has managed to survive. It just seems normal.

        • acontraryview

          Until fairly recently, Russ, marriage was defined as two, consenting, non-closely related, adults. States attempted to redefine it to include only two people of opposite gender. Those laws have been ruled unconstitutional and thus are no longer enforceable. The definition has reverted back to what it was before those attempts.

          “because it will NEVER be called marriage. NEVER!!!”

          Well then what do you care?

          • afchief

            Marriage has been and always will be between “one man and one woman” no matter what you or anyone else says. NEVER!!!

          • acontraryview

            Than I’ll ask again: If you believe that to be true, what do you care if two citizens of the same gender are allowed to receive a civil marriage license?

          • afchief

            Because it is based on a lie! And we as a society have to draw the line when it comes to morality. Homosexuality is NOT moral. It is perverted, deviant and dangerous!!!

          • acontraryview

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding what is moral and what is not, your views on the matter do not determine law. Many people believe that divorce is immoral, yet it is legal. Many people believe that drinking alcohol is immoral, yet it is legal. Many people believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral, yet it is legal. Legality of a particular action is determined by our Constitution – not by any particular view of what is moral and what is not.

    • afchief

      Well said!!!

  • Nidalap

    You GO, Tennessee! Keep this up and you’ll start being seen as a bastion of sanity in a sea of madness! 🙂

    • gizmo23

      And the top murder rate state

      • Nidalap

        Be nice, Mogwai! 🙂

  • Michael C

    This is impotent posturing.

    • afchief

      It is the truth!!! The SCOTUS ONLY issued an “opinion”!!! Nothing changed!!! No law was struck down!!! ONLY the legislative branch can change, make or strike down a law. ONLY congress can do that.

      • Guest

        Russ the courts can declare laws unconstitutional and the ones that allowed this licensing restriction on the civil contract of marriage were very much struck down. No law needed to be changed, part of one just no longer exists.

        • afchief

          You are a liar!!! Who knows NOTHING about the law. NOTHING!!!!!!!!

          Now I remember who you are (Oshtur) so I will refuse to converse with a homosexual liar!!!!

          “Who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”

          • Guest

            Refuse to defend your position all you want but by saying you erroneously think that courts can’t rule on the constitutionality of laws just shows there isn’t much point in talking with you anyway.

            The U.S. Constitution separates the U.S. government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each branch has its own set of powers and responsibilities. The legislative branch passes laws; the executive branch — headed by the President of the United States — can either sign or veto laws passed by Congress. However, even when a law is passed and signed, the judicial branch can nullify it by declaring it unconstitutional.

            First instance was in 1803 when our framers were still alive – if it wasn’t supposed to have that power they surely would have said something, right?

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!! The SCOTUS CANNOT make, change or strike down laws!!! ONLY the legislative branch can!!!!!

            So silly lying homosexual the SCOTUS ONLY offer opinions. Legislatures and we the people make the laws. Supreme Court decisions are not laws—they simply tell us that they are.

            Defy them! Nullify them! Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand!

            And yes YOU are a liar!!!!

          • Guest

            The case you yourself referenced was the first instance where the court did exactly what you say it can’t do.

            Where did you get this notion that the courts can’t declare laws unconstitutional and subsequently null and void? Obviously no history or law class.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Have you read those articles I gave you yet? You know, the ones written by lawyers and law professors that say when precedent is binding?

          • Guest

            Where do they get this erroneous view of the courts? Obviously not any history or law class, but where?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            From sovereign citizen websites? 🙂

          • afchief

            You are proving yourself a liar and fraud!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            These are the legal principles of “originalism” sometimes synonymous with “strict constructionism”. These positions also follow from the Jeffersonian ideas from the “Principles of ’98” which held that the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional.

          • Guest

            Ah remember the 98. Died out post civil war, an outlier and still is. The wiki article talks like Jefferson was on The edge of treason for his part in it.

            Interesting but not the way the constitution has actually operated since almost its adoption.

            Thanks

          • Bob Johnson

            Seems like there are several folks still living in 1798.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s an incredible level of delusion these people suffer from. It’s like looking up and insisting that the sky is not blue.

            How thick does a person have to be to insist that Supreme Court decisions serve no purpose and have no effect when the effect is right in front of them?

          • afchief

            Why are you here with your lies? We Christians SEE right through them!!!

          • afchief

            How many times do have to tell you COURTS DO NOT MAKE, CHANGE OR STRIKE DOWN LAWS!!!

            And you call yourself a lawyer?!?!?!?!?

            YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!

          • afchief

            Can courts “legislate” from the bench? Yes or no?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No.

            Now, have you read the articles?

          • afchief

            Look, I know the law!!! I know what SCOTUS rulings are! Court rulings can strike down NO laws. Only the legislative branch can remove them. ONLY!!!!!

            “The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If you “know the law” it should be very easy to cite something. So go ahead, cite it.

          • afchief

            Cite what?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            A bona fide legal treatise, written by a practicing, licensed attorney that supports your belief that case law is not binding.

          • afchief

            TUESDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2015

            Is Obergefell binding? No, say 60 scholars

            The decision of the Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges effectively legalised same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

            Or did it?

            A group of 60 distinguished scholars, mostly lawyers, insist that it does not. They have thrown down the gauntlet, arguing that the Supreme Court is supreme in the federal judicial system. But the justices are not supreme over the executive and legislative branches of government. “And they are certainly not supreme over the Constitution.”

            Behind this audacious challenge is Princeton Professor Robert P. George, an eminent academic and a seasoned campaigner in the battle to stop same-sex marriage.

            For village pump lawyers, this might sound strange, even arrogant. Surely, in all legal disputes, the Supreme Court has the final word? Not necessarily – although it requires a finely calibrated legal mind to understand the strength and boundaries of the issues involved.

            Basically the scholars are endorsing a theory of constitutional interpretation called “departmentalism”. Each branch can interpret the Constitution for the purposes of its own functioning. For instance, the American President takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” not to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.” The President is allowed some freedom of action in interpreting the Constitution as well.

            The best example of this in practice is President Lincoln. He ignored the appalling Dred Scott decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1857 which declared that blacks were not and could not be citizens of the United States and therefore had no legal protection. He issued passports to blacks and banned slavery in western districts, defying the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.

            If Lincoln was right, there is some scope for the next US President to ignore Obergefell v Hodges as a precedent to be invoked in every similar case throughout the country. Instead, he could say that the Court had spoken authoritatively only for the parties involved in that case alone.

            So there could be a constitutional way to quarantine the Court’s decision – if the executive were up to the challenge. That is probably why the statement is linked to a Super PAC, the Campaign for American Principles, which is raising funds to fight for life, marriage and religious liberty. It claims that it will offer “the best arguments, a platform to act, [and] the political muscle to make a difference”.

            Here is the fascinating, hopeful, and eminently controversial scholars’ statement.

            ******

            We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.  

            The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

            The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional—and sound—methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity—one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

            The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.  

            Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative….power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”  

            Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action. 

            Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”  

            Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.  

            If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out:

            First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care. 

            Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.  

            Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

            Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

            Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

            In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”  

            In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.” If a decision “had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.” If, however, a decision is “wanting in all these claims to the public confidence,” it is “not factious” to resist it.  

            Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.  

            Therefore:

            We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

            We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court. 

            We call on all federal and state officeholders:

            To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

            To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

            To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to followObergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

            To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

            We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

            I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

            The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as “settled” and “the law of the land” the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do.

            – See more at: http://www.mercatornet. com/conjugality/view/is-obergefell-binding-no-say-60-scholars/16993#sthash.1ZO37Vhu.dpuf

          • Ambulance Chaser

            This isn’t even close to what I’m asking for. I said a legal treatise, not a blog post!

            And I want one that says that court rulings are non-binding opinions, not a rant against Obergefell. I want something that says after a ruling, a case goes back to the legislature or it has no effect.

            I want something that says no actual lawyer believes in case law (I’d love to see what you come up with for this.)

          • afchief

            I have posted numerous times why SCOTUS rulings are only “opinions”. Is that too hard for you to understand? I have told you that since the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion, we have been sold a lie. Religious liberty is absolute in America. I have told you that if the government can inhibit the mention of God, then government has inserted itself ABOVE God. That has been yours and the Christ-haters plan all along. They have used that lie to run Christianity out of the Public Square.

            I have told you there is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law. Abortion has never been made legal. Homosexual sodomy is still a crime. Homosexual marriage can never be legal because it violates all Natural and Christian laws.

            I have told you that courts cannot make, change or remove law. They merely offer opinions. I have cited NUMEROUS examples!!! It just does not register in the liberal, homosexual anti-god cranium. The truth never does until God takes the blinders off!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, you have. You’ve stomped your foot. You’ve fussed, you’ve fumed, you’ve shouted, and you’ve called people childish names.

            The only thing you haven’t done is supported your argument. One simple citation would surpass ten million of your insults and angry rants. I look forward to seeing it.

          • afchief

            I have cited websites, presidents and others!!! Yes, I know sin blinds and suppresses truth, but come on!!!!!!

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            I respectfully request that you go pound sand yourself. That’s all your ranting can accomplish anyway.

          • acontraryview

            “The SCOTUS CANNOT make, change or strike down laws!!!”

            You’re right on the first two counts, but not the third.

          • afchief

            Can the SCOTUS “legislate” from the bench? Yes or no?

          • acontraryview

            No, the court is not empowered to create law. Nor did they. They ruled that an existing law unenforceable based upon the law violating the protections provided by the federal constitution.

          • afchief

            You really are quite ignorant!!! Only the legislative branch can make or remove laws, PERIOD!!!!

          • acontraryview

            I agree. The court can, however, rule that an existing law is not enforceable. The law can remain on the books, but it cannot be enforced.

          • groland

            Calling people liars seems to be your favorite debate tactic. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does strike down laws that are unconstitutional. That is their sole purpose according to our Constitution, which has served us well for 225+ years.

          • Robert Taylor

            The lawless supreme court is not allowed to do it! It can offer an opinion and then if laws need to change that must go through Congress.
            Because of the way they did it, any laws against gay marriage are still on the books and still in force!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh crap, there’s another one of them.

          • afchief

            Another “truth” teller!!! You are a fraud and a liar!!!

          • Michael C

            The Supreme Court has been striking down unconstitutional laws for over two hundred years.

            The laws remain on the books until they’re officially repealed by the legislature. They are, however, unenforceable.

            Alabama didn’t get around to repealing their interracial marriage ban until the year 2000. That’s over thirty years after the Supreme Court ruled those laws to be in violation of the Constitution. Does this mean that Alabama was able to continue banning interracial marriage? Absolutely not.

            The laws banning the recognition of the marriages of gay couples may remain on the books in many states but those laws cannot be enforced. Those states must legally recognize those marriages (just like Alabama was required to recognize the marriages of interracial couples even though they had a law on the books).

          • afchief

            Silly liberal homosexual who knowS NOTHING about Constitutional law!!! It is up to the legislative branch of the federal government and state government IF they want to remove the law! It is ONLY an opinion!!! They do not have to remove it, PERIOD!!!!!

            For instance, Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, but most states STILL have abortion laws on their books i.e. in my stateof Florida it is illegal to…….”Termination of pregnancy during last trimester which does not meet requirements of legal abortion. Partial Birth Abortion: Prohibited except when necessary to save the life of the mother when her life is physically endangered and no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose”

            This means that ALL abortions are illegal in the state of Florida except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

            STOP WITH YOUR LYING!!!! I KNOW the law and how our Constitutional government works.

            YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT!!!!

          • Michael C

            Don’t worry, I don’t mind repeating myself.

            Even if the states don’t officially remove the laws from their books, they cannot enforce them. It would be illegal to attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law.

            Like I’ve told you before, interracial marriage bans were ruled to be unconstitutional in 1967. Alabama, however, kept their interracial marriage ban laws on their books until 2000.

            Are you trying to tell me that you believe that interracial marriage was illegal in Alabama for over thirty years after the Supreme Court’s ruling?

            I think our system of government is one of the greatest in the world. Why do you hate it so much?

          • Bob Johnson

            And for more fun google “blue laws still on the books”

          • afchief

            No, it is because you are a liar and have no idea how our government works!!! NONE!!!!

            Like I told you, SCOTUS rulings are only opinions!!!! It changes NOTHING!!!! The legislative has to change, make or remove a law. The executive has to sign it into law.

            That is the way our government works. Whether you like it or not!!!!

            THAT IS THE LAW!!!!

          • afchief

            So true brother!!! We know the truth! The sheeple have all been programmed with cleverly crafted lies and propaganda. It has often been stated that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

            An “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            We Christians can “see” right through the lies these homosexual, atheists and liberals are saying. We KNOW the truth.

          • acontraryview

            “The lawless supreme court is not allowed to do it! It can offer an opinion and then if laws need to change that must go through Congress. ”

            That is incorrect. The SCOTUS is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws and to render unenforceable laws it rules to be in violation of protections provided by the federal constitution.

            State laws do not go through Congress.

            “any laws against gay marriage are still on the books”

            Correct.

            “and still in force!”

            incorrect. They are no longer enforceable.

          • afchief

            You are proving yourself more and more to be a liar!!!

          • acontraryview

            A claim you make on a regular basis, yet have been unable to point to anything I have said that is a lie. In other words, YOU are lying and bearing false witness.

          • afchief

            Are you really this deaf, dumb and stupid?!?!?!?

            A SCOTUS ruling is an “opinion”!!! It changes NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!?!?

            The SCOTUS must count on the executive and legislative branch to back it’s decisions or NOTHING changes!!!

            Does that sink in that little liberal cranium?????

          • acontraryview

            “A SCOTUS ruling is an “opinion”!!! It changes NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            No it is not an “opinion”, it is a ruling. And yes, court rulings can change things and they can also uphold things. If the court were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws, what would be the point of the court?

            “But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.”

            Yes, it did. Some individuals did not like the court ruling and fought its implementation. But, nonetheless, it was eventually implemented.

            “The SCOTUS must count on the executive and legislative branch to back it’s decisions or NOTHING changes!!!”

            Clearly that is not true, as neither the executive or legislative branches have taken any particular action on the issue of same-gender marriage, yet same-gender marriage is taking place. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable, no action is necessary on the part of legislative bodies. The law can remain on the books. It simply can’t be enforced.

          • afchief

            Bye!!! I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you won’t be dealing with yourself today?

          • Bob Johnson

            He is also a plagiarist, that is an intellectual thief. A breaker of another one of the Ten Commandments.

          • Guest

            I’m not sure it isn’t a disability,

      • Michael C

        The Supreme Court has been striking down laws that violate the Constitution for over two hundred years.

        Have you just not been paying attention?

        Do you dislike how our government is set up?

        • Oboehner

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Where is marriage in the Constitution?

          • Michael C

            You’re free to read the Court’s decision. It fully explains their rationale.

            You’re free to disagree with them. They didn’t all agree with each other.

          • Oboehner

            That’s not the question, where is marriage in the Constitution?

          • Michael C

            Where was marriage in the Constitution when the Court decided Loving?

          • Oboehner

            What? Decided Loving? What does that even mean?

            If marriage is not in the Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction – thus their opinion matters not.

          • Michael C

            Loving vs. Virginia. I apologize for assuming that would be obvious.

            The Obergefell decision is available to read online, as are the dissents. If you don’t understand what’s going on, go ahead and read all of that stuff for yourself. If you disagree with the final outcome, you have good company in four of the Supreme Court Justices. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the bans on the recognition of the marriages of gay couples have been ruled to be in violation of the Constitution and gay couples can now have their marriages legally recognized in all 50 states.

          • Oboehner

            Loving is irrelevant as race is not a choice.

            The Obergefell decision is an overstep of federal powers as it doesn’t involve an issue between states.

          • Michael C

            Cool opinion, bro.

          • Oboehner

            …and more legal than the court’s opinion.

          • Michael C

            Actually, notsomuch. The Constitution does not charge you with the authority to interpret the law.

          • Oboehner

            The Constitution does not charge the Supreme Court with interpreting state law that doesn’t directly affect another state.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What does that mean “their opinion matters not?” You don’t have to like it, or agree with it, but you do have to accept that it’s the law.

            Okay, technically if you’re not a government official, you don’t even have to do that, but if you don’t, you’re living in denial.

          • afchief

            Ahhhh Mr. Make believe lawyer who knows NOTHING about the law!!! NOTHING!!!!

            That court case changes NOTHING!!! It is an “opinion”.

            Do I need to define “legislative” for you? Do I need to define what the role of the SCOTUS is for you?

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • Oboehner

            It’s an overstep of their authority. You have to accept the Supreme Court cannot legislate.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            They didn’t. They were asked whether a law was unconstitutional. They answered. You just don’t like the answer they gave.

          • Oboehner

            It was not a federal law, the Tenth Amendment gives any other power to the states. I answered, you just don’t like the Constitution.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it doesn’t not give “any other power to the states.”

            The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Laws that violate Due Process are prohibited to the states.

          • Oboehner

            The power to override a state law that doesn’t directly affect another state is not delegated to the feds.

          • Guest

            marriage is a civil contract and contracts most certainly are in the Constitution.

          • Oboehner

            Civil unions are a civil contract, marriage is a religious institution.

          • Guest

            It’s a religious rite for many religions, yes. But this is about the 100% secular civil contract titled ‘marriage’ that can be licensed by a citizen regardless of their religion.

          • Oboehner

            There are two separate legal definitions – marriage and a civil union. Marriage being a religious institution, the government merely stuck it’s nose into it and tossed out a civil union license which is an over-reach.

          • Guest

            Sorry, you are mistaken as I’ve demonstrated. Walk into any court and claim that marriage isn’t a civil contract and the snickering would be hard to avoid.

          • Oboehner

            Snickering and two squares of bath tissue might get the job done, snickering is not legally binding.

          • Guest

            but still what happens when you try and say a civil contract isn’t a civil contract in a court room.

            Are promises made? Papers signed? Registered with the state?

            Marriage is a civil contract and that means the federal Constitution most definitely does have jurisdiction.

          • Oboehner

            A civil union requires no ceremony such as a wedding (which is a religious institution).

          • Guest

            No a wedding is a type of gathering, atheists have weddings all the time – no religion required.

          • Oboehner

            BTW the courts also ruled atheism is a religion. It really doesn’t matter who uses it, it is still a religious institution, just because someone uses a shoe to pound a nail doesn’t mean the shoe is now a hammer.

          • afchief

            It’s called schizophrenia!! Most liberals, homosexuals and atheists exhibit some traits of this disorder!! Here is PROOF!!!

            In 2012 the SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional because they claimed it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.

            In 2015 the SCOTUS declared (an opinion) all states bans on same sex marriage null and void because the federal government has the jurisdiction to declare what is and is not marriage!!

            This is called Schizophrenia and there is a cure for it.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny and there is a solution for it.

          • acontraryview

            “In 2012 the SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional because they claimed it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.”

            No, that was not the basis for their ruling. Their ruling was that the Federal Government was not allowed to deny Federal benefits and recognition to marriages that were legally performed.

          • Michael C

            You’ve apparently not read the Windsor decision.

            “In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is
            necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority
            over marriage as a matter of history and tradition.
            State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
            course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
            see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia”

            If you don’t understand what that says, lemme help. It says that states regulate marriage but they cannot violate the Constitution in the process. The Court stepped in on the jurisdiction of marriage regulation when states like Virginia regulated marriage unconstitutionally.

          • afchief

            Yes, homosexuality is quite the mental disorder!!! It has never changed. Your posts are mere proof!!!!

            Let me tell you something; 5 judges CANNOT overrule the WILL of the people of each state. If 10 million people of a state vote to have marriage between one man and one woman, that IS the law and NO court can overturn it!!! If 81% of the people in Alabama voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?

            Let me enlighten you, IT CAN’T!!!!!!

            This is why marriage has been on states constitutions for decades. It is NOT in the federal constitution which is WHY it is in the states.

            Face it, homo marriage is NOT legal now nor will it ever be legal unless states vote for it or congress amends the Constitution.

            THAT IS THE ONLY WAY HOMO MARRIAGE WILL BE LEGAL!!!!

          • Michael C

            I’m sorry that you hate our system of governance.

          • Guest

            Marriage, a civil contract, is mentioned every place contracts and equal treatment under the law is mentioned. The federal Constitution doesn’t have to list every type of contract, it has authority over them all.

          • Oboehner

            Civil unions are a civil contract, marriage is a religious institution and not covered.

          • Guest

            No marriage is the title of a civil contract. You want to rename the civil contract talk to your legislators or start an initiative if your state allows it.

            Until then the contract name remains ‘Marriage’

          • Oboehner

            Nope, a religious institution, there is a legal difference.

          • Guest

            Sorry that the word is used two different ways is what seems to be confusing you. The state civil contract of marriage has nothing to do with the religious rite other than many people get both.

            In my state it is unquestionably a civil contract and has been part of the first sentence about marriage since 1857:
            RCW 20.04.010 (1) Marriage is a civil contract …

            Again, you can religiously marry anyone or thing anyway you want – the government can’t prevent it. But this is only about the civil contract of marriage which has nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs about marriage.

          • Oboehner

            Traditional marriage, the joining of a couple in matrimony, is a religious institution.

          • Guest

            And a civil contract. Why is it so confusing for you that one word can have multiple uses?

            All court issues are about the 100% secular civil contract that isn’t the religious rite.

          • Oboehner

            If it is the same, then why when offered a civil union, did the sexual deviants cry that wasn’t good enough?

          • Guest

            Why would anyone need a different civil contract when one already exists that works just fine? It’s that whole equal treatment under the law thing – you can register with a wife so can everyone else, ditto husbands.

            What American would tolerate attempts at the ‘separate but equal’ legal fallacy? We all know better than that.

            Now if you just want to make the state only offer contracts called ‘unions’ I’m all for it, title the contract ‘George’ for all I care but what’s available will be so constitutionally as the Marriage civil contract is now.

          • Oboehner

            It goes farther than that.

          • Guest

            Nope marriage as a civil contract is just that and has no religious component or requirement in any state.

          • Oboehner

            Then that would be between the state and those wishing the contract, not between a wedding chapel or a bakery, right?

          • Guest

            Ah I see what you did there. None of ‘those’ cases have involved a Marriage contract at all but are based on civil rights statutes, each and every one.

            A business can’t discriminate in a public offer because of the customer’s beliefs (including those about what a marriage is), their sexes or their sexual orientation (in these cases)

            Businesses are also licensed and as part of that promise to obey all relevant statutes including civil rights ones. the owners religious conscience won’t let them sell something as the law requires the solution is simple – don’t offer it to the public at all.

          • Oboehner

            How does “civil rights” pertain to a lifestyle choice?
            How can someone force a business owner to recognize their choice?
            Again, how doers “civil rights” pertain to someone’s choice?

          • Guest

            Religion is a lifestyle choice why do you think ‘lifestyle choices’ can’t be civil rights. And again, I know that these are all civil rights because that’s the law as passed by the legislature and confirmed by a vote of the public:

            RCW 49.60.030 (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

            (that whole 10th amendment thing you like to bring up – this is how it really works)

            Again, since ‘creed’ is a lifestyle choice your question is nonsensical and the business owner just has to not discriminate against the customer in a public offer because of these civil rights. No one is ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything – they freely made the offer knowing full well the laws that regulate their transactions with the public including these civil rights statutes.

            So I guess the real question is why do you think that civil rights can’t involve choices?

          • Oboehner

            RCW 49.60.030 does not trump religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, and since marriage is not in the Constitution, the same protections to sexual deviants does not apply. Therefore someone’s sexual deviance does not trump one’s religious freedom.

          • Guest

            Actually since the customer’s have identical rights to religious freedom yes it does. The business makes an offer to the public their ‘religious freedom’ is no more important than the customer’s and since they made the offer knowing this they lose in court because offering something that requires a religious test the customer must pass to buy is unconstitutional, illegal, and simply fraud. There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer, the customer’s own right to religious freedom shields them from it.

            Again, can’t sell something as the law requires due to ‘conscience’ the solution is to not sell it to the public at all.

            And, of course, the civil contract of marriage most definitely is in the Constitution as all contracts are.

          • Oboehner

            Bottom line – sexual perversion does not trump religious freedom. Or perhaps you can show where in the Constitution sexual perversion is protected, specifically.

          • Guest

            Bottom line: It is your focusing on irrelevancies and opinion that lead your side to lose in all these legal challenges.

            Being attracted to men, women, both or neither are all completely legal and even civil rights in many states. Being straight, gay, bi or asexual is all the same in a court of law and our constitution.

            But it is refreshing you are admitting it is really sexual orientation discrimination, not religion that motivates you. Like when Aryan Nation churches ‘come out’ and make it clear they are really just racists wrapped in Scripture.

            Sorry, there is a reason you lose these cases – you have no understanding about the law and our constitutional rights.

            There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer, the customer’s own right to religious freedom shields them.

            Can’t sell something as the law requires don’t sell it. Don’t think people should marry someone of the same sex don’t marry one and let the rest of the world go on exercising their own rights without you.

          • Oboehner

            “Being straight, gay, bi or asexual is all the same in a court of law and our constitution.” As long as their activity choice does not interfere with the right to pursue happiness of others.
            I see that you are on the “born that way” fantasy ride, they are not, it is learned behavior EXACTLY like Pavlov’s dog. That fact alone negates 99% of this discussion.

            “Can’t sell something as the law requires don’t sell it.” Most business owners do sell to the sexual deviants, they just wish not to be forced participate in a celebration of their mental illness. That’s where infringing onto the rights of others to practice their religion comes in. For every bakery which doesn’t wish to participle in such a celebration, I could find 10 that would. Perhaps the perverts should stop targeting businesses simply to stick it to people who don’t agree with them (I’m sure you’re going to tell me that’s protected as well), and go about their business (however disgusting that may be) elsewhere. Funny how I never hear about Christians trying to sue gays for not participating in something they don’t like.

          • Guest

            See, you can’t discuss logically – I have never mentioned ‘born that way’ – I don’t care if you like women on one day and guys the next, both on Saturdays and none on Sundays – you have a civil right to the all and are equally as protected every day of the week regardless.

            And pursuit of happiness? That’s why we give civil rights – these are the qualities that we say a person has a right to have regardless of what other’s want. That’s why you can be whatever religion you want, or race, or ethnicity and the law still protects you from discrimination.

            And you still don’t get it – it is the business with the obligation to obey the law and not discriminate, not any particular person and it is these businesses that have voluntarily offered these services to the public knowing full well before hand they can’t say ‘sorry I don’t like your beliefs about marriage so I’m not going to sell to you’. Again, you can’t sell something to people regardless of their beliefs, and respecting their civil rights then don’t offer it to them for sale. All civil rights laws explain how to run as a private club or a non-profit so religious discrimination like this is possible the owners just have to get off their lazy behinds and do it IF religious discrimination is really that important to them.

            What they can’t do is make an offer to the public, customers respond and then say ‘sorry you don’t pass my religious test so I’m not going to fulfill my offer.’ Sorry, the customer’s own right to religious freedom shields them from such odious and invidious acts by the business. Some ‘Christian’ employee that doesn’t want to ‘participate’? Then let someone else go, hire a temp, 3rd party contract it out. The obligation is the business to obey the law, not any particular person actually do that.

            But again, your lack of understanding of the basic issues in these cases is why your side loses in court and then acts like you didn’t know it was going to happen in the first place.

            There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer- where you ever got the idea there was in a nation where everyone has equal religious freedom is the real mystery.

          • Oboehner

            “sexual orientation discrimination” Clearly implies “born that way” a catchphrase of that crowd. “Civil rights” in your context also clearly indicates a “born that way” mentality. Gay is an activity CHOICE, but again your lack of understanding of the basic issues – that ones choice doesn’t trump another’s religious belief, period.
            BTW The reason people of faith lose in court is due to liberal activist judges, false propaganda on the part of deviants, and just plain bullying.

            That’s why you can be whatever religion you want, or race, or ethnicity and the law still protects you from discrimination.” Unless of course sexual deviants wish to trample those rights. Also gay is NOT a race or ethnicity, it is (for the umpteenth time) an activity choice it is not in that category.
            Do tell how the bakery which admittedly sold its goods to deviants (which shoots down your argument), can be prosecuted for their beliefs and forced to participate in some perverts “gayla”? Catering such an event is clearly against their religious beliefs, not to mention the fact they were in business BEFORE the court shoved gay down our throats. They would have sold their product and the gays could have had someone else serve it up. But I guess people of faith are not allowed to own businesses because perverts rule the day, right?

            “where you ever got the idea there was in a nation where everyone has equal religious freedom is the real mystery.”
            Perhaps here: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          • Guest

            See? Talking in sound bites and catch phrases won’t get you any where, it just shows you are parroting other people.

            Sexual orientation is exactly what it says – what sex you are attracted to in an orientation to your own – same, other, both or none. It doesn’t mean that attraction can’t change, it doesn’t mean you are going to engage in any particular activity.

            And since religion is a choice your capital spelling just seems frantic – civil rights can be about things that are choices, we all know that. Sexual orientation isn’t a religion either, another civil right that is a choice The only point you are making is is that you really want to discriminate against some people’s sexual orientation and are really upset the law doesn’t allow it in many places. Note my big tear at you being prevented from discriminating as you want.

            And if a business can’t make a legal offer to the public then don’t make the offer – why is that so hard for you to understand. Can’t sell something to the public regardless of their beliefs (many beliefs allow people to marry regardless of their sexes) or following the law regarding their civil rights then don’t offer it for sale to the public, simple as that.

            But again you don’t understand how it works – all people have the right to free exercise, business owner and customers – that means you can’t invite someone to do business and then say you won’t because of their religion – the customer’s right to free exercise takes rejection because of their beliefs off the table.

            The first amendment doesn’t apply just to the people you like, it applies to everyone.

            Can’t sell something to the public while respecting their civil rights then don’t offer it to the public.

            That is the simple solution you just keep ignoring.

          • Oboehner

            One can be attracted to anything, horses, dead deer carcasses – they can CHOOSE to act on it or not, it in no way trumps constitutionally protected religious freedom. People can marry whomever or whatever, doesn’t mean I am obligated to recognize it.

            Would you participate in a pedophile celebration if you offered a service or would you violate their civil rights even if no children were involved?

            “Can’t sell something to the public while respecting their civil rights then don’t offer it to the public.” Translation: if you are a person of faith, you are not allowed to own a business because some pervert might want you to participate in a celebration of his/her mental illness. Nice.

          • Guest

            And since action has nothing to do with sexual orientation civil rights protections you still aren’t making sense.

            People of Christian faith can sell to those who aren’t their faith, Paul made that clear in 1 Corinthians 5 in a town where almost everything they would sell would be ending up on a pagan altar (largest temple to Aphrodite in the Roman Empire was the town’s major trade). In the end all you are selling is a cake, a flower, some bread.

            And of course someone who is driven to religiously discriminate can still do business, its just if they can’t sell something to the public regardless of their beliefs it isn’t a suitable thing to be offering to the public. Run the business as a private club or a non profit that can religiously discriminate as their wicked heart’s desire.

            Again, get of their lazy duffs and do the leg work necessary to religiously discriminate, but don’t expect them to be able to make fraudulent offers to the public and get away with it.

          • Oboehner

            One can be attracted to anything, horses, dead deer carcasses – they can CHOOSE to act on it or not, it in no way trumps constitutionally protected religious freedom.
            “People of Christian faith can sell to those who aren’t their faith, Paul made that clear in 1 Corinthians 5 in a town where almost everything they would sell would be ending up on a pagan altar (largest temple to Aphrodite in the Roman Empire was the town’s major trade). ” More irrelevancies, The bakery sold goods to gays, they did not wish to participate in the celebration – you know help place things on the pagan alter.
            “Edit: and your odd ‘pedophile celebration question. I have no idea what that would be” Irrelevant, answer the question.
            “Run the business as a private club or a non profit that can religiously discriminate as their wicked heart’s desire.” Translation: if you are a person of faith, you are not allowed to own a business because some pervert might want you to participate in a celebration of his/her mental illness.

          • Guest

            And since the customer’s right to religious freedom protects their beliefs that people of the same sex can marry you are again making no sense. Don’t make an offer that doesn’t respect the customer’s legal right to their own beliefs is the still the solution.

            No one at the bakery was asked to ‘celebrate’ they were asked to make an advertised product, that’s it. The bakery is no more ‘celebrating’ than the guy at Safeway that made to rolls for my Christmas dinner.

            Again, you need to clarify what a ‘pedophile celebration’ is before I can answer the question.

            And since the most certainly can own a business you are not making any sense. Private clubs and non-profits are most certainly businesses and they are allowed to religiously discriminate because they find their prospective customers FIRST and then make the offer of sale just to them.

            And of course no one is asking anyone to participate in any ‘celebration’ but rather provide the advertised service that was offered knowing full well they can’t refuse a customer because of their creed, sex or sexual orientation OR their disability even if they think it is such.

            Solution is simple – don’t offer things for sale you can’t sell legally, and take the effort to run that business legally for the things you do sell.

            Its an abomination to run a business illegally according to the Bible, no Christian would be offering something they couldn’t sell as the law requires.

          • Oboehner

            Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with pushing their political weight around as evidenced by their targeting businesses of people of faith. Like I said, people can marry whomever or whatever, doesn’t mean I am obligated to recognize it, nor does it mean just because I operate a business I must give up my faith to bow to mentally challenged perverts. Catering a farce wedding is most certainly participating.

            “Again, you need to clarify what a ‘pedophile celebration’ is before I can answer the question.” Again you dodge the question.

            “And of course no one is asking anyone to participate in any ‘celebration'” except to service it. Now answer the question: Would you participate in a pedophile celebration if you offered a service or would you violate their civil rights even if no children were involved?

          • Guest

            The rite of marriage is very much a part of many people’s religious beliefs and yes, marriage regardless of the sexes of the couple is a part of many too. And yes, a business can’t reject a customer their religion is ‘wrong’, that whole religious freedom thing you like to bring up.

            And since Christians are totally able to have business dealings with those of this world if you were a Christian you could sell to them. And yes, if they were ‘mentally challenged perverts’ as you claim the American Disabilities Act would most definitely protect them.

            If you can’t sell something to the public as the law requires then don’t offer it to the public, simple as that and the solution mandated by the Bible.

            Again, I don’t know what a pedophile celebration might be. Its pretty obviously you won’t explain it because you realize that the more you tell us about it the more you will be shown to just be engaging in demagoguery. Is it a celebration where a pedophile is in attendance, getting an award, what exactly? Oh and again, pedophilia is not in any civil rights class so the answer is ‘you can refuse the gig’. When pedophilia is recognized as a civil right you get back to me, until then its just you flapping in the wind.

            Again, what is a ‘pedophile celebration’ – one with someone who is a pedophile is in attendance? Either explain yourself or drop it.

          • Oboehner

            It is like the KKK, a choice.
            More dodging the question, get back to me when you have an answer, otherwise save the bandwidth.

          • Guest

            Even if it is, religion is a choice too but its protected and the KKK isn’t. Why do you think something that is a choice can’t be a civil right?

            And again, as soon as you explain what a pedophile celebration is, I’ll be able to answer your question again.

          • Oboehner

            “Why do you think something that is a choice can’t be a civil right?” That would open the door to anything.

          • Guest

            Anything we, the people, recognize as a civil right can be one. Again religion is a 100% a choice and is recognized as is race and ethnicity for many (neighbor who is 1/16 Navaho identifies as Native American – a choice.)

            Again if you don’t think choices should include civil rights then talk to the founding fathers and framers about their ‘mistake’

            You’ve been very entertaining but all good things must come to an end.

            Merry Christmas

          • Bob Johnson

            You seem to be saying that a Jewish deli can refuse a Christian, and Hobby Lobby can refuse a customer with Tourette Syndrome (mental illness).

          • Guest

            I just keep him talking because its clear that is what he wants to do – establish a right to religious discrimination of customers. So an atheist owned B&B could refuse a Christian family because they pray at the dinner table?

            They don’t realize the damage to the first amendment establishing a right to religious discrimination would cause. That’s why all these ‘laws’ being proposed in various states that allow religious discrimination of customers will fail – the SCOTUS ruled on this 9-0 that such laws are unconstitutional over a decade ago.

          • Oboehner

            You seem to be saying that a black tailor must make hoods for the KKK, and a Jewish restaurant owner must serve a neo-Nazi party.

          • Guest

            Both the KKK and neo-Nazis are ideologies and not protected under civil rights laws. Same reason a Republican owner can refuse to sell to Democrats in many jurisdictions.

          • Oboehner

            Gay is a perversion and not any different from the KKK, if you can’t help whom you want to have sex with, you can’t help whom you dislike.
            “Same reason a Republican owner can refuse to sell to Democrats in many jurisdictions.” Not legally, that would be just as much a civil rights violation. You can’t have it both ways.

          • Bob Johnson

            And businesses started before 1964 now have to serve people of all races. A company doesn’t get grandfathered by the Civil Rights Act.

          • Oboehner

            Sexual deviation is NOT a race, it is a lifestyle choice.

          • Guest

            Religion is a lifestyle choice, and you are ultimately asking to religiously discriminate against customers. Why not just ‘come out’ and admit you think the first amendment is bogus and you want a right to religiously discriminate against your fellow citizens?

          • Oboehner

            Religion is specifically protected in the Constitution, and you are ultimately asking to sexually discriminate against business owners. Why not just ‘come out’ and admit you think the first amendment is bogus and you want a right to push sexual deviance on your fellow citizens?

          • Guest

            Again, you’ll have to define ‘sexual deviance’ since almost everyone I know is attracted to men, women, both or neither. Which one of this do you think is deviant?

            And the rights protected in the Constitution are no more special than the ones protected in statute and in state constitutions (that whole 10th amendment thing…). The Washington state (and many other states) constitutions specifically says that liberty of religious conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the law or the rights of others, in this case the customer’s civil rights and the laws governing them.

            The first amendment to the constitution is what is protecting the customer from fraudulent offers by a businesses trying to religiously discriminate against their religious freedom.

            Sorry, there is no right for a business to apply religious test to the prospective customers responding to their offer – the customer’s first amendment rights protect them from such evil.

          • Oboehner

            Natural law states male and female for procreation purposes. That would be why the vast majority of gay couples have one in the “male” role and the other in the “female” role.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” That First Amendment? Not seeing it, not even by a stretch.

            “Sorry, there is no right for a business to apply religious test to the prospective customers” No test needed, they have the right not to participate in someone else’ pervert party against their religious beliefs , simple as that.

          • Guest

            Hahahaha! Natural law is what supports marriage equality, and you obviously know zero about how gay couples interact.

            And thank you, yes the Congress couldn’t even make a law that allowed religious discrimination as you want it to. Once the offer of sale has been made its far too late to try and pull out a religious litmus test the customer must pass since they have this first amendment right to belief what the want about marriage.

            Again, can’t sell something as the law allows don’t offer it for sale.

          • Oboehner

            You are becoming incoherent.
            Bottom line: practicing one’s religion is a constitutionally protected right, sexual perversion is not. Mentally challenged perverts do not have the right to say otherwise – period.

          • Guest

            No just talking above your pay grade.

            Bottom line: the civil rights of all involved are constitutionally protected, and so the solution is not to may offers you aren’t going to fulfill as the law requires because there is no right to make an offer and then make the person responding pass a religious test – their first amendment right protects them from such acts of licentiousness.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said, incoherent.

          • Guest

            Don’t worry about it if you haven’t gotten it by now probably won’t.

            Have fun in court and a blessed Christmas.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Cite, please, for a ruling stating that public accommodation anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. I can’t think of any state that has ruled them as such.

            I do know that the Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional as they apply to race, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

          • Oboehner

            Right after you state where sexual perversion falls under that category.

          • afchief

            Don’t waste your time. This person is a homosexual and a liar. He/she has changed his/her disqus name numerous times because of being kicked of websites.

            This person has NO truth and is a liar!!!

          • Oboehner

            Noted.

          • Chris19741949

            Darlin, it’s called “equal rights”.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, special rights forcing people to accept the sick actions of mentally depraved perverts.

          • Chris19741949

            No, darlin, the religious ceremony for marriage is “holy matrimony”. This has nothing to do with the civil contract that is marriage. Marriage, as far back in history as you want to go, has always been a contract. You do realize that marriage existed before you christians came along? You wanna get married in a church, have the preacher bless your union? Holy matrimony, little man…the license you sign? That is your contract for marriage.

          • Oboehner

            Traditional marriage, the joining of a couple in matrimony, is a religious institution.

          • acontraryview

            Marriage is not in the Federal Constitution. How is that relevant?

          • afchief

            Since you do NOT know how Constitutional laws works let me explain it to you!!!!

            Since marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal constitution it is therefore a states issue in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            The SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction in this case. PERIOD!!!!

          • acontraryview

            State laws, based upon the 14th Amendment, may not be contrary to the protections provided by the Federal Constitution. The SCOTUS determines if state laws violate the Federal Constitution. You are incorrect in stating that the SCOTuS has NO jurisdiction in the case. Period.

          • afchief

            So the state laws on marriage 10 years ago were constitutional but today they are not?!?!? You know what this is called?

            A MENTAL DISORDER!!!

            What changed in the last 10 years……5 liberal homo friendly judges!!! That’s what has changed!!! Opinions change when judges change!!!!

            Hypothetically speaking, if in 10 years there are 9 conservative judges on the SCOTUS who say homosexuality is against the law in accordance with ” “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.” and all homosexuals will be prosecuted, will that be the law of the land or is it an opinion?

            I’ll give you 3 guesses!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “So the state laws on marriage 10 years ago were constitutional but today they are not?!?!? You know what this is called?

            A MENTAL DISORDER!!!”

            No, that is called a case coming before the court and the court ruling.

            “Opinions change when judges change!!!!”

            That is true, and always has been. it is also irrelevant. A court ruling is a court ruling.

            “Hypothetically speaking, if in 10 years there are 9 conservative judges on the SCOTUS who say homosexuality is against the law in accordance with ” “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.” and all homosexuals will be prosecuted, will that be the law of the land or is it an opinion?”

            Since there are no laws which make homosexuality criminal, there would be no law to challenge in court. If there is no law to challenge, there is no basis for the court to rule as there would be no case before the court.

          • afchief

            “Since there are no laws which make homosexuality criminal, there would be no law to challenge in court. If there is no law to challenge, there is no basis for the court to rule as there would be no case before the court.”

            Sure there is!!! ““All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.”

            If 9 conservative judges state that sodomy marriage is repugnant to the Constitution and should be outlawed, they have precedence with “Marbury v Madison”

            Is that law or an opinion?

            I’ll give you 3 guesses!!!

          • acontraryview

            Again, Russ, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal system works. In order for the court to issue a ruling, a case must come before the court which challenges an existing law. Since there is no law that specifically states that two citizens of the same gender are allowed to enter into civil marriage, there is no law to challenge. If there is no law to challenge, then no case can come before the court. If no case comes before the court, the court cannot issue a ruling.

          • afchief

            Hello!!!!!!!! 30 states have on their constitutions what marriage is and is not in accordance with the 10th amendment!!!

            WHY????????

            Because marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal constitution!!!!

            Can liberals and homosexuals be anymore dumb?!?!?!?!?!?

          • acontraryview

            “30 states have on their constitutions what marriage is and is not in accordance with the 10th amendment!!!”

            True. However, the portion of those laws which deny a marriage license based upon gender are no longer enforceable.

            “Because marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal constitution!!!!”

            If a state passed a law that specified that only white people are allowed access to a driver’s license, would that law be outside of the purview of the SCOTUS since driver’s licenses are not mentioned in the constitution?

          • afchief

            Nope, you are WRONG!!

            “If a state passed a law that specified that only white people are allowed access to a driver’s license, would that law be outside of the purview of the SCOTUS since driver’s licenses are not mentioned in the constitution?”

            What part of this do you not understand? “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

          • acontraryview

            So the SCOTUS would be allowed to rule upon such a law, even though driver’s licenses are not mentioned in the Constitution. Which means that the SCOTUS is empowered to rule upon marriage laws even though marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

            I’m glad we agree.

          • afchief

            Negative!!! If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            Stop with your lying!!! You have absolutely NO idea how our government works!!! NONE!!!

          • acontraryview

            “If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law?”

            No, it would not. If a state passed such a law and the law was challenged in court, it would be ruled unconstitutional.

            “Would we be duty bound to follow it?”

            Having a right to do something doesn’t require that one actually do it. People have a right to get divorced. That doesn’t mean that they are “duty bound” to get divorced.

            “Stop with your lying”

            Stop with your false accusations. Either cite something that I have said which is a lie, or stop with your bearing of false witness.

          • afchief

            EVERYTHING you have stated is a boldface lie!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Specifically, Russ, what have I said that is a lie and what is your basis for saying it is a lie? Until you provide that, you are simply bearing false witness.

          • afchief

            Because the Word of God is truth and you fit this verse to the “T”

            Romans 1:18 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite anything I have said which is a lie. Got it. Thanks.

          • Guest

            You can’t limit judicial review to just the things you want.

            The question before the court was ‘did the 14th amendment apply to access to the civil contract of marriage?’ and the court decided it did.

            Like it or not, you can’t restrict any civil contract on the basis of sex, fishing, driving, or marriage.

          • afchief

            This is one reason why you are a liar! When congress amended the constitution with the 14th amendment in 1866 homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. The 14th does NOT give homos the right to marry. This is a post Civil War amendment that has nothing to do with marriage, but activist federal judges have wrongly use the “due process ” clause as the basis for their incorrect interpretation . “Due process” correctly applies only to judicial proceedings. These activist judges should be impeached, removed from the bench and disbarred.

          • Guest

            Yes, the 14th amendment does give all citizens equal access to the civil contract of marriage – you can register a contract with a female cosigner, so can everyone else. You don’t get special rights.

            And the due process clause was just the extension of the one in the 5th amendment that only effected the federal government (and the reason DOMA was unconstitutional) and was deliberately there to include state laws.

            Sorry Russ, it seems you just don’t understand how the law really works.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! You make me laugh with you lies. Yes, the Word of God is soooooooooooo true about people like you “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”

            Yes, you are a LIAR!!!!!

            Thanks for the laugh!!!

          • Guest

            And a person running around calling people ‘liars’ is someone trying to suppress the truth in unrighteousness’.

            Your soul is at risk, laughing about that makes it even worse.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!!

          • Guest

            And denying citizens access to a civil contract because of their sexes is repugnant to the Constitution and the founding principles of all having access to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

            You’re arguing against yourself.

          • afchief

            LIAR!

          • afchief

            Let’s see that mental disorder in work!!!

            In 2012 the SCOTUS determined DOMA invalid because it was not the jurisdiction of the government to determine what is and is not marriage.

            In 2015 the SCOTUS declared all state bans on same sex marriage void because it has the jurisdiction to declare what is and what is not marriage.

            Yes, liberalism and homosexuality is truly a mental disorder!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “n 2012 the SCOTUS determined DOMA invalid because it was not the jurisdiction of the government to determine what is and is not marriage.”

            No, that was not the basis for the court’s ruling. The court ruled that the federal government could not deny, on the basis of gender, federal recognition of marriages that were legally performed. Why do you continue to lie about the basis for the court’s ruling regarding DOMA?

            “because it has the jurisdiction to declare what is and what is not marriage.”

            No, the court did not say that it had the jurisdiction to decide what is, and what is not, marriage. The court ruled that laws restricting marriage based upon gender were unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!! Yes, I need to quit dealing with stupidity!!! I need to listen what Mark Twain said “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”

            Soooooooooooo true!!!

            LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Never argue with stupid people”

            So then you apparently don’t argue with yourself.

          • Guest

            No section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional since the feds can not selectively recognize or not a lawfully issued civil contract. That was the ‘poison pill’ put into DOMA at its writing. If section 3 had acknowledged the contract but just said the federal government was going to treat male female contracts differently than it does the rest it would have been constitutional. But no, it tried to ‘define away’ some of the contracts which the feds can’t do – its unconstitutional.

            And in 2015 the court said that restrictions on licensing a civil contract can’t be unconstitutional and violate the 14th amendment.

            Neither decision even touched the actual state-licensed civil contracts of marriage itself. They are completely consistent.

            But speaking of mental disorders, is your ‘argumentative style’ a result of your military service? Where you medically discharged? I would hate to think my discussion is provoking someone who is suffering from medical condition.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and server the father of lies…….satan!!!

          • Guest

            and that you don’t realize that is what you do every time you call someone a ‘liar!!!!!!!!!’ is why your opinion is without value and your soul at risk.

          • Guest

            Contracts are most certainly mentioned in the federal constitution and marriage is just a civil contract.

          • afchief

            More proof that you are a LIAR!!!

          • Guest

            More proof you don’t know what the word means. Russ, if you don’t have anything constructive to say other than ad hominems and expletives, why respond at all?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I swear, it’s like trying to teach calculus to a pit bull.

          • acontraryview

            It’s truly unfortunate how misinformed Russ is about our judicial system.

          • Guest

            Or the futility of casting pearls before swine.

          • NGN

            They do and they have made a ruling that says all bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional thus striking down said bans.

          • afchief

            Ahhhh yes the “Reprobate mind” which cannot see the truth!!!

            There is an answer for that condition and His name is Jesus Christ!!!!

          • Oboehner

            Then the court cannot rule on the constitutionality of anything regarding marriage. Whether you agree or not, the federal powers are limited, the states have the say unless it directly affects another state. If a state passed a law that said that only white people are allowed to get a driver’s license, it is up to the people of that state to right that.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, that law would violate the US Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection found in the 14th Amendment.

          • Oboehner

            “without due process of law”

          • acontraryview

            “Then the court cannot rule on the constitutionality of anything regarding marriage.”

            The court has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of ANY law – marriage or otherwise. If it did not, how would the protections provided for by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            “If a state passed a law that said that only white people are allowed to get a driver’s license, it is up to the people of that state to right that.”

            That is certainly one way. But if the majority voted for it, how would the minority “right that’? Oh, I know, they could challenge the law in court. Then the courts would decide if the law was constitutional. If they rule that it is a violation of protections provided by the Federal Constitution, then the law would be struck down and no longer be enforceable.

            If what you say is true, then be sure to tell those folks who are challenging, in federal court, state anti-discrimination laws which cover sexuality on the basis that such laws violate the protections of freedom of religious expression, that the Federal courts have no jurisdiction on such matters and therefore can’t rule on them. Tell them that their only recourse is for the electorate in their state to “right that”.

          • Oboehner

            “The court has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of ANY law” Not when it oversteps the Tenth Amendment.
            The driver’s license analogy is apples to oranges, gay is not a race, it is a activity choice and as such deserves none of the protections you are going on about in regard to others having to accept it, or deal with it in any manner that affects them. Gays are free to do whatever mentally twisted thing they want as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else.

          • Bob Johnson

            Begin a Christian is also an activity choice. Many people in this country have chosen Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, Islam and many other religions. This is why the civil rights code includes “creed”, “Military status”, and “sexual orientation” in its definition – all choices.

          • Oboehner

            Yet religious freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution, sexual perversion is not. Civil rights code would then also include religious belief and not forcing one to go against theirs – also does not supersede the Constitution.

      • acontraryview

        They did not issue an “opinion”. They issued a ruling. in that ruling they ruled that laws restricting marriage licenses to only two people of opposite gender violated the protections provided by the federal constitution.

        The Legislative branches of government do not “strike down law”. They make law or repeal law.

        If the SCOTUS rules that a law violates protections provided by the Federal Constitution, then they laws are no longer enforceable.

        • afchief

          Yes, is quite clear you have NO UNDERSTANDING of how our government works, NONE!!!!!! You are typical homosexual who “suppress the truth with unrighteousness” i.e. sin, i.e homosexuality!!!!

          Explain this too me, the SCOTUS ruled that abortion was legal in Roe v. Wade in 1973, but most states STILL have abortion laws on their books i.e. in my state of Florida it is illegal to…….”Termination of pregnancy during last trimester which does not meet requirements of legal abortion. Partial Birth Abortion: Prohibited except when necessary to save the life of the mother when her life is physically endangered and no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose”

          This means that ALL abortions are illegal in the state of Florida except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

          STOP WITH YOUR LYING!!!! I KNOW the law and how our Constitutional government works.

          YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “This means that ALL abortions are illegal in the state of Florida except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.”

            No, Russ, that is not what it means. It refers only to abortions in the third trimester.

            “STOP WITH YOUR LYING!!!!”

            What have I said that is a lie?

          • afchief

            I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you aren’t going to deal with yourself any more?

          • Guest

            Again, the very link he posted makes it clear he doesn’t know what he is talking about. That someone can’t understand that only 3rd trimester abortions are regulated in Florida, i.e. they are not regulated at all other times, when its there clearly stated would indication a cognition pathology. Russ is a military veteran and in deference to his service I think maybe we should just not expect from him the level of discussion we might get from someone else.

            Just ignore the cat calls – being called a ‘liar!!!’ is easy to shake off when you consider the source Proverbs 26:2

          • afchief

            Legal abortion in Florida; Regulated only in last trimester, necessary to save life or preserve health of mother and requires 2 physicians’ certifications of medical necessity unless one physician certifies need for emergency medical abortion and no 2nd physician available

            Read more: Abortion laws – Information on the law about Abortion – State Of The Statutes – Mother, Consent, Life, and Medical – JRank Articles http://law.jrank. org/pages/11829/Abortion-State-Statutes.html#ixzz3v8wBgkH9

          • acontraryview

            That is correct Russ. It refers to abortions in the third trimester. It does not refer to abortions in the 1st and 2nd trimester. Therefore, contrary to what you said, not “ALL abortions are illegal in the state of Florida except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother”. That criteria only applies in the third trimester.

          • afchief

            Are you really this deaf dumb and stupid?!?!?!? Legal abortion in Florida is REGULATED to the LAST trimester, necessary to save the life of the mother!!!

            ALL other abortions are ILLEGAL!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “gal abortion in Florida is regulated to the LAST trimester,”

            Not “to”. Rather “in”. I also live in Florida, Russ, and abortions in the 1st and 2nd trimester are not limited to cases where the mother’s life is endangered.

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar? I sure did and this is proof!!!

            Go here and read what the abortion law for Florida is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            http://law.jrank. org/pages/11829/Abortion-State-Statutes.html

          • acontraryview

            Thanks for providing a link that proves my point.

          • afchief

            What? I thought Roe v. Wade said ALL abortions are legal everywhere???

            Why are there stipulations on abortions?

            Could it be there is no federal law i.e. an amendment to the Constitution?

            Yep!

          • acontraryview

            “I thought Roe v. Wade said ALL abortions are legal everywhere???”

            Well, once again, you are wrong. Roe v Wade did not make all abortions legal everywhere. You should review the ruling in Roe v Wade. It will help you to be better informed.

            As is clear in the link you provided, contrary to what you said, “ALL other abortions are ILLEGAL!!!!!” is false. If it were true, then there would not be a column in the link that you provided which covers legal abortions outside of the third trimester.

            “Could it be there is no federal law i.e. an amendment to the Constitution?”

            The Constitution does not contain law, nor does the creation of Federal Law require an amendment to the Constitution, nor is the creation of Federal Law, in essence, an amendment to the Constitution.

          • afchief

            LOL! Oh so abortions can still be illegal in some states which they are? LOL!

            “The Constitution does not contain law, nor does the creation of Federal Law require an amendment to the Constitution, nor is the creation of Federal Law, in essence, an amendment to the Constitution.”

            Yes, homosexuality is truly a mental disorder!!!! The Constitution does not contain law?!?!?!?!? LOL!!!!! Nor does the creation of federal law require an amendment to the constitution?!?!?! LOL!!!

            So we didn’t need the 19th amendment so women can vote or the 14th so slaves can be free or the 2nd some people are free to own guns, etc, etc.etc. LOL!! Wow, I need to show this to a shrink!!!!

            I can’t stop laughing how stupid homosexuals and liberals are. It truly is a mental disorder!!! LOL!!!

            If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.

            Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

            If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives, the Supreme Court’s decision will not, cannot, change America. Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

            Hence, only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people’s representatives can the Supreme Court “change America.”

            The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

            Similarly, the legalization of pornography – and the resulting exploitation of people as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved – and the transformation of the “justice” system from one that seeks to punish the guilty and free the innocent into one that cares only if minute procedural rules are followed, even if that means the guilty are freed to prey on the innocent, were not accomplished through the will of the people. They were accomplished by rich, mostly white, mostly male Supreme Court judges.

            Irrespective of one’s position on these issues, one has to recognize tyranny. Clearly, if these judges had declared that gay people could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune. But if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that in time, forces not to the liking of modern liberals will hold the reins of the Supreme Court. Hence, transferring power to the judiciary and away from the people will eventually hurt all Americans, no matter their political persuasion.

            Please keep the laughs coming!!!! LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Oh so abortions can still be illegal in some states which they are? ”

            Certain abortions, yes. But not all. Nor are all abortions illegal in Florida, despite your claim that they are, as is clearly shown in link you provided.

            “The Constitution does not contain law?!?!?!?!?”

            No, it does not. Please cite one law that is contained in the Constitution. The Constitution provides a basis for determining which laws are constitutional and which are not. It does not contain laws.

            “So we didn’t need the 19th amendment so women can vote or the 14th so slaves can be free or the 2nd some people are free to own guns”

            Those amendments create a basis under which laws are determined to be constitutional or not constitutional. They are not laws.

            “Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.”

            As we have discussed before, Russ, if you are going to use someone else’s words – in this case Tom Trinko at American Thinker – you should cite your source rather than attempting to pass off the words as your own. That is referred to as plagiarism and is the same as lying.

            Mr. Trinko is mistaken. If what he said is true, then the court decision striking down laws which disallowed interracial marriage was “unconstitutional an and an exercise in judicial tyranny”. Is that what you believe?

            “If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives”

            If that were the case then there would be no reason for the case to come before the court. The purpose of the court is to determine if the law is consistent with the protections provided for by the Federal Constitution. Sometimes the court upholds a particular law. Sometimes the court rules that a particular law is in violation of the protections provided by the Constitution and rules the law unenforceable.

            “The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy”

            Correct. Nor did the ruling in Roe v Wade create such a right.

            “nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage.”

            That is incorrect. Same-gender marriage was legalized by several legislative bodies.

            “Clearly, if these judges had declared that gay people could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune.”

            That issue has already come before the court and such laws, which existed at the time, were ruled unconstitutional.

            Like you, Mr. Trinko has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal system works. The court cannot rule on matters that do not come before it. There is no law that allows for the imprisonment of gay people. Therefore, there is no law to challenge in court. Therefore is there is no way for the court to issue such a ruling as no case could come before the court.

          • afchief

            I did not even read your post! I know there is NO truth in you only lies. When you are stuck in a sin like homosexuality, one is blind to truth. You suppress the truth in sin. Your posts are proof!!!

            But, please keep the laughs coming!!!

          • acontraryview

            You continue to accuse me of lying, yet you have been unable to point to anything I have said that is a lie. That is called “bearing false witness” which, according to your faith, is a sin. Why do you keep bearing false witness against me and how are you going to explain that to God when you come before him?

          • afchief

            Yes, you are quite the liar!!! There is absolutely no truth in you. NONE!!!

          • acontraryview

            You have failed to provide one example of me telling a lie. Why do you continue to lie about me? How are you going to explain that to God when you come before him?

          • afchief

            I have shown you your lies numerous times!!!!! You just stated the Constitution contains no laws. A boldface lie!!! Yes, you are a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “On this day in 1791, Virginia becomes the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights, making the first ten amendments to the Constitution LAW and completing the revolutionary reforms begun by the Declaration of Independence. Before the Massachusetts ratifying convention would accept the Constitution, which they finally did in February 1788, the document’s Federalist supporters had to promise to create a Bill of Rights to be amended to the Constitution immediately upon the creation of a new government under the document.”

            What is the law of our land????

            Yes you are a liar!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            ” have shown you your lies numerous times!!!!!”

            No, you have not.

            “You just stated the Constitution contains no laws. A boldface lie!!! ”

            Yet, when I have asked you to cite one law that is in the Constitution, you have been unable to do so. Why? Because the Constitution does not contain laws. Laws are contained in legal codes.

            “making the first ten amendments to the Constitution LAW”

            The Constitution sets forth the basis for determining what laws are constitutional and which are not. The Constitution itself does not contain laws. Laws are contained in legal codes – Federal, State, County, and Local.

            I’ll ask again: What lies have I told?

          • afchief

            Yes, you are a liar!!!! Is the voting age in our country 18? Is that the law of our land?

            I’ll give you 3 guesses where that comes from!!!

            Yes, you are a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            It comes from the Voting Rights Act passed by Congress.

            The 26th Amendment states:

            Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

            Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            That means that any state law that prohibits a citiizen who is 18 from voting in a national election would violate the constitution and thus would not be enforceable. The amendment itself, however, is not a law. it serves as a test for the constitutionality of laws.

            Please pay particular note to Section 2 above. It states that Congress has the power to pass laws that enforce this article. If the article itself were law, there would be no need for Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” now would there?

            Again, what lies have I told?

          • afchief

            Yes, you are a liar!!! You are just looking for loopholes . Keep looking and keep reaching!!!

            You are a liar and there is NO truth in you. NONE!!!!

          • acontraryview

            It’s not a “loophole’ or a “reach” to explain how our system works. It’s unfortunate that you do not have a better understanding of the difference between protections provided by the constitution and laws which support those protections.

            How are you going to explain your bearing false witness to God?

          • SashaC

            I’m torn between being insanely frustrated and highly amused. Abortion in FL is regulated “in” the third trimester, not “to” the third trimester. You said it yourself. Meaning that only the third trimester is regulated. That regulation being allowable only in instances of health risk. First and second trimester abortions are legal for any reason.

            Seriously, all you have to do is google it, to avoid making yourself look so painfully foolish. How ironic that you call others dumb and stupid, lol!

      • NGN

        nopers. bans on gay marriage were struck down as unconstitutional

  • hnv12

    Churches don’t have to perform the ceremonies if they don’t want to, the ruling pertains to the secular state, who are the ones actually handing out marriage licenses. If they only had a brain between them they’d be able to understand and resign their positions if they feel that strongly about it.

    • Emmanuel

      You are correct but what do you call a church that refuses to marry gay couples?

      • Guest

        Same we call one that refuses to ‘marry’ those who aren’t their members, or faith – a church, or just because they think the couple aren’t ready – a church.

        Churches are private clubs and or non-profits – they have total control on who they perform any religious rite for or with, marriage, baptism, whatever.

        • Emmanuel

          Thank You Guest and you are right. But many don’t see it that way.

          • Guest

            Oh are you saying that people will call the church ‘bigoted’ and other rude things? Sure some will but that’s a first amendment right and considering how many churches and their representatives say far worse things (just read in this thread) it will all even out in the end.

            We are to walk in this world and not be of it – the swearing and expletives of others have no power over Christians.

      • Josey

        I’d call a church who refuses to marry homosexuals, sodomites a church that is obeying God’s word on the matter.

        • Jade

          God’s law says that a mother is ceremonially unclean for 7 days for a son and 14 days for a daughter. Can your tiny brain explain why God would say that? God didn’t. It was written by men who wanted to put women in a 2nd class status.

  • Bill

    Woohoo! Finally people standing up against the lawless left….

  • groland

    Countries that allow for gay marriage: Ireland, the UK, Netherlands, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Australia…..

    Countries that discriminate against, jail, or even execute Gay people: Iran, Russia, North Korea, Uganda, Saudi Arabia….

    Now ask yourselves which countries do we wish wish to emulate?

    • Josey

      None of the above, I wish to emulate Christ and He stated that in the beginning God made them male and female.

      • gizmo23

        Did God issue marriage licences? Legal marriage has nothing to do with Godly marriage

      • Guest

        And God said that in the next world we would all be as the angels in heaven, i.e. the same gender.
        And God said those of us who walk in the next world are neither male nor female, master or slave, jew or gentile.

        Please give up the yoke of before the New Covenant, Christ’s yoke is light.

  • Reason2012

    Every single man already has the right to marry a woman. Every single woman already has the right to marry a man. Who was denied this right? NO ONE. What they want is a new right, a special right, that NO one has.

    • Guest

      Thank you for showing it was 2 sets of separate special rights, one for women another for men. If you consider all citizens as being equal then they all should be able contract with a husband or a wife just as other citizens can.

      Sorry, no civil contract can be selectively available – if one citizen can license with a husband they all can, and ditto with a wife. 14th amendment, etc. What other contract can you think of that is limited by the sex of the cosigner/s?

  • Robert Taylor

    They are totally within their rights since the ruling by the Supreme Court was not only illegal but unconstitutional!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Says who?

      • afchief

        Says anyone with more than two brain cells and is not a liberal or homosexual!!!!

        For one, marriage is NOT mentioned it the federal constitution so it is NOT a federal issue.

        For two, 30 states already defined what marriage is and is not in accordance with the 10th amendment.

        For three, the SCOTUS justification of using the 14th amendment is a boldface lie.

        And finally, it’s called JUDICIAL TYRANNY and those 5 justices should be impeached.

        And you call yourself a lawyer and do not know this?!?!?!?!

        • Guest

          one, marriage is a civil contract and the Constitution most certainly does give the federal government authority over contracts. As long as there are civil contracts titled ‘Marriage’ the government can manage and make decisions about the constitutionality of their requirements.

          two, the 10th amendment doesn’t allow a state to make unconstitutional conditions or quality for a civil contract, including this one regarding marriage, particularly post 14th amendment.

          three, I am beginning to think you use the word ‘lie’ differently than the rest of the world.

          And the court is doing its job – judging the constitutionality of the laws that decided the cases brought before it. Only an anarchist would call that judicial tyranny.

          • afchief

            MORE proof that you truly are a liar!!!!

            Romans 1:18 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

          • Guest

            And you realize that passage is speaking about you, right?

          • afchief

            More proof that you Oshtur are a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Guest

            Again, it seems, sadly, you don’t know what the word ‘liar’ means or what using it like this is doing to your soul.

    • Guest

      No, the SCOTUS has authority to render decisions about the constitutionality of contracts, most certainly civil contracts like marriage. They found a common licensing restriction on the contract unconstitutional, that’s all.

      Completely within its scope.

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

  • pastoredsmith

    The SCOTUS we have now is every bit as rogue as its counterpart many years go that decided that black people didn’t count as a “whole person,” and the same SCOTUS that said that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional even if it is voluntary and coming from students. SCOTUS overstepped their authority by striking down state Constitutional Amendments duly passed by the citizens of that state since marriage has always been a state thing and never has it been Federal until this rogue decision. And, SCOTUS most of all broke the law when they made law creating the new “status” of gay marriage. This is a State affair and not Federal. This decision was completely rogue and illegal and should be overturned and stood against firmly.

    • gizmo23

      It can’t be overturned but congress could change it. It will never happen

      • pastoredsmith

        If enough people protest the ruling, Congress will be forced to act. Therein is the logjam. Christians are allowing the left minority to run slipshod over us. It happened many times in the past and it COULD happen again if people would wake up and go.

        • afchief

          We are being “duped” by the left! SCOTUS rulings are not the law. They are ONLY opinions and nothing more. They cannot legislate from the bench!!!

          • NGN

            they can and they did chef russ

        • Guest

          The majority of Americans support marriage equality its unlikely that’s going to change.

        • gizmo23

          I think the gay rights movement did an excellent job of convincing people that their position was correct. It is probably the majoriy position at this time.

          • pastoredsmith

            No, that’s not accurate gizmo23. The propaganda of the left wants us to THINK it is the majority position now, but by far, it is not. The intimidation factor along with the bullying demands of those who want to destroy religious liberty is uncanny. The problem is that society has been bullied into believing that we MUST submit, and that is a lie.

          • gizmo23

            I’m not sure how gay marriage destroys religious liberty. People have rights that are not determined by popular vote. If they were blacks would never have gotten equal rights in the 50’s and 60’s. Would you say they bullied people to get those rights?
            Congress has the power to overturn SCOTUS but I doubt they ever will on this issue

          • pastoredsmith

            Really? Open your blind eyes man! When people are fired because they write a Bible study book for their men’s group that contains Biblical teaching on homosexuality; when a Christian college is sued and forced to hire a gay man against their religious beliefs, when churches are now open to lawsuits because someone is refused to be able to have a homosexual “wedding” in the church facility against their religious beliefs…..either you are blind or you are an idiot. Look it up and become educated. Idiocy doesn’t have to be permanent.
            Yes, Congress has the power to overturn SCOTUS. And, states have the right to rebel against a rogue decision that strikes down part of that state’s Constitution. If this decision is allowed to stand, along with the other rogue decisions they made recently, our society will fall. OVERTURN SCOTUS NOW!!

          • Guest

            The fire chief was fired because he has obligations as the head of his department and required permission to publish without authorization. As Justice Scalia put it – government employees have a right to their own religious conscience, not a right to any particular job.

            The school does not limit employment for the job required or enrollment by religion and as such voluntarily operated as a secular business. To be free of civil rights laws and their statutes they must limit them to people of their religion. If Catholics want to run the school as a religious organization they can discriminate as they choose, but they chose not to.

            And a church will not be required to rent anything they haven’t offered to the public for renting. If they reserve their facility usage to members only again, they can discriminate as they choose. But obviously they can’t make a general invitation to the public and then apply a religious litmus test on those responding – every member of that public has a right to NOT share their religious beliefs and still rent the offered service or product.

            Sorry, there is no practical way to remove a right once recognized.

          • gizmo23

            Your fear mongering will not help. The US courts and laws take precedence over state laws.

    • afchief

      So true brother!!! So true!!!

    • Guest

      The decision is completely consistent with the powers and authority of the federal government since it is just a civil contract, states can issue civil contracts with unconstitutional requirements for them. The court would have reached the same decision if a state said only men could license to drive a car – that access to civil contracts can’t be limited because of the sex of the licensee/s.

      And there is no ‘new status’ all Marriages are the same, there is no such thing as gay marriage anymore than there is straight marriage, there is just ‘marriage’.

      And once a right has been acknowledged it is virtually impossible to ‘un recognize’ it barring a constitutional convention and a rewriting of the federal constitution.

      • pastoredsmith

        Wrong “Guest” who remains anonymous. SCOTUS redefined marriage as it has been known since God created civilization. Homosexuality is a moral failure, a sexual sin and destroys families. Devastation is what homosexuality leaves in its wake. God never intended man to be with man or woman with woman. God intended for one man to marry one woman for life. The SCOTUS overrode the law of God and destroyed religious freedoms…..now, even Christian schools are being forced to hire “gay” people against their religious teachings. This overrode the First Amendment that guarantees that no law could ever be made that denied these religious rights, yet SCOTUS in their ruling stretched the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. It is a perverted decision, an illegal decision under the Constitution and this rogue SCOTUS should be thrown out of their spot and replaced with Americans who live by and defend the Constitution and American rule of law.

        • Guest

          You are confusing the religious rite of marriage in your sect with the 100% secular civil contract licensed by the states.

          And since Christians and many other do think God blesses marriages regardless of the male or female of the couple you are right this is a religious freedom issue – everyone has a right to license the civil contract regardless of those beliefs.

          Your religious freedom is that no one will make you enter into the civl contract with anyone you don’t think you should, that’s it because everyone else has a constitutional right to disagree with you.

          • pastoredsmith

            No, Guest, you are a manipulator of the truth and deliberately trying to shove your opinion down our throats.
            No true Christian believes the Bible is not true, therefore those who claim to be Christians and hold to the belief that homosexuality is OK are deceived and are not walking with Christ. Rights? Yes, even God gives us a choice. That is the reason you are doing what you do.
            As to religious rights, who do you think you are to try to define religious rights? Who are you to demand that society submit to the demands of homosexuals or atheists or anyone else for that matter? We are FREE to practice our religion and that is the way it is and the way it will be. Christians do not force anyone to do anything, but we do live our lives in Freedom thanks to the gift of the USA that God Himself granted to mankind. It is horrible that people now wish to destroy it by scrapping our rule of law and misguided people with desires to bulldoze the Constitution like you control the government.
            Not forever. God has the last word, and it isn’t good for those who oppress Christians and God’s true work.

          • Guest

            Again, I am not concerned with the errors your sect might hold – we are saved by Grace, not the law and how God will deal with you is not mine to know.

            I can define religious rights because I understand the legal concepts involved. We all have religious rights and as such your rights stop at the tip of everyone else’s nose where their own begin. You most certainly don’t have a right tell someone else if their beliefs are right or wrong.

            Again, you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex then I will defend your right not to along with you. But everyone else can if they want to – that’s what freedom is.

          • pastoredsmith

            “sect?” Who are you? Atheist? You certainly sound like one. Sect?? Christianity is MAINLINE, not a sect like atheists or Muslims. You know, the same Christian truth that is interwoven throughout our country’s history. The same God that created the world and all that’s in it. I don’t care about your religion or lack of it. But, you do not define religious rights nor do you have the privilege to take them away.
            Goodbye “guest.” You argue like an atheist in deceit and lies. I have nothing further to say to you. Keep your lies to yourself.

          • Guest

            I say sect since I am a Christian and know that God blesses marriage regardless of ‘male or female’ for those in the body of Christ.

            And that you think you can talk like a Pharisee and not be like them is the true ‘lie’.

            Since you can’t support your position legally or rationally it probably is best we don’t converse. But it is this trying to end arguments by fiat that makes your side fail in virtually every legal encounter.

          • pastoredsmith

            You “know?” So, you tear those pages out of the Bible? You know the ones…Romans 1, or Jesus Himself talking in Matthew 19:5? No, you demolish the Bible and recreate God in the image you want Him to be, and that is heresy. There is no such thing as a person who decides to live a known sinful life and does not repent of his sin.
            Pharisee? You know nothing. It is you who is judging me, not vice versa. I stand on the Scriptures. It is impossible to love anyone if you neglect God’s teaching.
            Calling me part of a “sect” is judgmental and is the exact same thing homosexuals accuse us of.
            And, since you pass judgment without knowing the facts, you make false judgments against me, and Matthew 7:2 says that the standard of measure you use against me will be used against you on Judgment Day. You will be labeled a “sect” and a false prophet who distorts the Word of God for your own selfish purposes. And, you have no idea what “love” truly means because you will now judge me again, stating that I don’t love you because I stand on the Word of God and speak thusly to you. But, you would never think such of me if your house was on fire and I destroyed a door to get in and drag you out to safety. However, using the judgment standard you create against me, in the event the fire did happen, you would probably sue me for destroying the door.
            Goodbye “guest.” May I suggest you THINK about what I said rather than trying feverishly and foolishly to defend your defenseless position and just read and accept the Bible? Have a nice day.

          • Guest

            Romans 1 – talking about animal headed idolators punished by God with desires that went against their natures – not talking about married or gay folks.

            Jesus was talking to a group of men under the Old Covenant asking about their wives, they were not in the body of Christ, they still were ‘male and female’. I was never under the Old Covenant and only under the New.

            And I don’t think you know what ‘sect’ means:
            A sect is a subgroup of a religious belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group.

            Catholics are a sect of Christianity, Lutherans are a sect of Christianity, etc. There is nothing judgmental about talking about sects – I think you are confusing it with the word ‘cult’.

            And when did I say anything about ‘love’? You seem to be able to not stay on topic, again a trait that doesn’t help in an rational discussion.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Overturned by who?