Church Elder Among Judges Who Voted to Suspend Roy Moore, Previously Struck State Sodomy Law

Moore Joiner-compressedBIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Just two years after striking down the state’s law criminalizing sodomy, the chief judge of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ), who also serves as an elder and Bible teacher at The Church at Brook Hills, joined his colleagues in their unanimous decision to suspend Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore on Friday.

“[I]t is the unanimous judgment of this Court that Chief Justice Moore should be suspended from from office without pay for the remainder of his term,” Judge J. Michael Joiner wrote for the panel of nine judges.

As previously reported, according to his biography, Joiner is an elder and Bible teacher at The Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, formerly led by “Radical” author David Platt, who now serves as the president of the Southern Baptist International Mission Board.

“He is an active member of The Church at Brookhills where he teaches a Bible study class,” Joiner’s judicial bio reads. “He previously served as Deacon and Chairman of the Shelby Baptist Association Credentials Committee.”

“Mike Joiner and his wife, Cathy, … have been members of Brook Hills since 1998,” the Church at Brook Hills also outlines on its page listing Joiner as being on the administrative elder team.

“Mike is a judge for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Mike currently leads a small group on Sunday mornings and recently served on a mission trip to Honduras. He plans to return there this year,” it continues. “Mike believes his spiritual gifts are teaching and administration.”

In 2014, Joiner, who serves on the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals, likewise joined his colleagues in striking down a state law that criminalized those who engage in “deviate sexual intercourse with another person,” and “[c]onsent is no defense to a prosecution.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The case, Williams v. Alabama, centered on a Dallas County man who sodomized another man, and was sentenced to 12 months behind bars for sexual misconduct under the law.

“The Supreme Court concluded that the statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that it ‘further[ed] legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,’” the justices wrote. “Because ‘[t]he only federal court whose decisions bind state courts is the United States Supreme Court’ Lawrence controls our decision.”

On Friday, Joiner described Moore as one who has wasted taxpayer money by being placed on trial, and has a record of being defiant. He pointed back to Moore’s removal in 2003 when he refused to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court.

“[T]his is the second time Chief Moore has caused himself to be brought before this court for taking actions grossly inconsistent with his duties as chief justice and in violation of the Canon of Judicial Ethics,” he wrote. “The result in both instances has been a lengthy, costly proceeding for this court, the JIC, and, most unfortunately, the taxpayers of this state.”

“In the JIC’s view, Chief Justice Moore’s conduct in this case is even worse than the conduct that led to Chief Justice Moore’s removal in 2003, because the order in this case, if complied with, would have put 68 probate judges in direct defiance of federal law,” Joiner stated in the suspension order.

He said that Moore’s use of case law in his memo to state probate judges surrounding the issuance of “gay marriage” licenses was “incomplete, misleading and manipulative.”

“Just as Chief Justice Moore’s decision that he wouldn’t ‘move the [Ten Commandments] monument,’ was, in fact, defiance of the federal court order binding him, a disinterested reasonable observer, fully informed of all the relevant facts, would conclude that the undeniable consequence of the January 6, 2016 order was to order and direct the probate judges to deny marriage licenses in direct defiance of the decision of the United States Supreme Court,” Joiner wrote.

He pointed to the Supreme Court’s words that its decision applied “in all states,” which meant, Joiner said, that its ruling superseded all lower court decisions nationwide. Moore had rather believed that the Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to the states involved in the case: Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee—and not Alabama.

As previously reported, Moore had stated during his trial before the COJ last week that he did not “encourage anyone to defy a federal court or state court order,” remarking that it is “ridiculous” to believe otherwise.

“I gave them a status in the case, a status of the facts that these orders exist,” he said. “That is all I did.”

But the COJ said in its decision that it did not agree that Moore’s Jan. 6 memo was “merely to provide a ‘status update’ to the state’s probate judges,” but could indeed be considered an order not to issue licenses to homosexuals in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Therefore, it declared Moore guilty of failing to “perform the duties of his office impartially,” failing to “avoid impropriety,” failing to “respect and comply with the law” and failing to “abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court,” among other charges.

“For these violations, Chief Justice Moore is hereby suspended from office without pay for the remainder of his term. This suspension is effective immediately,” Joiner wrote.

The Church at Brookhills did not return a calls for comment, and a secretary would not confirm Joiner’s position as elder although his information is posted on the church website.

Christian News Network previously spoke with Executive Pastor Dennis Blythe, who stated that he didn’t see Joiner’s ruling in the Alabama sodomy case as being a concern, but said he would pass the information on to Senior Pastor Matt Mason. None of the members of the megachurch that Christian News Network spoke to said that they knew Joiner.

Mason was unable to be reached for comment and messages were not returned.


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
  • Representative

    Just because you talk about God, teach and know the law, does not save you. Only recognition of the gift of God’s Son and His sacrifice, of which it is quite obvious this man knows nothing of, and confession of the same, that He is the Lord, that He is our Saviour.. this is salvation. Many people go to church and are not saved, including pastors, (self-appointed) prophets, etc. When one is saved they experience a rebirth in their spirit, replacing darkness with life, error with holiness, and love with hatred, and many other things as those of us who have experienced salvation are aware of. This man is not a Christian.

  • Liberal Elitist

    I commend Judge Joiner for being guided by the rule of law and for not allowing his personal convictions to cloud his good-sense judgments as Moore has done.

    • ComeOnPeople!

      Ummm what you fail to see is that this was a corruption of the rule of law by the OPINION of a judge who did not value law but his own opinion and struck down a law in place over that opinion . Not to mention that he used a sodomy case where a man FORCED himself upon another man. What a deal. Welcome to lawlessness!

  • ComeOnPeople!

    Great so the law was changed to accommodate a rapist. A man forces another man to have sex and a corrupt judge uses the case to change sodomy laws? No longer do we base laws on the rule of law but upon the opinions of corrupt judges.

    • Michael C

      “Sodomy” laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003.

      • Daniel Ramos

        And the SCOTUS once ruled that segregation laws were legal in Plessy Vs Ferguson. Your point?

        • uninvitedguest

          Segregation is a tad different than regulating what goes on in people’s bedrooms

          • Daniel Ramos

            The point is that SCOTUS doesn’t always adjudicate through Constitutional adherence, so citing them as the definitive authority on any matter including bedroom laws is specious.

          • SFBruce

            But the reality is SCOTUS is, indeed, the “definitive authority” on what’s constitutional and what’s not. You don’t have to like or agree with SCOTUS decisions, but dismissing them as specious ignores the way things are.

          • Daniel Ramos

            No, you are incorrect.

            To cite from Jefferson’s remarks on Marbury Vs Madison:

            “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

            The SCOTUS IS NOT the definitive authority, the Constitution is. Their rulings have been overturned by the Constitution, such as their ruling in Dred Scott Vs Sanford being undone through the passage of the 13th amendment.

          • james blue

            Future constitutional amendments changing previous rulings do not mean the previous ruling was unconstitutional at the time.

          • Daniel Ramos

            So you’re saying slavery/segregation was Constitutional? Show me how exactly.

          • james blue

            No I’m saying that a later amendment to the constitution does not mean that a ruling based on the constitution prior to the amendment was an unconstitutional ruling.

            IMO there didn’t need to be an amendment to find segregation unconstitutional

          • Daniel Ramos

            It doesn’t mean that it was either, especially in the case of Dred.

            Abolitionist Lysander Spooner’s remarks on the subject of Constitutional abetting of slavery or lack thereof can suffice nicely.

          • SFBruce

            Unless and until a constitutional amendment is passed which contravenes Obergefell, it’s the law of the land. I’m sure you’re aware of the high hurdle rightly required to amend the constitution, something which would be impossible given the growing majority of Americans who favor same sex marriage.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Yes it’s the law of the land, I grant you that, just as Dred was and Plessy was.
            And yes, rightfully changing the Constitution is difficult, and intentionally so. I wouldn’t want that to change even to benefit me.

            What I want to make you aware of is that, even if it takes 40 years to invalidate Windsor and later Obergefell piecemeal as we did with Roe, we will do it.
            The fight isn’t over just because SCOTUS put personal feelings above law.
            Plessy is an example, Roe is an example and now Windsor/Obergefell is an example.

            Roe is an example of us staying the course, and we should do no less on homosexual Marriage.

          • SFBruce

            Your suggestion that Roe has been invalidated is simply not true, and I can’t believe you’d argue otherwise. Yes, conservatives have succeeded in chipping away at it, which has even resulted in clinics that provide that service having to close down. While I fully support women’s right to reproductive freedom, LGBT equality, including marriage, is actually less controversial, as demonstrated by a growing majority, including people of faith, which supports LGBT equality

          • Daniel Ramos

            Dude I’m not saying Roe has been invalidated completely, hence my use of the word PIECEMEAL.
            There were 2 ways to go about fighting Roe: State specific and through the SCOTUS.
            We have found greater success with the first one rather than trying to attack it head on through SCOTUS because of the pregressive bent of the Courts.
            These people of “faith” that you speak of that support LGBT legalized insanity are no more than sellouts. Ever religion has them, Christianity is no exception.

        • SFBruce

          SCOTUS also upheld sodomy laws in 1986 with Bowers v. Hardwick. Fortunately, they corrected this in 2003 when they reversed Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, just as Plessy was properly overturned in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education.

          • Daniel Ramos

            That’s just your partisanship on the thematic premise of homosexuality talking. As it stands, 3 judges on there disagreed with you.
            Where is homosexuality listed as a Constitutional right again?

          • Liberal Elitist

            Where is heterosexuality listed as a constitutional right?

          • Daniel Ramos

            You can’t be serious. Your remark is sheer absurdity.
            Heterosexuality falls under a natural biological function which has helped propagate the species since its beginnings. Why would it therefore need to be listed as a right?
            Please show me the conclusive evidence that has established homosexuality as the same.

          • Liberal Elitist

            Homosexuality is completely natural for homosexuals.

          • Daniel Ramos

            And promiscuity is completely natural for nymphos. It doesn’t mean they set the standard for what “natural” actually means.

          • james blue

            Do you view the constitution as a document to protect freedom or a document to justify limiting it?

          • Daniel Ramos

            I view the Constitution as a framework for laws that restrain the government and even people in certain situations.
            Consider that the 3 biggest rights you could argue a person as having, such as life liberty and even property, have certain exemptions listed in the Constitution.
            Your right to life can be invalidated by State laws regarding the death penalty. (where justified)
            Your right to liberty can be invalidated by State specific laws regarding incarceration. (where justified)
            Your right to property can be invalidated by eminent domain laws regarding private ownership. (where justified)

          • SFBruce

            More importantly, 6 justices, a majority, agreed that the 14th amendment demands LGBT people should have the same rights to marry as straight people.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Yes of course, a slim majority of judges decided to forge a new right from a select privilege in order to try and pass it as a right to all. I’m sold! haha.
            You do realize that the Founders criminalized the acts in question right? The same ones that wrote the document that the SCOTUS is supposed to abide by?

          • SFBruce

            6 out of 9 justices is hardly “slim,” in fact, it’s quite decisive. And yes, I’m perfectly aware that same sex intimacy was illegal not only in our country’s earliest years, but as recently as 2003 when such laws were declared unconstitutional. I even pointed out on this page that Alabama kept their prohibition on the books until 2014, but that doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. Do you realize the founders not only created a government which permitted slavery, but that many were slave owners themselves? The founders are neither saints not gods, just courageous men who nonetheless got some things wrong.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Ah you must be talking about Lawrence, I was referring to the big one: Obergefell 🙂

            “Do you realize the founders not only created a government which permitted slavery, but that many were slave owners themselves?”

            Do you realize that owning a slave back then was as commonplace as owning an IPOD?

            Do you realize that blaming the Founders for slavery is like blaming the US for malaria in Africa?

            Do you realize the Founders did their best to invalidate slavery, through the Northwest Ordinance, the 3/5 compromise, and of course the banning on all new slave imports in 1809?

            No one is apotheosizing the Founders, just saying that the reason for doing what they did can be found in the fact that they opposed things based on puritanical motives evinced from the bible.

            To disconnect their influence from the Constitution is therefore the equivalent of stripping flesh from a bone and considering them both as mutually exclusive.

          • SFBruce

            Your suggestion that there’s some sort of moral equivalence between owning a slave and owning an iPod offensive, even when one takes into account Apple’s questionable use of Chinese labor, including child labor. While I acknowledge that it’s not fair to judge everything that happened in the 18th century with 21st century sensibilities, the fact remains many things are much better today than they were in 1776, and that includes the abolition of slavery and the subsequent advancement in equality for both African-Americans and LGBT Americans.

          • Daniel Ramos

            It’s only offensive if you’re injecting emotions into it. My remark was entirely logical.
            Back then slavery was commonplace in many places in the world, not just the US.
            I was comparing how the attitudes of such were similar, not to how the institutions were run. Thanks.
            The abolitionists were the ones who tried to stop the odious institution of slavery in the US, piecemeal, and were eventually successful.
            Christian abolitions for instance were instrumental in the endeavor.
            You really can’t compare slavery with LGBT issues, because (and to use your exacting standard here) there was no homosexual slave trade, homosexuals were never rounded up and killed en masse in the US despite the bs you may have heard. There was no homosexual holocaust.
            Your remark can therefore be considered legitimately “offensive” given your lackluster comparison of what Blacks went through with what homos went through.

          • SFBruce

            I made no direct comparison between the treatment of LGBT people and African-Americans. There’s no doubt in my mind that slavery is one of the worst stains on American history, and the treatment African-Americans received from the end of the Civil War until the 1960’s was far, far too slow to address the terrible and unique inequities they were forced to endure. That said, there was a time when gay people had to live in constant fear of being found out, something that could result in the loss of family, friends, one’s employment and even criminal prosecution. It’s a terrible way to live.

            I don’t expect this to have much effect on you, but try avoiding the use of gay epithets. It doesn’t advance your argument at all.

          • Daniel Ramos

            And I made no such “moral equivalence between owning a slave and owning an iPod” either so I suggest you hold yourself to the same yardstick of interpretive accountability as you do everyone else.

            The worst homosexuals received was Stonewall; being arrested for being homosexual.
            While I don’t agree with those actions (they should have been institutionalized not criminally incarcerated, the dangerous ones at least) the reality is they are not a natural demographic, so there should be no special protections afforded to them. We don’t give this courtesy to pedophiles, necrophiliacs or the incestuous crowd either, even though some or all of them will tell you they were “born that way” as well.

            And allow me to correct you on something else: my use of the word “homo” is simply an abbreviation for homosexual. It’s no different than my preferential use of the word “hetero” because it’s shorter than heterosexual.
            Please don’t make ASSumptions…thanks.

          • eassa

            Daniel, I wanted to quickly tell you that tonight I was with a large group of friends and believers. Remember I told you that when reading your dream, I felt like I was there in the room, watching because it seemed so very real?

            During our time together this evening, I suddenly thought of your dream and it seem like a very good time to tell them about your dream. As happens so many times, about so many other things, the Father reminded me of your dream and I decided to share it.

            As I told them your dream, everyone in the room sat perfectly still, listening so intently to all the details. No one said a word until I finished, and even then they sat quietly as if mulling over the details, and the implications, and the teachings of your dream in their own minds.

            Immediately afterwards we ended our gathering with a time of prayer. Your dream and experience encouraged and strengthened us all. Thank you for sharing. 🙂

          • Daniel Ramos

            I am humbled that you would share that with your friends in Christ. Thank you so very much!
            I’m curious, did you get any questions about it?

          • eassa

            Daniel, they were interested in who you are and how I met you. They were also interested in the message your received, why satan’s message to you was to “SHUT UP…”?

            We are all aware of satan’s desire to is shut us up, one way or another, however there are believers who are much more of a threat to satan than most. I believe you are one of the believers satan fears. I told them the little I know about you from the flavor of your posts. I told them that because of what you have written on the threads, you do not seem at all shy or ashamed of Jesus and the gospel.
            But for some reason satan wants Daniel to “SHUT UP!!”. Me too, he has been at me often using different methods to “SHUT EASSA UP”. How do I separate me from Jesus? He is more a part of me than I am a part of me. You understand what I am saying.

            They were interested in how you prayed over yourself and your home. Your action, both in your dream, and then when you woke up to the real thing interested them. They were keenly interested as I told them that you spoke with words that were, in essence through the Holy Spirit, with a power of speech that was not of your own.

            What led me to remember you and your dream, or rather I should say the leading of Holy Spirit so that I remembered you, was our reading Eph 6:10-18. We were discussing the importance of wearing the “full armor” in order to strengthen and protect the inner man, etc. The emphasis in our study was intimacy with God and the importance of the word of the Spirit, being the sword, in that process.

            I would say your dream, and my telling, it had a substantial impact on them. The prayer time that followed was intensely sweet. 🙂

          • Daniel Ramos

            I’ve been standing up for principles for years. I was even fired from one of my earliest jobs as a security guard because I refused to lie on a report.
            While I am far from perfect, the evil that surrounds me has emboldened me to seek after God more and more so I can try to put as much distance between them and myself as God does between Himself and unclean things.
            As a former atheist I can tell you that my life has been rather tumultuous at times, and even now there is the occasional obstacle the enemy throws at me but, I am reinvigorated at knowing that because I seek after the truth, the truth is not unknown to me…I share space with it in my mind, heart and soul.
            God has been good to me, and continues to be good to me all throughout my life.
            And I do understand what you mean sister in Christ. You are a blessing that I have come across here as well. Thank you 🙂

          • eassa

            “You have made known to me the path of life; you fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.” Ps 16:11
            “I will praise you, O Lord, with all my heart; I will tell of all your wonders. I will be glad and rejoice in you; I will sing praise to your name. O Most High.” Ps 9:1-2

            If you care to, tell me about your journey from atheism?

            Recently I was part of telling the good news to an atheist from China and it was…such a wonderful and challenging journey. I had no clue how to answer all the questions, but God had prepared me over the years for this woman and her family, and he guided my thoughts.
            Often, when this former atheist was talking with me and we were discussing creation vs evolution and so forth, I would be listening to her and yet, at the same time asking God to help me to understand what she wants and needs to know, guide my thoughts so that I give her the answers you want her to have. He did. 🙂

          • Daniel Ramos

            It’s an even longer story than my dream, suffice it to say that since I was always travelling down the path of truth, my way led me full circle back to Christ before long.
            I grew up in a very fundamentalist family, one which mixed different aspects of different religions together and called it Christianity. They were also very supersticious and at times, abusive.
            You could say I grew up with the Mother from “Carrie.”
            Anyway because of all that and more It should come as no shock that I rebelled, and declared myself an atheist into my tweens.
            I never closed my mind off to the truth, I just closed it off to religion because I felt it was an opium for those less intellectually gifted than myself.
            It wasn’t until I was in my early 20’s that I threw myself at God’s feet after being humbled by life…after realizing that my path was being slowly led back to Him.
            He was waiting for me to come back to him, and waiting for me to do it on my own.
            I’ve never looked back since, and I’ve graduated in my level of faith since then.
            I was a “convenient” Christian at the time I considered myself saved, and now I’m a dyed in the wool Christian who would gladly die before he sells out his beliefs because of fear or loathing of anything having to do with the flesh.
            Selah.

          • eassa

            Daniel, I have never read King’s novel or seen the movie, but I know enough to tell you I am sorry you had that type of religious experience.

            I love your story, it is natural and good. 🙂

            The difference between you and so many others, is that you did not close your mind off to truth. Truth is a treasure chest of jewels. You have been a miner of gold. 🙂

            Thanks for sharing.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Thank you for caring enough to ask 🙂

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Yes, owning a slave was morally equivalent then as owning an iPod is today.

            Blacks had no rights which whites were obligated to respect.

            Slavery was a courtesy for well behaved non-whites.

            “Red skins”, who were not willing submissive to slavery, were annihilated.
            .

          • Reason2012

            The slavery in the Bible was not forced (except in cases of a criminal, yet how is that different than going to jail). People were not bond servants because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. Or even criminals became slaves to repay their debts. Sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were “slaves” of someone else (a.k.a., you owed a debt). Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

            In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century..

            “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
            Exodus 21.16

            That alone proves the slavery of kidnapping others you are referring to CANNOT be what the Bible is condoning as that is condemned by death.

            Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers.

            “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 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, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”
            1 Timothy 1.8

            It’s complete false that the Bible “condones” slavery the way we experienced it in the past few centuries.

            If we try to use this false claim as an excuse to reject God, we’ll realize what a critical blunder that was when we face Him. Please read up more on it to counter the false claims you’ve been fed.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            “Then” = US slavery.
            .

          • Sheplorable😈✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you realize that slavery was commonplace in the world at that time?
            Do you realize that black Freedmen commonly owned black slaves?
            Do you realize that slavery has never been extinguished?
            Do you realize you are using the slavery argument in a very narrow way to justify your hatred for this country?

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Wh has expressed “hatred for this country”?
            .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You do know that whether it’s a “slim majority” or not is completely irrelevant, right?

          • Daniel Ramos

            How is it irrelevant? It shows that the decision was split almost evenly down party lines, which makes any claims by those who agree with the greater consensus dubious at best.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A Supreme Court decision is equally valid whether it’s 5-4 or 9-0, that’s what I’m saying. That’s just the way that works. Yeah, it means it was close, more contentious, more controversial, whatever you want to call it, but that doesn’t change the decision.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Then you’re arguing something I wasn’t arguing against.
            I didn’t say it didn’t count, my remark was to denote that a split decision like that DOES NOT MEAN that the decision arbitrarily speaks to a unanimous consent, nor does it speak for the sum total of the American populace.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, true enough. Those are things that I’ve never claimed myself, though. I guess I just don’t see how it’s really relevant that a Supreme Court decision doesn’t speak for everyone’s personal opinion.

            I know you were talking about a different case, but, in a different way, Obergefell WAS representative of American opinion. A 5-4 decision when polls indicated generally a little over 50% support of same-sex marriage…..

          • Daniel Ramos

            It still doesn’t speak to a sum total of the American populace.
            My ultimate point was to declare that SCOTUS has been wrong before, so anyone trying to state that “well the SCOTUS ruled in favor of it and homosexual Marriage is therefore Constitutional” is basing their view on specious territory at best, disingenuous quagmires at worst.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “It still doesn’t speak to a sum total of the American populace.”

            So what that it doesn’t? It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to do that.

          • Daniel Ramos

            I never said it was, but people are telling me that homosexual Marriage is Constitutional because of what SCOTUS did.
            Tell them that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “…but people are telling me that homosexual Marriage is Constitutional because of what SCOTUS did.”

            Yeah…..that’s called “judicial review” and it’s been around for over 200 years. Maybe you think that’s not a good thing, but I disagree. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” and all that.

            However, I’m not going around saying something like “it’s constitutional because the SC said so” and just stopping my argument there. It seems pretty clear to me how it is Constitutional, because of the 14th Amendment.

          • Daniel Ramos

            What I think is bad is when a judge goes on their own subjective pregressive interpretation rather than adhere to the Constitutional rule of law.

            Let me remind you of Jefferson’s remarks on Judicial tyranny:

            “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

            He issued that in his strong criticism of Marbury Vs Madison.

            Nearly every remark you’ve shared to me has been a misinterpretation of my position…are you ever going to start asking me what I think before you assume what I believe?
            And no, the 14th doesn’t make homosexual Marriage Constitutional, simply for the fact that one amendment can’t invalidate another without the specific intent being included in the lexicon.

            If you really believe that, let me ask you this:
            Why didn’t they use the 14th amendment to repeal the 18th? Why did they have to wait until the 21st?

            You’re telling me that homosexual Marriage, a union based on a lifestyle choice that barely 3 percent of the population engages in, is covered in the fundamental document but liquor wouldn’t be?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, then what is your position, what am I misinterpreting?

            You said one amendment can’t invalidate another without the stated intent to. Okay, fine….but then what amendment makes same-sex marriage unconstitutional?

          • Daniel Ramos

            The 9th and 10th respectively basically describe the rights of States to carve out laws that are not reserved for the FED to decide.
            The FED has no business making Marriage into a right for anybody, it’s not a power granted to them by the Constitution.
            Even the States can’t make it a right, because Marriage itself is not a secular concept. It was created by the religious for the religious and it preceded the formal creation of the US government.
            Regardless of whether you want to debate on who created marriage (we can get into that if you like) the fact is, the US government didn’t, and the US government has no true Constitutional power to make it a right, especially since the first amendment protects Establishments of faith from being interfered with by the government.
            If the FED can turn Marriage into a right, it can theoretically do so to any other staple of religion. If the FED says communion is a right to non Catholics, how would you argue against that if you are already arguing they were right to do that with Marriage?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But the 9th Amendment also says there are certain unenumerated rights, and the courts have, for quite some time now, said that marriage is one of those. That was part of the basis for the Loving v. Virginia decision, for one thing. (and of course, the 10th doesn’t mean states get to have unconstitutional laws, like bans on same-sex marriage now are)

            I’m not too sure if marriage was “created by the religious, for the religious” or not, but if it was, it has certainly changed into more than that, in modern times. Two people can get married without any religion involved in it at all, if they want to.

            But one other thing….even if you’re going to say religion has a monopoly on marriage….there are religions out there (even some Christian denominations!) that have no problem with same-sex marriage. What of them? What gives some religions and/or denominations the right to tell others what they can and can’t do? What gives any religion the right to tell me, an atheist, what I can’t do?

          • Daniel Ramos

            what the Courts say is not > the Constitution, such as what they say on Marriage.

            They exist to interpret law, not to actually make it.

            loving didn’t make Marriage into a right either, otherwise Baker Vs Nelson would never have been turned away.

            What Marriage has been devolved to has everything to do with the Government forcing its “civil” marriage as an alternative and then basically taking it over and declaring it a right to all.

            To answer your last question, the US government didnt base their view on Marriage on these alternative religions (which by the way, you didnt even mention because you know they are marginal at best) they based it on the judeoChristian one.

            The Founders themselves never believed Marriage was anything other than a sacred institution. Find me one that thought it was no more than a business contract and you will have more of an argument here.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “They exist to interpret law, not to actually make it.”

            Correct. That’s exactly what they did in Obergefell. They interpreted the Constitution. You obviously disagree with their interpretation. They did not make any new law, they declared existing ones unconstitutional.

            “loving didn’t make Marriage into a right either”

            I think it was considered a right before that. But anyway….”The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
            personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
            men.” – Chief Justice Warren, Loving v. VA

            “….these alternative religions (which by the way, you didnt even mention because you know they are marginal at best)”

            Whoa, slow down there. Marginal? Not to those who believe in them, I’d guess. And remember, I’m not just talking about non-Judeo-Christian religions. Just to quote wikipedia:

            “Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for same-sex marriage include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ,[1] the United Church of Canada, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),[2] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America,the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Denmark, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Norway, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the United Protestant Church of France, the United Protestant Church in Belgium, the Icelandic Church, the Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau, the Evangelical Church in Berlin, Brandenburg and Silesian Upper Lusatia, the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, the Protestant Church in Baden,the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Northern Germany, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists church..”

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Correct. That’s exactly what they did in Obergefell. They interpreted the Constitution. You obviously disagree with their interpretation. They did not make any new law, they declared existing ones unconstitutional.”

            No, you are wrong. The Constitution grants no right to Marriage, it never did because that is not a power the Founders vested the FED government with. What…did they use night vision goggles to see something that we with our normal eyes cannot?

            “I think it was considered a right before that. But anyway….”The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
            personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
            men.” – Chief Justice Warren, Loving v. VA”

            What it was “considered” before is immaterial to the facts. The facts are, Loving DID NOT make Marriage into a right, otherwise Obergefell would not be needed, nor would SCOTUS have rejected on appeal Baker Vs Nelson, a case where two Minnesota homos tried to use “Loving” and several amendments to make the case that Marriage was a right.

            What you are quoting is simply an obiter dictum, basically a fancy term for a judge’s extrajudicial OPINION that has no bearing on the case whatsoever except in passing.

            In Trinity Vs the US, the SCOTUS Court unanimously agreed that this was a Christian Nation…so would you consider their opinion there Constitutional or not?

            “Whoa, slow down there. Marginal? Not to those who believe in them, I’d guess. And remember, I’m not just talking about non-Judeo-Christian religions. Just to quote Wikipedia”
            Here’s the problem with your citation: You’re citing religions OUTSIDE the US to try and make the Case that religious people inside the US accept homosexual Marriage. This is either duplicity or ignorance on your part.

            Outside the US religious have a tendency to lean liberal, especially in pregressive Nations like Canada, or the Netherlands, especially when the Government itself has influence in what the Church says.
            You’re also forgetting many more denominations within Christianity in the US DO NOT accept same sex Marriage.
            Adventism, Baptism, Catholicism, the Christian reformed Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church of NA, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Latter Day Saints, The Methodist Church, and so on.

            Please stick to offering citations from within the US, because outside the US too many factors exist to make any citations from there ineligible to say the least.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, there were still a good number of churches from the US on that list. I’m not saying it’s the majority or anything like that; that’s not my point. My point is that this is a country that’s supposed to favor no one religion or denomination over others.

          • Daniel Ramos

            This is a country that also doesn’t create law based on fringe aspects of anything calling itself a religion, hence the ESTABLISHMENT part of the first amendment being key.
            If your argument is that the US government shouldn’t be involved in Marriage, then I’m inclined to agree. They should GTHO.

          • Bob Johnson

            If we are to take this approach then the government should get entirely out of the marriage business. No alimony, no child support, no Social Security survivors benefits, – all those 1500 state and federal laws (human institutions) currently in place.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Now you’re getting it 🙂
            Two religious people can get Married but it would only be under God and symbolic, since the US government would grant no secular legal perks to them.
            Now if those want all those perks, they should then file in a “civil union” along with everyone else, homos included.
            In this manner religious people keep the sacrosanct God inspired definition of Marriage intact, and homos get access to the same perks that come with a Marriage, without it actually being called one.
            Problem solved.

          • David Collins

            What kind of fantasy world do you sodomites live in? The 14th amendment ‘demand’s? When was the last time an amendment to the constitution got up and demanded anything or expressed its opinion? You people are truly deluded.

            Further, where in the 14th amendment are the words ‘LGBT people have the right to marry’? I read that amendment. I do not see LGBT, or marry anywhere in the text. Oh, do you mean that some black robed atheist made all of that up and to suit their own leftist antichristian worldview, and inserted those words in there as a ‘penumbra’ or ‘shadow’ or ’emanation’ that somehow means those things? Talk about deluded and lunacy. LOLOL. One of these days those devilish judges will be dead and probably off to their final destination.

          • Sheplorable😈✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dave, were you in Oklahoma City recently?

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Yes, Obergefell 2015 is essentially prohibiting discrimination in government and public accommodations against marriage partners because of their sex — it is not creating a “new right”.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            Au contraire, Obergefell actually did create a new (fraudulent) right, since there was heretofore no such right for Marriage to be dispensed equally among the citizenry.

            If you disagree, show me what right in the Constitution includes the right of Marriage. You would be hard pressed to do so, especially since the Founders considered the lifestyle itself anathematic.

            The slim majority of SCOTUS basically decided “hey, if it feels good, it must be good. Let’s make it law” and then ruled in favor of the homosexuals.

            That’s not Constitutional, that’s a complete disregard of the Constitution in favor of touchy feely pregressive beliefs.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Marriage isn’t dispensed.

            Marriage is something the marriage partners do themselves.

            Marriage is considered a basic human right according to our -s-l-o-w-l-y- enlightened Supreme Court in … wait for it … 1967, oh my … not thousands of years ago, not 200 years ago, and not in any Constitutional Amendment, ever.

            The founders considered marriage anathematic? ( You wrote it. )

            So did the early church, who ignored marriage for … wait for it … oh, I’ll let you research how late the church decided to enter the marriage game ( hint, not thousands of years ago, not even two thousand years ago, not even one thousand years ago … ).

            You fail to bring any salient compelling argument as to why the government and public accommodations should discriminate against marriage partners because of their sex.

            And neither has anyone else, who’s arguments failed to pass Constitutional muster at every level of judgement when put to trial, no matter how many times you all tried.

            And still nothing new, just failed arguments dug up from their proper burial.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            It is dispenses when a little over half of 9 unelected officials basically throw it as a bone to the masses because of a priority of feelings over facts.

            “Marriage is considered a basic human right according to our -s-l-o-w-l-y- enlightened Supreme Court in … wait for it … 1967, oh my … not thousands of years ago, not 200 years ago, and not in any Constitutional Amendment, ever”

            LOL Loving didn’t make Marriage a right my dear deluded friend. What Earl Warren shared there was his obiter dictum aka his FEELING that it was a right. He did the right thing for the wrong reason.

            Blacks had no business being denied Marriage because that was considered segregation and segregation was slowly being ruled unconstitutional. Warren however didn’t just rule due to that, he ruled due to his mistaken belief that Marriage was a universal right, because of his own pregressive leanings.

            This is the same guy who ruled against school prayer in “Engel Vs Vitale.” He became so hated that people picketed in the streets for his removal.

            By the way, if Loving had indeed made Marriage a right, why the need for Obergefell?

            And why would the SCOTUS turn away on appeal Baker Vs Nelson, a Minnesota lower court case where two homos tried to use Loving and Constitutional amendments to have their partnership declared legally recognized?

            Forget about all that?

            “The founders considered marriage anathematic? ( You wrote it. )”

            LOL You should look into prescription glasses friend…what I actually said was this:

            “especially since the Founders considered the lifestyle itself anathematic.”

            Gee Wally, I wonder what lifestyle I was referring to?

            Then again since you’re too blinded by feeling to interpret events Constitutionally, it’s no wonder you couldn’t quote me properly here 🙂

            “So did the early church, who ignored marriage for … wait for it … oh, I’ll let you research how late the church decided to enter the marriage game ( hint, not thousands of years ago, not even two thousand years ago, not even one thousand years ago … ).”

            LOL When did the early Church ignore Marriage? Please oh please, enlighten me.

            “You fail to bring any salient compelling argument as to why the government and public accommodations should discriminate against marriage partners because of their sex.”

            Hello? The fact that it never went through the Constitutional process is not “salient” enough for you?

            Tell me where the Founding Fathers believed rights were derived simply through populist activism and NOT through a Republican form of government, and your sciolism here will have more intellectual ground to stand on.

            Do I have to define what makes the US a “Republican form of government” for you by the way?

            “And neither has anyone else, who’s arguments failed to pass Constitutional muster at every level of judgement when put to trial, no matter how many times you all tried.”

            Oh please. Marriage was soundly rejected by a plurality of States before the pregressive judges in each forced their fiats on the populace. It was only less than handful of States that have debated the definition of Marriage where the people’s will was respected…and only because they were ok with homosexual Marriage being considered law.

            You are being disingenuous here yet again.

            “And still nothing new, just failed arguments dug up from their proper burial”

            Hey genius…pro abortion pregressives were telling us pro lifers that our movement was “dead” after Roe.

            Never mind the fact that we’ve eroded Roe’s power piecemeal state by state.

            Even if it takes 40 years like it did with Roe we will do no less with the homosexual equivalent, Obergefell…State by State.

            Mark my words. This fight is far from over.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            We have all the rights just by being born, not merely the rights enumerated generally in the Constitution.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            A mental disorder is not a right, otherwise mental institutions would be considered unconstitutional.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            “Mental disorders” are not the topic of this thread, are private optional medical diagnosis, are no one else’s business, and have no power to compromise anyone’s inborn inalienable equal Constitutionally recognized, supported, and protected civil rights.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            “no one else’s business” except when they’re busy marching up and down the street in pride parades, in various stages of undress, some of them engaging in simulated sex acts in full view of children.

            You do realize the Founding Fathers criminalized homosexuality don’t you? Would you like to know how?

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Are you thinking of Mardi Gras ( you know, all those heterosexual people acting out ), or advertising billboards ( you know, all those perfume hawkers acting out )?

            What about folks who do not present actionable ( I presume ) illegal lewd and lascivious acts on parade?

            Can they have government and public accommodations respect for their equal rights?
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            I’m talking about Pride parades. You can google those in case you’re not familiar. I’m not going to post the filth that passes for entertainment there.
            What about them? So because a few don’t that excuses all the ones that do?
            Where is it a “right” for you to walk around nearly naked and simulate sex acts listed in the Constitution?

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            I have no idea what you are talking about, but I do know that we do not have group punishment and compromise of equal rights for the innocent because of the behavior of others.

            You failed to acknowledge that homosexual pride parades have invented nothing that heterosexuals have not already done and continue to do.

            See you at Mardi Gras under the Calvin Klein billboard.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            I repeat, a mental disorder is NOT a right. We are going in circles here.

            “You failed to acknowledge that homosexual pride parades have invented nothing that heterosexuals have not already done and continue to do.”
            Show me one “hetero” parade that has simulated sex acts as part of its attraction then, and i’ll denounce that too.
            LOL I don’t recall the Calvin Klein board having sex with itself.
            Nice try 😉

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Do you believe the folks in the pride parade were behaving actionably illegally?

            Can you share specifics?
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            Oh come now, you think you can get me on a technicality?
            In San Fran for instance, anything goes, so homos can pretty much walk around and have sex with each other with the State’s consent, especially with that lunatic Jerry Brown in charge.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            You mean like the heterosexual couples making out on beaches and lover’s lane and back tables in restaurants, and window tables in restaurants, and so on, everywhere, all the time?

            “Technicalities” should be no challenge, so just share the basis for your presentation here, or acknowledge that you are sharing opinion, opinion defined as beliefs not based on fact.

            For example, Google search [ public nudity and sex ] and count the presence of heterosexual people versus homosexual people … waiting …
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            Making out and having sex are two different things.

            Please try not to move the goalpost.

            If heteros are breaking public decency laws, they should have to face a fine as well.

            What “opinion” do you refer to? Are you actually going to tell me that nothing of the sort that I described happens at Pride parades, at the Folsom fair, etc?

            “For example, Google search [ public nudity and sex ] and count the presence of heterosexual people versus homosexual people … waiting …”
            Well duh! There are more heteros than homos after all, a rate of well over 90% vs roughly 3%. Don’t be disingenuous here.
            And yet homo males molest young boys at nearly a third lol.
            And please…ask me to prove that…I dare you.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Without specifics, it’s impossible to discuss, without a basis, your protestations are opinion, not fact.

            If someone breaks the law, the law probably should address that, regardless of what you think of the person’s sexuality.

            That you go out of your way to peep at homosexual public displays and ignore equivalent and overwhelming heterosexual public displays says more about you versus equality than it says about homosexuals, especially homosexuals who are not exhibiting in public, like, say, Anderson Cooper moderating the Presidential debate, Ellen Degeneres entertaining every afternoon, Rachel Maddow educating every evening, Tim Cook running the world’s most valued company.
            __________

            Doh?

            You accuse homosexuals of what you apparently freely admit heterosexuals do?

            I’m shocked, SHOCKED!
            __________

            Are you suggesting group punishment and denial of recognition of equal rights of innocent people because of the crimes of others?

            ( Go ahead, prove your “homo males molest young boys at nearly a third”, what are you going to use Christian church and evangelical minister conviction statistics? )
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Without specifics, it’s impossible to discuss, without a basis, your protestations are opinion, not fact.”

            And how many specifics have you provided again? Where are your facts, or are your words facts unto themselves?

            “If someone breaks the law, the law probably should address that, regardless of what you think of the person’s sexuality.”

            I can say the same for you, since the reality is homos get to circumvent the law in many Democrat controlled places, San Fransicko being just one example.

            “That you go out of your way to peep at homosexual public displays”

            Pathetic ad hominem remark.

            “and ignore equivalent and overwhelming heterosexual public displays says more about you versus equality than it says about homosexuals”

            How did I “ignore” them when your best citation was a pedestrian reference to kids making out after school? Your argument here is no more than an argumentum ad passions statement and of course a Strawman.

            “especially homosexuals who are not exhibiting in public”

            Hello? Did I say EVERY single one? Show me where I did if you don’t mind.

            “You accuse homosexuals of what you apparently freely admit heterosexuals do?

            I’m shocked, SHOCKED!”

            Lol saying that if heteros were to break decency laws they should be fined as well doesn’t mean that I am admitting they do the same as these “Pride” homosexuals. Again, this is no more than a pathetic Strawman on your part.

            “Are you suggesting group punishment and denial of recognition of equal rights of innocent people because of the crimes of others?”

            There is no right to a mental disorder. We have been over this.

            “( Go ahead, prove your “homo males molest young boys at nearly a third”, what are you going to use Christian church and evangelical minister conviction statistics? )”

            How about the research of a Dr. who has written extensively on the subject?

            Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

            Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

            The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

            Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

            Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

            Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Of course mental disorders are an inborn inalienable basic huma right — what, are you going to outlaw private licensed professional medical diagnosis?

            However, the topic is not mental disorders, and there is no support for thinking that non-conforming sexual and gender minorities, or minorities of any trait, are defined by mentally disorders.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            And by the way, I’ve been at Mardi Gras and I didn’t see anywhere near what goes on at Pride parades.
            That should tell you something.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            … that you need to participate more in pride parades?

            Good for you.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            No, that tells me that I have an argument to stand on, and yours has all the consistency of quicksand.
            Are you speaking from experience btw? Well that would explain why you’re not understanding the concept of logic.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Logic is myopically personal.

            Share specifics, not sweeping generalities, and back up your assessments with specific referential observations.

            Otherwise, you spout mere opinion, and no one can argue that.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            Logic is strictly IMPERSONAL, otherwise it wouldn’t be objective.
            I worked in the vicinity of Mardi Gras years ago, and since I worked nights I had to make my way through it often.
            In my many debates against people like you, I’ve managed to research what exactly transpires at Pride Parades, the Folsom Street Fair, and so forth.
            I NEVER say anything resembling the latter in the former. Women baring their breasts briefly doesn’t compare to half naked males gyrating on each other or grabbing at each other’s crotches.
            Now you can argue that with feelings, or you can argue that with facts.
            Are you a homosexual by the way?

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Ahh … you think there is a logic “out there” on it’s own, objectively perfect and appropriate for everyone, if they would only put their individual lives and experiences on hold, and listen and obey the one true logic.

            Seriously?

            The reason, for example, that we have so many choices in transportation — different cars and motorcycles and bicycles and trains and boats and planes — is because each person’s logical and logistical preferences are different.

            It would make absolutely no sense for me to do what is logical for you, and visa versa.
            __________

            I appreciate that you are shocked, SHOCKED, at people being what you experience as publicly sexual.

            Uh-huh.

            Go hang out in the woods behind any junior high school across the country after classes let out in the afternoon, oh my!

            Junior high — middle school!

            Google search [ naked bike marathon ], [ sex in public ], [ public nudity ], and come back after counting the number of heterosexual people in the responses versus the number of homosexual people in the responses, and see if your personal experience has anything to do with the world’s experience.
            ____________

            Are you asking for a date?

            I’m spoke for, thank you … and my gender and partnering preference are no one else’s business — what would anyone else do with the information anyway?
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Ahh … you think there is a logic “out there” on it’s own, objectively perfect and appropriate for everyone, if they would only put their individual lives and experiences on hold, and listen and obey the one true logic.

            Seriously?”

            Yes seriously. Logic by very implication deals with reasons pertaining to the facts of the matter, not subjective interpretations based on feelings of the matter.

            “The sun is hot” is an example of logic. Someone with an inability to process heat as well as another might disagree because of their physiological subjective interpretation, but that doesn’t mean they are right, since the sun being hot is an immutable fact aka logical belief.

            “The reason, for example, that we have so many choices in transportation — different cars and motorcycles and bicycles and trains and boats and planes — is because each person’s logical and logistical preferences are different.

            It would make absolutely no sense for me to do what is logical for you, and visa versa.”

            This is a red herring that has no basis at all within our discussion.

            “I appreciate that you are shocked, SHOCKED, at people being what you experience as publicly sexual.

            Uh-huh.”

            I’m not shocked at all at your apathy here given that you don’t strike me as someone that considers morality of paramount importance.

            “Go hang out in the woods behind any junior high school across the country after classes let out in the afternoon, oh my!

            Junior high — middle school!”

            LOL and I suppose you miss what you are implying here…kids making out behind a school are doing so IN SECRET and not in front of everyone for all the world to see. You should have rethought offering me this 😉

            “Google search [ naked bike marathon ], [ sex in public ], [ public nudity ], and come back after counting the number of heterosexual people in the responses versus the number of homosexual people in the responses, and see if your personal experience has anything to do with the world’s experience.”

            LOL been there, done that. Try looking up how State specific laws make these events legal, quasilegal, or legal depending on what the State considers appropriate. 🙂

            “Are you asking for a date?”

            No, you’re the wrong gender, the wrong type and have the wrong mentality, so far from it lol.

            “I’m spoke for, thank you … and my gender and partnering preference are no one else’s business — what would anyone else do with the information anyway?”

            Is that evasiveness I detect? Why would you need to feel ashamed at hiding what you are? Do you think I’m going to commit a hate crime or something?
            Aww come on…step out of the closet and be proud to be whatever you really are lol.
            Btw liking your own comment is really really lame in case you weren’t aware.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            So, you never applied logic, have you?

            No surprise there.
            __________

            I do not consider the human body and sex immoral or embarrassing or necessarily private — neither do the majority of life forms on the planet.

            Avert your eyes if you feel ashamed.

            No one else in the world is responsible for your feelings — take some responsibility for yourself.
            __________

            So, someone seeing what you do is the problem?
            __________

            So public nudity is okay if it’s legal, but if it’s not legal, then …

            You lost me.

            What was your indictment of homosexuals again?

            This is a discussion about marriage, you know.
            __________

            We have different words because they mean different things — “evasive” does not mean “shame”.

            In my experience, people don’t ask questions, they make statements with a circular thingy at the end that bring the statement back around to them to fulfill whatever is their agenda.

            What Is your agenda?

            Ooops, I did it myself.

            I do not know your agenda.

            There, I acknowledged that my question of you was really a statement about me.

            Try turning your pointed, adenga-filled questions into personally responsible statements sometime — it couldn’t hurt.
            __________

            If you do not like your posts, why do you write them?
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            “So, you never applied logic, have you?

            No surprise there.”

            Yawn. Is that the best you can do? Moving on…

            “I do not consider the human body and sex immoral or embarrassing or necessarily private — neither do the majority of life forms on the planet.

            Avert your eyes if you feel ashamed.

            No one else in the world is responsible for your feelings — take some responsibility for yourself.”

            Having a belief in decency and morality does not mean one feels “shame” in the human body. As always, it’s what you do that is the question here.

            I take it you walk around naked all day every day? If not, then you really are doing nothing more than offering me a personal opinion here. Perhaps this is why you cannot grasp the true meaning of logic?

            “So, someone seeing what you do is the problem?”

            Decency laws exist for a reason. Without them, people resort to moral anarchy before long. We think through greater means than animals in case you weren’t aware.

            “So public nudity is okay if it’s legal, but if it’s not legal, then …

            You lost me.

            What was your indictment of homosexuals again?

            This is a discussion about marriage, you know.”

            If it’s truly legal then I have no problem with it other than my own personal views on the subject. If however it’s made legal in order to give special class privileges to an unnatural demo like homosexuals, then my issue is with the politicians who make it so.

            For the record, you started bringing up these irrelevant tangents.

            “We have different words because they mean different things — “evasive” does not mean “shame”.

            So you’re telling me you walk around in full undress in public whenever you like, is that it?

            What, you live in a nudist colony or something?

            “In my experience, people don’t ask questions, they make statements with a circular thingy at the end that bring the statement back around to them to fulfill whatever is their agenda.”

            And what agenda would you say you have? I’m curious.

            “Try turning your pointed, adenga-filled questions into personally responsible statements sometime — it couldn’t hurt.”

            This is a purely irrelevant statement that has no bearing on the facts.

            To cite from what you said earlier: This is a discussion about Marriage, you know!

            “If you do not like your posts, why do you write them?”
            Where did I say I don’t like my posts? Are you on meds or something?

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            … if politicians ( elected legislative representatives ? ) make or allow public nudity to be legal then it’s legal for everyone, right?

            Why do you consider something for everyone to be a special right or privilege for homosexuals only?

            That’s what I mean by “applied” logic.
            __________

            Any group of religious people is an unnatural demographic ( equally protected by our contract of our Constitution as would be a so-called “natural” demographic, by the way ).

            As are groups of fire fighters, and so on.

            Homosexuals are as natural as heterosexuals, just a minority.

            Do you have a point?

            That’s what I mean by “applied” logic.
            __________

            You commented on my up-voting my own posts as if you would never consider your own posts worthy of your own up-vote.

            That’s what I mean by “applied” logic.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Why do you consider something for everyone to be a special right or privilege for homosexuals only?”

            Because if the rules are bent to give them special privilege where it would otherwise not be bent for heteros then it’s favoritism. Duh.

            “That’s what I mean by “applied” logic”

            That’s what I mean by “you are biased for this lifestyle.”

            “Any group of religious people is an unnatural demographic ( equally protected by our contract of our Constitution as would be a so-called “natural” demographic, by the way ).”

            Show me where homosexuality is listed as protected in the first amendment as religious speech AND exercise is if you don’t mind?

            “Homosexuals are as natural as heterosexuals, just a minority.”

            Prove it.

            “You commented on my up-voting my own posts as if you would never consider your own posts worthy of your own up-vote.”

            I would NEVER upvote my own posts. It comes across as pathetic and desperate which is probably why you do it.

            “That’s what I mean by “applied” logic.”
            You have no true grasp on logic, your entire argument is based on specious feelings and biased perspective.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Ahh, you think someone is bending rules for homosexuals, not that there are special rules for homosexuals, got it.

            Perhaps you should be talking to them, not me.
            __________

            Religion ( and fire fighting ) is a choice, making it something that is human, not nature.

            A group of born blonds would be natural, a group of dyed blonds would be unnatural.

            It’s a silly concept, but you brought up natural versus unnatural, as if the Constitution cared.
            __________

            Do you want me to prove that homosexuals are a minority, or do you want me to prove that homosexuality is as natural an occurrence as heterosexuality?

            Remember, the Constitution doesn’t care about whether anyone can be considered a minority, or natural or not.
            __________

            I use Disqus voting as a marker for posts I have read ( and for my own, edited ), so, when I return each day, I can quickly scan a thread and pick up where I left off, knowing I’m finding new posts ( or my own unedited posts ), by new one’s not having voting marks yet.

            Do you yourself use anything in your life in creative ways the original designer may not have imagined ( like, using a screwdriver to open a can of paint, even though that’s probably not in the instruction manual for a screwdriver ) ?

            But you can presume anything about anybody that you want to presume.

            Like your presumptions about homoseuals, your presumptions about others are not facts about others, hence our extended back-and-forth.
            .

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Ahh, you think someone is bending rules for homosexuals, not that there are special rules for homosexuals, got it.”

            Semantics.

            “It’s a silly concept, but you brought up natural versus unnatural, as if the Constitution cared.”

            The Men that wrote it criminalized homosexuality in case you weren’t aware.

            “Do you want me to prove that homosexuals are a minority, or do you want me to prove that homosexuality is as natural an occurrence as heterosexuality?”

            False equivocation. Prove to me that it originates genetically, in order to establish examples of it in people as “natural” and not simply the byproduct of other factors.

            “Remember, the Constitution doesn’t care about whether anyone can be considered a minority, or natural or not.”

            The Constitution makes no protections for mental disorders. We have been over this. People are protected, artificial lifestyles are not.

            “Do you yourself use anything in your life in creative ways the original designer may not have imagined ( like, using a screwdriver to open a can of paint, even though that’s probably not in the instruction manual for a screwdriver ) ?”

            Meaningless red herring.

            “Like your presumptions about homoseuals, your presumptions about others are not facts about others, hence our extended back-and-forth.”

            It’s not “presumptions” when I can back it all up with facts, which you sadly have yet to reciprocate.

            Your entire argument has been argumentum ad passions from the start, with no more substance than a jello mold.

          • Peter Blaise

            .
            Dead folks, like the slave-rapist founders, have no rights, and certainly not superior rights to living citizens.
            __________

            Your unscientific prejudice prevents you from seeking well and learning anything.

            Why do you presume and limit yourself to expecting that it can ONLY be genetics and MUST be the key to sexuality, or nature, or something?

            You don’t even know how heterosexuals get that way.
            __________

            There is neither any support that homosexuality ( or heterosexuality ) is a mental disorder, nor that mental disorders of any kind compromise anyone’s equal Constitutional rights, nor that “artificial” compromises anyone’s equal Constitutionally recognized rights ( you know, like that artificial construct of created and chosen “religion”, or those acquired artificial traits of some handicapped folks, or inborn traits of any nature that depend on “artificial” support, like diabetes — none of those compromise equally Constitutionally recognized rights ).
            __________

            You questioned my use of Disqus upvoting, presuming, from your lack of creative imagination, that there can only be ONE use of Disqus upvoting — apparently you have never used a screwdriver as a prybar, have you, it would go against God’s rules for screwdrivers, I suppose.
            __________

            I don’t care about your “facts”, they have nothing to do with Constitutional recognition, support, and protection for everyone’s inborn inalienable equal rights to their own life, to their own liberty, to their own pursuit of their own happiness, without discrimination in government and public accommodations, regardless if anything discoverable or volunteered about them is inborn, acquired, or chosen.

            I don’t care if you’re an offspring of three males, two females, a donkey, and a dolphin, and you have a bushy tail and flipper sticking out of your forehead, you have tattoos all over your body and have pierced your body with anchors, and you like to mate with inflatable floating objects — you are equal under Constitutional law to me.
            .

          • David Collins

            Fortunately? Are you that obsessed with sticking your member into another’s man’s bottom that you think it is fortunate that the US Supreme went against God’s law? Do you really think you are going to get away with committing such actions?

          • SFBruce

            First of all, the specifics of what I do with the man I love are none of your business. Why is that even on your mind? Secondly, we don’t live in a Christian theocracy, we have a secular government. District judges, appellate judges and SCOTUS justices all have an obligation to the law and the US Constitution, not your own personal beliefs about God. Thirdly, it’s an orientation not an obsession, and I just don’t believe living my life openly and honestly is “getting away” with anything.

            Finally, when I comment here, it’s to offer my understanding of facts and reality. I know it’s not my job to comment on the morality of those who oppose LGBT equality. I wonder why you feel the need to question mine.

          • David Collins

            Facts and reality are the farthest thing from your comments.

          • SFBruce

            What facts do you think I’ve gotten wrong?

          • David Collins

            What facts have you stated? All I have seen you write are your opinions and sexual wishes or the opinions of alleged judges who have ruled as a violation of the man made document, the US Constitution, that what humanity has known for centuries are all of a sudden wrong, so that they could justify the proliferation of sexual perversion. You are so numbed to God’s truth and the natural law placed in men’s hearts, you think that it is a personal attack to have your acts of sodomy questioned.

        • Liberal Elitist

          Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 ruled that the remaining state bans on interracial opposite-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Race is natural, homosexuality isn’t.
            False correlation.

          • Liberal Elitist

            Sexual orientation is every bit as natural as race. Besides, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision, race wasn’t the issue. At that time, one black male had the right to marry one black female, and one white male had the right to marry one white female. So the issue wasn’t race; it was the behavior of race-mixing. When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, 72% of adult Americans were opposed to interracial opposite-sex marriage, and 48% of adult Americans favored criminal punishments for interracial opposite-sex couples who engaged in this behavior. Absolutely no one cared if a black man married a black woman, or a white man married a white woman.

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Sexual orientation is every bit as natural as race.”

            Prove homosexuality originates naturally then.

            “So the issue wasn’t race; it was the behavior of race-mixing.”

            Race was at the very crux of the issue. Blacks weren’t allowed to intermarry because of their race and the color associated with it.

            Again, Race is a natural byproduct of human diversity, homosexuality is not. It’s never been conclusively proven as such.
            You are arguing opinions, not facts.

          • Liberal Elitist

            “Prove that homosexuality originates naturally then.”

            Here I am.

            “Blacks weren’t allowed to intermarry because of their race and the color associated with it.”

            Neither were whites.

          • Daniel Ramos

            I see. So if I was to go to a nympho and ask them if promiscuity is natural and they respond the same way, that’s all the proof needed? Lol!

            No offense, but you are too connected to the lifestyle to wax objectively on it.

            “”Blacks weren’t allowed to intermarry because of their race and the color associated with it.”

            Whites weren’t allowed to Marry non Whites, not because of any segregation laws against them, but because of segregation laws against others, specifically Blacks.

          • james blue

            Could you choose to be gay? Do you have same sex attractions, but decide not to act on them? Could you in a moment of human fallibility succumb to gay urges and have same sex relations?

            I couldn’t. I was born heterosexual. I didn’t decide to be heterosexual, I had no choice. I couldn’t be tempted into a physical relationship with another man.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Anyone can choose to be gay at any time if under the right circumstances.
            Porn stars who declare themselves heterosexual nevertheless engage in homosexual acts which are defined as “gay.”
            The psychology associated with the lifestyle and the lifestyle itself fall under the same umbrella terminology: “homosexuality.”
            My faith exists as buffer preventing me from psychologically entertaining that lifestyle or even engaging in the behaviors; without it I might be susceptible to it if given the right circumstances, such as being trapped on a deserted island for years and then having someone wash up who was of the same sex.
            The human need for companionship can override even previously held taboo beliefs.
            Do you realize how many self declared homosexuals nevertheless engage in hetero sex because of other circumstances?
            If one was to believe that homosexuality was immutable, how then to explain homosexual Parents that did not use science to conceive?
            Those that were gay before -then “became” hetero in order to have children- then conveniently went back to being gay?
            It’s either immutable or it isn’t…you can’t choose both. So which do you believe?
            And please don’t offer up the “bisexuality” remark, because I’m not talking about people who consider themselves bi, just those people who are gay and then hetero when necessary.
            To answer your question: I didn’t choose to be heterosexual, I chose to REMAIN heterosexual just as every other heterosexual person on earth does.
            The facts are as they are.

          • SFBruce

            There are three aspects to our sexuality: (1) our desires and fantasies, (2) our behavior, and (3) our identity. Yes, sometimes otherwise heterosexual people engage in same sex intimacy when the opposite sex isn’t available, such as prison, but that doesn’t mean their desires and fantasies change as well. There are also some who engage in same sex intimacy but don’t identify as gay. But when you review all the available data, there’s really not much evidence that we’re able to change our underlying desires by wishing them away.

          • Daniel Ramos

            “Identity” is in the eye of the beholder though. You can identify as an autobot Transformer all day every day, it doesn’t mean you actually are one.

            Likewise people who think they are “born gay” are operating on a personal belief irrespective of any actual scientific substantiation.

            Your last remark is entirely mistaken. The former head of the APA, (the same APA that legalized the disorder) Dr Nicholas Cummings spoke at length about how his own work to help homosexuals overcome their unwanted attractions has paid off, even if the results are only minimal.

            Again, if people were really “born that way” NO ONE could stop being homosexual…it would be the equivalent of trying to wish AIDS away.

          • uninvitedguest

            Anyone can choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex? Rubbish! Married 17yrs to my wife and there is no way I could force myself to be attracted to men. Totallly uneducated opinion.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Go strand yourself on an island with your Wife nowhere near you and spend 17 year alone.
            Then have a Man wash up with you and see what happens next…then get back to me.

          • uninvitedguest

            Spent 2 12month deployments in the ME and never thought about another man. You are woefully misinformed.

          • Daniel Ramos

            You knew you were coming back at some point. On a deserted island you wouldn’t have that conceit.
            Your argument is woefully inadequate.

          • james blue

            perhaps YOU can choose to be gay, I cannot.

            I couldn’t choose to be gay. Being gay isn’t the act. If you are only attracted physically to the same gender, but choose to remain celibate you are still gay, just as you are still heterosexual if you are attracted to the opposite gender but remain celibate.

          • Daniel Ramos

            When you’re trapped on a deserted island for years and years and another man washes up, get back to me. Until then, you can only speculate.
            The psychological conditions have to exist first in order for the acts in question to be mitigated.
            Homo thugs justify it by saying they “only give” so they’re not gay. (for instance)
            Being gay IS the act, it just doesn’t represent ALL of the aspects of it, which include the psychological predilections.
            Your remarks aren’t actually helping to make your case.

          • james blue

            Hmmm…. It appears you’ve just made a case for this –Quote “Prove homosexuality originates naturally then.”

            Speak for yourself. If I was trapped on an island for years I would be grateful for human companionship, but that wouldn’t mean physical.

          • Daniel Ramos

            Nope, since psychological behaviors don’t make abnormal actions natural. Good try though 🙂

            “Speak for yourself. If I was trapped on an island for years I would be grateful for human companionship, but that wouldn’t mean physical.”

            Ahh I see. You’re another one who speaks from the comfort and convenience of the known, in regards to the uncertainty and inconvenience of an unknown circumstance…interesting 🙂

          • Bob Johnson

            “Prove homosexuality originates naturally then.”

            Start with Bonobos and then continue on through the some 1,500 species that have exhibited homosexual behavior.

          • uninvitedguest

            Do you have any proof of homosexuality not being a natural sexual orientation? It has been around forever.

          • Daniel Ramos

            It’s inherently antiDarwinian.
            A species that does not reproduce does not survive.
            There is no natural reproduction taking place with homosexuality.
            We have no proof that “it’s been around forever” with animals, only people.
            Back then before the rise of the “if it feels good it must be good” movement, people didn’t try to pass off their vices as natural, they just felt they should be able to do it.
            Choice was never in denial, but now we are expected to believe it’s “natural” even though the conclusive evidence for that is nonexistent.

          • jake hoek

            The Lord did not create 2 Adams, therefore homo sexuality is simple perversion, but also a sin and not repented of,demands eternal punishment! Denying it is not an escape. OKAY?

          • uninvitedguest

            Nope. We were not created.

          • jake hoek

            Great, just show us your evidence. If not evolution ‘faith” shows you are following the blind, ending up in the ditch!

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Why were they on the books so long to begin with hmmm? Why only in the last few years have they been looked at and then reversed ? I’ll tell you why… Because our society has become corrupted via un-holywood and devil-vision. We have become so dumbed down that we can no longer discern right from wrong. We have replaced the morals and precepts of our Creator with the thoughts and ideas of the created. Therefore onward we march into a lawless , corrupted society , which changes laws not based upon the rule of law but upon an immoral corruption of it’s culture.

        • Michael C

          Are you saying that you believe that “sodomy” should be a criminal offense in the United States?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I’m saying it was illegal for a reason. Because it is a perversion and it causes diseases. Even in heterosexuals it has been known to cause disease and or damage to the anus. The anus is proven to be a outlet not an inlet. There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

            The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

            The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

            The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet.

            The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections.

            Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that requires immediate medical attention. The only way to completely avoid anal sex risks is to abstain from anal sex. If you engage in anal sex.

          • Michael C

            A whole lot of words yet you didn’t answer my question.

            …and what about that other act that is also illegal under “sodomy” laws?

            Do you believe that “sodomy” should be a criminal offense? Yes or no?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yes because it brings disease into the word. Should a man sodomize a woman or a man the chance for disease has been proven to be enormous . To hid that fact is plain deception and the desire to have the lust of the flesh over the welfare of humanity. To me yes that is a crime. It has been proven also that sodomites rape far more often then those who do not practice sodomy. Sodomites are more likely to have many many partners and therefore put humanity at a great risk for HIV and other sexual diseases . These are known facts . Therefore because our laws were meant to prevent harm to others… yes sodomy should have remained on the books as unlawful.

          • Michael C

            Wow. Got it. You think the U.S. should be like Afghanistan or Uganda.

            Do you support the bible and it’s prescribed punishment?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No, I think all men are free and should not place mens rule of law above the instructions of their CREATOR who created them to be free men. But because men are rebellious towards HOLY instructions they place themselves under mans rule of law. Mens laws start off good but eventually become corrupted. The Temple was destroyed alone with it’s court system because it had become corrupted by men seeking power and wealth. Why because the CREATOR never wanted HIS people to have men over them but they chose an earthy king rather then a heavenly one. They chose darkness over light. So a relationship back to our CREATOR was made available, the veil being ripped from top to bottom allowing all men access to his mercy and a relationship with the ONE who gave them the freedom to choose TRUTH or lies, light or darkness, HIS ways or mans. Because men choose ways which destroy them & brake righteous instructions, statues and decrees the CREATOR made a way back to HIM. All can go and plead their case threw the mediator given to them which is the Messiah. ALL men will be judged by their CREATOR one day and all those who refused the mediator offered to them and remain in rebellion to HIS instructions will be guilty and punished. There now you know what I believe.

          • Michael C

            There now you know what I believe.

            Actually, no. I don’t know what you believe because, while you seem to like typing a whole lot of words, you don’t seem to enjoy answering simple questions.

            1) You only stated your opinions concerning one particular act that is prohibited under “sodomy” laws. What about the other act that is illegal under “sodomy” laws?

            2) Do you trust and believe in the bible’s prescribed punishment for homosexuality?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            And you seem to not be able to read what is written within a post and only wish to prove some obscure point. If you can’t understand what I have written to answer your objections then why should I continue to try to answer you. You will simply keep saying I have not given you the answer you seek.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Do you believe that not wearing a seat belt should be illegal?

          • Michael C

            It’s not a law that I would think necessary but I don’t necessarily oppose it’s existence, either. Requiring seatbelt use doesn’t really inhibit a person’s freedom to live their life as they choose.

            Do you think this question is relevant to the subject?

      • Chet

        Any idea when God Almighty overturned His edict on such behavior?

        • Michael C

          To be honest, I am not subject to your religious rules and neither are our civil laws.

          Your personal religious rules are for you, yourself, to follow.
          …not to force others to adhere to.

          The United States is not a Christian based theocracy.

          • Chet

            Whether or not one believes God is immaterial as He always has the last say as man’s life is but a vapor that appears for a little time, then vanishes away… Respectfully, you might want to engage in a little critical thinking for it is Him with whom we all have to do, sooner or later… Jesus saves from the guttermost to the uttermost… But He forces no man to come unto Him as He gives us all freedom of “choice”. Choose wisely, Sir…

    • Josey

      yep, and unbelievable the rapist only got 12 months.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Sad!

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Judge Joiner correctly recognized that his personal religious beliefs carry no force in a court of law. There the Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, prevails as the highest law of the land. This is not a fact that Roy Moore seems to acknowledge. For that reason alone he is unsuitable to serve as a judge of any kind.

  • SFBruce

    Joiner made the right call in both instances: striking down Alabama’s sodomy laws and removing Moore from the bench, and he does so for essentially the same, right reasons. Alabama repealed its law prohibiting sodomy in 2014, a full 11 years after SCOTUS declared such laws unconstitutional. Moore tried to circumvent the SCOTUS Obergefell decision, something he had absolutely no right to do, so the JOC was right to suspend him. If Joiner’s church wants to reprimand him or withdraw his membership, they are perfectly free to do so, but both Joiner’s and Moore’s first responsibilities as judges is to the law and and the US constitution, not to their church. Joiner met that responsibility, while Moore did not.

  • David Collins

    God will call this snake disguised as a Christian to account. He will give an account. He denied Jesus before men. Therefore, Jesus will deny him before the Father and the angels in heaven.

    Look at his eyes. He looks like there is something wrong inside of his soul. Is he possessed? No question, there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in today’s churches. They may be ‘elders’ but they work for Satan.

  • michael louwe

    Does this mean it is legal in USA for gays to rape non-gays or boys n for lesbians to “rape” non-lesbians or girls.?

  • Ex Tempore

    …did you know that Thomas Jefferson published his “Jefferson Bible”, as he didn’t believe in the stories of the OT & NT, nor in the existence of Jesus Christ…….?

  • Chet

    Christians and conservatives are the only two groups of individuals known for turning on each other when one is down as opposed to lifting such a one up to his feet and help him to stabilize. When a Christian is wounded, often, a fellow soldier in the Lord’s army is wont to pull his sidearm and finish him off. The unsaved and democrats never, ever engage in such behavior. When one of their own is under fire, particularly democrat politicians, the others merely circle the wagons and fire back while signaling liberal media to come to their rescue… And liberal media always comes through for them.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      You’re making us “unsaved” liberals look a lot better than the conservative Christians right there.

      • Chet

        Surely you jest as not all conservatives are Christians. Nevertheless, when it comes to uniting and sticking by the stuff, you’re right. As I stated previously, Christians and conservatives should take note of how liberals stick by each other, right or wrong, regardless of the charge. When it comes to this aspect, ya’ll do indeed have one up on us for sure.

  • poppyw

    Joiner is the perfect example as to why this country has been led away from a Christian Culture. These leaders mask themselves with a “Christian coating” and churches bow at their feet because they hold a high public office. Let them have undeserved high positions of leadership within the church, rather than a truly sold-out believer in Christ. There is a “brotherhood of Libertarians” who function in certain denominations.that water-down the gospel each time they get a chance. They run off pastors who truly preach God’s word. Their replacements are usually like these pastors of this church who don’t return your calls. Just as the Bible advises, if a Christian truly stands up for God’s ways, he will be hated by the world. I’ve followed Judge Moore for so many years and I know he stands for the truth of God’s word. This Luciferian Brotherhood seems to permeate our legal system and it is no wonder they slander and persecute our dear brother. “What a man sows, that shall he also resp.” To judge Moore’s opposition, I have this warning, God is going to punish you. You and your loved ones won’t be spared. As you live the rest of your life and you experience bad things happening to you and your loved ones, don’t chalk it up to the ordinary misfortunes in life as we all tend to do. No, you offend God or harm Believers, expect payback from God in this life.

  • Robert

    If this article. Is more truth than folly Moore better watch out he just may get sheep stole by other conservative Christian denominations the other fellow not so much to worry about in that dept. I think other denominations be just happy for him to stay in the denomination he is all ready in..

  • Reason2012

    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 …”

    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!

    • StillBetter&Better

      Religion is not genetic. It is the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

  • StillBetter&Better

    Awesome!