North Carolina Lawmakers Present Bill Declaring Supreme Court ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling ‘Null and Void’

Pittman

RALEIGH, N.C. — Four Republican lawmakers in North Carolina recently presented a bill that would declare the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling on “gay marriage” to be “null and void,” but the House speaker has considered it dead and won’t bring it up for a hearing.

Reps. Larry Pittman of Concord, Michael Speciale of New Bern, Carl Ford of Rowan County and Mike Clampitt of Bryson City filed House Bill 780, also known as the “Uphold Historical Marriage Act,” on April 11th.

It notes that the U.S. Constitution does not give power to the federal government to create laws surrounding the institution of marriage, and that the issue is rather reserved to the states. The bill also outlines that the courts have no right to overrule the laws of God.

“[T]he ruling of the United States Supreme Court … also exceeds the authority of the court relative to the decree of Almighty God that ‘a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24, ESV) and abrogates the clear meaning and understanding of marriage in all societies throughout prior history,” it reads in part.

The proposal instructs the state to therefore uphold North Carolina’s constitutional marriage amendment, which passed in 2012 with 61 percent of the vote.

“The General Assembly of the state of North Carolina declares that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of the United States Supreme Court of 2015 is null and void in the state of North Carolina, and that the state of North Carolina shall henceforth uphold and enforce Section 6 of Article XIV of the North Carolina Constitution, the opinion and objection of the United States Supreme Court notwithstanding,” it proclaims.

However, House Speaker Tim Moore, also a Republican, says that he will not give the bill a hearing.

  • Connect with Christian News

“There are strong constitutional concerns with this legislation given that the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly ruled on the issue, therefore House Bill 780 will be referred to the House Rules Committee and will not be heard,” he remarked in a statement.

Gov. Roy Cooper also criticized the proposal, opining, “We need more LGBT protections, not fewer.”

However, Pittman said in a statement that the Constitution never gave the federal government the right to get involved in the marriage business, but rather delegated most issues to the states.

“HB 780 is about the need for the states to reassert their rights. As the bill states, marriage is not a federal matter,” he outlined. “For too long, the federal government and federal courts have been allowed to overstep their bounds because the states have not had the courage to say no.”

“Upholding the U.S. and N.C. Constitutions means demanding that laws and court rulings do not contradict the very Constitutions we are obligated to uphold. I appreciate Rep. Speciale and Rep. Ford for having the courage to stand with me and say so,” he said.

Psalm 119: 126-128 reads, “It is time for thee, Lord, to work, for they have made void Thy law. Therefore I love Thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore, I esteem all Thy precepts concerning all things to be right and I hate every false way.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Amos Moses

    Again Heather ….. GREAT video ……. thanx ……….

  • Johndoe

    We already know how this will turn out.

  • Garden of Love

    Not easy to buck the crowd and take a stand for the right. God bless all men of courage. I like the distinction Margaret Thatcher made between “consensus politicians” and “conviction politicians.”

    • TimCA

      Yes, there have been a lot of these so-called “conviction politicians”. Lester Maddox, for example, ran with his convicts.

  • Sisyphus

    Obviously only pandering for votes, did these geniuses spend one day in middle school civics class?

    • Audiophile

      You’re the one ignorant about civics. Any child knows that elections occur in November of even-numbered years. It’s April 2017, so your theory of “pandering for votes” is really stupid. I know home-schooled six-year-olds smarter than you.

      • Sisyphus

        One of the topics of my PhD dissertation, the number one goal of elected officials is getting reelected. As in, constantly working to be reelected. Have you ever read a non-fiction book?

        • Audiophile

          A dissertation that proves that elected officials like to get re-elected.

          My goodness. What an intellectual breakthrough. Wow. They should have given you a Nobel for coming up with that.

          That PhD from Bubba’s Bait Shop and Online Kollege was worth every food stamp you paid for it.

          Anyone stupid enough to think that politicians are “pandering for votes” when the next election is in November 2018 better hold on to her job at Starbucks.

          • Sisyphus

            Ha, well your taxes pay my salary, so who’s the sucker?

          • Audiophile

            Enjoy those food stamps, you poor little ingrate.
            One more welfare leach in an AIDS hospice.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I think your level of anger outpaces your level of understanding.

    • Copyleft

      Fortunately, their voting base spent even less. This is simply a publicity stunt that has no future, but the gay-bashers will lap it up and holler for more.

  • Michael C

    These elected officials either have no understanding of our system of government or they’re relying on the fact that their constituents don’t.

    They’re either wasting North Carolinian’s hard earned money because they don’t know how to do their jobs or they’re wasting North Carolinian’s hard earned money because they think they the people of North Carolina are ignorant.

    Is wasting tax payers hard earned money acceptable if all you’re doing is stomping your feet and banging your fists against the ground?

    • Jason Todd

      What is the basis for your argument?

      • http://www.moonbatdan.com/ Dan

        Hatred for Christians, as usual.

        • Johndoe

          Where has Michael ever displayed hatred for christians? Any one post will do.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Hatred for Christians? How?

        • Chris

          Is disagreeing with any Christian the same thing as hating them? How about the other way round? If a Christian disagrees with someone else does that Christian hate them?

      • Johndoe

        The fact that the nc legislature doesn’t have the power to declare a SCOTUS ruling null and void.

        • Jason Todd

          According to whom?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            According to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

            But yes, I will concede to you that if you continue to ignore large portions of Constitutional jurisprudence, history, and reality in general, and substitute your own, then the result will the one you want.

      • Michael C

        What is the basis for your argument?

        A state legislature is not granted the power to nullify the parts of the U.S. Constitution that they don’t like.

        Any attempt to do so is an obvious waste of time and taxpayers’ hard earned money.

        So, are they wasting time and money because they’re ignorant of how our system of government works or are they wasting time and money because they think their constituents are ignorant of how our system of government works?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I used to think that there was no way even Jason Todd could defend a legislative move like this, but I’ve been here long enough to know that he can and will. He’ll simply declare that Supreme Court rulings are invalid and presto, the NC Legislature is no longer undertaking an unconstitutional law!

          • Johndoe

            He’s a forgone conclusion..,

        • Jason Todd

          Marriage isn’t in the Constitution, which you bloody well know. That makes it a state issue, as per the 10th Amendment.

          You need to stop being intellectually dishonest. But then again, the facts aren’t on your side, are they?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Michael C subscribed to the radical, left-wing fringe idea that the 9th and 14th Amendments exist, or that they grant the right to marry to gay couples. It’s only a belief shared by such far-our fringes as 55% of Americans, and those notoriously naive young punks, the US Supreme Court.

          • Michael C

            Marriage isn’t in the Constitution… That makes it a state issue

            Marriage is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, correct. How is it, then, that state laws that prohibit interracial marriage are in violation of the Constitution?

          • Jason Todd

            What does skin color have to do with sexual behavior?

          • Michael C

            What does skin color have to do with sexual behavior?

            Nothing that I’ve intimated.

            …does that mean you’re not going to address the simple question?

            How is it that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage are in violation of the Constitution even though the Constitution doesn’t even mention marriage??

          • Jason Todd

            The answer is it’s irrelevant. Homosexuals like to equate the two to make some kind of argument, but the fact is it’s the same as comparing a potato chip to a fire hydrant. It’s nonsensical and won’t be entertained.

          • Michael C

            The answer is it’s irrelevant.

            No. You’re just refusing to answer the question.

            You’re claiming that because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention marriage, it’s solely a state issue. You’re refusing to respond to my relevant questions because you’re wrong and you know it.

            Thank you for this thoroughly useless conversation.

          • Jason Todd

            No. You’re just refusing to answer the question.

            I responded to your attempt to equate skin color with sexual behavior. Don’t like it? Too bad. It’s the only one you’re getting. Loving had nothing to do with sexual behavior. It is therefore not relevant to this discussion.

          • Tangent002

            What sexual behaviors to gay people engage in that straight people do not?

          • Tangent002

            Marriage is not as license to have sex, nor is sex required to be married.

          • Jason Todd

            Not relevant

          • William of Glynn

            Everything. Those who were opposed to interracial opposite-sex marriage didn’t have a problem with race; they had a problem with behavior.

          • Jason Todd

            Nothing to compare the two, no matter how badly you wish it. I live in reality. You need to come to it.

          • William of Glynn

            Your problem is you confuse race with behavior.

          • Jason Todd

            Project much?

          • William of Glynn

            Are you really that incapable of following a train of thought?

          • Jason Todd

            Placing your own actions onto others isn’t a train of thought.

          • Elizabeth Putnam

            What Michael C is talking is Loving v Virginia. Prior to Loving, it was perfectly legal for a state to not allow interracial marriage. Yet Loving settled that issue by a Supreme Court decision and now any interracial couple can be married in any state. That is why Michael was equating the two.

          • Jason Todd

            I know what Michael is talking about. And the case is in no way relevant to same-sex marriage.

          • Elizabeth Putnam

            It is pretty relevant to same sex marriage. Both types of people were not able to marry until the Supreme Court decided otherwise.

          • Jason Todd

            Not relevant. Stay on subject.

          • Jason Todd

            Everything.

            Only for self-serving perverts who want everything, including reality, to bend to their will.

            The answer is no.

          • Robert

            Plenty Because invisible people are no fun at all

          • Oneironaut

            How come during all these decades in which civil marriage has been a federal institution, conservatives Christians never cared about making it a states’ rights issue? It’s only since gay Americans have been allowed to marry that some people are suddenly eager to make it a state issue.

            Our Supreme Court has ruled over a dozen times in our history that marriage is a fundamental right. Our 14th amendment ensures that every citizen is afforded equal protection of their rights by our federal laws. Therefore, civil marriage is a federal right which gay Americans have every right to.

          • Jason Todd

            Our Supreme Court has ruled over a dozen times in our history that marriage is a fundamental right.

            Cite them. All of them.

            Our 14th amendment ensures that every citizen is afforded equal protection of their rights by our federal laws.

            It does not mention, and therefore does not include, sexual behavior. Anthony Kennedy said it did.

          • Johndoe

            You obviously have internet access….look them up yourself

          • Tangent002

            Are you going to argue all 16 SCOTUS cases as wrong? Based on what?

          • MadScientist1023

            You are correct about marriage being a state issue. States get to decide most matters when it comes to what qualifies as marriage and how it’s dissolved. The rules states use, however, must still be in compliance with the federal constitution, specifically the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment. These clauses are the ones the Supreme Court used to justify striking down laws banning interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. The federal government didn’t define marriage for the states in these cases, it told states that their definitions were unconstitutional and needed to be changed.

          • Jason Todd

            You are correct

            Thanks.

          • TimCA

            However when the state requires a civil marriage license to exercise constitutional rights, it becomes a constitutional issue.

          • Jason Todd

            However when the state requires a civil marriage license to exercise constitutional rights

            Marriage still isn’t in the Constitution.

          • Tangent002

            Yeah, it is. 9th Amendment. 14th Amendment.

          • Jason Todd

            Liar. Try again.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Very mature.

            Hey, I know. Maybe you should just block EVERYONE who disagrees with you! That way, you’ll always be right!

          • Robert

            your right on this . rethink skin color though.

      • Reason0verhate

        Dementia

  • SFBruce

    This move is wrongheaded for so many reasons. To begin with, when states try to defy the federal government, things don’t gone well. Consider how it worked out for Roy Moore and George Wallace. If Obergefell was wrongly decided for the reasons articulated in this bill, then so is Loving v. Virginia, a 50-year-old decision which banned laws that forbid interracial marriage, based on the 14th Amendment. Lastly, Roy Cooper, the recently elected governor of NC, ran in part on repealing HB2, and has already indicated his opposition to this measure. Instead of pandering to their constituents, these four elected officials should exercise some leadership and explain to their voters why such efforts badly serve them.

    • Jason Todd

      What do George Wallace (I am assuming not the comedian) and interracial marriage have to do with anything?

      • Sven

        Same old same old. They keep repeating the lie, that gays experienced slavery and segregation just like blacks did, which proves they don’t know squat about history. You have to lie a lot to convince people that not getting a wedding cake is some big tragedy.

        • SFBruce

          I don’t know a single person of any sexual orientation who supports LGBT equality who also claims that “gays experienced slavery and segregation just like blacks did.” Unfair treatment can take many forms. Caucasian American women never experienced either slavery or segregation, but weren’t allowed to vote until the early 20th century, and couldn’t hold property on their on past that. And I could go on about gender equality. Until 1961, gay people were criminals in all fifty states, and to be outed before that time meant certain social ostracism, including loss of job, family and friends.

        • William of Glynn

          Like the fundamentalist Christians who claim that a wedding cake baker being required to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is akin to slavery?

        • Oneironaut

          In three decades of being an out gay man, I’ve never heard a single gay person say they suffered from the same plight as black people. Every oppressed group suffers differently.

          For most of our nation’s history, gay Americans have lived with the constant threat of being fired, beaten, killed, osctracized, and institutionalized against their will, all with no legal recourse.

          So no, gay people, blacks and women haven’t suffered in the exact same ways, but that doesn’t diminish the injustice they’ve experienced. And what they do have in common is that their suffering has been completely arbitrary, based on immutable characteristics and carried out by ignorant bigots.

  • james blue

    “Uphold Historical Marriage Act,”

    “Historical Marriage,” Is not nor ever will be altered in any way whatsoever by gay marriage. It continues unchanged today as it did the day before the first gay marriage.

    That said why should government at any level ‘define” marriage?

    • Amos Moses

      “That said why should government at any level ‘define” marriage?”

      well we agree on that ….. government has no place in marriage …… and any government interference is wrong and government has NO AUTHORITY to define it or REdefine it ….. RIGHT ….. so homomarriage should be ended as well as any other recognition ……………. RIGHT ………

      • William of Glynn

        In time, you’ll get used to the idea.

        • Amos Moses

          no …. and neither will you ……..

          • William of Glynn

            Sure you will.

          • Amos Moses

            Nope …. i do not buy into that lie …. never will …… and your acceptance of that lie ……… will not end well for you ……..

          • William of Glynn

            Marriage is not a lie. Your denial accomplishes nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            your acceptance of a lie destroys your pretended truth …………

          • William of Glynn

            Your hatred for marriage equality makes you bitter.

          • Amos Moses

            your love of lies makes you a liar ……

          • Tangent002

            Thankfully, you have no authority……….at all.

          • Amos Moses

            agreed ………

      • Oneironaut

        Civil marriage has always existed in this country. How come all of a sudden people like you want the government out of marriage? So far, Christians have gladly accepted the benefits and protections that only come with secular civil marriage.

        The government only defines CIVIL marriage. You are free to define your RELIGIOUS marriage however you or your church’s wish. There is a difference you know.

        • Amos Moses

          “How come all of a sudden people like you want the government out of marriage?”

          1. you dont know me …… 2. who are “people like you” …… 3. and it aint “all of a sudden” ….. 4. and i was not the one who brought it up ….. i just agree with it …… try following the conversation if you are going to interlope …………

          • Oneironaut

            1. I’m going by what I see
            2. People like you who have rather weak excuses for wanting to make SSM illegal
            3. Seems that way to me. I’m sure there were always people who have always opposed civil marriage laws, but most people, including Christians, WANT the benefits and protections of civil marriage IN ADDITION to their religious weddings. I’ve been following gay rights issues for decades, and I don’t remember anyone complaining about civil marriage back when SSM was not even a possibility. Before that, you’d be hard pressed to find widespread disapproval of civil marriage.

          • Amos Moses

            then you never investigated the LP ……….

    • Lexical Cannibal

      I, for one, look forward to the state of South Carolina upholding the sanctity of my traditional, historical, downright biblical polygamous marriage.

      If it’s good enough for Solomon…

      • james blue

        Surely there’s only two who can do that–your spouse and yourself.

      • 0pus

        Crock

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        I have just informed my youngest daughter that I shall be selling her in marriage to a neighbor, in exchange for a widescreen TV and a promise not to run power tools before 9 am on the weekends.

        Her response would violate the terms of service here, but I will say that I’m impressed. She dismissed the idea in three languages.

        Kids these days. No respect for Historical Marriage.

        • Chris

          That was hysterical.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            The best part was my wife correcting our little darling’s Spanish invective. Arabic is good for cutting insults, Mexican Spanish is great for when you just want to vent.

          • Chris

            And here was I thinking Italian was the way to go for insults. I’ll keep your recommendations in mind.

      • TimCA

        When you can go into a court and explain how child custody, child support and property disposition will occur after the dissolution of one, several or all members of a polygamous marriage of 20 people, then go for it!

        • Lexical Cannibal

          And I will! It may be a gigantic pain but it’s MY gigantic pain and Uncle Sam can stay out of my biblical, historical marriage(s)!

    • Oneironaut

      Actually marriage has been “redefined” many many times throughout history, which is why we don’t legalize polygamy, why we no longer adhere to arranged marriages and why we are able to marry outside our own race, class or religion. SSM isn’t even new: it has existed in many societies from ancient Mesopotamia to dynastic China to native American tribes.

      Our changing and evolving culture influence our laws and rights. A growing majority of Americans understand that there is nothing wrong with their gay friends, relatives and neighbors. There is absolutely no reason why tax-paying, law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to equally and legally protect their relationships, families and households.

      • james blue

        Thank you for the reply.

        It does not however address the crux of my statement in regards to the article. The authors of the bill define “historical marriage” in a specific way, please note I intentionally put quote marks around “historic marriage” to show I’m specifically talking about the terms in the article. Gays also being allowed to marry doesn’t change what marriage for heterosexuals is anymore than mini golf changes golf.

        So yes societies have allowed this or that over history, but that’s not what my comment is about.

        • Oneironaut

          Luckily, that self-serving “specific way” has nothing to do with what civil marriage has always been in this country.

          Of COURSE letting gay couples marry changes nothing about marriage for anyone else. That’s exactly our point! We are ALL free to have the marriages we want, whether we are going to follow a Christian model or no religious model at all, whether we want to raise kids or not, whether we want to monogamous or swingers. It’s not the government’s job to tell us which kinds of relationships or families we must have. I thought conservatives wanted LESS government intrusion into our private affairs.

          • james blue

            What makes you think conservatives want that?

          • Oneironaut

            Because that’s what their always touting. They want smaller federal government and often believe it should stay out of state affairs. They don’t want the government telling them to get health care or anything else.

          • james blue

            Conservatives are every bit for big government control of our lives as liberals are. They differ only in what parts of our lives they wish to control.

            If conservatives were for government leaving us alone they would be libertarians and they most certainly are NOT that

          • Oneironaut

            Well one thing they often want the government out of is our private affairs. We should be able to buy a gun, deny service to those our subjective religious beliefs dislike, etc but it’s perfectly ok to decide what kind of marriages we should be having. Got it.

          • james blue

            Erm no, conservatives are very much want government controlling our private lives, as I said they differ only what parts they want to control.

            Should it be legal for a business to be able to refuse goods and services to Christians (or any other faith) because they disagree with our faith? Not what the law IS, what you think it should be.

          • Oneironaut

            in other words, you want to be able to pick and choose what parts of the federal government you will follow. But whatever YOUR opinion might be, it’s conservatives who use the “government out of marriage” line the most. They somehow want the government out of business while wanting it to “elevate” some kinds of relationships over others. Hypocrites.

          • james blue

            You didn’t answer the question,

            Should it be legal for a business to be able to refuse goods and
            services to Christians (or any other faith) because they disagree with
            our faith? Not what the law IS, what you think it should be.

          • Oneironaut

            In a free society, I believe we should all have equal access to equal treatment. This is why we have a 14th amendment, so that Christians, gays, atheists, Buddhists, Asians, single mothers and everyone else has the same protection of the laws. No one is special or elevated in this country on account of their beliefs.

          • james blue

            So should it be legal or shouldn’t it?

          • Oneironaut

            It should not be legal at all. I thought my answer made that pretty clear. I’ll try to go slower for you.

          • james blue

            Should it be legal for a Christian florist to refuse to provide flowers for a gay wedding?

          • Oneironaut

            Not if they’re in the business of providing flowers for weddings to the general public.

            Of course, a person determined to discriminate could always start a private membership business where it’s allowed.

          • james blue

            Okay so your idea of a “free” society is government compelling you as a private business to serve anyone or everyone.

            A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. A self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

            On the other hand if a christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

            That’s my idea of a “free’ society.

            I’m not for laws compelling you to do business with me.

          • Oneironaut

            No free society lets a private business decide on the liberty of an actual CITIZEN. Our laws and rights and amendments apply to CITIZENS, not businesses.

            There are a LOT of things a business isn’t allowed to do by law; they must also follow building codes and pay property taxes. The fact that the government is compelling it to do so does not mean it has no freedoms. It simply doesn’t have the freedom to break the law, period.

            A business, even a one-person business, is held to the same laws as any other. If we could just cite religious beliefs to get out of following laws we don’t like, there’d be chaos.

            You can discriminate all you like within your church and in your own life. If you really want to discriminate that badly, you can make your business membership-only. But a business that serves the PUBLIC must serve ALL the public equally. You can have all the rules you want, so long as they are applied to all equally. That’s all.

          • Oneironaut

            In short, I always err on the side of citizens, not businesses. It’s “we the people”, not “we the business owners”.

          • james blue

            Are business owners not “we the people” too?

          • Oneironaut

            Yes, they are, and OUTSIDE of their businesses, which are held to completely different legal standards than a citizen, those business owners enjoy those same rights… AS CITIZENS.

          • james blue

            So they are only citizens outside business hours, got it.

          • Oneironaut

            Let me ask you something:

            Should a Christian pharmacist be allowed not to serve a parent with a sick child if the parent is gay? In other words, should a gay parent living in a small town have to drive hours out of her way to get medicine for her sick child just because her local pharmacist has a religious objection to her “lifestyle”.

            What if it were a straight single mother? Should people who disagree with single parents on religious grounds be allowed to turn her away? What if she’s a Christian, getting medicine for her husband? Is that okay?

            This is what I mean by anything can be objectionable on religious grounds to any number of religious people for any number of reasons. This is why we have our equal protection, public accommodation laws and anti-discrimination laws.

          • james blue

            Nobody said freedom was pretty. I wouldn’t use said pharmacy, would you?

          • Oneironaut

            You would find it acceptable to have to drive hours out of your way to get medicine, to get the same service everyone else does, all because someone has a different opinion of you? Sorry, that’s completely unfair and unjust, and our Constitution is about liberty and justice for ALL.

            I sure hope you don’t own a business. You don’t seem to understand how one works. You ALWAYS have rights a citizen. The same ones that apply to everyone else. As a BUSINESS, you had totally different responsibilities, rights and obligations.

            You may see nothing wrong with cooking your food in a filthy kitchen full of pet feces and rotting food, you may even see it as your god-given right to do so. But if your business prepares food for the public in such a kitchen, you are breaking the TOTALLY SEPARATE laws that govern businesses that have nothing to do with your rights as a citizen. Not sure what’s so hard to grasp about this.

          • james blue

            Think of the right to free speech, I may find what you say to be repugnant, I may respond negatively to what you say, but I support your right to say it— follow that logic. I wouldn’t do business with such a company and would enjoy watching the weight of public economic opinion eventually lead to the business failing or changing practice, but they should be free to make business decisions as they see fit.

            Now in an earlier post you called me a hypocrite, my comment history is open to public view, please feel free to make your case where I have double standards.

            As for your catering example, you are attempting to move the goalposts into the absurd. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. You do not have the right to poison me, you can poison yourself if you wish, but you can’t poison me.

          • Oneironaut

            It’s great when you are in a majority group and you can afford to just do business elsewhere. But in many places, people have no choice.

            You scolded me for not answering your question, yet you haven’t answered mine:

            Do you think it’s right that a parent would have to travel hours out of their way just to get medicine for their kid just because their local pharmacist might object to them on religious grounds?

          • james blue

            I did answer, I said I didn’t claim freedom is always pretty. No I would think that terrible and such a business would lose my patronage. Doesn’t change the point

          • Oneironaut

            Well not doing business with someone doesn’t change the fact that you’re left with no medicine, no groceries, etc. Not doing business with someone who wasn’t going to do business with you anyway is not a solution. If it’s the only pharmacy/grocer/etc in town, you don’t have no choice but to travel out of your way just to get the same service everyone else in your town gets.

            Sorry, but we are ALL created equal with certain inalienable rights.

          • james blue

            How is service in a store an inalienable right?

          • Oneironaut

            It’s our right to be treated equally and fairly under all local and federal laws, per the 14th amendment.

          • james blue

            That’s not an inalienable right.

          • Oneironaut

            Not just by the government, but by its laws and protections. At any rate, that’s just the way it is, and you’re certainly welcome to start a movement letting people disregard laws due to their subjective personal religious opinion, but until that day, you’ll just have to live with our Constitution as is.

          • Oneironaut

            Here is the first section of our nation’s public accommodations laws. I think it spells it all out for you pretty clearly.

            SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

            OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

            OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

            OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

            OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

            OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

            OOO(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

            OOO(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

            OOO(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

          • james blue

            You can quote what the “is” till the cows come home, I gave you my thoughts on what it should be.

            However you are quoting big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws (which I’ve already said should be revoked) not the constitution.

          • Oneironaut

            If you think a gay parent in a small town should have to travel hours out of her way to find a pharmacy that will give her medicine for her child, you are a perfect example of why our equal protection and public accommodation laws exist in the first place.

            If we did things your way, there’d STILL be places denying service to interracial couples, interfaith couples, single mothers and other “sinful” people.

          • james blue

            Would you shop at such a business?

          • Oneironaut

            Not if I had a choice. The problem is, in many places, gay people don’t have a choice. If they live in a rural or small community, there may not be a grocer/pharmacist/baker/banker who would serve them. It’s easy to say “just do business someplace else” if you are in the majority or if you live in a big enough community. But no one should have to travel hours or miles out of their way just to find someplace that will provide them medicine, sell them groceries, etc.

            It has already LONG since been illegal to deny service to Jews, interracial couples, and other people one’s religion may find “sinful”, yet all these decades, I never heard right-wingers complain about public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws until it started applying to gay Americans. Sorry, but our system works because our rights apply to those we disagree with as well as those who share our opinions or beliefs. It’s easy to approve of a law when it applies to those we agree with, but laws also apply to those we don’t.

          • james blue

            Well I’m for revoking big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws in the private sector.

            If you are making an argument about religious conservatives having double standards wanting the right to discriminate while demanding to be protected from discrimination you’ll enjoy my agreement, but I’m for revoking special protections for my faith as well.

            It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain employment is not suited to us, so be it, but how can a person live by their faith/personal ethics if you make that impossible by saying they have to violate those ethics if they wish to be in business?

          • Oneironaut

            I will never approve of favoring the rights of a business over those of actual citizens. Luckily, our Constitution does as well. If you want to live somewhere where religious rights trump all others, you might be happier in the middle east. Here in the USA, it’s “we THE PEOPLE”, not “we the businesses”. You clearly have no clue what “private business” means. It doesn’t mean any business owned by a private citizen to do with as he pleases, laws be damned.

          • james blue

            Where did I say religious rights trump all others? Where did I say there shouldn’t be any laws regarding business?

          • james blue

            You seem angry.

          • Oneironaut

            When bigots are using lies and fear to demonize gay Americans and limit their rights, that should anger any decent human being.

          • james blue

            Well go get angry with them, why you feel the need to rant your anger to me is a mystery.

          • Oneironaut

            First of all, snowflake, being angry about something doesn’t mean you’re ranting at anyone. Secondly, this is a public comments section, not just an echo chamber for you and your ilk. I’m free to chime in with my opinion, especially when others are spreading misinformation and outright lies. Suck it up, buttercup.

          • james blue

            Did I hurt your feewwings?

          • Oneironaut

            You wish. My feelings can only be hurt by people I give a damn about.

    • MadScientist1023

      Government defines marriage because it’s a legal institution with legal consequences. It therefore requires a legal definition.

      • james blue

        Why does it need to be? Partnership contracts could be made by anyone.

        • Tangent002

          Civil marriage is a partnership contract.

        • MadScientist1023

          Uh huh. Tell me, do those contacts let you be on each other’s insurance? Get survivors benefits if one partner dies? Qualify you for any of the tax breaks of marriage? Carry any particular social respect?

          • Tangent002

            Private contracts can compel nothing from the government.

          • james blue

            Why shouldn’t they?

          • MadScientist1023

            Why shouldn’t private contracts compel the government to hand over substantial money in the form of tax breaks and give citizens exemptions from certain laws, but refuse to give the government any regulatory control over those contacts whatsoever? Seriously?

          • james blue

            Try reading what I wrote again and ask yourself if you have missed something.

          • MadScientist1023

            OK, since you don’t seem to understand rhetorical questions, let me break it down. No, private contracts between individuals don’t come with the same rights and privileges as marriage. Doesn’t work that way. If you could get the same tax breaks as married couples by filling out a private contract with you and a friend, everyone would do it. The government only does that if you use their contract. Same with survivors benefits, healthcare benefits, visitation rights, privileged communications, and a host of other benefits. If I make a contract with you, it won’t dictate what the government can do, or what any outside entity can do. It only dictates what you and I do. Marriage contracts are agreements between two people and the state. Private contracts are between two people and can be enforced by the state.

          • james blue

            And YOU are not getting it.

            I started with “Why does it need to be?” Then ended with an alternative to what we HAVE NOW.

            Instead of getting married partnership contracts are made….. GET IT?????

            As far as government is concerned marriage would be nothing but a partnership contract, which short of both participants being consenting adults the qualifications of which they do not get to define.

          • MadScientist1023

            And how many married couple do you know who are willing to do that? You know any who have done it? How’s that worked for them when a life crisis has hit?

          • james blue

            Are you being deliberately obtuse?

          • MadScientist1023

            No. I’m asking if you know anyone who has actually tried your suggestion. I take it you haven’t.

          • james blue

            Then is English not your fist language?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    True Americans!! Fight for the truth and freedom for all!! Beat the fellow American slave-owners and liberate the world!! The Holy Bible is the only true lawfulness. The Western sexual immorality is despicable and is deadly to all children. No slavery to the Western perversion!!

    • Johndoe

      Honey, American don’t own slaves any longer.

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        Don’t bother. Grace lives on her own little planet. You will get nowhere with her.

      • Amos Moses

        and yet you can still be one ….. and most are ….. and they do not recognize it ….. just because you are not whipped and in chains …… does not mean you are not a slave and owned ………….

  • nick haz

    I think we all saw how this ended during the Civil War. The States do not have the power of “nullification”. Additionally since the right to gay marriage was ruled equal protection under the 14th (selective incorporation) this ruling applies at the State and Federal Level.

    This issue is settled and done unless reversed by SCOTUS (extremely, extremely unlikely) or a constitutional amendment is passed (even more unlikely than a SCOTUS reversal).

    North Carolina legislators need to stop wasting public time and money trying to pass illegal laws. They should be focused on improve the lives of their citizens.

  • Brenda Turner

    Don’t ever give up on showing the perversion of God’s law, heck we should just do what immigration and sanctuary cities do just ignore the law because we want to, they set the president. The Supreme Court did not have the authority to do what they did. But they did it, if the people of NC go along with the LGBTQ agenda they are ignorant of God’s laws. Love person don’t love the sin and it is sin. Funny thing is they are so deluded they are for letting in people who torture and kill people like them????

    • Louie

      Do you always assume people who think the government has no constitutional authority to define citizen’s relationships support terrorism?

      • Brenda Turner

        Yes i have no idea what you said i am tired

    • Tangent002

      God’s law is irrelevant to the Constitution.

      • Amos Moses

        Gods law says that all government is under His authority, that the governments of this world bear not the sword in vain, that they make and enforce laws to maintain order and that this is a Godly thing…… so you really think He is not in the equation …….

        • Tangent002

          The US is not a theocracy, as much as you want her to be.

          • Amos Moses

            “The US is not a theocracy”

            yes it is ….. you just fail to realize and acknowledge the god in charge ……. his name is satan ……… and he is far more religious a person as you will ever meet ………… you live in Satanica ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, your words are the zealous words of a believer, not the practical words of someone who understands that we do not live in a Christian theocracy.

          • Amos Moses

            “practical words of someone who understands that we do not live in a Christian theocracy.”

            and where did i EVER say it was a christian theocracy ….. you are a LIAR ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You do constantly. You are the one who is always claiming the word of God having authority over the law of man. You are putting your Christian faith above everything.

          • Amos Moses

            Nope …. GOD put Himself there ….. HE is on the throne …. NOT US ….. and YOU do not have the power to kick Him off ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Lots of people don’t believe in God, Amos. You should really learn to stop talking as though everyone does.

          • Amos Moses

            everybody knows God exists ….. and they KNOW THEY KNOW he exists …… and they suppress that truth ….. THEY LIE to themselves ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Opinion. Not fact.

          • Amos Moses

            thats right ….. YOUR opinions are not fact …..

            Jenny O’s limit of responses …….
            1. “That’s your opinion” or “Your disapproval is nothing but opinion”
            2. “We do not live in a Christian theocracy.”
            3. “Your intolerance does not seem to make the slightest bit of difference”
            4. “Stamping your feet and calling it a lie after …..”
            5. “Thats your interpretation”
            you are BORING …… you have NOTHING to contribute ….. BORING ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I never made such a claim, but you are constantly doing so.

          • Amos Moses

            Jenny O’s limit of responses …….
            1. “That’s your opinion” or “Your disapproval is nothing but opinion”
            2. “We do not live in a Christian theocracy.”
            3. “Your intolerance does not seem to make the slightest bit of difference”
            4. “Stamping your feet and calling it a lie after …..”
            5. “Thats your interpretation”
            you are BORING …… you have NOTHING to contribute ….. BORING ………….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Each statement is true. Each statement is also necessary when you keep pretending you are God and speaking on his behalf.

          • Amos Moses

            BORING ………..

            Jenny O’s limit of responses …….
            1. “That’s your opinion” or “Your disapproval is nothing but opinion”
            2. “We do not live in a Christian theocracy.”
            3. “Your intolerance does not seem to make the slightest bit of difference”
            4. “Stamping your feet and calling it a lie after …..”
            5. “Thats your interpretation”
            you are BORING …… you have NOTHING to contribute ….. BORING …………..

          • stephen bendavid

            I know that no God exists. That is all I need to know.

          • Amos Moses

            ok …. and HOW do you know that ….. and is that a scientific or theological statement ……. and based on what …………..

        • stephen bendavid

          Then the Third Reich had a blessing from god

          • Amos Moses

            so you go about making self contradictory statements ………..

          • hamfish

            Amos. God is made up. He always has been. They all are. Now grow the f*** up.

          • Amos Moses

            so AGAIN ………. is that a scientific or theological statement …………

      • Robert

        tangent002 the only constition you really follow is on the toilet in the morning so who are you trying to fool.

      • Brenda Turner

        It is above it.

    • Amos Moses

      cities of refuge were a biblical principal for protection ……

      35:4 And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about.
      35:5 And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.
      35:6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.
      35:7 So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs.
      35:8 And the cities which ye shall give shall be of the possession of the children of Israel: from them that have many ye shall give many; but from them that have few ye shall give few: every one shall give of his cities unto the Levites according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.
      35:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
      35:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
      35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
      35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.
      35:13 And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.
      35:14 Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.
      35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.
      35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
      35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

      • Tangent002

        I do like the Bible’s take on cities of refuge. Thanks.

    • jerry1944

      I think obambo did that all the time

      • stephen bendavid

        His name is President Barak Obama

        • jerry1944

          I think you might be referning to that muslummm hussain obambo who didnt believe and ANY of GOD s laws

  • NCOriolesFan

    Since House Speaker Tim Moore is ok with SCOTUS muzzling the people to vote their conscience, he should be muzzled too since he was elected to represent the people of NC.

    • Chris

      Whether he’s ok with the SCOTUS decision or not it is law. Rule of law and all that.

      • NCOriolesFan

        CONGRESS creates law, not SCOTUS. They’re supposed to interpret the law, not amend it or abrogate the right to vote our conscience.

        • Chris

          Correct. I didn’t say they made law. I said it’s their job to interpret law which is what they did – the constitution. It is now the correct interpretation of the law [if you prefer].

          And please, your right to vote according to your conscience was never taken away. But no state can reverse an interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. If you don’t like this state of affairs you have two choices. 1) Change the constitution making it legal for a minority to NOT be considered equal under the law. 2) Leave.

          • Kimberly

            Interpreting the law would mean upholding a constitutional amendment that was overwhelmingly passed by voters. Re-writing law is saying that marriage is between two men, two women, anything other than what marriage means. A court cannot redefine marriage. You leftists are just bent on destroying this country no matter what it takes!

          • Chris

            “Interpreting the law would mean upholding a constitutional amendment
            that was overwhelmingly passed by voters.”

            That would certainly be the case if they were a state court. The SCOTUS is only concerned with the federal constitution.

            “Re-writing law is saying that
            marriage is between two men, two women, anything other than what
            marriage means.”

            Incorrect. The constitution as it stands speaks of equality under the law. If you allow the majority to do something – marry the consenting adult partner of their choice – then you must allow the minority the same right. It isn’t the government’s job to decide what marriage is or is not. That’s the job of morality.

            “A court cannot redefine marriage.”

            It didn’t. The federal government isn’t in the business of administering definitions of anything. That’s the job of a dictionary.

            “You leftists are
            just bent on destroying this country no matter what it takes!”

            A few points:
            1) I’m NOT a leftist or a rightist. I’m a pragmatist.
            2) I’m an Australian.
            3) I care more about the rule of law than fundies who seem to only care about what they want.

          • Chet

            You won’t find nary a word in the US Constitution supportive of homosexual marriage, not a one… And you surely will find none in the Holy Bible, but, rather, the opposite…

          • Chris

            You won’t find a word in the constitution which mentions marriage at all. What you will find is the concept of equality before the law. That means you can’t give a right to the majority and deny that right to the minority.

          • Chet

            Sure, that is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not a right for one to do as he sees fit when such is clearly against the law of God and against human nature. That is, other than man’s inborn nature to SIN.

          • Chris

            “Sure, that is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

            That doesn’t mention marriage. And if it did it now applies to SSM as well as heterosexual marriage.

            “Not a right for one to do as he sees fit when such is clearly against
            the law of God and against human nature. That is, other than man’s
            inborn nature to SIN.”

            Well when you can prove that God exists and the bible is His word then you might have a point. Until then it’s just your belief.

          • Chet

            Sorry, Chris, not my job to prove anything of the sort any more than to prove where the wind comes from, how long it will blow, at what force, and where it will end. The Lord Jesus Christ commissioned Christians to share His Word with the lost and after doing so, the decision is then their’s. God’s love for all us sinners remains and He has provided the single means by which all men can be entirely forgiven of all one’s sins and have their eternity settled.
            And that means is the Christ of Calvary, alone. Meanwhile, Christians are to stand upon God’s Word as unchanging and not to be compromised. Try seeking the Lord on you own via prayer and reading your own Holy Bible and see how the Holy Spirit leads and instructs you in righteousness. Jesus saves from the guttermost (me) to the uttermost, perhaps you…

          • Chris

            If you can’t recognise belief as belief then we have nothing further to discuss. You obviously ally your belief in God to a belief in your own infallibility. Bye.

          • Chet

            Huh?

          • Chris

            Your beliefs about the bible are just that – beliefs.

          • Chet

            You are correct. I read the Word and believe it, understand it or no. Just like many other things in life, including law. When necessary, I consult the writings of other learned individuals or elders to illumine me. And so, to whom do you look when interpreting the Word?

          • Chris

            “Try seeking the Lord on you own via prayer and reading your own Holy
            Bible and see how the Holy Spirit leads and instructs you in
            righteousness.”

            I did and He told me Chet is totally wrong. Now who should I believe you or God. Your reply will be YOUR interpretation of God [i.e. your ego].

          • Chet

            What I gave you was in no wise my opine, but, rather, excerpts from the Word. Thus, God told you nothing of the kind. Nice try though…

          • Chris

            “What I gave you was in no wise my opine, but, rather, excerpts from the
            Word. [which YOU had chosen and interpreted]. “Thus, God told you nothing of the kind. Nice try though…”

            Thus Satan is lying to you. Nice try though. See I can do it too.

          • Chet

            Well, please interpret those selfsame verses I offered and let’s see the Word of God interpreted according to Chris.

          • Chet

            And the belief of untold millions upon millions round the world, millions upon millions in Heaven today and umpteen millions upon millions in Hell now and forever…. Christians elect to believe the Word as opposed to demeaning and otherwise critiquing it to our own satisfaction as one might do with man’s work, i.e., school books… Bottom line is, however, the Holy Bible stands when all mankind are gone. Always has, always will.

          • Chris

            But I’m critiquing YOUR opinion. Though you can’t tell the difference between the two any longer. And you finish off with a nice revenge fantasy. How sweet.

          • Chet

            God hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness, but, is long suffering to us ward, not willing than any should perish but that all should come to repentance. I would in no wise consider any of that revenge… You appear to be angry with God.

        • Chris

          Perhaps you can tell me something. Why is it that when the Supreme Court makes a decision they like there’s not a peep from fundies. But when SCOTUS make a decision they disagree with all of a sudden there’s talk of ‘activist judges’ and how the decision isn’t an interpretation of the constitution. Why is that?

      • James Bryson

        Chief Justice Roberts comment exiting the Obergefell overreach, 5-4 decision, “It had nothing to do with the Constitution…”. Pretty clear.

        Laws ought to have some basis in the U.S. Constitution.

        • Chris

          Sorry but just because the one of the judges on the Supreme Court says it does NOT make it so. The rest gave that as their ruling so that’s the basis of it and that’s what it would be judged under even if what he said were true.

          • cadcoke5

            The constitution is quite clear on the powers that the federal government has. They are limited to a very shorts list of enumerated powers, and all other powers are given to the states or the people themselves. Redefining marriage is not one of the enumerated powers.

          • Chris

            I wasn’t aware that any level of government had the power to define [or redefine] anything.

            That being the case the SCOTUS didn’t redefine anything. They merely applied the principle of equality before the law. Now if you want to define marriage so that SSM isn’t real marriage then knock yourself out. Just realise your definition doesn’t hold any legal standing.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Actually, it’s extremely UNCLEAR. Read the 9th Amendment.

        • Chris

          Are you arguing that the majority should have a right a minority lack? Because if you are I must point that that such a view is sheer bigotry.

          • Robinske2

            Just wondering- are you homosexual?

          • Chris

            No. I’m a heterosexual.

      • CommonSense4America

        SCOTUS cannot make laws,,,that is the job of Congress.

        • Chris

          Which is what I keep saying. They have interpreted the constitution. That’s their job.

      • Chet

        Their decision will never trump God’s unchanging law, period…

        • Chris

          You can believe that to your heart’s content. You can even believe that SSM isn’t a real marriage if you like. Just as long as you accept that whether you like a law [or interpretation of a law] or not has no effect on it.

          • Chet

            What you and I believe is immaterial as it’s what God has decreed that matters in the bottom line. And, remember, it is He, with whom we all have to do sooner or later, not the SC… The Lord always has the last say in all matters of men and where they spend their eternity…

          • Chris

            Well when the Lord shows up I’m sure the SCOTUS will pay attention to what He thinks. Until then you’ll just have to wait.

          • Chet

            The Lord is already here in the person of His Holy Spirit and this selfsame Holy Spirit indwells those on the SC who know Christ as their own Lord and Saviour. Such is why there is disagreement within their ranks on spiritual matters such as abortion and homosexual marriage. Hope this helps you understand.

          • Chris

            I hope this also lets you realise that your belief is still just a belief.

          • Chet

            Not so, Chris. I said there are a couple of Christians on the SC and you’ll notice, if you pay any attention to the rulings, they’ll align their opines with the Word of God wherever possible when it comes to spiritual matters, not the world. Specifically, as such cases relate to homosexual marriage, government pressure on Christian agencies to provide abortive elements etc. They rule in favor of things pertaining to God Almighty and His righteousness because they have His Holy Spirit residing within them, as do I. This example should be proof enough for the toughest of critics, Chris…

          • Chris

            Putting what you wrote through my fundie translator…I can recognise true Christians by noticing that their interpretations of the bible agree with Chet’s. Chet, after all can’t get his interpretation wrong.

          • Chet

            I’ll be first to admit there’s much, very much I don’t know in life in general and within God’s Word. One thing I do know, however, is I once was lost and on my way to a Christless eternity in Hell. Thanks to Christ Jesus and Him crucified, and living today, I am no more… You seem to be rather comfy with your own interpretations of the Holy Bible, no…

  • Eric Rainbow

    Hard to believe that in the 21st century so much hatred and bigotry exist. Maybe the future will be better.

    • Chet

      There is absolute absence of hatred and bigotry when citing God Almighty’s unchangeable Word on a subject matter, any matter… Hatred and bigotry exists when men refuse to acknowledge and follow truth and set about to establish their own set of truths supportive of whatever particular sinful habits they indulge and happen to enjoy. God is unchangeable, though you might try taking up the entire matter of homosexuality with Him and see how He answers. And I suggest such respectfully…

      • Chris

        “…God Almighty’s unchangeable Word on a subject matter, any matter.”

        Correct. It’s just the interpretation of that word changes from individual to individual. Each one claiming that they are the only one who’s got the correct interpretation and everyone else has it wrong. Many even claim that all the others with alternate interpretations are false Christians and the one’s with interpretations who agree with them are the really, truly Christians.

        • Chet

          Get a copy in whatever your first language is. If English, consult the tried and true KJV with a concordance. If too difficult, and it should not be, try the NIV. The verses I supplied on the matter of homosexuality are in very clear English as translated from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Don’t let the Devil and his crowd fool you. God’s Word is very clear on the matter of this abomination, and, as well, adultery, fornication and sin in general…

          • Chris

            And every single person’s interpretation MUST agree with yours or else they are wrong. Because only YOU are a true Christian. Only you have the correct interpretation of the bible. I’ve seen this sort of ego worship before. We have nothing further to discuss. See ya.

          • Chet

            “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” 11 Timothy 2:15, Holy Bible. One that can read and write English can surely understand what I copied from the Word for you. No private interpretation required, or desired. If you would, cite your personal understanding of what was afforded you. Perhaps we can take it from there. You recall, I recommended you seek the Lord on you own via prayer and Bible reading. Never did I even hint that you follow me anywhere… God bless.

          • Chris

            So you’ve studied Greek Hebrew and Aramaic? No. You’ve read a translation of a translation and think your interpretation.

            “Never did I even hint that you follow me anywhere.”

            Correct. You’re just implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with YOU got it wrong. Why? Because YOU can’t get it wrong.

          • Chet

            With Christ Jesus as one’s Lord and Saviour, one cannot go wrong. The worst that can happen to me now is that one day I’ll die. In the meantime, I’ll continue to share God’s good news to any sinner who will listen, the lost sinner and the saved sinner… To me, there’s absolutely nothing more important than one knowing his own eternal destiny according to the Word and not his own personal interpretation. The plan of salvation is really quite simple so even under-educated folks like myself can understand it and with child like faith, believe and be saved for sure…

        • Chet

          While there are many areas of God’s Word which are very difficult to understand and oftimes require consultation of men far superior than the average Joe, there are also many which are not difficult to understand at all. I think this is still the stage we find ourselves at in communication.

    • hamfish

      Eric, you’re wasting your time even engaging with these guys. It’s funny how the least Christian people in the world claim to be “Christians”, when in fact they are pretty much the opposite.

  • James Bryson

    Chief Justice Roberts comment exiting the Obergefell overreach, 5-4 decision, “It had nothing to do with the Constitution…”. Pretty clear.

  • CommonSense4America

    IMHO, the SCOTUS cannot make laws. The Court said it was unconstitutional. The law, as far as I know, has not been amended to allow same sex marriage.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      It doesn’t have to be. It already says that all people are entitled to equal protection of the law.

      • CommonSense4America

        They are treated equally. They are free to marry any woman or man as the case may be. One woman and one man. The way it should be.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the Equal Protection clause. But the bottom line is, they didn’t create any new laws.

          • CommonSense4America

            When/IF the laws are changed,,,then it would be legal. I would vote against it if it ever came to a vote.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you saying same sex marriage is illegal right now? If so, you’d probably better go tell the clerks in every county in America who are issuing marriage licenses.

          • CommonSense4America

            Has anyone changed the laws since the SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional? If not,,,then it is not lawful.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, they were. All laws in America that banned same-sex marriage suddenly became null and void.

  • Robinske2

    These 4 Republicans are 100% correct- the Federal government is restricted by the 10th amendment from interfering with anything not specifically outlined in the constitution. Ho-rah for these brave men.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      OK, but the Constitution “specifically outlines” Equal Protection Under the law.

  • Chet

    What in the world is wrong with Tim? It’s understandable the gov will not support such, he’s Democrat, nothing new there…