same sex marriage ruling in
- Thread starter strwy
- Start date
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Between this decision and Obamacare, the SCOTUS just trashed the 10th Amendment.
Upcoming to a church near you. Fed gov removing church tax exempt status for churches refusing to 'marry' gays. Then civil rights lawsuits against churches and/or pastors for not marrying gays. The lawsuits will consume many churches coffers and will in effect close them. The lawsuits themselves may not be upheld given the 1st amendment; however this week we saw just how much the SCOTUS values the Bill of Rights (they don't).
Time for pastors, elders and church members to take stock of their church members. Time for the church of Christ to get small and faithful.
Upcoming to a church near you. Fed gov removing church tax exempt status for churches refusing to 'marry' gays. Then civil rights lawsuits against churches and/or pastors for not marrying gays. The lawsuits will consume many churches coffers and will in effect close them. The lawsuits themselves may not be upheld given the 1st amendment; however this week we saw just how much the SCOTUS values the Bill of Rights (they don't).
Time for pastors, elders and church members to take stock of their church members. Time for the church of Christ to get small and faithful.
Upvote
0
The 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment.
Has this happened to Churches over interracial marriage? I think paranoia is getting the better of you.
The Church of Christ doesn't treat gays like lepers. It's time for the church to stop catering to right wing extremists.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No, the 14th does not trump the 10th Amendment. The 10th is part of the Bill of Rights.
No paranoia, just facts. "Gay marriage" is not akin to interracial marriage. Nowhere is interracial marriage mentioned as a vile passion:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27). (NKJV)
So the race card does not fit for 'gay marriage.'
Who is treating gays like lepers? Did not Christ heal lepers? Are you implying gays are in need of healing from their sin? Christ loved sinners...the sinners who repented and came to Him for healing.
Please let me ask. Will your church be performing gay weddings anytime soon? Do you have open unrepentant gays in your assembly? If so how do you and your church reconcile unrepentant sin with the words of Christ and His apostles?
Upvote
0
Yes, the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th. Federal law trumps State law. The Bill of Rights is not inherently more valid than other amendments. Newer amendments have greater weight than older ones if they conflict (see prohibition amendments).
And yet, almost every Christian in this country opposed interracial marriage on religious grounds, including the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia. As for your nonsense Bible quote, you obviously don't understand Romans 1. Even Saint Augustine said it refers to heterosexuals, and if you bother to read it in context, it's discussing pagan idolatry and Romans 2 says you commit the same sins. Which by your logic means you're gay.
You know nothing about the law or the Bible.
Thousands of Churches and most Synagogues perform same-sex weddings. No church that objects to it will be forced to perform them in this country. I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin. Your interpretation of the Bible is flawed, and really means nothing to me. The Churches full of self-righteous right wingers commit far more sin than that gay person in the pew.
Upvote
0
I think , I have read in the WORD that Christians are to judge sin . The Father does not want us to ignore it .
Jesus acknowledged Mary Magdalene's sin when he told her to go and sin no more . She was asked to repent .
AMEN!!!
I'm appalled! I think most of the US. citizens are opposed to same sex marriage .As a person born here,in the U.S., my rights have been violated .
Obama is ruining the U.S which was founded on CHRISTIAN values. Times are drastically different today as compared to my childhood days 40 years ago !
Our first president George Washington is turning over in his grave on this horrific historical day .
Homosexuality IS a SIN against CHRISTIANITY as is evident in the scripture below :
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 1:10King James Version (KJV)
View media item 52184
Jesus acknowledged Mary Magdalene's sin when he told her to go and sin no more . She was asked to repent .
AMEN!!!
I'm appalled! I think most of the US. citizens are opposed to same sex marriage .As a person born here,in the U.S., my rights have been violated .
Obama is ruining the U.S which was founded on CHRISTIAN values. Times are drastically different today as compared to my childhood days 40 years ago !
Our first president George Washington is turning over in his grave on this horrific historical day .
Homosexuality IS a SIN against CHRISTIANITY as is evident in the scripture below :
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 1:10King James Version (KJV)
View media item 52184
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No sir, newer does not trump older unless the amendment repeals the former. The 14 amendment did not take away states rights. See the comments from justice Scalia. The court usurped states rights. SCOTUS has now effectively defined what is or is not human life with Roe v. Wade and now has taken the measure to define marriage. Tyranny from the bench.
Your interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is flawed. There is no support the verses regard heterosexuals. It clearly defines same sex relations.
Jesus Christ defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Matthew 19:
4 And he 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.
You mentioned the Law. Where in Torah can you support homosexuality is not a sin? The law is clear homosexuality is an abomination.
Upvote
0
imind
Senior Veteran
there are decent arguments to make for both the 10th and 14th amendments with this issue. i think the majority opinion arguing the 14th though is stronger.
for the life of me i cannot figure out how you think YOUR rights have been violated...please elaborate.strwy said:
lol...what does this have to do with obama?
this quote here is quite telling...times change, my friend...
Upvote
0
Cuddles333
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2011
- 1,103
- 162
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoités-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences
The above link is absolutely devastating. I had made the comparison with what I had been taught and the scales of justice were balanced against me. I had to change...which was tough. However, in a way I felt stronger. It forced me to go back into the two Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 and study some key Hebrew words and review the ending of both chapters. Then I finally understood.
The above link is absolutely devastating. I had made the comparison with what I had been taught and the scales of justice were balanced against me. I had to change...which was tough. However, in a way I felt stronger. It forced me to go back into the two Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 and study some key Hebrew words and review the ending of both chapters. Then I finally understood.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Though Isaiah 3:9-12 addresses Judah & Jerusalem, people, especially Christians & Jews in the U.S. & other Western Nations, would be wise to heed the warnings of the following passage:
Isaiah 3:9 (NRSV)
The look on their faces bears witness against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom,
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil on themselves.
10 Tell the innocent how fortunate they are,
for they shall eat the fruit of their labors.
11 Woe to the guilty! How unfortunate they are,
for what their hands have done shall be done to them.
12 My people—children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths.
Isaiah 3:9 (NRSV)
The look on their faces bears witness against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom,
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil on themselves.
10 Tell the innocent how fortunate they are,
for they shall eat the fruit of their labors.
11 Woe to the guilty! How unfortunate they are,
for what their hands have done shall be done to them.
12 My people—children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths.
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Here are some of the dissenting opinions. Most address the limits of a court to impose social change on the people who have the measure of either directly voting on an issue or by elected representatives.
The Court majority has arrogated to itself, the power to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever their personal “reasoned judgment” means it to be, in defiance of what the ratifiers of the provisions meant to ratify, and more than two centuries of indisputed interpretation.
Scalia dissent at 2
Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court's claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Scalia dissenting at 5:
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its "reasoned judgment," thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because "[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . " One would think that sentence would continue: ". . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution," or perhaps ". . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation." But no. What logically follows, in the majority's judge-empowering estimation, is: "and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its mean-ing."15 The "we," needless to say, is the nine of us. "History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries."16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People's understanding of "liberty"—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four "principles and traditions" that, in the majority's view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.
Scalia dissenting at 5-6:
Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
Scalia dissenting at 6:
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their "reasoned judgment." These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
Scalia dissenting at 7-8:
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion's showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality." (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
Scalia dissenting at 7-8, footnote 22:
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Scalia dissenting at 9: (conclusion)
Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the "least dangerous" of the federal branches because it has "neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm" and the States, "even for the efficacy of its judgments." With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
Alito dissenting at 2-3:
The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today's majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning.
To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that "liberty" under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'" Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720-721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. _, _(2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). Indeed:
"In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941. Nor is the right to same-sex marriage deeply rooted in the traditions of other nations. No country allowed same-sex couples to marry until the Netherlands did so in 2000.
"What [those arguing in favor of a constitutional right to same sex marriage] seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges have cause for both caution and humility." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 7-8) (footnote omitted).
For today's majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental.
Alito dissenting at 3-4:
Noting that marriage is a fundamental right, the majority argues that a State has no valid reason for denying that right to same-sex couples. This reasoning is dependent upon a particular understanding of the purpose of civil marriage. Although the Court expresses the point in loftier terms, its argument is that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to promote the well-being of those who choose to marry. Marriage provides emotional fulfillment and the promise of support in times of need. And by benefiting persons who choose to wed, marriage indirectly benefits society because persons who live in stable, fulfilling, and supportive relationships make better citizens. It is for these reasons, the argument goes, that States encourage and formalize marriage, confer special benefits on married persons, and also impose some special obligations. This understanding of the States' reasons for recognizing marriage enables the majority to argue that same-sex marriage serves the States' objectives in the same way as opposite-sex marriage.
This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate.
Alito dissenting at 6:
"At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials." 570 U. S., at_(dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 8-10) (citations and footnotes omitted).
Alito dissenting at 7-8:
Today's decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims.
Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today's decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.
Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends.
Thomas dissenting at 3:
Even if the doctrine of substantive due process were somehow defensible—it is not—petitioners still would not have a claim. To invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause at all—whether under a theory of "substantive" or "procedural" due process—a party must first identify a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property." The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of "liberty," but the concept of "liberty" it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses.
Thomas dissenting at 7:
Even assuming that the "liberty" in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
Thomas at 13:
But "liberty" is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment. The majority's "better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define . . . liberty," ante, at 19,—better informed, we must assume, than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our Constitution is a "collection of 'Thou shalt nots,'" Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not "Thou shalt provides."
Thomas dissenting at 17-18:
Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One's liberty, not to mention one's dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today's decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on "due process" to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the "liberty" protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent. (End quotes from dissenting SCOTUS justices)
Ok, that's the legal matters. Where I entered the debate was when a poster here claimed homosexuality is not a sin and the Law and Scriptures do not state they are sins. Are you defending that claim? If so on what basis?
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So over 2,000 years of Koine Greek and Hebrew scholarship is to be dumped for the "Center of Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry" from Pacific School of Religion? What did you conclude from your studies? That the Bible condones homosexual relations? That a homosexual 'union' glorifies God?
I don't think Strongs had an agenda like this school of LBGTQ religion does. The author's focus seems to be in the Greek of 1 Cor. 6:9 or 1 Tim. 1:10. That's convenient as it ignores other portions of the Bible.
The KJV translates Strongs G3120 (malakos) in the following manner: soft (3x), effeminate (1x).
- soft, soft to the touch
- metaph. in a bad sense
- effeminate
- of a catamite
- of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
- of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
- of a male prostitute
1. one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
We can delve into the passages the LBGTQ university did not opine on and for good reason:
Romans 1:
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.(NKJV)
Focus on verse 26-27: Clear distinction of sexual relations against the natural use. Women with women and men lusting for one another. How does one get around what Paul is laying out here to condone homosexuality within the church?
You can take a look here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=1&t=KJV
for more.
Then we have Revelation 21:
8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”(NKJV)
Sexual immorality is called out above in Revelation 21:8. Should we proclaim to our churches that same sex relations are moral?
Yet finally, we have Jesus Christ showing us only one natural God ordained definition of marriage:
Matthew 19:
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”(NKJV)
So there we have it. Our Master has spoken on the matter. So given Christ vs. your LBGTQ university site....Christ wins hands down.
Upvote
0
tulc
loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
uhmmm...I think you're confusing the woman taken in adultery with Mary Magdalene. the woman was never named, Mary Magdalene however was the woman who had the demons cast out of her and followed and supported Jesus in his ministry.
tulc(thought that should be pointed out)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Cuddles333
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2011
- 1,103
- 162
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I am waiting for you to agree sign the NEGATIVE of the 'Fornication' proposition. It is located in the Debate Proposal section. In that discussion all of this will very quickly and easily be addressed and many (for the first time) will finally understand what has been going on in the Religious world concerning this issue.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I might also point out: just because you don't like the Supreme Courts decision doesn't make it: A) unconstitutional or B) wrong.
tulc(is a Christian and agrees with the decision!)
Tulc are you addressing me or another poster?
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You brought up the issue here. The Greek is not in dispute...Only by the homosexual lobby within some churches.
Is homosexual relations man/man woman/woman a sin or not?
Do same sex relations glorify God?
Why did Jesus Christ specifically mention marriage is between one man and one woman?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
A good question Ken. That is in debate. Below is a link to an article and the discussion following:
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40519
The article is from a liberal perspective I disagree with but the comments section below many discuss what the government can and will do in the short and long term. You will see me opine the matter with others. Some Christian, some not, some seekers.
In short here are some of the issues:
1. If churches refuse to perform gay weddings they could lose their tax exempt status. Result: we will see where the 'heart' of some churches reside. Either with the pocketbook or with Christ.
2. Denied gay couples will no doubt sue churches to bring this matter up to SCOTUS given the court overstepped its bounds in the gay marriage decision with regards to the 9th and 10th Amendments, they will expect the court to overrule on the 1st Amendment.
3. One point I make at the site above is if churches and pastors really know who their flock is. One co-worker is in a church of 10,000 congregants with 4 pastors. No way they know each and every one of their flock. The line between church open events to preach the gospel and outreach to sinners seeking God and full church membership of baptized believers sharing in the Lord's Supper (communion) is a blurred line in some churches. Based on this, many churches should be reviewing their statement of beliefs and by laws to make it clear to members and would be members where the church stands on moral matters and these statements should be Biblically based.
Good question thanks for bringing it up.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
