Today's Ruling

[Tropical Wilds]

What a day for marriage, huh?

 

[Hetta]

Yes indeed.

 

[DZoolander]

Good job, SCOTUS

 

[WolfGate]

No real surprise today.

Having the benefit of hindsight, this eventual ruling was made inevitable when the first legal same sex civil unions only provided a subset of the secular legal rights provided with marriage (civil unions not recognized by Federal Government, not recognized by other states, etc.). I thought the model in several EU countries where civil unions are a secular binding relationship available to all couples, same sex or opposite sex, which provide all legal benefits but leave out the religious part, would have clarified things and addressed much of the concern. But that didn't happen here, so we have two different definitions of marriage now, and the inevitable future battles over which applies in which situation.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Not surprised it happened. Just waiting for two things now.

1. Will the community be more quiet now or will they start to attack religious freedom and want religion to foreacbly accept them. Or will they remain respectful as they always claimed they were. Because history will remember what they do next.

2. Well the big reason they gave about all this was "You can't help you fall in love with!". So I assume that means they are ok with people marrying animals and kids. Their statement says you can't help who you fall in love with after all right? Or I wonder if they talk big until it comes to an issues not involving them.

Whatever happens I know things will only get worse as the bible says so nothing shocks me about this or future events. I just can't for Gods return.

 

[Hetta]

So I assume that means they are ok with people marrying animals and kids. Their statement says you can't help who you fall in love with after all right? Or I wonder if they talk big until it comes to an issues not involving them.

No, no, no and NO. CONSENT. Children and animals cannot consent. Period. End of discussion.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Well that is true. But none the less it won't stop people from trying to change laws for really weird things. As stated though nothing would surprise me because the bible talks about what to expect in the end. Thankfully most christians I know aren't shocked by todays news.

 

[jsimms615]

I was thinking today that given how dark and deprived the Bible says the human heart is that it this is not surprising.

I believe it does say that the end times will be like the days of Noah.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

All I know is I woke up today and somehow my straight marriage was still intact and pretty darn awesome.

 

[DZoolander]

Exactly what he said.

All of this hullabuloo and people feeling so passionately about an issue that in truth has no bearing on their lives whatsoever has always been astounding to me. What the heck do you care if a couple of gays go down to the courthouse, see a judge, go through a ceremony, and then call themselves "married"? I mean - I could understand if they were trying to force unwilling churches to do it...but I have *yet* to see that happen in *any* of the places where it has been adopted up until now.

To be honest - I know a few gay people - and I know a couple of gay people that are married. None of them want to have anything to do with any church. They understand that "Christians" generally seem to look at them as the penultimate sinners - and as a result - they want very little to do with people "of faith".

Generally speaking - I think that's true - so this concern people have about the "gays now trying to force themselves on the church" I think is a bit misplaced.

...but in fairness...if they did...I wouldn't blame them.

What started out as a pretty basic and fair question of "Why can't I have the same legal standing as heterosexual people?" has morphed into something else - completely at the hands of the religious right. The contortions that the religious right has gone through in order to try and bar them from obtaining that kind of legal standing is almost comical. You've seen things like in states where it looked like gay marriage might happen - the state legislatures passing laws to state that the state gov't will no longer be issuing marriage certificates...but rather they will be issued by churches.

It's been neverending...and it ain't just "we're afraid that they're going to want to get married in churches". That, I could understand. But - the push has been to bar them from being able to get married *anywhere*...which is far different.

Then you get into the rhetoric... Years and years of the religious right talking about how they're a bunch of child molesters, how their relationships are akin to inappropriate behavior with animals, how their attempts to obtain legal recognition for their "marriages" was the harbinger of doom, etc... If I were them - I'd be wanting to give one huge middle finger to the churches...and anything I could do within my power to inflict some well deserved discomfort back on them I would be happy to do.

It didn't need to be that way. If people had simply said "Go ahead, call yourselves married, what do we care what you call yourselves? Let the state recognize it as such so you have the same rights, but our God doesn't recognize those marriages so we won't perform them" - I think it would have been a far different environment. But instead - the religious right has bent over backwards to be asses over the whole issue...and make no mistake about it...it's for no other reason than "We don't like gays - so no marriage for you anywhere or anyhow".

The gay friends I have never have expressed any sort of desire to do anything but move forward and move on from this whole issue...but like I said...I wouldn't blame them if they felt differently.

 

[ananda]

... I could understand if they were trying to force unwilling churches to do it...but I have *yet* to see that happen in *any* of the places where it has been adopted up until now....

If I was a betting man, I would bet that there will be a case against a church. I would also bet that I will not hear of a single case against any mosque.

 

[LinkH]

I grieve for the rebellion against God evident in the decision. I know the moral consciousness of the country has declined, and this is very obvious in regard to sexual morals. There is a lack of 'God consciousness' in our legal system and this has been apparent for a long time. I suspected the SCOTUS might make this decision, but it was so idiotic, I wasn't sure they were. Anyone who knows how to read an see that the 14th amendment does not address the topic at all. This is pure political activism from bench. Our judges are supposed to be making judicial decisions from within the framework of the Constitution and laws. They have moved away from enforcing and interpreting law to creating law based on a common (often immoral) concept of morality. The rule of law will mean less and less if the country continues on this path.

But I think what passes for Christianity is party responsible these days. And many Christians helped open the floodgates. I don't know that churches bore much responsibility for the libertinism of the sexual revolution in the 1960's, but many churches certainly have compromised on morality. There are plenty of people who fornicate, living together. Some of them may even go to church and take communion. Some church leaders may be aware of it and do nothing. I've read surprising statistics about the percentage of pastors who view inappropriate content. I suspect 100 years ago, most people would never have encountered a divorced pastor, but now it is not that uncommon. And couples who break covenant and adulterously divorce and remarriage, even if they do so for just emotional reasons, don't usually need to worry about facing church discipline any more than fornicators do. The Bible speaks of 'the assembly of the righteous.'

The church is to judge itself. I do believe that there is a place for upholding a standard of right and wrong in society, but voting for politicians with good morals, or who pander to those who want good morals, is not the solution. The saints are to judge those who are within. If we are to be salt and light, and have these problems in our own congregations, then we shouldn't not expect a high standard from the world. The world's standards will be lower than the churches, whether it is by a great amount or a small amount.

About 7 or 8 years ago, I heard a man on a local Christian radio station, and some things he said fit with what I believed God had shown me, so I contacted the station and sent him a message and ended up having him and his wife over for dinner with my wife and me. He said that the Lord had shown him that a number of churches that we wouldn't think would compromise on this issue would do so to keep their property, hiring LGBTs, and that many believers would leave these institutions to fellowship outside. I suspect this strange thing will be a point over which believers are persecuted. It is already happening, with bakers being fined over $100k for not making a cake for something they did not believe in that is against their religious beliefs.

I know people rejoice over these sorts of decisions, because we live in a society that calls good evil and evil good. 'Love' is redefined to include sexual behavior that God hates, but the Bible teaches us that love does not delight in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth. We are to show love as we share the Gospel of Christ with people so that they repent of their sins.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Not surprised it happened. Just waiting for two things now.

1. Will the community be more quiet now or will they start to attack religious freedom and want religion to foreacbly accept them. Or will they remain respectful as they always claimed they were. Because history will remember what they do next.

2. Well the big reason they gave about all this was "You can't help you fall in love with!". So I assume that means they are ok with people marrying animals and kids. Their statement says you can't help who you fall in love with after all right? Or I wonder if they talk big until it comes to an issues not involving them.

Whatever happens I know things will only get worse as the bible says so nothing shocks me about this or future events. I just can't for Gods return.

Exactly. It won't stop here and the floodgates have now been opened for anyone with their own twisted definition of marriage to come forward and demand that they have equal rights. Only a naive fool believes that this is the end of the battle. Churches and Christian businesses will now be the next targets and it's going to spiral very quickly, unless you happen to be one of the many who has sold out your faith and decided the praise of the world is more important than the eternal approval of your Father. These are sad and very dark days.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."--Romans 1: 26-28

 

[DZoolander]

LinkH, with all due respect, there is the full faith and credit clause, which states states that a marriage obtained in one state needs to be recognized in all other states.

So yes - it is a constitutional issue - just not the one you're thinking it is

 

[ananda]

As I've stated in another related thread today, this is a travesty for all people.

More people gets to lose out on the individual scale (anyone who elects to get civilly married), and the People lose out also as a whole (it forments more infighting among various groups in the nations). There is no profit in peace, and the national government literally gets to grow in power over more people. A double win for the national government, and a double loss for the People.

 

[DZoolander]

Ehhh - I disagree. As time goes on, people will grow accustomed to it, and in 30-40 years (or probably even sooner) people won't care less. Gay people will just be gay people over there doing their own thing, getting married and divorced just like everyone else. Straight people will continue getting married and divorced just as they always do, no more, no less...and in the end it will make no difference whatsoever.

So, like I said, a bunch of drama over something that really matters not.

 

[LinkH]

Exactly what he said.

All of this hullabuloo and people feeling so passionately about an issue that in truth has no bearing on their lives whatsoever has always been astounding to me. What the heck do you care if a couple of gays go down to the courthouse, see a judge, go through a ceremony, and then call themselves "married"? I mean - I could understand if they were trying to force unwilling churches to do it...but I have *yet* to see that happen in *any* of the places where it has been adopted up until now.

I read an article
recently about how Canadian preachers can face legal persecution for 'hate speech' if they preach on what the Bible has to say about homosexual behavior. It's already a problem in Canada, and they are just a few years 'ahead' of us in the downward legal plunge on this issue.

Consider yourself. Just judging by your own posts, I'd say from my perspective that you are a a little liberal kind of guy, maybe a bit libertarian. I don't know how you label yourself. But if I recall correctly, you seemed to be mildly against 'gay marriage' a year or so ago when the topic came up, though apathetically so. But you've already jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon.

Realistically, I don't expect homosexuals to really commit for life for the most part. You'd think if they are going to promote homosexuality or have it legalized, that they wouldn't want the restrictions of marriage. But this sort of social agenda fits their cause and gets them sympathy. And many probably do believe in 'gay marriage', but I've read it doesn't work out for them as much as it does for opposite-sex couples, which isn't a high bar in our society these days.

I don't accept the premise to your argument, that these things have no bearing on our lives. The society we live in effects all of us. Here recently, there was a program in the schools put forth by that immorality-promoting organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center that taught a lot of bad biology, and was designed to teach 11 year olds that the anus is genitalia, and said things to these kids like "if you decide to engage in anal, vaginal, or oral sex....". Their examples of unhealthy couples were male-female and the homosexual couple examples were all presented in a positive light. It treated anal sex as normal and there was nothing in the curriculum about the health dangers of this sort of activity, and no warning against sexual predators. School curricula like this does the pedophiles a favor. They don't have to groom the kids by themselves. The school systems help them.

And we know that if we send our kids to public school, there is a big change the school system is going to teach them that sexual immorality is okay. That's already a problem. My son had a health class, and fortunately, what he learned about sex was filtered through a teacher who apparently has some good sexual morality. And of course, I taught him as well. I would like for a child his age not to have the evil influences. And you can see how there is an actual agenda to teach these things in school. Instead of teaching biology, the LGBT activists teach the kids their immoral version of morality and want to use the schools to do it. They want to teach a twisted version of morality, making it immoral to oppose immorality and to have Biblical sexual standards, instead of just teaching how the body works biologically.

And I don't accept the premise that court decision don't effect us because God judges nations for wickedness, and that is one reason why churches are opposed to this. Here are two main reasons:

1. God judges a nations. Many Christians don't want to see the US fall under further judgment.

2. Lowering the bar on righteousness causes further decline.

Even the SCOTUS judges said during the discussion that forcing religious people to marry homosexuals was going to be an issue. It's not unrealistic to expect persecution over this issue against the saints. It has already happened with Christian business owners. But we can also expect further sexual degridation. When you get the man+woman part of marriage, which God ordained, messed up, legalizing pedophilia and other sexual perversion isn't that huge of a leap. The countries that legalized so-called 'gay marriage' long ago have drastically lowered the age of consent for the most part.

People who 20 years ago would have been opposed to homosexual behavior who are in favor of 'gay marriage' now, who now strongly oppose pedophilia... just watch them, even posters on this forum, as far other sexual morality is concerned. Rebellion against God is not good for anyone.

I am more concerned with the immorality in churches, though. I think that may be at the root at the decline in society, or at least a big part of it.

 

[DZoolander]

I think what you're remembering is something I said a while back where I talked about my first exposure to homosexuality...which was...

The first time I was ever exposed to homosexuality was purely by accident when I was probably 8-9 years old. My folks took me to the beach for the July 4th weekend to stay at our family's cabin. Everyone was partying outside at night - and I went outside to take a look. Right across the street were two dudes full on making out.

I found the experience jarring...and found the sight un-nerving/aberrant/kinda revolting and beyond what I could fathom. It really did bug me for a while when I was a kid - because I couldn't even conceive that two dudes could see each other that way. Kissing, in my mind, was what mommy and daddy did (man and woman - heterosexual) - even though I of course didn't see the whole picture of what that meant yet...lol

I remember you commented on that at the time...so that's probably what you're remembering.

Personally, I find the thought of gay sex kinda revolting and un-natural. But I figure that's because I'm straight and I'm not wired that way. The fact that I find that behavior kinda revolting on a physical level doesn't mean, however, that I'm prepared to say "Hey, I'm gonna stop you from doing that and/or I'm going to use that as my basis of deciding whether or not you and your partner ought to be afforded the same legal privileges as what I'm afforded."

So, I really haven't "jumped on the gay marriage" bandwagon. I was never off it. It's my distaste for homosexual behavior on a personal fundamental level (once again because I'm straight) that has always been there. But, I recognize that in many respects my distaste for that is really no different than my distaste for many other behaviors that aren't my cup of tea. I don't cross the line into looking it as an ethical issue.

People in certain parts of Asia eat dogs. I find that distasteful. Is eating a dog an ethical issue? IMHO, no. Same difference to me.

To that end - yeah - I'm probably pretty socially liberal - with a lot of libertarian leanings.

 

[LinkH]

eZoolander, what do you believe about Jesus?

 

[tall73]

At some point the church needs to get out of the legal aspect of marrying folks. In some places the church just performs the spiritual ceremony, but the minister does not have anything to do with the legal aspect. That would be just fine with me.

Then pastors need not serve the state in any marrying capacity, so as to be beholden to the requirements the state imposes. People can do whatever the law requires for marriage, then go to the church to sanctify the union before God.