US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

[gps4]

I just don't get it. I think people are making a bigger deal of this than what it is. This isn't a spiritual battle. This is a government item. The spiritual battle is a heart issue, not a marriage issue. It makes me want to vomit, that people are being so close minded about this. Is this what God intended for marriage? No. Do we really think with, that because this is now recognized by the government that God recognizes it? this next thought will prob make some mad, but where is the uproar for divorce being legal outside of Biblical reasons?????

Fire and brimstone huh? That's the fix? sorry, don't agree with that; the fix has already taken place long ago in an empty tomb.

Again, I just cant understand why people are making this such a big deal, do we really think that we are now worse off as a nation because 2 people can say they are married in our country? that's laughable because those same people could have gone to Canada the last 10 years and done the same.

To me, those that oppose this so much are really saying that the government is more in control and bigger than our God. Seriously?

Now, in my opinion the part where this gets a little scary is if the gov't were to try and force a pastor in a church to marry 2 people. Lets hope though the separation of church and gov't is realized at that point.

Gents, lets look at the heart issue, not just with this but with our everyday lives.

good point. as I read through the debates for and against the recent supreme court ruling on gay marriage, I am reminded that our country has already faced a similar storm with Roe v. Wade and its progeny. Is the federal government's recognition of homosexuals' right to marry so much more surprising, appalling and detestable than recognizing a mother's right to abort an unborn child?

[davidees]

"Now, in my opinion the part where this gets a little scary is if the gov't were to try and force a pastor in a church to marry 2 people. Lets hope though the separation of church and gov't is realized at that point."

THIS IS THE ISSUE, and it WILL be a problem going forward.

[gps4]

"Now, in my opinion the part where this gets a little scary is if the gov't were to try and force a pastor in a church to marry 2 people. Lets hope though the separation of church and gov't is realized at that point."

THIS IS THE ISSUE, and it WILL be a problem going forward.

does the gov't force physicians to perform abortions?

[duramax]

Many salient points raised in the "who cares" corner.

In the wise words of Sir Clint Eastwood:

[gps4]

Many salient points raised in the "who cares" corner.

In the wise words of Sir Clint Eastwood:

Wise......?

...Despite being heavily associated with firearms in his Westerns and cop movies, Eastwood has publicly endorsed gun control since at least 1973. In the April 24, 1973, edition of The Washington Post, the star stated that "I'm for gun legislation myself. I don't hunt." Two years later, in 1975, Eastwood told People magazine that he favors "gun control to some degree". About a year later, Eastwood remarked that "All guns should be registered. I don't think legitimate gun owners would mind that kind of legislation. Right now the furor against a gun law is by gun owners who are overreacting. They're worried that all guns are going to be recalled. It's impossible to take guns out of circulation, and that's why firearms should be registered and mail-order delivery of guns halted." In 1993, he noted that he "... was always a backer" of the Brady Bill, with its federally mandated waiting period. In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that "My interview with Eastwood will air on 'Larry King Weekend' ... I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. 'Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?' he said."

[davidees]

"Now, in my opinion the part where this gets a little scary is if the gov't were to try and force a pastor in a church to marry 2 people. Lets hope though the separation of church and gov't is realized at that point."

THIS IS THE ISSUE, and it WILL be a problem going forward.

does the gov't force physicians to perform abortions?

Are we talking about physicians and abortions here?

[gps4]

"Now, in my opinion the part where this gets a little scary is if the gov't were to try and force a pastor in a church to marry 2 people. Lets hope though the separation of church and gov't is realized at that point."

THIS IS THE ISSUE, and it WILL be a problem going forward.

does the gov't force physicians to perform abortions?

Are we talking about physicians and abortions here?

the rhetorical question was posed in reply to the supposition that the gov't may try and force a pastor in a church to marry 2 people.

[davidees]

I get that, but it's still an apples to oranges comparison.

[gps4]

how so?

many doctors will not perform abortions because of their religious beliefs. the gov't does not force them to perform abortions that are against the doctors' religions beliefs.

i suspect many clergymen will not perform same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. i do not foresee the gov't forcing them to perform same-sex marriages that are against the clergy's religious beliefs any more than the gov't forces physicians to perform abortions.

and supposing a preacher is compelled to marry homosexuals, wouldn't it be something if he started quoting the scriptures that condemned homosexuality and then marries them, ifit even got that far. prolly wouldn't get much return business from the homos.

[southdeltan]

Several states, including Mississippi, are considering doing away with marriage licenses and getting the government out of the wedding business altogether. No clerks issuing marriage licences. No judges performing weddings. Put it all on religious organizations.


Of course there are Churches out there that will perform the weddings.

[davidees]

how so?

many doctors will not perform abortions because of their religious beliefs. the gov't does not force them to perform abortions that are against the doctors' religions beliefs.

i suspect many clergymen will not perform same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. i do not foresee the gov't forcing them to perform same-sex marriages that are against the clergy's religious beliefs any more than the gov't forces physicians to perform abortions.

and supposing a preacher is compelled to marry homosexuals, wouldn't it be something if he started quoting the scriptures that condemned homosexuality and then marries them, ifit even got that far. prolly wouldn't get much return business from the homos.

Well, for one, a doctor either does abortions or doesn't. He doesn't refuse certain abortions based on who the patient is. A preacher who marries heterosexuals but not homosexuals could be accused of discriminating because he refuses service to the homos. You've seen what they've done to florists, bakers, and photographers.

[gps4]

how so?

many doctors will not perform abortions because of their religious beliefs. the gov't does not force them to perform abortions that are against the doctors' religions beliefs.

i suspect many clergymen will not perform same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. i do not foresee the gov't forcing them to perform same-sex marriages that are against the clergy's religious beliefs any more than the gov't forces physicians to perform abortions.

and supposing a preacher is compelled to marry homosexuals, wouldn't it be something if he started quoting the scriptures that condemned homosexuality and then marries them, if it even got that far. prolly wouldn't get much return business from the homos.

Well, for one, a doctor either does abortions or doesn't. He doesn't refuse certain abortions based on who the patient is. A preacher who marries heterosexuals but not homosexuals could be accused of discriminating because he refuses service to the homos. You've seen what they've done to florists, bakers, and photographers.

Would you say that a large percentage of doctors who may otherwise be qualified (specifically, a large percentage of OB/GYNs), do not perform abortions solely due to the fact that it is against their religious beliefs?

Also, it is my understanding that instances where florists, bakers, and photographers were compelled to provide goods or services were in states that, even though they had outlawed same-sex marriage, had enacted laws prohibiting "public" businesses from discrimination based on sexual orientation. seems to me that the relationship between clergy and their flock is not akin to providing goods or services to the public at large. it has been my experience that the priest-penitent relationship is usually protected almost as much as the physician/patient relationship and attorney/client relationship. I do not see why a morally convicted preacher cannot establish policies and procedures that would bring his marriage services out of the realm of servicing the public at large and requiring a somewhat private and personal relationship with the people he marries.

[driveby]

[url][/url]

I do want you all to remember that, when you ask "what would Jesus do" that flipping over tables and chasing people with a whip is within the realm of possibilities.
John 2:13-17

I use this analogy all the time when I hear people say getting upset about something isn't "Christ like".
I tell them sometimes you just have to flip some tables and whip some butts. Great minds think alike Joel!!

[jacksbuddy]

I'm just going to become a divorce lawyer. Seems like there will be an influx of marriages proceeded by a metric uck of divorces.

H3ll, I'm with you. We'll make a killing!

"adame and jacksbuddy - because sometimes, love hurts"

I'm going to Hell for that one, aren't I? Lord, I'm sorry, and bless all the starving pigmies in Africa.

[merlebo05]

Why is the government in the people marrying business anyway??