Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 92

Thread: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #21
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Cusick View Post
    It is just a matter of time till the laws force all of the Churches, and I believe the force has already begun.

    The idea is to make the Church marriages to look VOLUNTARY when the Church is not allowed to refuse.

    The pressure has already begun.

    Can you provide any historical evidence where the force of government, in this country, was used to:

    1. Force a Church to perform an interfaith religious marriage ceremony when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?

    2. Force a Church to perform an interracial religious marriage ceremony when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?

    3. Force a Church to perform a religious marriage ceremony when one (or both) of the participants were divorced and when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?

    4. And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal in this country for over a decade, force a Church to perform a same-sex religious marriage ceremony when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?


    Congregations are able to setup whatever rules their Church will function under, that is not "government force" when those who attend a Church accept same-sex religious marriage.


    >>>>

  2. #22
    The Expert
    JP Cusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Hollywood, MD. USA, 20636
    Last Seen
    04-22-15 @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Societal pressure is not the same as government intervention, nor is it a violation of the separation of church and state.
    When the societal pressure is from a massive bigotry against religion then the government's failure to protect or defend the religion from the mob means that the government is intervening on the side of that mob.

    Also and specifically that societal pressure based on its massive bigotry against religion is empowered by the government who has taken control of the institution of marriage by the violation of the Church by the State.

    There would not be any social pressure except by the brute force backing of the government.

    If this is not violating the separation of the Church by the State then those words have no meaning at all.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    SIGNATURE: JP Cusick
    Mr. Know-it-all, sir.

  3. #23
    The Expert
    JP Cusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Hollywood, MD. USA, 20636
    Last Seen
    04-22-15 @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Can you provide any historical evidence where the force of government, in this country, was used to:

    1. Force a Church to perform an interfaith religious marriage ceremony when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?

    2. Force a Church to perform an interracial religious marriage ceremony when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?

    3. Force a Church to perform a religious marriage ceremony when one (or both) of the participants were divorced and when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?

    4. And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal in this country for over a decade, force a Church to perform a same-sex religious marriage ceremony when such a ceremony was against the dogma of that Church?
    All of that is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Congregations are able to setup whatever rules their Church will function under, that is not "government force" when those who attend a Church accept same-sex religious marriage.
    Some congregations are democratic but not all, and the largest congregations are not democratic or else a very limited democracy.

    Plus no Church or religion in the USA is immune to the immoral demands made by the US Supreme Court which outlaws any discrimination based on sexual orientation and its demand that same sex marriages are Constitutional.

    So pretending that the so called "congregation" is functioning independently from the government or the laws is just absurd.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    SIGNATURE: JP Cusick
    Mr. Know-it-all, sir.

  4. #24
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Cusick View Post
    1.)All of that is irrelevant.
    2.)Plus no Church or religion in the USA is immune to the immoral demands made by the US Supreme Court which outlaws any discrimination based on sexual orientation and its demand that same sex marriages are Constitutional.
    .
    1.) translation: you can't refute it and know it defeats your false claims
    2.) actually all churches are because they have nothing to do with legal marriage, do you live in america?

    can you post ONE fact that supports your claims? one
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #25
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by NonConformer View Post
    1.)The national battle over gay marriage rages on. Hardly a day goes by without yet another legal skirmish somewhere; the most recent one is in Nebraska, I think.

    Allow me to break apart this thing we call "marriage". There are really at least two separate aspects:

    2.)First there is the love, sex, and romance aspect. To be blunt, the government has no business here. Nothing in the history books, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, nor the Bible remotely suggest that love, sex, and romance should have governmental oversight.
    3.)The second aspect is the legal contract. This contract, signed by both parties, covers matters such as inheritance, survivor benefits, medical decisions, and such. Now it can be argued that government does have role in the enforcement of legal contracts. And I have no problem at all if two, or more, people of ANY relationship choose to enter unto a binding legal contract covering matters like inheritance and such.
    4.)The problem arises when said legal contract includes the word "marriage", because by word association, we're now getting into matters of love, sex, and romance, which are clearly out of governmental jurisdiction.
    5.)Therefore the solution to this whole same-sex marriage dilemma is obvious: just re-name the darned contract. Call it something that does not include the word "marriage." The name "civil union" has been proposed; sounds Ok by me. And anybody who wants one can have one!

    Meanwhile, keep "marriage" about love, sex, and romance, and if two (or more) people want to participate in it, well that's between them, and their God, assuming they believe in God and so choose to involve him too. But keep government out of it.
    1.) its actually a battle over equal rights. SSM is just a large front of it
    2.) good thing government is NOT doing the oversight of this. That strawman fails
    3.) correct legal marriage is a legal contract
    4.) this is not reality, its not a problem to anybody but bigots and those that are against equal rights. Marriage is the name of the legal contract. no problem at all.
    5.) there is 100% no need to rename it nor does it make any sense to rename it. That would be a waste of time, money and a total smack in the face to equal rights.

    renaming it would be giving into bigots and sacrificing equal rights. . . no thanks

    not to mention the vast majority of states that violated the constitution and banned SSM asl banned same sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and in some cases any relations that resemble them.

    SO that also destroies your false theory its just about marriage, its about bigots trying to control those they dont agree with and luckily equal rights are winning.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #26
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Cusick View Post
    1.)When the societal pressure is from a massive bigotry against religion then the government's failure to protect or defend the religion from the mob means that the government is intervening on the side of that mob.
    2.)Also and specifically that societal pressure based on its massive bigotry against religion is empowered by the government who has taken control of the institution of marriage by the violation of the Church by the State.
    3.)There would not be any social pressure except by the brute force backing of the government.
    4.)If this is not violating the separation of the Church by the State then those words have no meaning at all.
    1.) what massive bigotry against religion? this is another false strawman
    2.) see #1 youll have to explain what you are talking about because i know of no massive bigotry against religion on this topic
    3.) what brute force?
    4.) its not because the things you are talking about are made up or already separated. If you disagree simply provide ONE face that makes this a violation . . .one
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #27
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,735

    U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by NonConformer View Post
    The national battle over gay marriage rages on. Hardly a day goes by without yet another legal skirmish somewhere; the most recent one is in Nebraska, I think.

    Allow me to break apart this thing we call "marriage". There are really at least two separate aspects:

    First there is the love, sex, and romance aspect. To be blunt, the government has no business here. Nothing in the history books, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, nor the Bible remotely suggest that love, sex, and romance should have governmental oversight.

    The second aspect is the legal contract. This contract, signed by both parties, covers matters such as inheritance, survivor benefits, medical decisions, and such. Now it can be argued that government does have role in the enforcement of legal contracts. And I have no problem at all if two, or more, people of ANY relationship choose to enter unto a binding legal contract covering matters like inheritance and such.

    The problem arises when said legal contract includes the word "marriage", because by word association, we're now getting into matters of love, sex, and romance, which are clearly out of governmental jurisdiction.

    Therefore the solution to this whole same-sex marriage dilemma is obvious: just re-name the darned contract. Call it something that does not include the word "marriage." The name "civil union" has been proposed; sounds Ok by me. And anybody who wants one can have one!

    Meanwhile, keep "marriage" about love, sex, and romance, and if two (or more) people want to participate in it, well that's between them, and their God, assuming they believe in God and so choose to involve him too. But keep government out of it.
    You are incorrect.

    Government calling a particular legal contract "marriage" does not get the government involved in overseeing love, sex, or romance. There aren't any marriage laws that require you to love your partner, or have sex with them. I can bump into any woman on the street and marry her today, if she and I want that.

    Similarly, the government has no religious attachment to marriage. A Christian can marry a Jew. An atheist can marry a Buddhist. Two atheists can marry each other. It can happen in a church, or at a courthouse, or in a McDonald's.

    Your religion does not own the word marriage. There is absolutely no reason the government should use a different one.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,731

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    I've been saying this for a long time:

    To the extent the State's position is that it has an interest in promoting family stability only for those children who are being raised by both of their biological parents, the notion that some children should receive fewer legal protections than others based on the circumstances of their birth is not only irrational — it is constitutionally repugnant.

    The State's emphasis on a biological connection creates a further discriminatory classification drawing a distinction between biological and adopted children.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,731

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Cusick View Post
    The problem is that marriage was originally an institution of religion, and instead of the separation of church from State the States took over control of marriage away from religion thereby violating the institution, and after that then the State laws and Federal laws have no basis in morality and thereby the secular laws do not have any authority to say "no" to the same sex marriage.

    It is a violation of the church by the State.

    Of course we never see that position argued in the Courts.

    All the State has is civil unions so calling a civil union as a marriage is just a play on words.

    Of course now the Churches have mostly bowed to the demands and orders of the States and thereby the institution of marriage is violated.

    The irony of it is that marriages for religious people and for natural partners was already being destroyed by the laws so letting the homosexuals have that dead institution of marriage is ironic since they are the only ones left in the USA who sees marriage as desirable or as valuable or as having any meaning.

    A lot (if not most or all) of the States have local representatives who are trying to show their self to be politically against the same sex marriage in order to get that vote so they create those unsound laws which can never stand up in Court so THEN those representatives can pretend to be against it when really it is just a charade.
    I find it fascinating that if this was an important religious right or privilege, that no religions chose to fight against non-religious persons from participating in it at any time in our history (that I am aware of). They also claim that they object to gays marrying because it's a sin...yet they have never fought to change the laws allowing adulterers or fornicators to marry (or remarry). They have not fought to keep convicted murderers in jail from marrying.

    Just gays. Hmmm. If it's a religious instititution...or was...why did they never fight for it on those grounds before? Like I said, most esp. when non-believers increased in numbers, marrying in the courthouses, etc? Why...to my knowledge they never even demanded that those 'marriages' be called 'civil unions.'


    Charles Manson, in jail, no chance of ever reproducing, a convicted sinner...have any religious organizations objected to his proposed marriage (before the mercenary fool female backed out)?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #30
    The Expert
    JP Cusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Hollywood, MD. USA, 20636
    Last Seen
    04-22-15 @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Similarly, the government has no religious attachment to marriage. A Christian can marry a Jew. An atheist can marry a Buddhist. Two atheists can marry each other. It can happen in a church, or at a courthouse, or in a McDonald's.
    This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.

    Now marriage is a temporary contract based only on the government, along with the huge divorce industry.

    My own suggestion is for religious people to only get married within their faith under God, and do NOT get entrapped by the immoral and baseless government marriages.

    They would lose some government benefits - yes, but that would also give them some protection from the government chopping block for their marriage and for their family.

    Just let the homosexuals have the legal marriages since they are now the ones left who see any value to it.



    ===============================================



    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Just gays. Hmmm. If it's a religious instititution...or was...why did they never fight for it on those grounds before?
    The reason there has never been a fight like this before is because the government is now forcing this onto the religion.

    The religions are under attack by the State violating the religious authority.

    It did not happen before because the government had not invaded the religions before.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    SIGNATURE: JP Cusick
    Mr. Know-it-all, sir.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •