Gay Marriage Fights Continue in New Jersey, California and D.C.

Brian_G wrote:

You don't understand that the Supreme Court made a decision on the merits to uphold the lower court, that's precedent.
You are right that now the Supreme Court now has a substantial Federal question, DOMA stands as Federal law. The Supreme Court has plenty of precedent for husband/wife marriage and none for same sex marriage.

What you are failing to understand is that now that same sex couples are legally permitted to marry, the basis for the Court's summary dismissal of Baker's claim, the lack of a substantial federal question, is no longer valid and thus it's value as a precedent is nil. DOMA does (for the time being anyways) stand as federal law, but has already been ruled unconstitutional in five separate cases thus far at the trial level and is rapidly heading in that direction in several more. A law which can't even survive reasonable basis scrutiny doesn't have a prayer on appeal, which means DOMA is toast. Something else you are failing to understand is that all those precedents for husband/wife marriage are about the INDIVIDUAL's right to marry and that right is, unless there is a compelling interest served by the state's denial of that right, they cannot deny your right to marry. So Loving, Zablocki and Turner apply to same sex couples as much as they do opposite sex couples, because they all apply to the individual's right. There simply is no compelling interest of the state which is served in denying the individual's right to marry based on the sex of the person that they choose.

I hope they repent so they will not be condemned to hell.

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Below are some Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I Corinthians 6:9(NIV)- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)- "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

Jude 1:6-7 (NASB)- And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Their is no need to live in GAY SHAME, only to be condemned to hell.

Bob wrote:

(nothing worth repeating)

Bob, Bob, Bob, you can quote out of context, misinterpreted and deliberately revised for effect Bible verses all you want, but the number one person you should be concerned about heading to Christian Hell is you, because with every hateful post you are merely punching your ticket for such a destination if it does in fact exist. You claim to have read that Bible you are so fond of thumping, but you clearly haven't learned anything from it. That "god" you've concocted in your own warped and ugly image is a real piece of work and he is only going to get you in trouble. You can try and repent, but I'm afraid you are already lost.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Bob, Bob, Bob, you can quote out of context, misinterpreted and deliberately revised for effect Bible verses all you want, but the number one person you should be concerned about heading to Christian Hell is you, because with every hateful post you are merely punching your ticket for such a destination if it does in fact exist. You claim to have read that Bible you are so fond of thumping, but you clearly haven't learned anything from it. That "god" you've concocted in your own warped and ugly image is a real piece of work and he is only going to get you in trouble. You can try and repent, but I'm afraid you are already lost.

Typical GAY SHAME !

http://www.charonboat.com/item/299/page13.htm

Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death... "

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Your version of the truth, one which isn't shared by all who base their beliefs on the teachings of the Bible. That would make it your problem, not ours.

More GAY SHAME !

Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death... "

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>If one has issues with the idea of same sex couples engaging in intimate intercourse or consummating their relationship within marriage, that is their problem, not ours and certainly not an issue of civil law.
<quoted text>Civil marriage no more confers "morality" on a marriage between a same sex couple than it does on an interracial relationship, or inter-religious relationship or on a couple where one or both has been divorced for those faiths which disagree with such relationships. No faith is required to change anything they believe in regards to the "morality" of same sex couples or any other couple within the private sphere of their teachings, but those teachings have no place in the public sphere of civil law.

GAY SHAME after a gay parade.

http://www.charonboat.com/item/299/page13.htm

Bob wrote:

(still nothing worth repeating)

Matthew 7:15-22 and good luck, you're going to need it.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Matthew 7:15-22 and good luck, you're going to need it.

Gay guy after evil demonic GAY SHAME parade below.

http://www.charonboat.com/item/299/page13.htm

Gay guy after evil demonic GAY SHAME parade below.

http://www.charonboat.com/item/299/page13.htm

Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death... "

The people of D.C. did not get to vote on same sex marriage, nor did their representatives enact same sex marriage law. The NOM pledge to protect marriage will help restore democracy in the District of Columbia.

Keep marriage between husband and wife for the sake of democracy.

Brian_G wrote:

The people of D.C. did not get to vote on same sex marriage, nor did their representatives enact same sex marriage law. The NOM pledge to protect marriage will help restore democracy in the District of Columbia.
Keep marriage between husband and wife for the sake of democracy.

Marriage in the District of Columbia was approved, unanimously by the way, by the people's democratically elected representatives. So you are lying when you say that the people did not get to vote on the issue, they did so by electing their representatives who in turn approved the measure for them. That's how DEMOCRACY in the REPUBLICAN form of government works.

As for NOM, their anti-Gay money laundering operation will come to a screeching halt once the names of the 17 donors who accounted for 92% of their budget are finally exposed. They've desperately been trying to defend the secrecy they have offered their incredibly small base of donors, but have lost against every state that insists on open campaign financing and their appeals are going to quickly run out.

Marriage in D.C. wasn't approved by the Democratic party, no Republican voted. Same sex marriage is bad because it isn't bipartisan.

Same sex marriage proponents arguments are so weak, they resort to extortion, see Rick's post for proof.

Same sex marriage in D.C. was imposed by a single body; it's bad because it isn't bicameral, too.

Brian_G wrote:

Same sex marriage in D.C. was imposed by a single body; it's bad because it isn't bicameral, too.

The legislative branch of D.C.'s government is unicameral by design, it was approved (unanimously) by them, it was approved also by their elected executive and since the U.S. Congress has the authority to overturn any actions approved in the District, but took no action in this case, it can be said that marriage equality in the nation's capital was approved by the elected representatives of the entire nation. Thanks for playing, is there anything else you want to whine about?

D.C.'s same sex marriage law is against the will of the people of the District; same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

Brian_G wrote:

D.C.'s same sex marriage law is against the will of the people of the District; same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

If by the "will of the people", you mean the will of a rabid minority, you'd be correct. Polls done at the time indicated nearly 60% approval for the bill and ALL those who voted in favor on the Council were re-elected AFTER indicating they would support the measure when it came to a vote. Looks like democracy triumphed over bigotry.

I do have a correction to make. I have been saying that marriage equality was approved unanimously and after further reading I found that the actual vote was 11 to 2. I apologize for my repeated error.

Same sex marriage fails every time it's put on the ballot. Polls are just a way for the media to shape opinion. Referendum makes law, see Proposition 8, for example.

There were 11 Democrats and two Independents on D.C.'s council. There is a clear political difference between the Democratic party and the rest of America. November 2012 is the tipping point.