Next Big Debate, Obergefell v. Hodges, Gay Marriage

[Bluesproverb]

I am from CA and we have fought this and the reason WHY WE ARE IN THE CONDITION WE CURRENTLY ARE WITH THIS below is :

View attachment 242032 View attachment 242033


1. the church compermised the word of God at the expense of Gods love over HIS holiness
2. The Homosexaul did not just want for two consenting adults OF THE SAME SEX to be in a relationship it was about sex with childre, and expose ing them to it and teaching them to be homosexuals.

There's that old saying, nothing new under the sun.

On a round planet histories repeat themselves by conforming to the new age of spin.

If the multitude of sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah could have proudlyboaraded their many and differing sins in the streets they would have.

All these centuries later, there they are. Having never learned a thing.

There are some that think Christians reminding people the rainbow was of God, not of Sodom is a sign of our weakness. We should just stay quiet and let the condemned claim God's bow affirms their pride.

When we deny God in the midst of a condemned parade of Sodom God shall deny us. If we don't have the guts to stand up with a bumper sticker or wearing a shirt, we won't have the guts to raise our Bibles if it ever comes to having to stand for the word.

 

[Klement]

It does not mention marriage . The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government.

So why is the government getting involved in marriage at all?

 

[Bluesproverb]

It does not mention marriage . The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government.

It was. However, when state government issues marriage licenses, and federal government recognizes that contract as able to insure certain rights and privileges for the married, the 14th amendment then applies.
Marriage rights for consenting straights cannot make unequal consenting adult homosexuals.

What led to the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was that first step. When the APA withdrew homosexuality as a diagnosed mental illness in the DSM.

It was a process of illimination. First retract the identity of mentally iil, which prohibited lawful civil union.
Then petition for the same equal right as was pursued and set precedent in the interracial marriage issue, in the case of Loving v. Virginia.
Consenting adults right to marry regardless of race. And the stage was set.

Gays aren't married in the eyes of God.

The eyes of the world isn't our domain.

 

[Klement]

the problem is what the founding fathers said pertaining to that "Document" and the context of it.

John Adams said :

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

JOB 8:13-15

those who forget God have no hope. They are like rushes without any mire to grow in; or grass without water to keep it alive. Suddenly it begins to wither, even before it is cut. 14 A man without God is trusting in a spider’s web. Everything he counts on will collapse. 15 If he counts on his home for security, it won’t last.

Pslams 9:17

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."

That's a fair point about John Adams' own intent and interpretations for the constitution, but that quote is not actually inside the written constitution, right?

 

[Klement]

There's that old saying, nothing new under the sun.

On a round planet histories repeat themselves by conforming to the new age of spin.

If the multitude of sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah could have proudlyboaraded their many and differing sins in the streets they would have.

All these centuries later, there they are. Having never learned a thing.

There are some that think Christians reminding people the rainbow was of God, not of Sodom is a sign of our weakness. We should just stay quiet and let the condemned claim God's bow affirms their pride.

When we deny God in the midst of a condemned parade of Sodom God shall deny us. If we don't have the guts to stand up with a bumper sticker or wearing a shirt, we won't have the guts to raise our Bibles if it ever comes to having to stand for the word.

I'm also opposed morally to the illogical ideologies of the rainbow brigade, FYI.

A woman is a woman. A human female adult without an SRY gene.

But the topic at hand isn't limited to religious ideologies. It encompasses legal, constitutional and cultural ones too. So, to challenge it or understand it in any way that produces tangible ideas that can be applied in the real sphere of politics and law, it needs to be discussed and understood as such. Because we do not live in a religious theocracy.

 

[Beckie]

So why is the government getting involved in marriage at all?

totally agree.. I believe marriage was left to the churches. Old family Bibles were considered documents

 

[CS1]

That's a fair point about John Adams' own intent and interpretations of the constitution, but that quote is not actually inside the written constitution, right?

Nor is the right to abortion and gay marriage. What is there is completely in contrast to an amoral nation.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[Klement]

Nor is the right to abortion and gay marriage. What is there is completely in contrast to an amoral nation.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

But that's what I am also saying. Some things that people claim as freedoms are not spelled out as freedoms inside the written constitution. They include gay marriage, but also include eating shellfish, divorce, contraception, alcohol consumption and television.

So, what logic is there, according only to the written document upon which the US polity claims its rights, to ban any of the things that are not expressly prohibited in the constitution?

This is a genuine question that people will ask us. So how do we answer?

 

[CS1]

Nor is the right to abortion and gay marriage. What is there is completely in contrast to an amoral nation.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Those very words speak directly to the family as it was ordained to be from the beginning. Without a man and woman in marriage, we do not have a future nor the ability to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, = all future generations of people.

 

[CS1]

But that's what I am also saying. Some things that we claim as freedoms are not spelled out as freedoms inside the written constitution. They include gay marriage, but also include eating shellfish, divorce, contraception, alcohol consumption and television.

So, what logic is there, according only to the written document upon which the US polity claims its rights, to ban any of the things that are not expressly prohibited in the constitution?

This is a genuine question that people will ask us. So how do we answer?

yes, there is; it's morality. Homosexuality and eating shellfish are not even the same. That is like saying Taxes and giving are the same.

 

[Klement]

totally agree.. I believe marriage was left to the churches. Old family Bibles were considered documents

I also agree with you, too. Relationship commitments in a constitutional secular state should be left to people to decide for themselves and individuals and couples. Not because I agree with or like gay marriage, but because there is no constitutional precedent for banning people from a consenting adult partnership.

I don't particularly like what the gays proliferate, but it's not the government's purview to administer marriages in the first place, according to the document that defines and underpins American legislation and polity.

 

[Bluesproverb]

I'm also opposed morally to the illogical ideologies of the rainbow brigade, FYI.

A woman is a woman. A human female adult without an SRY gene.

But the topic at hand isn't limited to religious ideologies. It encompasses legal, constitutional and cultural ones too. So, to challenge it or understand it in any way that produces tangible ideas that can be applied in the real sphere of politics and law, it needs to be discussed and understood as such. Because we do not live in a religious theocracy.

As my post outlined.

 

[Klement]

yes, there is; it's morality. Homosexuality and eating shellfish are not even the same. That is like saying Taxes and giving are the same.

Constitutionally there's no prohibition against gay marriage or eating shellfish, yet both are biblically discouraged.

 

[CS1]

But that's what I am also saying. Some things that people claim as freedoms are not spelled out as freedoms inside the written constitution. They include gay marriage, but also include eating shellfish, divorce, contraception, alcohol consumption and television.

So, what logic is there, according only to the written document upon which the US polity claims its rights, to ban any of the things that are not expressly prohibited in the constitution?

This is a genuine question that people will ask us. So how do we answer?

That is the mindset of perversion to say nothing is right and all can do what they think is right. There is an absolute truth, not variations of what one thinks is truth. There are only two genders. Having sex with children is wrong. you do not have a right to force me to call you by a non pronoun

 

[CS1]

I also agree with you, too. Relationship commitments in a constitutional secular state should be left to people to decide for themselves and individuals and couples. Not because I agree with or like gay marriage, but because there is no constitutional precedent for banning people from a consenting adult partnership.

I don't particularly like what the gays proliferate, but it's not the government's purview to administer marriages in the first place, according to the document that defines and underpins American legislation and polity.

the idea the US Constitution supports gay marriage is a perversion of the document.

 

[Klement]

the idea the US Constitution supports gay marriage is a perversion of the document.

The entire point I am making is that the Constitution doesn't support gay marriage. But it doesn't prohibit it either.

 

[Klement]

That is the mindset of perversion to say nothing is right and all can do what they think is right. There is an absolute truth, not variations of what one thinks is truth. There are only two genders. Having sex with children is wrong. you do not have a right to force me to call you by a non pronoun

There are only two genders, yes. Having sex with children is wrong, yes. And I also refuse to call anyone a pronoun.

But you're missing my point. People are using the constitution to ban gay marriage even when the Constitution doesn't mention it. The Bible is not the document upon which American society bases its polity and law; the constitution of the US is.

 

[CS1]

The entire point I am making is that the Constitution doesn't support gay marriage. But it doesn't prohibit it either.

it prohibits the forced indoctrination of the sexual preference to all against one's conscience

 

[Bluesproverb]

But that's what I am also saying. Some things that people claim as freedoms are not spelled out as freedoms inside the written constitution. They include gay marriage, but also include eating shellfish, divorce, contraception, alcohol consumption and television.

So, what logic is there, according only to the written document upon which the US polity claims its rights, to ban any of the things that are not expressly prohibited in the constitution?

This is a genuine question that people will ask us. So how do we answer?

''The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x

 

[Klement]

''The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x

So people have a democratic vote within states. Fair. Thank you!