Again, this case was lost long ago when the government decided to get into the marriage business. When they started issuing marriage licenses to secular individuals, this decision was simply a matter of time.

 

Agreed 100%. I'm willing to bet the government will soon expand the marriage business into the church and it's only a matter of time before they attempt to force some church into marrying two units that they don't agree with.

Agreed 100%. I'm willing to bet the government will soon expand the marriage business into the church and it's only a matter of time before they attempt to force some church into marrying two units that they don't agree with.

 

Why do you think that is the inevitable future?

Agreed 100%. I'm willing to bet the government will soon expand the marriage business into the church and it's only a matter of time before they attempt to force some church into marrying two units that they don't agree with.

 

I don't see it coming to that, at least not any time soon. If it does, I will absolutely stand behind the church's right to refuse.

Why do you think that is the inevitable future?

 

I think because it's the next logical (or illogical depending on your angle) step in the process.

 

My belief is that some of the posturing and demands that are being made, while they appear to be legitimate personal interests, are also statement postures. By that I mean it's not good enough to have an "equal" right to X, but there is an element of "punishment" that goes along with that equality.

 

Many churches are already taking a look at their marriage rules and modifying to meet the potential.

 

If you take a bibilical approach, some churches see this entire situation as an assault upon Christianity and believe that the final assault will be to attempt to force churches to perform ceremonies that they do believe are endorsed by scripture.

 

Not really much different than forcing the wedding cake issue, just the next probable move.

I think because it's the next logical (or illogical depending on your angle) step in the process.

 

My belief is that some of the posturing and demands that are being made, while they appear to be legitimate personal interests, are also statement postures. By that I mean it's not good enough to have an "equal" right to X, but there is an element of "punishment" that goes along with that equality.

 

Many churches are already taking a look at their marriage rules and modifying to meet the potential.

 

If you take a bibilical approach, some churches see this entire situation as an assault upon Christianity and believe that the final assault will be to attempt to force churches to perform ceremonies that they do believe are endorsed by scripture.

 

Not really much different than forcing the wedding cake issue, just the next probable move.

 

I take a very biblical approach but don't see it as a harbinger of such an apocalypse. The biggest reason. First Amendment. It's one thing to speak of an individual's rights but quite another for the government to impose a new standard on the practice of a church's faith. The current case, of which this thread is discussing, is a case (IMO) of the public domain and not the practices of the "church."

This is actually an interesting view on it. Because so many people get caught up on the sex or the biblical view on things.

 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court basically said that marriage is now gender neutral. And marriage, at its very core, is a legal contract. If religious people want it to be about Christianity and their definition and everything like that, that fight was lost long ago. When the government made marriage a secular contract, it was simply a matter of time before the SCOTUS decision came about. There is absolutely no legal right to prevent two males or two females or a male and female, from entering into a legal contract with each other. Period.

 

Talking about love is fine and pulls on the hearts of some, but at the end of the day, you can't legally prevent a same gender contract between legally consenting adults.

 

Making the argument about the biblical definition of marriage and everything like that is why that side lost the case. America isn't a theocracy, so that point didn't amount to anything in the eyes of the government.

 

Again, this case was lost long ago when the government decided to get into the marriage business. When they started issuing marriage licenses to secular individuals, this decision was simply a matter of time.

 

A whole lot more had to happen than just the passage of time for SCOTUS to come up with a new definition of marriage.

 

So marriage is just a contract, huh? Then by that logic there is no reason to limit it to two individuals. Why not three men, two women and a duck? Oh, yeah, a duck can't sign its name. Okay, why not three men and two women? That number of people can enter into other kinds of contracts. How about two first cousins getting married? Or let's say they come from a really big family and there are 10 first cousins. If marriage is just a contract then they oughtta be able to get married and it's just a matter of time before the SCOTUS makes that decision. First cousins are able to enter into other kinds of contracts--why not a marriage contract? How about two brothers, a sister and a grandfather form a marriage contract as long as they're all over 18?

 

It isn't just about a contract, by a long shot. The SCOTUS making same-sex marriage legal was by no means a forgone conclusion. Lots of stuff had to happen until we got to the point where 5 judges thought they had the power to change the nature of the most fundamental institution of society. :ohbrother:

I take a very biblical approach but don't see it as a harbinger of such an apocalypse. The biggest reason. First Amendment. It's one thing to speak of an individual's rights but quite another for the government to impose a new standard on the practice of a church's faith. The current case, of which this thread is discussing, is a case (IMO) of the public domain and not the practices of the "church."

 

I do know that some churches are taking steps to protect against this regardless. The problem is that while the government may not attempt to enforce the issue, the individuals could attempt to push that agenda and force it into the court system. Many churches just don't have the cash flow to be able to defend themselves, irrespective of whether the issue would make it to trial. That's the punishment perspective I believe.

the most fundamental institution of society.

 

Which fails in this country, what - forty percent of the time?

 

 

 

 

the most fundamental institution of society.

 

Which fails in this country, what - forty percent of the time?

 

 

 

 

 

and your point is what? Keep fiddling with it until it ceases to exist? Traditional marriage is still the best way to raise children. Seems we're determined to do away with it altogether. But what's it matter? It's just a contract. Whatever agreement you can work out with another adult(s) should be just fine.

I'm glad to see that Rowan Co. has money to just give away, like this county in Texas who settled for 44K.

 

Texas Gay Couple Settles Suit Over Marriage License Denial - ABC News

I take a very biblical approach but don't see it as a harbinger of such an apocalypse. The biggest reason. First Amendment. It's one thing to speak of an individual's rights but quite another for the government to impose a new standard on the practice of a church's faith. The current case, of which this thread is discussing, is a case (IMO) of the public domain and not the practices of the "church."

 

According to the Declaration of Independence, all human rights are individual rights--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Beautiful, ain't it?

 

These are individual rights. The Bill of Rights was then written because some of the founding fathers wanted to more explicitly safe guard individual rights from the power of the government. So when Amendment I listed in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it is keeping the government from infringing on an individual's exercise of religion by, for one instance, establishing a particular religion as a national church. Sure, it protects churches from being controlled by the government, but that is because it first protects the individuals gathered as that church.

 

Since, the government has already seen fit to infringe on the rights of individual business owners to exercise their religion (i.e. refusing to participate in a religiously offensive event) it is a small step to impose government control upon a church entity. The most likely justification will be to protect someone else's rights.

 

This only requires that people no longer interpret the constitution and other founding documents as they were intended, but find other "rights" within them that were not intended. This is now occurring. I don't share your optimism. I think things can go to a very bad place. They may not, but we are heading in a bad direction now.

Ask yourself honestly this: Why, after years of persecution, would you not take advantage of changing tides to stick it in the face of those who persecuted you?

 

From a sports standpoint, don't Bengals fans do this at every opportunity when they get a chance at the Steelers?

 

Again, be HONEST.

 

Would I do it, honestly, probably not. I have worked to develop a pretty good forgive and move on ability over the last decade or so. Would many, probably so.

 

Regardless, would you agree that in no way, shape or form does that make it right to do?

According to the Declaration of Independence, all human rights are individual rights--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Beautiful, ain't it?

 

These are individual rights. The Bill of Rights was then written because some of the founding fathers wanted to more explicitly safe guard individual rights from the power of the government. So when Amendment I listed in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it is keeping the government from infringing on an individual's exercise of religion by, for one instance, establishing a particular religion as a national church. Sure, it protects churches from being controlled by the government, but that is because it first protects the individuals gathered as that church.

 

Since, the government has already seen fit to infringe on the rights of individual business owners to exercise their religion (i.e. refusing to participate in a religiously offensive event) it is a small step to impose government control upon a church entity. The most likely justification will be to protect someone else's rights.

 

This only requires that people no longer interpret the constitution and other founding documents as they were intended, but find other "rights" within them that were not intended. This is now occurring. I don't share your optimism. I think things can go to a very bad place. They may not, but we are heading in a bad direction now.

 

I'm not as pessimistic as others. It's just the nature of my faith versus that of others.

Would I do it, honestly, probably not. I have worked to develop a pretty good forgive and move on ability over the last decade or so. Would many, probably so.

 

Regardless, would you agree that in no way, shape or form does that make it right to do?

 

With apologies to Chris Rock, "I ain't sayin' it's right, but I understand."

Well, I suppose now judges can refuse to grant divorces if they believe divorce is a sin. A cop can arrest an adulterer if he is offended by that sin. Or arrest a remarried person for both of the above, plus bigamy.