[angiefox10]

I don't understand. According the scriptures I posted, multiple wives are ok.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by CFrance

But... it certainly wasn't okay for people back in the day to refuse to serve/provide services for African Americans because they were black. Live and let live was not right back then. It allowed discrimination to thrive. There was a lot of work and protests and lawsuits on their part to get this changed.

Maybe the reasons for the lawsuits now are the same--to establish and protect rights, define them through the law.

I don't think it was against anyone's religion to provide service to blacks. But I think homosexuality is somewhat different.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by allus70

"Live and let live" should be a two way street"

Let me ask the same question with a little twist. Supposed an interracial or were getting married and they went to a bakery to buy a wedding cake. Suppose the baker said I do not approve of interracial couples getting married because it contradicts my core beliefs, and I won't bake you a cake.
Would it be OK for that couple to say, "Thank you for your honesty" and walk away and look for another baker? Or should they have the same rights as you and I, assuming we don't contradict the baker's beliefs.

A "core belief" may not be the same as religious conviction.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This essentially validates the view of many posters that there is no connection between legalities pertaining to gays and lesbians (whether pro or anti) and God, the Bible, and religion!

Yes, the U.S. and Russia are, like most nations, secular. But to call Russia "godless" is completely erroneous. The Russian Orthodox Church is alive and well, churches are open and active, but of course it is a personal choice to participate or not. When Russia was part of the USSR, which dissolved nearly a quarter century ago, the leadership attempted to take religion out of the equation of life there but were ultimately as unsuccessful as they were with their failed economic system, which was destined from day one not to function on the basis of "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"....

Hi Quixote: Again my post was for observation only. When I read this article what immediately came to mind was that old story "that under socialism the past can never be predicted". A very abridged explanation begins with the differences of Orthodoxy which equates to right belief while orthopraxy equates to right practice and essentially has been associated with paganism, etc. It is my way of saying that the State's influence over the Russian Churches is convoluted but it would seem Russia's government would play this freedom of religion to their advantage. So if the government believes something.... so goes the Church.

Again my posting of this event was not judgmental nor used to prove or disprove anything especially since I have never invoked God in my observations. Again I found it IRONIC and quite honestly I believe a political ploy by Putin to slam America given the Supreme Court's decision

This thread is absolutely cerebrally fascinating

[Villages PL]

Under the heading of "separation of church and state," the state shall pass no laws for some people (gays and lesbians) that will require other people go against their religious convictions (bakers, pharmacists etc.).

[PPreu]

I'd like to think that after 65 years on this earth I have matured in to a free thinking human. Yes, there was this time I was homophobic back in the days when "queer" was the catch phrase. Then a wonderful thing happened to me and I lived among them, having roomed with a lesbian in puritanical New England from whence I came. She is a beautiful soul and we lived together for a year. As her roommate, this heterosexual male saw the comings and goings of an awful lot of gay people.

I remember one Christmas, a knock on the door was answered by me and two obvious gay males, were holding a live tree to be put up for the holidays. "You must be Paul," came the response from one of the tree handlers. "Diane said you'd be here." I acknowledged my name and immediately backed up as far as I could without hitting the opposite wall.

"Whatcha doin this afternoon?" asked the other one. In my bestest baritone, I said, "Oh slammin' down a few beers and watching some football." hoping to portray a macho-like image. I failed miserably and sounded more like a white man's Barry White in the process.

As my year went on, I came to enjoy the gay community for who they were, people, just like me, and, dare I say, just like you. When I finally moved, I was sad. They were not, they were genuinely happy to see me happy. They threw me a party and my "gaydar" was officially turned off, forever.

So, I've put this homophobia behind me (pun fully intended) and with that, embrace the notion that two people, who are in love, may marry, regardless of gender(s).

I often wonder if I had been comatose since birth, awoken after 65 years, and someone said, "Hey, you HAVE to choose a religion." What would I do? Read The Bible, The Koran, The Torah? Who's religion is the best? Is your God better than their God? Is there really a God? Regardless of your preference, and I argue none of that, I do believe in equality, for all. Love has no boundaries, nor should it.

[ilovetv]

Rubicon has wisely and consistently focused here on the Supreme Court over-reaching in its authority, replacing the voice of the people and our self-rule...with "that eminent tribunal" as Lincoln called it. See:

Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act

".......Lincoln’s rejection of the Dred Scott decision’s account of congressional authority was not intended as a mere theoretical exercise. His aim was not to see his counter-argument published in a learned journal. Rather, he made this rejection the basis of proposed political resistance to the Court’s overreaching. (emphasis added)

When his great rival, Stephen Douglas, criticized him for refusing to accept the Court’s word as final on this question, Lincoln replied that each branch of the government has a right to its own interpretation of its own powers.........Regardless of the specific policy question at hand, however, judicial activism like that in Dred Scott or Windsor is an attack on the core American principle of democratic self-government.

Just as the Taney Court told Americans in the 1850s that they were not permitted to govern themselves on the slavery issue, so today Justice Kennedy and his liberal collaborators on the Court are presuming to tell the present generation of Americans that they have no right to self-government on the question of defining marriage. That weighty question, they are telling us, will be decided by our betters—that is, by them.

Yet this kind of judicial presumption is not compatible with the American promise of popular self-rule. As Lincoln observed in his First Inaugural,

If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

How, one might ask, does all this explain how we might have averted the defeat in the Windsor case? After all, the previous discussion has been about how leading statesmen ought to respond to the decision, which presupposes that it has already been made. The answer to this question is that Lincoln’s example shows how responsible political leaders should have been responding all along to the contemporary Supreme Court’s record of moralistic judicial activism, so that they might have deterred the Court from doing what it did in the Windsor case.

Unlike the Dred Scott ruling, the Windsor decision is hardly a bolt from the blue, an astonishing act of judicial legislation from a Court that had previously been characterized by its sobriety and restraint. On the contrary, the Windsor ruling was almost predictable as just the latest installment in an ongoing series of cases in which the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the right to substitute its judgment for that of the people and their representatives on the basis of a fictional constitution.

Over the last several decades, the Court has invented numerous hitherto unheard-of constitutional principles: a right to abortion, strict separation of church and state, a right to sexual liberty, and a right of enemy combatants to habeas corpus, among many others.

In other words, anti-democratic judicial activism has become not exceptional but habitual, and this could only happen because our elected leaders have declined to respond to it with Lincoln’s clarity and firmness. Had they done so, there is good reason to think that the Court would have withdrawn to a prudent exercise of its genuine authority......"

Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act | Public Discourse

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by angiefox10

Yeah... Remember when they said that if you gave women equal rights the gays would want it too????


Wait... what????

I am summing the naysayers will finally go away just like interracial marriage haters and all the other like minded people.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by jojoin

Just wondering where in the Bible did you find this to be part of GOD's grand plan?
GOD allows things to happen, but this does not mean it is his will. GOD allows things to happen because he gives mankind free will to do as we please; to make our own choices which includes deciding whether we want to believe in him and his word. But, he also tells us there are consequences to our actions when we turn against his word, and decide to follow our own secular path. I always find it interesting that men/women think they are smarter than GOD.

How quaint.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I would praise one more rewrite of the bible that would put emphasis on Jesus and leave out the scary stories written down that were designed to terrify people rather than inspire them to lead a Christian way of life. I am so pleased that the DOMA decision has brought light to the real reason for such rejection of GAY MARRIAGE. We must overcome superstition with fact and reality. Follow the progress of the written word including such craziness as an eye for an eye, stoning the nonbelievers, killing those that disagree and so many horrible things written down by men to make their position stronger among the population. Then very important, Jesus was sent to spread the word of kindness, forgiveness, love, not to judge others and so on. I believe we were sent the message to do away with man made prejudices.

************************************************** ********


God, God's Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same. If the stories in the Bible scare anyone then so be it for they were included for the purpose of changing people. If we read the Bible we know that GOD, JESUS, and THE HOLY SPIRIT are in harmony and total agreement. To think we can pull out one as being different from the remaining two just emphasizes our lack of understanding the Bible

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It is clear many have been led off in numerous directions with the ever increasing number of different carnal interpretations of the Bible and false teachers which are numerous in the world today.

Revelations 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KING JAMES VERSION)

The Bible is not carnal but must be read and understood spiritually. It can only be truly understood when read in the spirit with a desire to understand.
To think we can be inspired to lead a Christian way of life is also a great error as we must serve God as we found him in Spirit and Truth.

As stated before we are just getting used to darkness as first sodomy was an illegal act in every state and was slowly made legal, abortion and killing of the unborn and even the born has been made legal and now our latest great accomplishment. Our supreme court has become ineffective and has lost the ability to make proper decisions or to even allow the will of the people to decide for themselves. God's final judgement surely cannot be far in the future as we are no doubt way down in the evening of time.

Genesis 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[lanabanana73]

Why the word 'marriage' matters
By Jane Rigby, Silver Spring

At my wife’s brother’s wedding in July, my wife’s aunt and I talked about our weddings. We compared minor disasters (bad directions to the church, no-show caterers), and she asked what surprised me most. I paused. “The minister’s homily was about the couples she’d been marrying all summer. That most had been together for 20, 30 years, and what we should learn from them. At eight years, we were her shortest-duration couple. That surprised me. Oh, and the crying. We had 20 people at our wedding, and they were sobbing.”

My wife and I were legally married in California in 2008, the summer of marriage equality, after the California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriages in May and before Proposition 8 outlawed them again that November. Because of Prop 8’s high-profile journey through the courts, I’m frequently asked about my marital status. Occasionally I still get the awkward, “So, are you and Andrea still together?,” but most people notice the wedding ring and put it something like this: “You got married — that’s great! Wait, is your marriage legal?”

So I was prepared when, at a summer potluck for gay members of our church, the host posed a question: “Why should marriage be the goal? People have such strong opinions about the word ‘marriage.’ Why not fight for full civil unions instead?”

I raised my eyebrows across the table at Jonathan and Mark, together since the 1980s. Mark gave me his “No, you take the last slice of pie” expression. I took a deep breath, and said this:

Marriage matters, because marriage is how society decides whose relationships matter, and whose don’t. No matter what, gay people will fall in love and make homes together, as we always have. Marriage equality is about whether straight people are going to recognize those relationships. It’s how they decide who’s family.

Take my parents. When I visit my small hometown, my mother, without prompting, fills me in on which of my old classmates has gotten married or given birth. No serious boyfriends, no RDPs. Only what matters.

What’s an RDP? It’s a “registered domestic partnership.” We registered that way when we moved to California, by signing and notarizing an application. We got a certificate back by mail. It had all the romance of renewing a vehicle registration. At work, our human resources departments had no idea what an RDP was. Though I told my parents we registered, they didn’t remember. Which means that for years they didn’t know that Andrea was my legal next-of-kin.

Not that they would have told anyone. For eight years, when people asked about me, my mother said I’d gotten my doctorate, was living in Arizona, then California. Who I was with while I was studying, living and moving remained unspecified. My parents love Andrea and made her part of the family, but they lacked the vocabulary and the confidence to describe her to others.

Since I got married, my parents have “come out” to select friends. Not “my daughter is gay” but “My daughter got married [deep breath] to a very nice woman.” Apparently, marriage is something you shouldn’t hide.

In my four years in California, it was illegal to marry the love of my life, then legal for one summer, then illegal again. Now that we’re Maryland residents, we’re in legal limbo. The attorney general says our marriage may be recognized. Does that mean we can we file our state taxes jointly, or hold title on our new house as a married couple? Nobody knows.

Last week, a marriage equality bill was introduced in the Maryland Senate. It would provide my family with the legal clarity and recognition that most married couples take for granted. Will it pass? Will it be challenged by voter referendum? When will we get to be equal?

Last year, after I accepted a job in the Washington area, I flew out to house-hunt with my mom’s help. As we drove down Blair Road, snaking back and forth between the District and Maryland, I watched the GPS switch back and forth. “Look, Ma! I’m married . . . now I’m not . . . Hey, I’m married again!”

She turned in the driver’s seat. “Jane Rebecca, don’t joke about a thing like that. You are married. You had a beautiful wedding. I was there.”

[allus70]

So who do we listen to, the ever avenging, angry God.... forever watching and waiting for someone to break a rule or two so he can deal out swift and terrible punishment.... or the simple, peaceful guy that said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

I don't know about you, but the carpenter gets my vote.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by allus70

So who do we listen to, the ever avenging, angry God.... forever watching and waiting for someone to break a rule or two so he can deal out swift and terrible punishment.... or the simple, peaceful guy that said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

I don't know about you, but the carpenter gets my vote.

It is not a multiple choice question. God, God's Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same.

To think we can pull out one as being different from the remaining two just emphasizes our lack of understanding the Bible

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by KeepingItReal

....

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....

I wonder if this was the basis for the Crusades, mostly against the Moslems, the cry for one of which was "Kill them all; God will know His own!" And kill they did!

However, among the Crusades was the Albigensian Crusade, involving the killing of Christians: men, women, and children as well. These were the Cathars, who sought a return to the true principles of Christianity: "perfection, poverty, and preaching."

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm inclined to agree with those posters who differentiate between the loving acceptance of all by Jesus—and a Church with a historic violent approach to dealing with other human beings who don't follow "the party line."

I guess gays and lesbians are among those who don't follow that "party line" in the eyes of the Church and its adherents....

And still, given all the quotes of chapters and verses, no one is able—or willing—to say WHICH Bible is the "True Word of God" ... and thus which Bibles are not....

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This essentially validates the view of many posters that there is no connection between legalities pertaining to gays and lesbians (whether pro or anti) and God, the Bible, and religion!....

Oh, really???

The daily Opening Prayers said by ministers, priests and rabbis in the House of Representatives, since 1774 no less, DO indicate God, the Bible, and religion ARE connected to these "legalities"......

"Opening Prayer U.S. House of Representatives

06/18/2013
Reverend Brad Hales

Lord God, maker of Heaven and Earth, I thank You and praise You for the blessing of this day. I thank You for our country. I thank You for the laws and government which You instituted for order and honor, and I thank you for our active military and veterans who have sacrificed over and over to make us free.

Father, as a Nation, as individuals, and as a government, we must repent and always come back to You for truth, wisdom, forgiveness, and hope. Let us follow Your words from the Prophet Joel: "Return to the Lord Your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love."

I pray all these things in the powerful and the authority–filled name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Amen.
--------
First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

Opening Prayer Archive, Office of the Chaplain

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, Office of the Chaplain