[Schaumburger]

Originally Posted by cmfjr

I have carefully read all of the above posts and I think each one has missed the most important issue that is the result of the Courts decision. That being that a bill that was debated, passed and signed into law by then President Clinton was thrown out and the will of "The People" disregarded! If one would take the tine to read the 26 page dissenting opinion, they will see that the Court did what could not be done in the ballot box. It appears to me that The Supreme Court (both sides) is blurring the lines of the functions and responsibilities of the 3 Separate and Distinct branches of our government; legislative, administrative and judicial.
IMO, the majority opinion, has many contradictory statements and will see many legal challenges!

One of the roles the Constitution gives the Supreme Court is to "check", if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress -- checks and balances between the branches of government.

[DianeM]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I am in agreement and not just because it seems to be the kind thing to do. If you follow the logic of an all loving God and not the way the bible has been RE-written with man's spin on it to fit his belief or vision of what is the way to go, then I believe God wants us to welcome all his children and that certainly includes gay and lesbians. I do however believe the Ten Commandments is the true word of God

I agree with you on the 10 Commandments.

[cmfjr]

Yes, to check but not to allow 5 members of the court to replace their opinion and wishes over those of The People! They are being revisionist, plain and simple. Just another example of the power they wield. In this case both CA passed Prop 8 and both Houses passed the DMA! In Ca 1 federal judge over ruled the people of CA to get the case to the Supreme Court and 5 justices over turned the Us Senate and House of Representivities! Is that separation of powers?

[janmcn]

Sadly nothing changes for residents of Florida right away. Since 2008, Florida's constitution has banned same-sex marriage. Gov Scott's quote from the front page of today's Tampa Bay Times said "It impacted federal law, not state law...As the governor of this state, I'll uphold the law of the land, and that's the law of our state".

Why would any same-sex married couple continue to live in Florida, when they could receive the federal benefits if they lived in any of the 12 states plus DC where same-sex marriage is allowed?

[billethkid]

one thing...... what ever one chooses to believe or sanction or support or not.......is that it still takes a man and a woman to make a baby......

So what ever the man made new laws/freedoms/allownaces/etc change that is one they cannot!



btk

[NIPAS K-9]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

In case that was to long.

The Ten commandments is the word of GOD.

Show me the commandment that says or indicates:
THOW SHALT NOT BE HOMOSEXUAL

Beware of interpritations during the hundreds of rewrites by MAN infulenced by the DEVIL.

SODAM AND GOMMORAH...........................

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by NIPAS K-9

SODAM AND GOMMORAH...........................

That is not a commandment but rather a story thought up and written by man.

This is a good site for you to review the 10 commandments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

[buggyone]

Don't you think that the 10 Commandments are just a religious outline for living a good and decent life? They are against killing, bearing false withness, stealing, coveting, adultry, and for honoring your mother and father. All are good tenets for leading a good life.

What is the real difference in believing that Moses climbed up on a mountain, saw a bush on fire that did not burn the bush, and was given the 10 Commandments written on stone tablets, came down the mountain, saw the people worshipping an idol, got irate, and smashed the stone tablets - and Joseph Smith (founder of Mormons) who dug up gold tablets in a strange language, had an angel translate the language into English, and then the gold tablets got taken into Heaven without anyone seeing them? Both true or both fables?

Regarding the gay marriage question - doesn't the US Constitution guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Oh, I forgot - many of the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Well, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all who are exactly like the "framers" of the Constitution.

[Gerald]

Personally I believe this is another step in the correct direction to make all people equal.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Don't you think that the 10 Commandments are just a religious outline for living a good and decent life? They are against killing, bearing false withness, stealing, coveting, adultry, and for honoring your mother and father. All are good tenets for leading a good life.

What is the real difference in believing that Moses climbed up on a mountain, saw a bush on fire that did not burn the bush, and was given the 10 Commandments written on stone tablets, came down the mountain, saw the people worshipping an idol, got irate, and smashed the stone tablets - and Joseph Smith (founder of Mormons) who dug up gold tablets in a strange language, had an angel translate the language into English, and then the gold tablets got taken into Heaven without anyone seeing them? Both true or both fables?

Regarding the gay marriage question - doesn't the US Constitution guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Oh, I forgot - many of the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Well, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all who are exactly like the "framers" of the Constitution.

Yes I do. The difference is they all have common sense unlike the Bible that has changed, by man, over the generations to fit his personal benefit. Anything more complex than the big 10 has been designed to confuse and manipulate the common man for the benefit of a few.

[DianeM]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Personally I believe this is another step in the correct direction to make all people equal.

Agreed!!!!

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Personally I believe this is another step in the correct direction to make all people equal.

I also agree.

[billethkid]

I am obligated to take a piece of another post and out of context, because the words so accurately decribes the modus operendi of today's politics and society:

"...designed to confuse and manipulate the common man for the benefit of a few...."

btk

[redwitch]

People will never be equal. The best we can hope for is that people will be treated equally under the law. This ruling is another move in this direction.

A lot of the "laws" of the Old Testament made sense at the time -- don't eat pork or shellfish (no refrigeration); don't mix dairy and meat (at least one might be edible); marry your brother's wife should your brother die (not enough men back then); no homosexuality (need people to populate the world). Many of these same laws/rules make no sense today.

The Old Testament advocates an eye for an eye and removing those parts of the body that offend you. God saw nothing wrong with tormenting Job to win a bet. The New Testament advocates forgiveness and love of all.

Whether many want to accept it or not, the Bible is the word of man (and even one woman) with messages from God. Not all things in the Bible are the word of God. To interpret it literally and try to live the literal interpretation would be very, very difficult for most in today's society. Ask an Orthodox Jew how difficult it is to follow the rules of the Torah today.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by billethkid

I am obligated to take a piece of another post and out of context, because the words so accurately decribes the modus operendi of today's politics and society:

"...designed to confuse and manipulate the common man for the benefit of a few...."

btk

Today's politics and society? Here is a quotation by John Stuart Mill that still seems very applicable today. John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher and political economist known for his contributions to social and political theory. His time period was the mid-1800's.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Do you agree with that quotation?