The issue of gay marriage in the United States seemed all but settled five years ago when the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling de facto legalized same-sex marriage across the country. But if two Supreme Court justices have their way, we could soon be reversing course.
And with the court likely moving even further to the right very soon, it’s not an impossibility.
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case involving Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who made national headlines when she refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples in protest of the Obergefell ruling which enshrined gay marriage as a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment.
And while the court declined to hear the case, all eyes were on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who had some harsh words for the 2015 ruling in a joint statement. Their language has some LGBT activists worried that a more conservative court will seek to rollback marriage equality, even as scores of gay couples have been married nationwide in the years since.
Marriage For Some, Discrimination For Others
“This petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell,” Thomas wrote, speaking for himself and Alito. “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix.”
"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he continued, indicating that Davis’ only crime was having “traditional Christian values” and calling her a “victim” of the court’s decision.
Critics were quick to point out that her crime was actually refusing to do her job as a public official to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples, despite the law unequivocally stating same-sex marriage is legal.
Chief Justice John Roberts did not cosign the statement, nor did Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
Still, the language alarmed LGBT activists and legal scholars who fear a legal challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges could end up before a majority conservative Supreme Court and be overturned.
Activists Sound the Alarm
Among those who found the statement disconcerting is Yale Law School professor William Eskridge, who said that "It is alarming that there are justices on the Supreme Court who want to overrule Obergefell, which is a precedent the court has reaffirmed, and which hundreds of thousands of couples have relied upon to seal their unions in matrimony."
And in a lengthy Twitter thread detailing the legal implications of the statement, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio said that ”the brazenness of the rightward direction of the Court is a threat to even the most basic expectation of legal protection,” and says that it indicates the justices are eager to overturn Obergefell.
Is Equality At Risk?
Might Alito and Thomas get their wish? The Senate seems determined to confirm a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – despite a number of COVID-19 diagnoses amongst top Senate Republicans, hearings are still being scheduled for later this month.
“I’ll go in a moon suit [if I have to]” said Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who recently tested positive for COVID-19.
If the Court does shift to a 6-3 conservative majority, legal experts say there's a real possibility that marriage equality could be at risk.
What do you think? It seems almost impossible to envision, now that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples nationwide have tied the knot thanks to the Obergefell ruling. On the other hand, two sitting justices just showed their disapproval of their court’s own ruling.
Is marriage equality seriously on the chopping block?
142 comments
-
Edwin Merle Waltz
I’m sorry I believe marriage is between man and woman only. If this not so I want to marry my Harley. Cheaper to keep. Goes where I want to go and doesn’t complain. Would be a lot better marriage
-
Minister Mike
Regretfully, belief in something does not make it factual or even true. Often, belief is just an excuse to spread hate in a community.
That said, I'd be happy to perform the marriage ceremony between you and your Hog. Seriously. you pay travel and daily per diem, and I'll be there with all the trappings.
-
Katelynne Shouse
That's fine, you believe whatever you like......but your religious beliefs stop where I begin, and vice versa. You don't want to marry a man, don't, but don't try and force myself and the millions of others in the LGBTQ community to live up to your definition of marriage, or religion, or whatever, and we'll not force you to marry anyone or anything you choose not to!
-
Pink Clover
This.
But, don't force ANYONE to live up to your definition of marriage, or religion, or whatever. Doesn't matter if they are LGBTQ or anything else. If you find love from ANYONE, you are very, very lucky. Basically, keep your nose out of other people's love life and I will do the same.
-
-
Rev. Jonathan Peebles
Marriage is for those in love you not all people love the opposite gender and they have the same right to get married as anyone else that is called equal rights and as and US citizen that is everyone's right!!!
-
Edwin Merle Waltz
Well as a citizen in mans way maybe but not Gods
-
John Camp Bernay III
Are you a Bible Reader Edwin Merle Waltz ? Riddle me this, scripture says God's Son was Born of a Hebrew Girl aged 14 years, who was unmarried, and He Is God in the Flesh, so theoretically God had sexual intercourse with His Mother, who gave Birth to God himself. This destroys the Trinity Fallacy entirely, in fact, in reality there can only be One God in Christian Monotheist Religion. So if you think your idea about What God Thinks about Right and Wrong, you are a illiterate heathen. 70 Years of Studies in Comparative Religions might make you less stupid, but I doubt you spend 70 Seconds in Bible study. Thank You, for calling the Bible Answer Man, Harold Camping is passed away and Gifted ME with his wonderful sarcasm towards morons who twist scriptures.
-
Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF
The Harold Camping reference brought a good laugh with visions of billboards! Thanks!
-
Dennis Wayne Starr
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... Makes perfect sense
I am going to create man and women with original sin. Then I am going to impregnate a women with myself as her child, so that I can be born. Once alive I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself. To save you from sin I originally condemned you to. Ta Dah!.
-
-
-
Edwin Merle Waltz
Well as a citizen in mans way maybe but not Gods
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
My God doesn't like your God, Edwin.
-
-
Edwin Merle Waltz
Well as a citizen in mans way maybe but not Gods
-
-
Theodore Flores
I pray for your ignorance. If two people are in love and they want to marry, they deserve to be married. Two people of the same gender identity being in love does not affect you whatsoever.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
Can you provide a definition for a man and a women? God sure can't. What determines if a person is female or male? A vagina or a penis? With one out of every every 300 live births there is a sex abnormality do you define the sex of someone? What if a person is born with a penis and a vagina? Is that a man or a women? God sure hasn't made this easy for us.
God has made it impossible for us to tell who is a man and who is a women so how can there make a law defining it?
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
I've never owned a Harley, but only three American made Hondas. My father was a Harley man, although his first one was an Indian, in the 1950's. That was enough to make me a Honda man, for life. And I can see how I could have married my Hondas. The way they ended up wrapping themselves around me was surely an indicator of love, wasn't it? If I had only been thinking clearly when they showed me how much they loved me...but I never wore helmets.
-
T Kosse`
In Matthew 9:3-6, Jesus affirms marriage as between one man and one woman and appeals to Genesis. Doesn’t this mean then that same-sex marriage is not permitted? “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”’ (ESV)
Jesus is clearly not making an argument for heterosexuality. No one in the story is questioning heterosexuality. The Pharisees essentially want to know if it’s morally acceptable to divorce an aging or annoying wife to find someone younger. Jesus is making a beautiful argument that we should all affirm, but that argument is for the sacredness of relational and sexual commitment within the marriage covenant. Regarding an appeal to Genesis, we can’t be sure if homosexuality is a natural occurrence within the created order (like skin color) or if it is a result of the Fall. Even if homosexuality is a result of the Fall, Christians are comfortable living within a number of post-Fall realities—eating meat and wearing clothes, for example. Additionally, same-sex relationships may not fit the pre-Fall ideal, but even prior to God’s pairing of Adam and Eve, God created the fundamental human need for companionship. So when Christians acknowledge the validity of same-sex relationships, we honor the good and edifying desire to share romantic intimacy that was first placed in a person’s heart by the Creator Himself.
Does Ephesians 5:25-27 really forbid same-sex marriage by making a parallel of a husband and wife to Christ and the Church? “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (ESV)
The bride of Christ imagery was not originally used to teach Christians about why only opposite-sex marriage is moral, but rather about Christ’s covenantal, sacrificial, and unending love for his people. Therefore, we should not be forced to choose from celebrating same-sex marriage and celebrating the future reality of Christ’s eternal marriage to the Church. These are not at odds with one another. That is clearly not the implication of the text. Same-sex marriage does nothing to undermine the bride of Christ metaphor, but rather by the covenantal nature of marriage, affirms the very essence of it. What actually undermines this is imagery is a culture of live-in relationships, divorce, and inflexible doctrines that label otherwise covenantal, sacrificial, and unending romantic commitments as sinful. It would be tragic if Christians if continued to take what God meant for encouragement, hope, and joy, and sullied the beautiful bride of Christ with anti-gay overtones.
Christians have misinterpreted these passages, that Christianity always taught same-sex relationships are sinful. What Christians have always been taught.
Simply put, Christian teaching on homosexuality in the ancient world and the medieval era, as well as other expressions of sexuality, were not completely uniform. The claim that Christianity has always condemned same-sex relationships uses far too broad of a brush, and there is evidence to suggest uniform condemnation of same-sex unions did occur until the 13th century. Yet, this understanding need not be essential to continue our conversation. Even if one is still convinced that until recently, all Christians in all times believed all same-sex relationships were sinful, a reversal of this magnitude would not be without historic precedent. In the sixteenth century, emerging astronomical data completely overturned the Catholic Church’s consistent and biblically based teaching that the sun revolved around the earth. This, however, was not an isolated revision. That same century saw the Protestant Reformer, Jean Calvin, reject Christianity’s consistent and biblically based teaching against usury. Did Calvin invalidate the theological legitimacy or legacy of his Christian predecessors? Hardly. He was merely responding to the reality that the emerging capitalist economy was changing the context of charging interest from predatory lending to a healthy feature of a free marketx . Whether it was the Catholic Church or Protestant Reformers, simply encountering new data and a new experiential context were theologically sufficient reasons for humbly revising doctrine all Christians in all times had believed until that point in history.
-
T Kosse`
I guess you not able to find someone who would merry and let you call them a hog other then your bike and an actual hog.
-
-
The Rev. William C, Millhouse
I am sick and tired of the Ultra Conservative "Christian" right and their ministry of Hate.
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
Welcome to the club, William. Thanks for joining us.
-
-
Anisahoni
For those of you who are not ordained by the ULC, your justification to discriminate against gay marriage is contrary to the principles of the ULC on marriage equality. You can thump your bibles, and quote passages from your bible, but that is not who we are as ministers of the ULC. The Universal Life Church is very clear on this issue. To say you are disappointed in our church's position means you should renounce your ordination by our church since you don't take our principles seriously nor willing to uphold rights for all people.
-
Rev Hannah Grace
'Adam and Eve' is a fairytale, a myth told to explain the beginning of human life on earth to primitive people. To force others to continue to believe in this myth is coercion of religion.Not everyone's religion believes in Adam and Eve or anything else the very lovely but very flawed Christian Bible teaches. Marriage is a contract and as such should not be influenced by one person's religious belief over another's. If all people in the USA are truly 'created equal', then the Supreme Court should stop trying to take away the rights of any one group simply to please another. America is becoming a theocracy, which Americans condemn in non-Christian countries.
How would the Protestants like it if Catholics forced them to believe all the same things? Or vice versa, how would Catholics feel if Protestants tried to control their beliefs? Live and let live.
-
Clay Serenbetz
I believe in religious freedom. That means if I'm an agnostic, an atheist or a Khoasan, I may worship the God or Gods of my religious faith. Marriage is a civil right, not an ecclesiastical right. Marriage prefers over a thousand civil rights. Under our Constitution, I am entitled to marry any person consistent with my religious faith or lack thereof. You have no right to tell me who I can marry any more than I can tell you who to marry. Relying on the Bible to determine the person to marry means that you are asserting your religious beliefs unconstitutionally over mine. You have no right to tell me to follow Christian doctrine no matter its source. Stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of yours.
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
I will completely believe in religious freedom, after the demise of Christianity. And, I'm almost there now!
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Clay, you should argue this case before the Supreme Court as you explain it brillantly. If relidous freedom is the only basis to overturn the 2015 decion, then they really are not considering what religous freedom truly means. They are only reinforcing that specific religions are actually considered free and ignoring the concept that no religion is also a choice of that freedom.
My only argument to all of this would be that a persons freedom to worship should not overight the persuit of happiness for another. I dont' know why people cannot see this.
-
-
T Kosse`
This is as good of a reason as any to vote Trump and his enablers out of office Vote Blue Nationwide! Of course I could come up with a thousand reason to vote them out, but it would take up the whole blog space and ULC won't let me do that.
-
Lionheart
I believed your first 12 words, then it sorta went down hill from there 🤪.
To be honest, it's staggering that out of the millions of Democrats this country has to offer, Joe Biden was decided to be cream of the crop to run for Presidency, a man that is in serious need of a tele-prompter, or some other electronic aid to help him out. The same of course could be said for Donald Trump, excluding the teleprompter bit, but we do at least, (or did before Covid-19), have the best economy for decades. It's going to be a very interesting ride whoever gets in as President.
🦁♥️
-
T Kosse`
That wasn't because Trump it was because of Obama, but Trump totally screw that up.
-
Lionheart
I don’t think so. Even Obama admitted that Trump would need a magic wand to improve on employment and improve on jobs, which he did until the pandemic hit.
Obama instantly took the budget deficit to $1.4 trillion in his first year of office from $455 billion when he took over. It took him 8 years to try and get it back to what it was when he took office but never made it, with it finally ending up at $585 billion. I suspect we could reach at least $1 trillion this year due to the COVID-19 world pandemic, and even possibly more, but every country is experiencing the same issues.
With the H1N1 swine flu Obama couldn’t stop 60.8 million people from getting it with his policies, and it was nowhere near as contagious and deadly as COVID-19. Currently only 8 million have contracted it due to the policies that Trump established. Yes there have been more deaths of the deadly disease but if Trump had stuck to using Obama’s poor policies of H1N1, the death rate would obviously have been greater.
🦁❤️
-
Howard Pippin
Lionheart, we don't agree on many issues, but you have a better understanding of Political comments that I read On this site and many others. I don't mind people that are biased, individual freedom is good for the soul, but it's a tough gig with biased newspapers and TV news stations and the effect they have on the common people. A little research into the history and prosperity of our country would benefit many.
-
Lionheart
Thank you for your kind comment. I feel we are approaching a very difficult time in the history of the United States. These next few years are going to be a very interesting time no matter who wins the election, not just for the United States, but for the whole world in general.
🦁❤️
-
-
T Kosse`
During a PBS town hall that aired Wednesday, Obama referenced Trump's promise to bring back jobs to the United States when talking about manufacturing.
“Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it," Obama said.
"He just says, 'Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.' Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer.”
Obama has slammed Trump in the past.
President Obama entered office in early 2009 in the teeth of the Great Recession. Not surprisingly, the deficit exploded from $459 billion in calendar 2008 to over $1.4 trillion in calendar 2009. As the economy recovered the deficits shrank to a low of $442 billion in 2015 and was $585 billion his last year in office.
President Trump on the other hand was handed an economy that was growing. In 2017, his first year in office the deficit grew to $666 billion, was $984 billion last year and is projected to be over $1 trillion in 2020 at $1.02 trillion. This would be a 74% increase in just four years and going forward the Federal deficit could escalate to $1.7 trillion in 2030. What you really should be saying is due Trump mishandling of the COVID-19 world pandemic
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/8/21242003/trump-failed-coronavirus-response
The president is wrong in multiple ways.
First, the swine flu did not kill 17,000 people, as Trump maintained in his tweet. Nor did it kill 14,000, the figure he cited days earlier. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that H1N1 killed about 12,500 Americans between April 2009 and 2010, far fewer people than typically die each year from the flu.
Second, the president’s characterization of the government’s response does not match reality. If anything, the response to H1N1 was swift in comparison to the current administration’s handling of the coronavirus.
-
T Kosse`
Anthony S. Fauci, who recently said: “When you compare us to other countries, I don’t think you can say we’re doing great. I mean, we’re just not.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/
The death toll in the US became the highest in the world in early April and has risen dramatically since then.
President Donald Trump initially said "50 to 60,000" people could die during the outbreak but in May he said he was hopeful the toll would be lower than 100,000. That benchmark has now been hit though and there are still about 1,000 deaths a day on average.
COVID-19 & the Dismantling of Oversight: How the Trump Administration is Exploiting the Pandemic and Public Distraction to Purge Whistleblowers
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to transform every aspect of our society, from our daily lives to the economy, Government Accountability Project continues to confront the unparalleled challenges of the current moment. While the American public is understandably distracted, the current administration is exploiting the coronavirus crisis to accelerate its war on whistleblowers, the truth, and democratic institutions and norms.
At the time of writing, 80,653 Americans have already died from the disease, and total US cases are approaching 1.4 million. According to current projections, over 130,000 Americans are estimated to die from disease by the end of August. As reported extensively in the press, American hospitals are wracked with increasing caseloads and dwindling supplies of critical personal protective equipment (PPE).
-
Lionheart
Yes, without doubt Covid-19 is unprecedented in its virulence worldwide. Few, if anyone, knew how much of a disaster this would be, even when Pelosi was inviting people to China Town when Trump was closing down the influx of people from China, being dubbed a racist and a xenophobic. Even though Covid-19 is extremely virulent and deadly we still haven’t met anywhere near the 60.8million that became infected with the less deadly H1N1 in the U.S. mainly due to the precautions set in place, not just by the U.S. but by other countries worldwide.
🦁❤️
-
T Kosse`
How do H1N1, COVID-19 compare? The death toll for the novel coronavirus is already exponentially higher than that of H1N1, despite having just a fraction of the number of infections in a fraction of the time.
Since the first reported U.S. coronavirus death on Feb. 29, there have been more than 166,000 U.S. deaths – more than 13 times the estimated number of U.S. swine flu deaths in its first year – according to data from Johns Hopkins University. Worldwide, more than 750,000 people have died of COVID-19, significantly more than the highest swine flu death estimate from the CDC.
The CDC estimates the coronavirus has an infection fatality rate of 0.65%. Unlike the swine flu, those primarily at risk for coronavirus are older adults and those with underlying medical conditions.
Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told USA TODAY that because the severity of the coronavirus is quite different from that of the swine flu, the U.S. response needed to be significantly different, too.
It's true that the CDC estimates the 2009 swine flu pandemic infected an estimated 60.8 million people in its first year, versus about 5 million COVID-19 cases confirmed in the U.S. But that comparison lacks important context about the severity of each virus. While the swine flu spread easily, the virus had only a fraction of the fatality rate of COVID-19. A comparison between the two that lacks this context when comparing the nation's response is incomplete.
-
T Kosse`
Share: Swine Flu Vs. COVID-19: Here's How the Two Pandemics Compare, According to Experts
Swine flu and COVID-19 have been repeatedly compared in the past few months, given that they're both pandemics that sparked major panic across the world and in the US. But while these two illnesses have some things in common—symptoms, diagnoses—they're actually quite different on many, many levels.
"Swine flu was the last major pandemic we had before COVID-19," Amesh A. Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, tells Health. "But they're not the same. COVID-19 is definitely more serious."
Richard Watkins, MD, an infectious disease physician in Akron, Ohio, and a professor of internal medicine at the Northeast Ohio Medical University, agrees. "COVID-19 can lead to organ damage and long-term symptoms," he tells Health. "That isn't seen with swine flu."
Given that the swine flu pandemic happened back in 2009, you might be a little fuzzy on what went down and why it was such a big deal. Here's what you need to know, why officials are comparing responses now, and how it measures up to COVID-19.
Real quick: What is swine flu, again? Swine flu was a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus that emerged in the spring of 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19, on the other hand, was a novel coronavirus—so swine flu and COVID-19 are two different types of viruses.
Swine flu was detected first in the US and then spread across the country and eventually the world, and it contained a blend of flu genes that hadn't been previously seen in animals or people, the CDC says. "It was a new virus that jumped from pigs to humans," Dr. Adalja says. (Similarly, COVID-19 is also a zoonotic disease—which means it jumped from animals to humans—though there's no clear path as of right now.)
But now, swine flu is just another seasonal influenza strain, Dr. Adalja says. That means it comes back every year (don't worry, our flu vaccine has taken that into account, but more on that later). "The H1N1 2009 influenza strain still circulates every flu season," Michelle DallaPiazza, MD, associate professor at the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, tells Health.
How many people were infected with—and died from—swine flu compared to COVID-19? From April 12, 2009 until April 10, 2010, the CDC estimates that up to 60.8 million people were infected with swine flu. That flu led to an estimated 274,304 hospitalizations, and, according to estimates, 12,469 deaths over the course of that year.
That death count is in huge contrast to the current coronavirus pandemic. Infections of COVID-19 in the US are still increasing, but the latest data from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center shows that 7.5 million people in the U.S. have been infected with the virus to date. More than 212,000 Americans have currently died of COVID-19, Johns Hopkins reports.
But comparing COVID-19 cases to swine flu cases is difficult, Thomas Russo, M.D., professor and chief of infectious disease at the University at Buffalo, tells Health. "With COVID-19, we're counting documented cases," he says. "With influenza, they're CDC estimates. They assume—which is true—that not all influenza cases will be documented." Therefore, it's not necessarily comparing apples to apples, Dr. Russo says.
Overall though, "the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been much more devastating," then the H1N1 influenza viruses they had been exposed to many years prior, and most importantly, COVID-19 has a higher infection rate and a higher case-fatality rate."
This has come up a lot in politics. Barack Obama was in office during the swine flu pandemic and Dr. Adalja says the Obama administration "could have done better with guidance and how things unfolded in terms of personal protective equipment needs, the vaccine development process, and the delivery process."
"There were some mistakes, but it wasn't anything too consequential," Dr. Adalja says, adding that, "once public health officials realized that swine flu wasn't going to be cataclysmic, they backed down on mitigation efforts like school closures and social distancing."
But, Dr. Adalja says it's very difficult to compare the Obama administration's swine flu response to that of the Trump administration's handling of COVID-19. "Whatever faults the Obama administration had with their response to the 2009 pandemic, those are dwarfed by continual errors from the Trump administration that are continuing to this day," he says. Those include, but aren't limited to: failing to take the deadly illness seriously, slashing funding for critical public safety nets, and significantly lagging in testing during the first weeks and months of the pandemic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Voting these vile individuals out of office will help in a many ways however, it will not help with the current topic being discussed. They already have a justice that shares their views, who will likely be confirmed, and therefore, the damage is done. I hate being discouraged but it could take decades for America to get back to where we are today with marriage equality. It looks like the narrow minded conservative values will win again. It truely saddens me.
-
-
Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF
Marriage is a civil institution and legal contract between two consenting, legally eligible adults. The marriage license is issued and recorded by the state in which they reside. Marriage has nothing to do with religion.
In addition to the uncertain, scary possibilities and soon-to-be state of the SCOTUS majority, sadly, I read about a documentary released today, the Pope is voicing a stand for a "separate but equal" (NOT) civil option, too ... and although it's almost a tiny step in the right direction for the Church toward affirming LGBTQ+ Catholics, it is far from full acceptance and genuine Marriage Equality.
https://www.joemygod.com/2020/10/pope-francis-backs-civil-unions-for-same-sex-couples/
If religion wants to define/monopolize/control "marriage", I wonder if secular hetero couples would begin settling for "civil unions", just to keep religion out of their relationship?
-
Howard Pippin
Marriage is an institution set up by God between a man and a woman that had become joined and are of one flesh. All else attempts are civil unions as set out by state regulations that serve the purpose of providing moral and legal support for people that live together, So that their individual rights cannot be taken away from whatever reasons state or federal governments dream up. If that government is dissolved because of break down in its ability to govern than those unions that were done under that deceased government would not exist anymore. Those Marriages ordained by God Have nothing to do with a civil government and will exist until either death or disillusion ends it.
-
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
I've got Avery close relative who married another man in Canada twenty something years ago, and renewed their vows here when it became legal. They're still happily married, are high level professionals, own their own home in an upscale neighborhood, and are active in their community. A true American success story. Of course, they feel much better about their marriage being recognized here in their home country, but it previously being illegal didn't stop them, and surely won't if it happens again. Two people in love are going to be with eachother, regardless of any laws. Doesn't it all boil down to a commitment between two people. I hope our government always honors those commitments, but if they don't, I'll still perform their weddings, and they'll get a marriage certificate from the good ol' ULC (if they can't afford to take a trip to Canada). I also love attending gay weddings. Those people really know how to party!
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Carl, you are correct that it boils down to 2 individauls being happy and I have been in a relationship with my husband for almost 23 years. It has only been legal to the federal government for 7 years. The problem is not qualifying for the same rights as other married couples. Over 15 years we were unable to file a joint tax return. If something happened to one or the other of us we would not be eligible to recieve a spouses social secerity benefits. Again, if one of us were to die, one of our family could chose to remove the partners rights to everything. Without legal marriage we have to rely Living Wills & Trusts, Power of Attorny's, and Health Care Directives, to insure our partners rights in any eventuality. That's what we have had to do in the past but it is nice not to have to worry about that anymore. If our marriage is invalidated we will be forced to begin all of this again.
-
-
Minister Mike
To paraphrase several comedians, L's, G's, and other alphabet members should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.
What a shame self proclaimed "good" christians, jews, and muslims are so bent on forcing their religion on others.
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
They might even find themselves burning in Hell with Jesus, while the rest of us are living it up with Satan, in Heaven! Tell me it's not hell to walk on gold paved streets, wear all white gowns, and listen to nothing but harp music played by flying, winged critters!!!
-
Minister Mike
More regrets: there is no heaven or hell except what we make for ourselves right here on planet earth.
-
T Kosse`
And Trump is the devil incarnate.
-
Minister Mike
You give him too much credit.
-
T Kosse`
Minister Mike I respect you and agree with you 100% of time you post however this time I have to disagree with you It is the reason we are where we are at now is because people took Trump as a joke someone who would never get elected president They underestimated just how evil, corrupt and dangerous Trump could be to our country and our democracy. We can not afford to make the same mistake twice.
-
Minister Mike
It wasn't a joke. 45 is not the devil incarnate or otherwise. He's just a rich, misogynist, racist child in an adult's body who has never done anything that wasn't for his own personal benefit.
-
T Kosse`
When I say he the devil incarnate I don't mean that in the biblical sense. I mean that he is pure evil, totally corrupt and very dangerous there is nothing that "just anything" about Trump I won't rest until he out of office and in prison where he and his whole family belongs.
-
Minister Mike
Nope. He is not pure anything - evil, good, or even rainbow. He's just a rich, misogynist, racist child in an adult's body who has never done anything that wasn't for his own personal benefit.
-
T Kosse`
That where you and I disagree, So I see it as pointless to continual on with this discussion any further and just leave it as we agree to disagree.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Len DeSecottier
Mr Waltz, just a word of warning after you marry your Harley--stay clear of the exhaust pipes on lonely night. take care.
-
Daniel Gray
No different then the man marrying his guitar, or the woman marrying herself or any other idea.
-
-
Daniel Gray
No, because the Marriage Equality decision is not a law and cant be. Under Article 1 of the US Constitution the ONLY people who can make a law or give weight of law to anything is the US Congress and the State Assemblies and the City councils. No one else. Even the President can only suggest a law he/she cannot make it. And in Article 3 of the US Constitution it clearly states that the Courts can only go by what is written in deciding what is constitutional, they cannot interpret it and have no authority to do so. As such all the SCOTUS did was rule that the laws that were made that banned Same Sex marriage were unconstitutional, nothing more. You cannot force people to accept this and you cannot fine or punish people who refuse to accept it as again, its not a law. So even if the new SCOTUS overturned it (and that is slim to not going to happen as SCOTUS has only overturned themselves 10 times in the last 240 years) all they would be doing is overturning a previous decision. If people are so upset and afraid that Same Sex marriage is going to be overturned, then get Congress to pass a law protecting it, that would make it so very much harder for anyone to overturn it or make it illegal again. This isnt rocket science folks so dont try and make a mountain out of an ant hill
-
tuppennyblue
I find this article offensive and prejudiced against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I expect better from The Monastery, which I expect to be neutral in these matters. Marriage was "equal" before homosexual "marriage" became permitted - everybody could marry someone of the opposite sex, and that's equal for everyone. I have no problem with homosexual couples being able to enter into a formal arrangement which gives them equal legal rights and responsibilities to those enjoyed by married couples, but that arrangement is not, and never can be, "marriage".
-
Stewart
Freedom of religion is any and all their church might belive gay marriage is perfectly fine ,
The problem as I see it is Fundy's wanting to force everyone to follow their rules regardless of their honestly held beliefs of inclusion .
Do not want gay marriage then don't marry one Do not want to do a job then find one you like ......
I promise you working for any major corp that has policies you dislike will terminate you for not following them . Clerks that issue licenses swear to uphold the law all of them not just ones they agree with .
-
Ilmenheru Terikson
LOL WTF would the ULC a non denominational secular church, that is well established as an ally all who truly believe in equality and freedom for all people who desire to live unchained by the oppressive and archaic beliefs of those like you Tuppy.
Marriage is just a word, it like all words can have its meaning expanded and evolve over time. Nor do the various sects of the abrahamic faiths have any place to complain or challenge such.
Your personal belief about what marriage should mean is just that a personal one, one that has no validity here on the ULC forums, a place that fully supports all marriage between consenting adults.
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
My religion and church recognizes gay unions as "marriage" and that is our protected religious right
-
T Kosse`
Your statement : everybody could marry someone of the opposite sex, and that's equal for everyone. but you contradict yourself when you make this statement: I have no problem with homosexual couples being able to enter into a formal arrangement which gives them equal legal rights and responsibilities to those enjoyed by "married couples". How is that's "equal for everyone" when heterosexual can be "marriage" but homosexual can not be "marriage" It seem you want to have your cake and eat it too. (what does it mean when someone say you can't eat a cake and continue to posses that cake once you eaten it. It Used for expressing the impossibility of having something both ways, if those two ways conflict)
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
We are prejudiced agains
-
-
T Kosse`
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvGkB4bdryQ
LIE-LIE-LIE-LIE LYSOL - by Founders Sing with the Kinks & Mr. Clean
Our heads almost exploded when Trump made a series of literally unbelievable “health care” suggestions. Who better to detoxify the situation than Mr. Clean, accompanied by his pals the Scrubbing Bubbles?
Shout-out to the Kinks' Ray Davies and Dave Davies for such a groundbreaking, iconic song.
We'll push you away Vote you out the door We all know the cure Because you're the disease We got to return to sanity
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
We've heard too much locker room banter for one lifetime!!!
-
-
Reverend Lisa Smith
I am a Christian, and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
You're not likely to get very many votes over that statement, Lisa.
-
Ilmenheru Terikson
Then clearly you if a citizen of the U.S are guilty of treason against the secular ideals the U.S. was founded upon. Your beliefs need to be refined and redefined to in no way include anyone but yourself in the rules and dogma of your specific faith. The moment you start even thinking what you believe should be held by more then yourself you are acting in an insular manner no different then those extremists cultures the U.S. has long fought against while claiming a position of moral superiority by seeking to end the tyranny of insular faith structures.
-
Anisahoni
Lisa, The ULC supports marriage between 2 people regardless of gender. Our Universal Life Church supports marriage equality, period. Your religious ideology is not supported by our church and is not supported through your ordination. You may want to re-think why your chose to be ordained by our church rather than a Christian one and find a more suitable place to espouse your homophobic beliefs. You took an oath just like the rest of us ministers ordained by ULC.
-
-
James Grainger
any time you have judges using their religious beliefs to decide courts case; equality is at risk.
-
T Kosse`
The Trump administration has introduced a proposed rule change that would make it even easier for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, cheating their workers of minimum wage and overtime protections.
This proposed rule change would give employers and corporations far more leeway in classifying their workers as independent contractors—allowing them to pay subminimum wages, hire child labor, and avoid overtime pay.
-
T Kosse`
Those of you who voted for Trump the last time thinking that he will be looking out for YOUR best interest. After all that Trump and his enablers have said and done so far. Be really honest with yourself do you really believe that Trump is still looking out for YOUR best interest and not the best interest of Trump and friend.
-
T Kosse`
I know we all been wrapped in this maddest that been our daily lives, what with the Coronavirus, Trump and his merry band of thieving imbecile plus his sycophants enablers and a Nov 3 election coming up that will hopefully will remove the foul and putrid stench that has permeated our lives.
That I wish to take this time to say to our pagan members Merhain Samhain (Merry Samhain)
Here is a Samhain blessing in Gaelic
Beannaithe Bí! a Chaomhnóirí
Beannaithe Bí! gaolta agus cairde
Bliain eile linn
Mar tá an roth iompaithe arís
Tugaimid cuireadh do na sinsear ceann ar cheann
Le bheith linn ag ár mbéile
Ardaímid ár gcupáin in onóir
Agus cuimhní a roinnt le zeal
Roinnimid deolchaire fómhair
Agus tá a fhios go domhain inár gcroí
Caithfear an t-am atá thart a ghlanadh ar shiúl
Chun an todhchaí a thosú
Tá an veil níos tanaí
Bímid ag siúl idir na saolta
Tugann Diviners a gcuid uirlisí
Agus éiríonn rúndiamhair gan réiteach
Agus anois tá an uair an chloig caite orainn arís
Roinnimid ciorcal beannaithe lenár ngaolta agus lenár gcairde
Beannaithe Be do Chaomhnóirí, Do dhéithe agus níos mó fós
Is beannaithe thú,
Lig an Fómhar Do Chroí a Líonadh
Mar sin Mote It Be!
This is the English version
Blessed Be! his Guardians
Blessed Be! relatives and friends
Another year with us
As the wheel is turned again
We invite the ancestors one by one
To be with us at our meal
We raise our cups in honor
And share memories with zeal
We share a harvest bounty
And know deep in our hearts
The past needs to be wiped away
To start the future
The veil is thinner
We walk between the worlds
Diviners bring their tools
And a mystery becomes unsolved
And now the hour is over for us again
We share a blessed circle with our loved ones and friends
Blessed Be your Guardians, Your gods and more
Blessed are you,
Let Autumn Fill Your Heart
So Mote It Be!
-
Anisahoni
Lovely, thanks for sharing.
-
T Kosse`
It's my pleasure and you are welcome.
-
-
-
Krystina S.
Well, "Biblical Marriage" is a slippery slope. Do you REALLY want to go there? Cause that means a man can marry sisters. Can have many wives and concubines. Can have children with slaves, whom the "first wife" then can claim as her own. Is compelled to marry his brother's wife/wives if his brother dies, to not leave them without protection and lineage. Seems to me that "Biblical Marriage" is polygamy where one man can just "marry" however many women his rank allows. I'm NOT ok with that. It is patriarchal and misogynistic. It makes sense that a person may just marry another person. It provides "equal protection" and is fair. And that is good enough for me.
-
T Kosse`
I said that However there are heterosexual do get marriage that do not have children because of their age, or they are unable to have children for what ever reason or they simply do not want to have any children. If we were to interpret the bible that the only purpose of getting marriage was for creating heirs then they all be be living in sin and none of them would be allow to be married.
-
T Kosse`
Please carefully read and fully comprehend what is written BEFORE you make your comment Krystina S.
-
-
Minister Mike
If marriage is a religious thing, then government should get the heck out of it. If marriage is a civil contract, then religion(s) should get the heck out of it.
-
Takaya Kovani Sweeney
Unfortunately, there’s still some LGBTQI community that will continue to vote Republican thinking that only “those” people will be hurt behind their FUBAR policies.
Until a good majority of these crazies in office are voted out, (Corporate Democrats and DINO’s included), these issues will continue downhill for all who wish to be free thinking and free in general.
-
Charles Wesley Fuller
the Supreme Court is there to rule on whether something is constitutional.marriage is no% in the constitution,there for,they have no business in ruling on it.besides,why do you want to give any government control over anything in your life?
-
Richard Lee Cornell
What would happen if the IRS rules that all 501 (c) (3) religious churches are not longer having a non-profit statues. That would mean that the city, county, State and federal would want their taxes from previous years paid. How many pastors would find that there house of God becomes subject to the same taxes that other for profit business have to pay. I'm capable to preform same sex marriages. I have no problem with that. I do know gay couples who marriages last long then regular folks. Watch out before you open cans of worms. Your church non-profit status could be in question.
-
Katelynne Shouse
Marriage existed long before Christianity came along.........
-
Lucas Jonathan Wise
I don't get why they care so much. The aren't physically required to marry anyone to anyone. Are they afraid that non-straight marriages will prove to be longer and happier than straight marriages? I fully support a church deciding who can and can't be married in their buildings and on their properties, but the simply act of obtaining a required license should be easy for anyone.
-
Minister John Ruland
There is one thing we have to remember that we are GODS servants and this means that we live within two worlds. earthly and spiritual. so we have to separate earthly things and spiritual things. So when the government changes earthly laws we have to follow them for we live here on earth. the thing is that if we want to fight it we have conform to the laws of this earth to change the laws of this earth. It is our job to get everyone saved, not to get into earthly things that we have no control over. we teach and preach the bible, that means we teach spiritual things, not earthly things. so when they wanted to change the earthly law of marriage we have to conform to the earthly laws. So we make the cake, do weddings and make lots of money to help the homeless. the more the church can make the more people the church can help. even set up a homeless shelter and help those on real need. so remember we teach and preach spiritual things not things of this earth. so help as much as you can and over time things will change from within. Minister John Ruland
-
Clifford
The Universal Law of Attraction can lead one to be Attracted to anything or anyone. Whether the Match that one chooses, is the right Match IS perhaps the choice of free will.
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
We haven't all been fortunate enough to find our soul mates in this incarnation, Clifford, so we pick and choose. And it's always best to keep your fingers crossed. There's also a possibility that your soul mate could be of the same gender as you. So, if you're straight and someday find him, you might think long and hard about getting a sex change operation.
-
-
Howard Pippin
Broad is the way that leads to destruction.
-
Lionheart
What does that actually mean? Is it something you’ve read in Harry Potter? Just asking!
🦁❤️
-
T Kosse`
It's a Bible quote from Matthew 7:13
New King James Version “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
King James Bible Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
New International Version "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
New Living Translation “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.
-
Howard Pippin
You disappoint me Lionheart, I understood you had read the Bible.
-
Lionheart
I have Howard and, as an ex High Priest, I fully understood the biblical statement. My tongue-in-cheek comment was a rhetorical statement aimed at the fact that many biblical quotes are often used by people in an attempt to imply they are the words of a supreme deity, when in fact there is no demonstrable foundation to believe that is true. There are many wonderful words, and phrases, found in many works of literature, J.K. Rowling’s, “Harry Potter” series is just one source. Homer’s Iliad is another, and just like the Bible, all are written by human beings.
🦁❤️
-
Howard Pippin
Except they are not inspired.
-
Lionheart
Are we not all inspired to do things in our life, even if it’s just to purchase a home. Even in this blog we become inspired with creative thought to add our comments.
J.K Rowling was indeed very inspired, which has caused her net worth to be $1 billion. Shakespeare was also a very inspirational author. Paul McCartney is a very inspirational musician.
Are we not all inspired from time to time with creative thought?
🦁❤️
-
Howard Pippin
That's a different kind of inspiration
-
Howard Pippin
Lionheart, I can't help but add this is about the most different forem that I've ever been on. I see more differences than I do sames. I must admit that I'm quite curious to see how all of this boils down to in our upcoming election. I thank Providence That I live where I do, where nobody argues some of the finer points that seem to appear here. As they used to say on the old TV show LAUGH-IN, VERRRRY INTERESTING.
-
Lionheart
You’re quite right Howard, this group is an extremely eclectic group to say the least, which actually can make it fun as long as people can be civil.
Arte Johnson was a character. He only passed away last year aged 90, but you are indeed right that this election is going to be Verrry Interesting. It now is what it is.
Stay healthy
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev. Jonathan Peebles
I should not be a government official if you cannot perform your job. Unless your the president it seems all too often
-
Carl Bernard Elfstrom
That's only because too many stupid people keep voting,Jonathan, and this nation is full of them!
-
T Kosse`
It the Dunning-Kruger effect....It suggest that this phenomenon stems from what they refer to as a "dual burden." People are not only incompetent; their incompetence robs them of the mental ability to realize just how inept they are. Incompetent people tend to: Overestimate their own skill levels. Trump and his die hard base fans is a perfect example of this.
-
-
-
T Kosse`
We should remember that the Bible does explicitly affirm in many modern day institutions or practices that Christians have no problem with. For example, the Bible does not endorse democracy, but rather monarchy. Additionally, the Bible may endorse courtship, but it certainly does not endorse dating or even pre-marital kissing or pre-marital sex. Since all marriages when the Bible was written were for the purpose of creating heirs, same-sex marriage was not on the cultural table, (even though there have been documented cases of two people of the same sex getting married throughout history) However there are heterosexual do get marriage that do not have children because of their age, or they are unable to have children for what ever reason or they simply do not want to have any children. If we were to interpret the bible that the only purpose of getting marriage was for creating heirs then they all be be living in sin and none of them would be allow to be married.
-
Christian
The discussion misses the more CRITICAL POINT : Why would anyone need a government license to Love ? Marriage licenses are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Do we need a license to be apathetic ? (Please do not be apathetic : it is harmful to your self & others, and wastes your energy you could put forth in Love. )
Every year, you have to renew your fishing license, your hunting license, etc.
Should marriage licenses need annual renewal and taxes paid to continue to be married ?
If you fail to renew your annual wedding license, should police force you two (or more) apart ?
Should the Federal Government require a written Exam you have to pass at 80% or better just to apply for your license to Wed ? ( 79% Sorry, request denied ? )
Why in all god's names would any free willed adult citizens need a "government approval" for their wedding ?
If two or more adults wish to live together - then just buy a home and live together, play nice, be kind, share, be happy. No religion "required by law".
RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION OF USA. HONOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
By the Bill of Rights and 1st Amendment, adult Free Citizens are under NO obligation to perform any religion's rituals for mating or co-habitating.
Common Law respects Citizens Civil Rights to simply say, "Hey, we are married now!" Congratulations.
As free citizens, how and where people live together or apart, is all up to them, their private personal choice.
Enjoy real Freedom, Free Citizen of the Republic.
Here, on Earth, WE THE PEOPLE, RULE.
IF you are a person of Faith, then by all means, follow whatever religion or ritual you believe is right for you and for your spouse(s). Have Fun ! Make the day of it, enjoy! Be Blessed !
FREEDOM of BELIEF is YOUR very FIRST protected pre-existing, Natural god given right of our Blessed Bill of Rights :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, Open your Spirit Groves, Open your Temples, Open your Churches, Open your Mosques, Open your Synagogues, Open your Meditation Centers, Open your Reading Rooms & Libraries, and all houses of worship for all services, masses, weddings, funerals, and birthday parties. This is our RIGHT.
WE THE PEOPLE, RULE.
-
T Kosse`
I understand what you're saying and I do agree with it however there is a legal purpose for obtaining a marriage license and marriage certificate
A marriage license has many purposes. First, couples must obtain a marriage license in order to become legally married. In order to receive a marriage license copy, couples must adhere to all restrictions in place through their state’s marriage laws. This helps state’s to avoid legal recognition of any marriage that does not adhere to legal restrictions and requirements for couples wishing to get married. Once it has been decided that a couple is legally entitled to be married, they will receive a marriage license copy.
That copy is proof of their ability to be legally married and that they have waited the prerequisite time. In fact, most individuals will not marry a couple in the absence of that license and if they do, the marriage will not be legally recognized by any state of federal government agency. In addition, marriage license records are often utilized for many other purposes, including proof of the relationship if it becomes necessary. Those circumstance include legal name changes for spouse’s and proof of eligibility for benefits conferred onto married couples. In fact, some individuals are required to provide proof of marriage to receive death benefits, family health insurance and tax breaks.
Marriage license records include a marriage license copy that is signed by both spouses and also witnessed and signed by another individual over the age of eighteen. In some cases, marriage license records are the only proof that a marriage took place. In addition to the marriage license copy, marriage license records will also include a certificate of marriage after the wedding has taken place.
These records can be utilized for several purposes. Generally, a wife changes her name to match that of her spouse after the marriage has taken place. In order for the name change to be legally granted, the courts generally require proof that the couple is indeed married. Couples also utilize these records to obtain benefits that are only granted to married couples. Are you or a spouse a foreigner who will need to gain immigration benefits, you will be required to show proof of legal marriage that is valid within the United States. You will be required to show your marriage license or marriage certificate for this process. or If you plan on buying a house and need to apply for a loan, many lenders will ask for a marriage license or marriage certificate. This is so lenders can check your credit history jointly and separately.
Those rights include family memberships to certain organizations, visitation rights in hospitals and prisons, and the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their spouse. In addition, marriage license records can allow spouse to prove their right to plan a funeral and to inheritance in the absence of a will. In addition, marriage license records are often utilized to complete family trees when individuals wish to learn more about heir family history. It is very easy to obtain a marriage license copy from local court houses or from family research websites available online. Like many public records, marriage license records can serve many purposes. First, they are proof that a legally recognized marriage took place at a specific date and time. That proof is often required for couples to obtain certain rights and responsibilities that are unique to marriage.
In addition, public records are often utilized to complete family history research. That research can be vital to some individuals, such as adopted individuals seeking family medical history. In any case, records are utilized as proof that a legally recognised marriage took place between two specific individuals.
-
Anisahoni
Wanted to add a friendly comment regarding "a wife changes her name to match that of her spouse after the marriage has taken place." When my now husband and I were in college we decided to marry. I did not want to give up my birth name. Why would I after 24 years? So my dear fiancé suggested that we each take our family names and hyphenate them, a true example of our union. That was 45 years ago. Yes, we were both progressives even back in the day and people had to get used to my husband having a hyphenated name. There is no rule which requires a woman to change her name. It goes back to British rule when women had no power, no rights to property and considered property of her husband. I was raised to stand in my power as a Native American woman and never considered becoming "Mrs. Him." My son and daughter in law did the same.
-
-
-
Thom
The "law" for same sex marriage was passed by the supreme court and not by Congress. Laws are passed by Congress, signed into law by the President and then upheld and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Basically, the law was not made by the proper folks in DC. If you look at this subject biblically, you will find 25 versus which state having sex with the same gender is not a good thing. I personally don't care who does what with who as long as they are consensual adults and no children or innocent animals are involved. But, when it comes to society as a whole does it really do anything for or against us? I believe 2 people who love each other should have some rights as regular married couples - health matters, etc.
Has same sex marriage hurt our society? Not really. At least they say they are 1 of 2 genders. I mean, how many non-binary, gender confused individuals can there be in this world? If any church is against the practice of gay marriage then they should be allowed to NOT hold ceremonies. If someone says they don't want to bake a cake or provide the flowers for a gay couple, they should have the right to refuse. There are plenty of bakers and flower shops who would love to have the business. Any business, any church or any individual, in the United States, has the right to their opinion. And they have the right to act on those opinions but, if someone tells me, I MUST agree with their opinion even though I don't, I will fight against them. I personally don't perform same sex marriages. I don't feel comfortable with it and will say this because I know of so many others who will perform the ceremony.
With all of this being said, no one is hurt by my decision and the final outcome is the same, they were married. But, I do believe the law should go through the proper channels and not just a decision by the supreme court.
-
T Kosse`
While you are not required to perform a same sex marriage, however a In 2019, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics And Professional Responsibility issued a formal opinion on judges and same-sex weddings. ABA Formal Opinion 485 (2019). The opinion advised that, in a jurisdiction in which judges are obligated to perform marriages, a judge may not decline to perform marriages for same-sex couples. In a jurisdiction in which performing marriages is a discretionary judicial function, the committee stated, a judge may not decline to perform marriages for same-sex couples if the judge agrees to perform opposite-sex marriages but may refuse to perform all marriages for members of the public while still performing marriages for family and friends as long as they do not refuse to perform same-sex marriages for family and friends.
The Code of Judicial Conduct imposes on judicial officers a specific, enforceable obligation to avoid bias and the appearance of bias. These obligations go beyond those imposed on others who serve the general public, reflecting the unique and integral role judicial officers play in our constitutional scheme of justice honoring the rule of law. Judges must not only be impartial, but must also be perceived as impartial, in order to properly fulfill that role . . . .
By even temporarily acting in a discriminatory fashion toward gay men and lesbians, in stating that he would not solemnize their marriages when he continued to solemnize heterosexual marriages, and by commenting on that decision publicly, a reasonable person could objectively conclude that he might act in a discriminatory fashion toward gay or lesbian litigants, lawyers, or witnesses. Therefore it call into question that this judge is fair and unbiased in his or her handling of any court case.
The Supreme Court interpret the constitutional law as it stands so therefore it is the law.
When the Supreme Court rules on an constitutional issue, that judgement is virtually final; it's decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Supreme Court
-
Thom
My reply will be quick and simple -
An Ohio law professor said the U.S. Supreme Court needed to address whether pastors had to perform same-sex weddings, even if they held religious objections.
In the recent Masterpiece Cakes decision, the court did just that—and the answer is no.
“When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion,” the court said in its ruling.
-
T Kosse`
The Ohio law professor said the U.S. Supreme Court needed to address whether pastors had to perform same-sex weddings, even if they held religious objections. The Ohio Law professor is right. As of this time the U.S. Supreme Court never address whether pastors had to perform same-sex weddings, even if they held religious objections.
You are wrong the recent Masterpiece Cakes decision, the court did NOT just that
In a 7–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.
NO WHERE did the U.S. Supreme Court ruling make any such statement that “When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion,” This statement is just figment of your imagination that has no real basis in fact
In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
-
Thom
https://www.frc.org/clergyprotected
It sounds as if you are quite up to date on the whole matter. So, I will tell you this, I have made the choice not to perform ceremonies for gay couples. My right to do this. I don't care if someone is gay, I just don't want it forced upon me. I am sure no matter what I say, because I can see you have replied to so many posts on here which you have replied too, I will be homophobic or what ever phobia you want to tag me with.
There are plenty of people who will perform the ceremonies just as there are plenty of bakers and florist who will provide the needed services for their weddings. No one must take anyone to court because they have been refused, just go down the street and fine someone who agrees with you.
-
T Kosse`
You're not required to perform a same sex marriage and I seriously doubt the US Supreme Court would ever make a such ruling that would required you to perform a same sex marriage. That being said however I have zero tolerance for anyone who uses the bible or any religion as justification for bigotry and or hatred.
-
Thom
You will find bigotry and/or hatred wherever you go because, you are looking for it. I hate using this but, I have several gay and lesbian friends and they are nice people and I have no problem with them or they with me. While their life and lifestyle are their own, I personally don't agree with making the lifestyle a "norm" in society. My thoughts. My beliefs.
I don't hate them. I don't think they should be sent to the depths of a man made hell but, it should not be a norm. If you think I am a bigot, as I am sure you have made the same accusation to many on here, then you think this. While you don't agree with my beliefs I must agree with yours? Are only your beliefs right? Are only your thoughts and beliefs are what matter? In your world, yes. I use the Bible as a reference because this is a religious based site. Honestly, I could care less what I use but, I don't like seeing this lifestyle shoved down our throats and us being forced to accept it.
So, take your zero tolerance, have a nice day and believe what you want to believe. As for me, I am going to live my life and believe what I believe and not let it bother me one bit.
-
T Kosse`
These two statement of your; "I personally don't agree with making the lifestyle a "norm" and this statement "it should not be a norm. have proven my point that you are a bigot and you say that " don't like seeing this lifestyle shoved down our throats and us being forced to accept it." Yet you and other like you expect others have your belief shove down our throats and be just ok with that well we're not OK with that! And I don't give a damn whether you like seeing this "lifestyle" or not get use to it!
-
Thom
I will not be made to be accustom to the lifestyle of people I don't agree with. The heterosexual lifestyle is the norm for people. This is how we pro-create and how most all people, except about 8% believe. I don't watch TV with gay people showing affection and this is my choice. Do I stop people in public from doing it? Nope, because it is their right. But, I can't turn my head away and not see it. I can surf right past LOGO and Bravo TV because I don't want to see what they have to show. I can't stand seeing these commercials on any drugs for AIDS because they make it look like it is no big deal to have a life threatening disease which kills. I live my life and other can live theirs. I have my choice as to what I want to see and what I don't want to see. You have a thing for making straight people accept and believe in gay people. We don't see eye to eye and I am fine with that. You call me a bigot and I am sure other things which end in "phobe" and I don't care. Remember, you as a member of the we love everyone group must also respect and accept people like me.
-
T Kosse`
Fine keep pro-creating because guess what the more you pro-create the more gay people there will be and if you think they are going back into the closet because YOU got a problem with their "lifestyle" well you can just forget about that ever happening. And what give you the right to judge what is "the norm" and what isn't the norm" and un-like you AID DOES NOT discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual, There are a lot of heterosexual who have high risk sex life as well, So you can take that BS and stick it where the sun don't shine
-
T Kosse`
So you want everyone to respect your lifestyle and beliefs but you're not willing to respect other people lifestyle and beliefs As you wrote: Remember, you as a member of the we love everyone group must also respect and accept people like me. Respect and acceptance isn't a one way street, if you want respect and acceptance you have to respect and accept other people as well that include their lifestyle.
-
-
-
-
-
-
T Kosse`
Thom you say that there are 25 versus which state having sex with the same gender is not a good thing. So exactly what are these 25 versus that you say are stated biblically? If you're trying to come off as not being a homophobic religious zealot then you have failed miserably because every word you wrote is screaming I'm a homophobic religious zealot and I'm damn proud of it.
-
Thom
T Kosse, I can assure you I don't fly the rainbow flag outside my home. I fly the American flag and, this flag lets me have my own opinion. And honestly, your opinion of me means nothing. So, to answer your question check out this website - https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/ Now, some websites list 23 but, who is counting. Basically, if being gay was normal people would not have to "come out" of the closet and be embarrassed.
-
T Kosse`
No Thom I am not letting you off that easily you said "If you look at this subject biblically, you will find 25 versus" I want to know where in the BIBLE are these 25 versus not some wed site. I want ALL 25 of these You want to know "who is counting" I am counting I want to know all 25 chapter and verse of them and in which bible you are getting them from.
-
Thom
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/
-
-
-
-
Howard Pippin
The true law giver was God.
-
-
Anisahoni
Father James Martin, S.J. a Jesuit priest discusses the change of eliminating discrimination against the LGBTQ community and the Pope's new declaration on recognizing same sex civil unions. Jesus loves the LGBTQ members according to him. The Roman Catholic Church is their home and welcomes all. here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdO87dmgMMk&feature=youtu.be
-
Rev. Jack Harte, DD, MscD
Once a freedom has been granted in a country like the U.S. has been, (And I say, "Has been," because it's becoming unrecognizable.) that freedom has rarely been taken away. It seems like one side of the political equation prefers to stir panic and fear where it needn't exist. Please stop. It seems like the ULC, or at least The Monastery, might be bending toward the left a little. It would seem to me that a site like this should hover a little closer to the middle to serve the wide variety of perspectives among the membership of ministers. ...just an observation.
-
Ricky
Throughout our country's long history, no civil right has ever been rescinded once recognized by the Supreme Court. I'm not worried about losing marriage equality by the high court overturning their prior ruling.
-
Kassie Bramlett
Is god dead?
-
Howard Pippin
No Kassie, He's just being ignored by people that should know better. It is good that He's slow to anger.
-
-
Hazel
Someone else's religious liberty should NOT interfere with my rights. YOU live according to YOUR religion but DON'T force it on ME.
-
Howard Pippin
Are you not a free agent?
-
-
pjm
"I can't do that, it's against my religion." = Freedom of Religion and acceptable.
"You can't do that, it's against my religion" = Religious persecution and unacceptable.
If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, simply say "no" the next time someone of the same sex proposes to you.
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN 2 PEOPLE. No one should interfere, least of all the religious people. Believe what ever you want. Even join the Church of the Holy Smelly Toe or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but do not force your views on anyone. The church does not own marriage. It is a civil affair and a contract.
God blessed the first marriage Adam and Eve . The church may not own marriage, how ever a church or a Christian who follows and keeps god commands knows that marriage is between one man and one woman God is very clear on this . If a church doesn’t keep one command then they are truly not following gods word because you can’t pick and choose . What parts of scripture your going to follow and what parts your going to ignore to fit your life or to justify what a person knows in There hart to be a sin .
You do grasp this is the ULC right? The ULC is 100% pro gay marriage and many of its most famous celebrity ministers have ministered at high profile gay weddings.
Your archaic and insular position on marriage has no value nor substance here on the ULC forums that are first and foremost a place for secular minded people who believe in personal freedom between two consenting adults includes the right to marriage.
Personally I would sooner see the entire archaic practice of marriage banned in every facet, then to give in to the vile false christian agenda that seeks to deny people a freedom that in no way denies another their right to life,liberty, and happiness.
Is there any reason Christians should look to the Bible for affirmation of same-sex marriage?
Yes. The Bible lends implicit support for same-sex marriage in eight major ways:
1) Jesus teaches in Matthew 12:7, Matthew 7:17-20 and Mark 3:4 that biblical morality should be determined by what is merciful, good and restorative and that it should not cause unnecessary sacrifice or suffering. There has been overwhelming evidence that changing one’s sexual orientation is extremely rare, and therefore that to demand mandatory life-long celibacy for gays and lesbians would not be obedient to that teaching.
2) God says in Genesis 2:18, before the creation of Eve, God describes Adam’s life of aloneness as “not good.” Therefore, that to demand mandatory life-long celibacy for gays and lesbians would not be honoring God’s foundational decree.
3) The Bible shows from passages like those in Deuteronomy 30:15, Isaiah 59:2, 1 John 1:6 and Romans 6:23 that all sin causes harm. According to the Bible, there is no such thing as a harmless sin. It does not identify any provable spiritual, psychological or relational harm cause same-sex marriage, therefore same-sex marriage does not appear to meet the Bible’s criteria for identifying sin.
4) The Bible contrasts in Galatians 5:16-23 the incompatibility of sinful behavior with the “fruit of the Spirit,” that is, what a life looks like when it is led by God. This passage even makes it abundantly clear that Christians should not label anything sin if it bears the fruit of the Spirit (“against such things there is no law.”). That there are gay and lesbian Christians exhibiting all the fruit of the Spirit, and since this is incompatible with pervasive, unrepentant sin, it therefore conclude same-sex again marriage does not appear to meet the Bible’s criteria for identifying sin.
5) The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8,13 the attributes of what defines genuine love between people (while originally about “charitable” love, Christians have long applied it to marriage). And that a same-sex marriage could (and has) meet all the rigorous standards set by Scripture for what defines this kind of love, therefore it appears that same-sex marriage can be spiritually edifying.
6) The Bible explains in 1 John 2:27 that the Holy Spirit teaches truth through the body of believers, and Romans 8:5-6 teaches particularly that the Spirit grants “life and peace” where the Spirit resides. Therefore, every Christian who expresses spiritual peace about being in a same-sex relationship is not deluded into thinking that the peace is from the Holy Spirit. At least some must be genuine in order to maintain the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a reliable expression of the Triune God.
7) The Gospel message itself has been an historical source of inspiration for human rights and the inclusion of social “outsiders.” Additionally, we can recall no time when any nation embraced a civil or human rights movement, only to recant that movement in the future. No where has it been shown that this is the sole exception in human history, therefore we believe we are morally compelled by the Gospel to stand in support of same-sex marriage.
8) An implication of biblical doctrine of the imago Dei is that while cultures have always struggled to identify justice, they do correctly identify injustice. Additionally, we can recall no time when any culture collectively recognized an injustice within itself, only to decide that it was actually just in the future. In this case, it has shown the moral critique and sense of injustice from the growing majority of heterosexuals in our culture about the traditionalist position on homosexuality. It has been shown that this is not the sole exception in human history, therefore it affirm that the doctrine of the imago Dei is still holds true in identifying the condemnation same-sex marriage as unjust.
Are you a Bible Reader T Kosse` ? Riddle me this, scripture says God's Son was Born of a Hebrew Girl aged 14 years, who was unmarried, and He Is God in the Flesh, so theoretically God had sexual intercourse with His Mother, who gave Birth to God himself. This destroys the Trinity Fallacy entirely, in fact, in reality there can only be One God in Christian Monotheist Religion. So if you think your idea about What God Thinks about Right and Wrong, you are a illiterate heathen. 70 Years of Studies in Comparative Religions might make you less stupid, but I doubt you spend 70 Seconds in Bible study. Thank You, for calling the Bible Answer Man, Harold Camping is passed away and Gifted ME with his wonderful sarcasm towards morons who twist scriptures.
Comment removed by user.
What does your wild ranting and raving about whether or not Jesus was the son of god or god himself has to do with what I wrote about which is what does the bible say about same sex marriage? 70 Years of Studies in Comparative Religions huh You really must have been asleep the whole time It's time for you to wake up Rip Van Winkle and Please carefully read and fully comprehend what is written BEFORE you make your comment John Camp Bernay III
Nothing in Genesis states that "God blessed the first marriage." That is a total fabrication used to justify discrimination by religious bigots. Christians pick and chose what they follow in the Jewish Bible. Where is the god commandment in the New Testament? We don't even know what Jesus' sexual orientation was as he never spoke of it. He could have been bisexual. What man runs around the desert with men? It is possible that Jesus' apostles were his lovers. We have no proof either way. Religions have no place in our laws.
The father, son, and holy spirit, without the mother, maiden, and crone? That sounds like a gay threesome to me. And three studs alone or together can't create anything!
Well not another human being anyway as for anything else, where there a will there is a way ;-)
I pray before the rapture takes place you will know your Lord and Savior. Also I pray you will know and understand God's plan of Salvation. The Bible is God's law for all to follow not just a few. The Laws of today are important to follow But God's laws are more important. The Bible states that man shall not lay down with man nor shall woman lay down with woman. That is God's law.! Not man's law. Iam not perfect by no means I sin everyday as we all do. We renew ourselves daily. I know and understand God's word but to sit and judge and say because you are gay you are a sinner well no i wouldnt only because. It's not my place to judge you. You and you only will answer to God for your sins. As well as I and only I will answer for my sins. There are many different believes, different denominations but thatt doesn't make us enemies of each other. It just means that we have a difference of opions. Thats all and it should just stop there.
You are correct that the Bible states that man shall not lay down with man nor shall woman lay down with woman. That WAS God's law.! Not man's law. And it was to the Levites a Sect of Priests. In that passage does it not say that if your son disobeys his father then his father should take him out of the house and stone him. And if his wife or woman is duriing her time she is to be kept out of the house - out back and if the unclean woman was allowed in the house that both the man and woman shall be taken out and stoned to death. It was a different time in the Bible and then the Ten Commandments became the Law that was fulfilled by the coming of and the death of and resurrections of Jesus Christ - Yassua - Redeemer God in us. Love is what he left us and told us to love one anothe as He loved us. If we live by that command, what can come against us? Love is patient love is kind, it is not proud, not boastful, not envy, and not mean spirited as some of the writer sometimes can be, I'm just say'n . So be kind to each other and pray for direction and understanding for the word of God is forever enlightening. Go in Peace and Love and stop all the hateing.
And let me add one thing I am not saying that Fannie Jones is correct and hole in what was stated. And neather am I saying I am correct in all things.Homosexuallity is not a choice it is the way some are made and the last I was told and learned is God doesn't make mistakes. Amen! Peace be with you.
Fannie.... I too at one time thought at you till I was blessed with a very educated elder that brought light to the verses you quote about man not laying with man. We must look at the culture and understand at what was going on. Men were raping men to show power... it can still happen in those cultures today. When a new man would come in a community the man or powers to be would rape him to show who had power. THis is what what spoken of in the scriptures you speak of.. I would be very careful as you did seem to be about casting stones.. but if you so go into being so literal... lets look at the many times and Jesus reclined with his disciples or the tax payers and sinners.. Hmmmm who did he recline with? Other men? what is the truth and thought behind all of this. LOVE is the message of scripture, Let us start doing that more, Let the judgment of others because they are different stop. Then and only then can we truly lived and enlightent life and create. For we are Creations of the the Creator and we have the power to create... so will we create more lies, fears and judgments or will we create peace love and respect. I know my side. Blessed to be whom I am. Blessings to each of you.
Oh and uhm bud you seem to forget the first wife of Adam, named Lilith. Also Eve was made from Adam, technically that means they were of the same genetic material, which means even their first babies were already incest babies.
I already knew that before Eve there was Steve, so we're Steve and Lilith the son and daughter of an incestuous Adam and Eve? And if so, did that make Adam and Eve also pedophiles,cr even child molesters?! If so, they should have built the first jail,deputized eachother, and put themselves in it!
No carl you seem confused Lilith came before Eve. Adam was a divorcee by the time he got Eve, which is funny since original christianity makes it clear there is no remarriage even after a husband/wife dies. Any new marriage will not be sanctified by the same ancient archaic religion that made the first man guilty of a sin long before Eve bit into the apple.
So the story goes, Lilith would not submit nor lay beneath Adam, and Adam cried out to God to force her submission. Lilith then defied God, and spoke a word of power granting her the means to stand against the will of God and leave Eden against his command.
Lilith is sometimes called the mother of demons, but in fact based on their own religious text was a woman made equal to man, that then took the power needed to be more then a match even for their so called all powerful god.
While God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone. He also created a woman, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof, to bring her back. Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, what is made is good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.’ 'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.’ When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted she go back. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God: 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write the angels' names on the amulets of young children. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers.
We are all Creators Children, and just because it is YOUR BELIEF,, Doesn't make it Right , and you shouldn't FORCE others to belief the way you do ... MY BODY MY CHOICE.. MY LOVE , MY CHOICE.. Explain to me JUST HOW A GAY couples marriage EFFECTS your daily life ? PLEASE go pray some more ,,,,, Blessed Be