Break out the rainbow piñatas! It took a few years, but same-sex couples will finally be able to marry across all of Mexico.
You no doubt remember the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage across the United States.
What fewer people recall is that right around the same time, Mexico’s highest court issued a similar decision, declaring that laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
However, unlike in the U.S., this ruling didn’t have immediate effect. To officially change the nation’s policy, all 32 individual states in Mexico had to pass new laws allowing gay marriage.
Seven years later, the final Mexican state of Tamaulipas has voted to amend its civil code and legalize same-sex unions.
The president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Arturo Zaldívar, celebrated the vote. “The whole country shines with a huge rainbow. Live the dignity and rights of all people. Love is love,” he said.
Worry Abounds North of the Border
But even as gay couples across Mexico celebrate, the situation across the border is looking murkier. In the United States, supporters of marriage equality are worried that LGBTQ rights are sliding in the wrong direction.
Many people hoped – even assumed – that the matter of same-sex marriage was settled with the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling.
That changed overnight when SCOTUS ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade over the summer.
Experts immediately focused in on the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas, who called for a reexamination of other past court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he wrote.
All of a sudden, the legal footing of Obergefell no longer looked nearly as sound as many had thought – leading to growing concerns that the Supreme Court may decide to roll back marriage equality.
However, supporters of LGBTQ rights still have reasons for optimism. For example, amid the uncertainty and fear, some unlikely allies have emerged. Among them are 40 religious groups that have urged lawmakers to pass legislation codifying same sex marriage into law.
What do you make of all this? Can you imagine a future where gay marriage is once again illegal in the United States?
98 comments
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Good for them. Christianity should not dictate who gets married and who doesn’t. So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, it’s no one else’s business to tell them they can’t do it. I’ll add a concession, churches, and church officials should not be forced to marry anyone. An the idea of marriage license is absolutely asinine. Goddess brighten everyone’s path today.
-
Pastor George Day
Robert James Ruhnke, your comment is misleading. Christians in general are not saying homosexual couples cannot be together and love each other. They are simply claiming the true meaning of marriage by definition.
-
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Two things here:
Thing 1 - People can perform whatever mental/academic gymnastics that they like, but whenever the Bible (either Jewish or Christian versions) or the Christian New Testament speaks directly on the issue, it has nothing good to say about homosexuality. That is not me speaking. That is just a fact.
HOWEVER...
The US is not a theocracy run by the equivalent of an Ayatollah.
The problem is, on this issue, lawmakers have been cowardly and afraid to take a stand and have left it up to the Supreme Court to do the job that they should have, one way or the other, a long time ago.
So yes, through a function of law passed by lawmakers let it remain remain legal for gays to marry, letting whatever religious Institution that and good conscience feels they can sanction such unions do so.
HOWEVER #2...
At the same time the alphabet people need to stop trying to violate the religious conscious of others by forcing them provide wedding services when those others, based on their religious beliefs, are not predisposed to so.
Respecting the rights and beliefs of others is a two-way street. You can't demand somebody to respect yours if you refuse to respect theirs.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
chrs chns really need to get over themselves, they act as if theirs is the only valid religious belief system in the world and want a chrs chn version of sharia law to run this country. I'm thinking for starters all religions need to lose their tax deduction/charitable standing, let them pay taxes like everyone else and stop behaving as if they're better than everyone, followed by no observance of any chrs chn holiday, no more privileges or exceptions to laws and rules. religion is so anachronistic it needs to disappear into the closets and backrooms where it belongs.
-
William R Clapie
I support your belief's in part. Religion has been used too many times to justify horrid actions. "God told me to". Yeah, and the bible is a book of fables approved by a King and it plagiarizes other religions too.
-
Pastor George Day
William R Clapie, you are a clear example of someone who believes their own lies!
-
-
-
John Edwin Tudor
Unless they are refusing services to all who do not follow their beliefs it is just anti-gay discrimination
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
Rev.MichaelIRS
Christians (MAGA’ers, in particular) because they were indoctrinated, far before they reached the so-called age of reason, are 99% convinced that authoritarians (such as DJT) are a better choice to manage other people, than a democracy.
We know this, because the Christian God told the Jewish Moses, that the Christian Heaven, is a kingdom; and the kingdom has an authoritarian dictator, who appointed himself to be the ruler of everything for eternity.
So, Christians have an aversion to democracy, and an attraction to demagogic authoritarian-types such as DJT.
And now that the GOP appears to have absorbed the USA’s fundamentalist voters, it has more influence over Christian voters, than even the Pope and/or, the Southern Baptists.
Authoritarianism has been implanted into the minds of little-bitty Christian kiddies — so successfully, that “Q-ANON” is an inevitable consequence.
Thanks Rev. MichaelIRS, for the opportunity to make this post.
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Unfortunately the illustration that disprove your theory, regarding certain Christians/Republicans/conservatives being the prime lovers of demagoguery, for religious or any other reasons, is the example of all the leftist demagoguery in the past 10 years.
The left is the very embodiment of George Orwell's "1984" complete with (informal) thought police and revisionist history.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are those on the right who would be very happy with a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in this country. I consider myself center right so I am not one of them. Although many on the left consider anybody who is slightly to the right of Mao or Stalin to be a far right extremist.
Be that as it may that does not allow us to ignore or excuse those on the left that are interested in another kind of demagoguery or dictatorship despite what they SAY, for actions speak louder than words.
If words were all that mattered then the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would be the freest country in the world.
Matthew 7:3-5 applies here. Thank you
-
Denis Robertson
As one of the folks you are slandering in you comment above, I could not care less what people decide to do in their own homes. My problem is the idea of using the power of the government to compel action (or inaction). The left is the most authoritarian movement we have right now, and as proof, look at the marriage of government and big tech to silence opposing viewpoints. Look at the baker in Colorado who has been sued numerous times for refusing to participate in a ceremony for which he has a moral objection.
"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Don't throw the stone if you live in a glass house William. Or at least clean up the authoritarian knuckleheads on your own side before pointing at us.
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
Dennis: Anyone who opens up a business — that’s open to the public — must serve all of the public — not just white Nationalist bigoted racist misogynistic anti-science types who want the USA to have its own Mussolini.
If you want to be free to be governed by a fascist government — move to Hungry, the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, North Korea or Iran.
Freedom to the fascistically-inclined, means that the only freedom a fascist wants, is the freedom to be a fascist, while forcing everyone else to tolerate fascism at the same time.
-
Denis Robertson
So a Muslim bakery should be compelled to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple as well? Should they be required to make a cake for a Jewish celebration?
Should a Jewish Deli be required to make NAZI themed bagels? Should a black-owned bakery be required to serve a klansman? How silly is your argument.
I abhor authoritarians, and the fact that you think that a belief in the Divine is a hallmark of the same is as idiotic a statement as I have read in a long time.
What a disingenuous and simple reply. Requiring compelled speech or action is the Fascist way. Silencing opposing viewpoints is fascist.
The marriage of government and big tech to silence opposing voices is authoritarian as can be.
The IRS slow walking 503(c) req1ueswts by conservative groups. The Hunter laptop - censored by big tech at the request of the government. The Ashley Biden diary - censored at the request of the government.
You LOVE authoritarianism as long as you agree with the aims. There is not a single person who can read your words and come to any other conclusion.
Every moron on the left now thinks that disagreeing with someone is fascist. It's sad, because I'm usually very open to discussing ideas with folks who disagree. However, your stupid insistence on calling everyone who you don't like a "fascist" has degraded the conversation so much that it's impossible to discuss things with your type.
I served in the military of this great nation to defend it from the stupid folks who can't tell the difference between freedom and compelled action. Even then, I still would fight for your right to say this garbage, no matter how stupid it is.
Cheers
-
Beth
Yes, a Muslim-owned bakery should be compelled to bake cakes - a product they sell, for gay weddings, Jewish weddings, and so forth. That is part of being granted a business license and occupancy permit - businesses must serve everyone who is able and willing to purchase their advertised services. However, one could not go to a hardware store and demand them to bake a cake for anyone - that is not their area of service or expertise. They offer cake-baking to no one. They may offer to sell you the oven and cake pan though.
All businesses are consumers of public services - from police and fire protection, to worker protections, to being covered by health codes, to being served utilities, and so on. It's part of being in business.
No individual citizen is required to perform a service for anyone. Someone cannot come to my house and expect me to bake them a cake, even if they pay for it, then sue because I won't. If you don't want to be required to serve all potential customers, don't be in business.
-
Denis Robertson
I understand your point here. I know many folks who also agree with you.
I disagree, though. I don't think that compelling a person or a business to perform a service that is personally offensive to them is just.
As far as the cake thing, there are many places that would perform the service, it's not like the couple couldn't get a cake made nearby. In fact, the bakery even offered them names of bakers who do that.
The customers in this case were being intentionally crappy because the baker was a Christian.
And finally, the folks involved here took the case to the US Supreme Court, where the cake shop prevailed.
Of course, now another person is suing because the same cake shop doesn't want to make a "Gender Transition" celebration cake.
These people are bullies, and should be treated as such.
-
-
-
-
Tom
No opposing viewpoints are being silenced except those based on harmful lies and disinformation. Far-right extremist talking points are regularly spread through social media which has lead to conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement, a white nationalist talking point, gaining hold of once moderate conservatives.
Meanwhile, conservatives are trying to ban any book that recognizes the LGBTQ community or Black experiences in America from being found in school libraries and introducing textbooks that downplay the history of racism and slavery in America to actively whitewash and manipulate history.
It's authoritarian to try and ban the LGBTQ community from the public eye. It's authoritarian to deny the results of an election based upon zero evidence. It's authoritarian to break down the doors of a government building to stop the legal transfer of power. It's authoritarian to make it more difficult to vote for specific communities who traditionally vote against your party. It's authoritarian to respond to peaceful protests with violent force. It's authoritarian to march armed militias through liberal cities to intimidate and threaten minority groups.
I have no problem criticizing the left for a number of reasons, because there are plenty of reasons to do so, but calling them the most authoritarian movement we have right now is simply not based in objective truth or reality.
-
Denis Robertson
You said: "No opposing viewpoints are being silenced except those based on harmful lies and disinformation. Far-right extremist talking points are regularly spread through social media which has lead to conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement, a white nationalist talking point, gaining hold of once moderate conservatives."
As I mentioned in the comment above: The Hunter laptop - censored by big tech at the request of the government. (not disinformation) The Ashley Biden diary - censored at the request of the government. (not disinformation)
Further, COVID disinformation was classified as "anything the govt deems wrong". If you put on twitter that the COVID vaccine didn't prevent transmission, it was classified as "disinformation". If you said that the vaccine could cause damage, or that the vaccine would stay in your body for longer than stated by the vaccine makers, it was "disinformation." If you said that social distancing was not effective, or masks were not effective, it was labeled as you guessed it, "disinformation":
Fauci initially told the public that masks were not effective. Then, he reversed himself and said he only told everyone that because he wanted to keep the masks for the medical community. So we just forget about that?
We were sold on the vaccine because they told us that it would prevent infection or transmission. Now it's an accepted fact that you can still get COVID and even transmit it even when vaxxed and boosted. Where is the "disinformation" now? A lot of it has been subsequently proven correct.
For the "Great Replacement Theory" -
In May 2007, CNN chief political analyst Bill Schneider directly linked the Democrats' positions rewarding illegal immigration to expectations of political gain:
Some politicians look at immigration demonstrators and see future voters. Democrats see Latinos as the key to an emerging Democratic majority. All the Democrats running for President favor immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.
But it's racist to say the same thing that he (and other leftists) did?
Now, the only books that we don't want in the public school libraries are those with explicit content aimed at children. There is a book that was a picture-type book, that showed a child performing oral sex on another child. Does that sound like something you want kids reading? I find it odd that it's even an issue to want explicit books kept from children.
I don't know a single person who cares that there are LGBT books, or books on the struggle for equal rights by any minority,.
What we don't want is to be told that white folks are the greatest evil in the world. And don't try to tell me that it doesn't happen. I could go on twitter and find dozens of examples.
If, as you say, "It's authoritarian to deny the results of an election based upon zero evidence." Does that include Hilary Clinton, Stacie Abrams, and hundreds of those on the left who denied the 2000 election, the 2004 election, and the 2016 election? How odd that those don't seem to rankle the folks on the left. I wonder why that is.
-
Beth
Ah, yes. The typical black-and-white thinking from the authoritarian right.
Being vaccinated and boosted does not prevent disease or transmission. It just lowers the odds. If you do not get the disease, you cannot transmit it. If you lower the disease and transmission rate such that each infected person infects an average of less than one person, the disease will go away. If an average infected person infects more than one person, the disease will spread.
The Great Replacement Theory... sigh Nazis have been spreading this since the 1930s, and it hasn't changed much. Societies change over time. Humans migrate.
The children's book depicting sexual acts - citation needed. What book?
-
Tom
He's referring to the graphic novel Gender Queer. The NYT has a good article about it after it became the most challenged book in America. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/01/books/maia-kobabe-gender-queer-book-ban.html
It's not aimed at children as the right wants to claim, but it is intended for teenagers who are developing an understanding of their sexuality. It's a book you might find in a high school library but not in an elementary school library as some might try to suggest.
-
Denis Robertson
To clarify from your source:
"It appeared on a list of books deemed sexually explicit that was circulated among members of Moms for Liberty, a nonprofit formed in 2021 to push for “parental rights in schools” that has been helping to drive book banning efforts. Pippin first heard of “Gender Queer” when she saw it listed on the group’s Facebook page in October. She searched for it in her school library system and found there were copies in multiple middle schools and high schools, including the schools that her 13- and 17-year-old children attend, she said."So middle schools as well as high schools.
-
Denis Robertson
I don't want the government to tell me (or you) what to do. So you call that "authoritarian". Honestly, how do you make that argument? Second, the person to whom I responded said that only conspiracies and misinformation were being stifled. The comments on the COVID vaccine were responses to that claim. I don't care that someone gets the vaccine. We were told that it would PREVENT infection, and comments that refuted that point were BANNED. Did you really not read the rest of the thread? It's freaking sad that you want to label me without even knowing anything about me except a comment in a thread here.
Nazis' also invented the jet engine and rocket propelled bombs. Does that make them any less real? Humans DO migrate. I'm not a proponent of that theory, but it has been stated over and over by the left how it's happening, and it's a good thing. Those are not my words, those are the words of the left.
-
-
Tom
The Biden children stories were not ignored at the request of the Government, I mean Hunter's laptop came out when Republicans were in the White House, but because of the questionable sources who brought them forth.
Hunter's laptop should have received more coverage than it did initially, and it has been covered by major outlets since, but there were a lot of reservations regarding the legitimacy of the claims being made since the person making them, one Rudy Guiliani, was well known for making false claims. It's less government conspiracy than it is the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Ashley Biden's diary was stolen and provided to Project Veritas, an organization with a history of using deceptive and manipulative techniques to distort the truth, and the questionable credibility of the source lead to limited coverage. Again, not a government coverup by the Republican lead executive branch, but poor journalism at worst.
Trying to address all of your COVID disinformation claims would take way too long so I'll stick to the simplest one to address which is Dr. Fauci initially not recommending masks to the general public. The CDC did not initially recommend masks because there was a shortage of inventory in the US and they did not want the general public to keep that inventory out of hospitals where it was most needed. As production of masks ramped up and several scientific studies showed that masks were effective in limiting the spread and transmission of the virus, the CDC and Dr. Fauci updated their recommendations to encourage masking.
Lastly in the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, all of the losing candidates conceded to their opponent. They did not claim the election was stolen by the opposing party. In 2000 we had the Hanging Chads issue which lead to the recount in Florida which, maybe you remember, was stopped from continuing due to the Brooks Brothers riots, where Republican staffers and operatives, such as Roger Stone, resorted to violence against canvassers to prevent the recount from being completed. In 2016 Clinton conceded to Trump and only later did the questions of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign arise. If you read the Mueller Report you'd see that they did identify a number of connections between Russians and the Trump campaign but they weren't able to find enough evidence to charge them with criminal conspiracy, although the second part of the report does detail 10 separate instances of potential obstruction of their investigation, I believe 4 of which the report did specify met the criteria for an obstruction of justice charge. Stacie Abrams in 2018 did admit she lost to then Secretary of State Brian Kemp but attributed the loss by close margins to voter suppression attempts of minority communities by Kemp. She did not try to overturn the result to make her the governor, she tried to publicize her belief that access to participation in the election was flawed.
These instances are all VERY different from 2020 where Trump said during his campaign that the only way the Democrats would win is if they cheat, he's actively questioned the results to this day without providing any credible evidence, and he whipped his supporters into enough of a frenzy that they stormed the US capital to try and prevent the results of the election from being ratified.
-
-
-
-
-
John Edwin Tudor
If someone does not refuse services to all who do not follow their beliefs, then it is just anti-gay discrimination
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Not at all and I'll tell you why;
In more conservative Christian practices marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. Period.
From their perspective gay marriage is viewed as a mockery of that sacrament. By forcing a conservative Christian baker to bake a cake that is in celebration of a gay wedding you are forcing that person to take part in a mockery of their faith.
The other thing is, the Colorado baker, who started all this, once stated he had plenty of gay clients over the years and he's never had a problem serving them. If you are gay and you want a birthday cake, you got it.
So it's not the people he was objecting to, it was being forced to participate in a celebration that is against his core faith values.
-
Beth
A baker is not participating in a celebration. They are merely selling a product which they advertise as being for sale.
Do they vet all other couples for it being a valid, approved-of marriage? Is one of the partners infertile? Do both partners have in-tact genitalia? Is either party divorced? Is the couple interracial?
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Says you. But that is not how the baker sees it and how the baker sees it is what matters. Not how you see it. By lending his skill to the celebration he is, indirectly, participating. Because they're probably going to want him to write something like, "Joe and Bill -Happy wedding day" and put two Grooms on top of the cake.
Nor is he required to follow every stricture of a foundational faith in order to exercise other portions of it. But in those examples you gave you are conflating Protestant faith versus the Jewish faith, versus the Catholic faith.
Jusy under the Protestant faith for example you have numerous denominations that have little twist and turns in the way they approach their faith... even down to the Evangelical Lutheran Church USA and the Episcopal Church USA and others who have decided they want disregard, or reinterpret, scriptures in a way that best suits them. And the way the best suits them not only allows for same-sex marriage but akso for homosexual and bisexual and transgender clergy.
And even if it's not on religious grounds he should have the right to refuse to bake a cake with a message that he disagrees with.
What if somebody wanted to have him bake a cake celebrating Adolf Hitler's birthday? You know the Nazis put the alphabet people in concentration camps to be exterminated along with the Jews.
Should he be able to "discriminate" against them, or does he have to bake the cake?
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. MichaelRS, I think referring to LGBT people as 'alphabet' people is derogatory and offensive. Would you not agree?
-
Rev. MichaelRS
No. I think it's satire.
Particularly since those individuals with unrelated agendas have chosen to align with each other.
Did you know up until the early 90s "gay rights" groups were happy to have NAMBLA tagging along? Until it became too much political dead weight.
https://apnews.com/article/c64e816cac5b0fa1194dd40f576813b2
I think public celebration of one's sexuality, from the benign somebody who just happens to be gay all the way up to whatever kink one is into, with a parade of all things is ridiculous. "Unseemly" is a word that seems to fit.
It's like the debauch decadence of ancient Rome.
And before you accuse me of being a "prude", anybody who has know me since high school and the 25 odd years beyond would laugh you out of the room with that accusation.
On top of that it has become so ridiculous that they kept adding letters and adding letters until finally they had to stop and just put a plus (+) at the end.
So yeah, I have no problem poking a little fun at the silliness of it all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tom Thackrey
I don't believe we should exclude anyone except those that perpetrate crimes against others. Personally, I don't think sexual orientation is a choice, even if it is we should acknowledge and support it.
Out society has chosen to confer legal rights on married people. Therefore, excluding some people from marrying is denying the rights we give to others. This is clearly not fair and equal.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
sexual orientation IS a choice...when did you decide to be straight?
-
Tom
I never decided to be straight, I was just born like that, because sexual orientation is not a choice. When did you choose to be straight instead of gay, bisexual, asexual, etc.?
-
Pastor George Day
Tom, do not waste your valuable time with such dysfunctional brains!
-
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. Dr. Father JJ, this is an antiscientific bigoted statement, and you should simply dig a hole in the ground and bury your dysfunctional brain in there! Shame on you!
-
-
Pastor George Day
Tom Thackrey, I do not think marriage should be redefined. Why not call them civil partnerships?
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Marriage is a religious institution and the government should not be involved. Now, civil unions are different. The government should allow any two consenting adults to get unionized.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
all marriages already are civil unions as a wedding license is required for it to be a legal. without the license it's just a fairytale fancy dinner with no legal standing. the whole religious nonsense can take place whenever/however but that marriage license....that is a civil, legal document issued by the the local government. why the hell chrschens feel only they get to use the word marriage is absolutely estupido, just another in a long list of chrschens trying to manage and govern everyone around them.
-
Rev. B
Marriage is both a religious institution and a legally binding contract. The fact that they both use the word "marriage" is the source of much panty-twisting. Civil unions have rarely granted the same rights as a marriage (legal term) and that has caused large problems. So rather than try to fix the problems with different versions of civil union, they just used a term that already existed and granted all the proper rights, marriage.
-
-
Stephen Mohlaloga Makgoathane
I would separate the two in this way, that let the earth do the Earthly things which ever way they please. And allow the Kingdom of Heaven also do their things the way in which they see fit" THE KINGDOM OF GOD'S way. Importantly,Priests and other Spiritual leaders which references are they going to be reading that will show,teach and guide these marriages, (Gays,Lesbians) and their followers to say GOD in HEAVEN also accepts, approve and Bless these marriages.If in deed GOD approves these kind of marriages, which i don't think GOD ever will" that's my opinion) Christianity says if the Bible and GOD says YES to the Christian way of promoting marriages is Godly approved based on these Principles'.Seconded by the HOLY BIBLICAL references etc" I would agree with them as opposed to the Gays/Lesbians believes. I have no doubt that the World Says" YES WE PUT GOD FIRST" Earthly Culture may follow their way too, saying YES to earthly things that GOD and Biblical Ethics does not support. I, personally don't regard Gay/Lesbian marriages as God's approval engagements,i take it as an Earthly things that will of course end up on this earth. If Gays/Lesbians also believe in Christ Jesus of Heaven, it's fine with me.Having said that,I have respect for their believes as i expect them to respect my GODLY believes. Reverend Stephen. (S.A)
-
Pastor George Day
Stephen Mohlaloga Makgoathane, it would be a leisurely ride if it were as simple as you put it. Unobstructed view of realia, reverend!
-
-
Richard Darwin Richards
We all know siblings that wanted to marry, poly amorous couples that wanted to marry, you should be able to marry whomever, or whatever or how many ever, including yourself that you want to marry.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
legal. .consenting. adults. don't be disingenuous with your comments, if you find gay marriage to be wrong, don't marry anyone of your sex. problem solved. stop trying to force your narrow, biased beliefs on others, Dog knows you'd never stand for anyone forcing their beliefs on you...like sharia law
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Unfortunately that's the problem. Others ARE trying to force their beliefs on individuals that do not believe in same-sex marriage for whatever reason.
Like the Christian bakers that will serve gay people in every other way, but they won't bake a wedding cake to celebrate what they believe is a union under God between man and woman.
They're not trying to stop them from getting married. They just don't wish to participate in it.
Now, if you believe those on the left, unless you're attending or marching In a pride parade yourself you are just a loathsome bigot that want all of the alphabet people dead.
It's a ridiculous premise and not one to start on if one wants to foster respect and understanding.
-
Richard Darwin Richards
You are spot on Reverend Michael! These narrow minded liberal bigots are forcing their opinions on others and it is wrong!
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. MichaelRS, is LGBT so hard to say?
-
Ricky
Comment removed by user.
-
-
Ricky
Selling a decorated wedding cake does not equal participation in the ceremony. It's food that will be eaten by the guests afterwards.
Whatever happens to it once it leaves the store is no reflection on the baker nor is it any of his business.
-
Pastor George Day
Ricky, it is indeed participation in the wedding. It's a wedding cake!
-
-
-
William R Clapie
There are many medical reasons to not marry in family. That's how some monarchys failed. The king went nutz, or the queen because family married family all the time "to keep the ruling bloodline pure"
yeah. It happend
-
Richard Darwin Richards
Who are we to judge? It is our body our choice! One could find medical reasons why your lifestyle choice should not marry so that is a very bigoted approach that you are taking.
-
Beth
As it stands, 1/4 of all marriage or opposite-sex partnerships in the world are between first cousins.
Research has shown that cousins, or siblings or half-siblings have a better chance of producing an offspring from any given fertilization and pregnancy than partnerships with strangers does. Animal husbandry breeds closely-related animals to breed in or breed out desirable/undesirable traits. It worked for the Egyptian Pharaohs to marry their siblings for hundreds of years within a given dynasty.
-
Pastor George Day
William R Clapie, what does this have to do with the topic discussed??
-
-
-
Barry T Gabbard
Yay, we can only hope!! that is, those of us with true Christian values and followers of Jesus Christ. The rest of you approvers of same sex marriages are just satan's ass kissers leading people straight to hell, as same sex marriages are definitely an abomination in God's eyes.
PS--there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ. and if you think once saved, always saved, your in for a big surprise. a true Christian repents of their sins--or at least keeps trying till they succeed. again, if you think you can live in willful sin and pick and choose what of Gods commandments you want, your also in a for a big surprise.
us Christians know we are in the end times and Christs return is soon--there will be millions of people with itchy ears wanting to hear sin preached to be ok--the sad part is, ur pastors are the ones leading you straight to hell if they don't preach repentance of sin!!! not acceptance!!! i pray for all the lost souls that they find their way to Jesus Christ and truly repent of their sins.
-
Maximillian Martin
You're completely delusional on all counts!!! People like you still don't have the mental capacity to understand the most simple fact that satan is not a devil, demon, or entity of any kind. It's just an Arabic word for adversary. And as far as your jewsus, if it really existed, was only a man. And not a blue eyed, blonde haired, white man like your delusional fantasies lead you to believe. But, people like you are content with being brainwashed slaves and will never be smart enough to break free of it.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
delusional with mad cognitive dissonance. why are chrs chens so adamant about making everyone else believe in their particular delusion.
-
Rev. MichaelRS
You should ask the same question of the Muslims, JJ.
Even the most ardent of fundamentalist Christians will only TELL you that you are going to Hell by being a nonbeliever. Their Muslim equivalent is just as likely to try and send you there personally.
Not even those weirdos from the Westboro Baptist Church are throwing gay people off roofs.
-
Rev. B
How very tolerant of them.
-
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Oh can it, God Botherer. It’s the end times all right. The end of superstitious supremacy like this. You cannot caste out more hatred with hatred. An that’s all you’re typing, is hatred with a pretty bow on it. May The Gods show you true love and true compassion.
-
Clerance Homister
Well said sir. Finally a voice or reason.
-
Lionheart
When your Jesus comes again, Barry, will he arrive riding a Unicorn? I know unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the Bible, so they must be real……right?
Just asking for a friend of mine that loves the Harry Potter books, and other fictional stories. 🤭
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart, tradition indicates Jesus will come back from the spot where he ascended, and that is Gethsemane, if I am not wrong. The Bible is symbolic in these characterizations, but Revelation says he will be riding a white horse. Nice to see you share :-)
-
Lionheart
George, would that be the Garden of Gethsemane where he prayed “all alone” to his father, while all the apostles slept?
I wonder who it was, that wasn’t there, that wrote about that event in fine detail? 🤭
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
Stephen Mohlaloga Makgoathane
I would separate the two in this way, that let the earth do the Earthly things which ever way they please. And allow the Kingdom of Heaven also do their things the way in which they see fit" THE KINGDOM OF GOD'S way. Importantly,Priests and other Spiritual leaders which references are they going to be reading that will show,teach and guide these marriages, (Gays,Lesbians) and their followers to say GOD in HEAVEN also accepts, approve and Bless these marriages.If in deed GOD approves these kind of marriages, which i don't think GOD ever will" that's my opinion) Christianity says if the Bible and GOD says YES to the Christian way of promoting marriages is Godly approved based on these Principles'.Seconded by the HOLY BIBLICAL references etc" I would agree with them as opposed to the Gays/Lesbians believes. I have no doubt that the World Says" YES WE PUT GOD FIRST" Earthly Culture may follow their way too, saying YES to earthly things that GOD and Biblical Ethics does not support. I, personally don't regard Gay/Lesbian marriages as God's approval engagements,i take it as an Earthly things that will of course end up on this earth. If Gays/Lesbians also believe in Christ Jesus of Heaven, it's fine with me.Having said that,I have respect for their believes as i expect them to respect my GODLY believes. Reverend Stephen. (S.A)
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
Notice though that Justice Thomas “neglected” to mention the other case based on his thinking of due process precedents, Loving vs Virginia. It’s because that case would affect him personally, it allowed interracial marriage. So the same thought process that he used to strike down Roe and thinking about striking down several other precedents can also be used to nullify HIS marriage. So he purposely left that little precedent out of his rant.
-
Theresa Gull
WHY!!!???? Why do I care who wants to marry who? Why should anyone??? It’s no one’s business but the people in the relationship.
People are killed every single day due to gun violence and that is far more dangerous than same sex marriage.
How the heck is this happening and HOW can people be ok with it??
We should celebrate love because it’s so hard to find. Any love.
I will marry anyone who chooses to be married - same sex or not.
-
Pastor George Day
Theresa Gull, 1) anyone who cares about the redefinition of marriage into something that it is not should care - you simply cannot call apples oranges, so to speak... they are both eatable fruits, but apples are apples and oranges are oranges; 2) same-sex love is already valued and celebrated (think of David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi in the Bible), but there is no need to call it marriage.
-
-
Philip Joseph Ryan
Marriage is a contract between two people. The state should ensure that it becomes a secular affair, that is signed and sealed in a registry office, leaving churches legally allowed to bless unions only.
-
Pastor George Day
Philip Joseph Ryan, marriage was ordained by God before each existing government came into existence.
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Simple... whom is it hurting? Why does it matter that same-sex couples be married? If God doesn't want that, then let God deal with it. Who are these people that insist they have the right to control how someone else should live their life? If it's not abusing, you then leave them alone.
As for the people refusing services to LGBTQ clients... if you allow someone to discriminate against one group, then someone else will eventually start doing it to another group. Lastly, if those people react by asking for a boycott, then it’s not canceling you; it’s a consequence of your own decision.
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
You may find some things to consider here. I can't seem to create the hyperlink so you may need to cut and paste to your browser.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-some-people-think-fascism-is-the-greatest-expression-of-democracy-ever-invented/ar-AA13PsOm?li=BBnb7Kz
It doesn't matter which group is cast as the out-group. Or where or when. What matters is that there is an out group at all. The idea that there can be an out group at all that fascists can identify and oppose, is what needs to be opposed.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
CLICK BAIT.. What does SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade in the US have to do with Gay marriages in Mexico?
What Americans should be worried about is the claims our elected officials in congress are saying....Space Lasers controlled by Jews started all of the wild fires in California and Oregon over the past several years. Our elected officials are now saying the Jew controlled Space Lasers now being used to start fires at food processing plants across the US to create a massive food shortage over the next year. Not sure who to believe her. Our elected officials in congress? Or that God gave Space Lasers to the Jews and not Regan's Star Wars or Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in which billions of dollars of tax payer money was wasted or a program that failed.
-
John Edwin Tudor
huh?
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
@John Edwin Tudor Try reading the post you are posting a reply about. Read under the heading "Worry Abounds North of the Border" Meaning the United States.
-
-
Tom
I'm pretty sure the author is showing how two neighboring countries are moving in opposite directions regarding gay marriage since in America the overturning of Roe v. Wade has raised concerns that Obergefell v. Hodges will be overturned next.
-
Rev. B
Comment removed by user.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
@Rev. B I don't know either which is why I called it click bait.
Try reading the post you are posting a reply about. Read under the heading "Worry Abounds North of the Border" Meaning the United States.
-
-
-
Richard Lee Cornell
The government IRS controls who can get a 501 (c) (3). It was given and it can be taken. It is the County that decide who is married and who is not. Just remember that there are 500 million guns in private hands. Piss off the wrong people and bodies can start to pack up on the steps of the US Congress.
-
Rev. B
All those guns tell me is that anyone trying to invade the U.S. would get a very nasty surprise. Instead of separating ourselves based on guns, why not unite behind that idea?
-
Pastor George Day
Richard Lee Cornell, marriage was invented and defined before the American government came in place 400 years ago... not even the Protestant Reformation is that young!
-
-
P. Thomas Etchason
Civil marriage is a license granted to people so they can get certain benefits not granted to unmarried people. Weddings are religious or spiritual or mystic ceremonies that are not intended to grant any civil privileges. There is always a conflict when government is expected or allowed to codify morality Politicians should refuse to meddle in religious issues as religious leaders should remain separate from political issues.
-
Keith
Very well said!
-
Pastor George Day
P. Thomas Etchason, correct! It's called First Amendment! Bingo!
-
-
Ronald E Roberts
Noah led the animals into the ark 2 by 2 God created male and female for a reason.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
2 of every animal on earth on a boat? dinosaurs too? what about non-flying insects? wouldn't there have been a LOT of birth defects...you know, from the first 25 or 50 years of incest? brother with sister, son with mother...
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. Dr. Father JJ, that's when big dinosaurs died. They were called dragons. Some of smaller dimensions survived, so we can believe that they were included in the ark... unless they could survive under water. Just guessing :-)
-
-
-
Keith
Love is Love! God's love is for everyone No Exclusions and No Exceptions. God states that he makes no mistakes and that all is good and right.
Minister Keith
-
Pastor George Day
Keith, precise. But there was an original fall at the start of human history that affected how we experience creation.
-
-
Keith
Love is Love! God's love is for everyone No Exclusions and No Exceptions. God states that he makes no mistakes and that all is good and right.
Minister Keith
-
Lionheart
Would that include some of God’s love that he used to kill those firstborn children, drowning most everyone on earth, condoning slavery, and asking people to stone a man to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, or did he, in fact, have exclusions, and exceptions, and make mistakes🤷🏼
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart, slavery in Scripture is not slavery as we understand it today. They did not have a prison system in those days, and, yes, serious crimes were punishable by death. Slaves were treated with care and respect, which is evidenced by the letter of Paul to Philemon.
-
Lionheart
No, George, your god sent out an edict in Exodus 21:20-21 that Slaves can be beaten, as long as they don’t die in the first day or two.
Is that what you call care and respect?
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart, biblical slavery occurred under three circumstances in the Old Testament:
Spoils of war. Used as a means of punishment against those who mistreated Israel and God gave to them with victory in battle.
Punishment for crime. A man who could not pay damages for his crimes was "sentenced" to "slavery" to pay for his crimes.
A man could sell himself into "slavery" to pay his own debts or simply to secure a better way of life than what he had on his own.
In all instances, those who had power over the slaves were never allowed to abuse the slaves.
You quote Exodus 21:20-21: And if a man smites his servant, or his house cleaner, with a rod, and he dies under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continues for a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
I highlight the line: and he dies under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
This is evidence that the Old Testament God tries his best to rectify human conscience that is used by the surrounding culture to do violence with no restraints. The Old Testament is about refraining from this to moderation.
Matthew Henry does an outstanding job in explaining that slaves were treated with kindness and mercy under the Law given to Moses:
"Their government being purely a Theocracy, that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence was directed among them by a divine appointment, so that the constitution of their government was peculiarly adapted to make them happy. These laws are called judgments, because they are framed in infinite wisdom and equity, and because their magistrates were to give judgment according to the people… He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and moderation towards them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves; and now that they had become, not only their own masters, but masters of servants too, lest they should abuse their servants, as they themselves had been abused and ruled with rigor by the Egyptian tyrants, provision was made by these laws for the mild and gentle usage of servants.
-
Lionheart
I personally I find it appalling that anyone would try to justify slavery in any aspect. To me, a loving caring god would not condone slavery AT ALL. He should have stamped his authority on the inhuman practice, but instead preferred to tell people about not eating shellfish, ......and then he killed little children. WTF 🤯.
Evidence enough for me that the Bible is full of garbage. Sorry, George.
🦁♥️
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev Ned
While they're reviewing past decisions that granted rights to individuals, they should review 1967's Loving v. Virginia.
-
Theresa Gull
I stand by my original statement. Period. It’s not anyone’s business.
-
Pastor George Day
As an ordained minister with ULC, I have no issues blessing same sex couples - although I will not endorse the redefinition of marriage as including LGBT couples. Marriage is between a man and woman. However, I am 100% in favor of legal protection and extended civil rights to same-sex couples, which is why I am OK blessing them and giving them a 'marriage' license. This is, really, a borderline issue, as I see it.
I'm more than a bit conservative. However, part of that is who you love and how you love is none of my business, so long as the relationship is mutually consensual. I will also add, age appropriate.
When my best friend besides my Mrs. came out to me in the fall of 1979, my question to him: Okay, how does this change why we are friends? We decided it did not. He was Best Man at our wedding in mid-1982. His life partner was one of my ushers. This month makes 42 years together for them.
Devotion to each other should be lauded.
@Ealdormon, I love this story!!! Thank you for sharing.
You are quite welcome my good colleague in the ULC.
One of my nephews came out about 4 years ago. My then 80 year old mom laid down the law. "Paul is family. We love him and THIS DOES NOT change that!" She also defended him fiercely when he thought he was gender fluid.
He did get counseling from a professional recommended by his sister, who is a doctor, that specializes in helping folks sort their feelings and thought. Paul came to the conclusion that he is Bisexual and the gender fluidity was confusion caused by his birth father being a real creep. He hopes to settle down with a husband and wife.
BTW, February will make 45 years my Mrs. and I have been together.
I am proud to say, he has said I am the member of my generation of the family to whom he feels closest.
My parents taught us to treat others with courtesy, a friendly manner and tolerance, just because they were born. A person earns better, worse, or indifference based on their actual words and deeds. We need not fully understand the other person to treat them with what should be common decency.
Ealdormon Piparskeggr Robinson, I agree, but I do not think we should call that marriage.
I look upon marriage as a religious ceremony. A wedding, for me, is a joining of 2 people who wish to go on ahead in life together.
Many weddings will be commemorated by a religious marriage ritual. Some will not, like a civil ceremony presided over by a justice of the peace.