Chris

So the two most likely to vote against what you want, Daniel, simply must recuse themselves while those who are most likely to vote in favor of what you want, namely the priest and other very "Christian" justices, are perfectly acceptable? Of course, stack the deck. Makes sense. That's the only way discrimination and bigotry stands a chance. None of the justices are above bias on this. You just want the odds better in your favor.

bmeltoniii

AMEN TO THAT MR GRAY,,,

Walter Green

I have to ask - are you an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court? I am not, but I have studied the law and clerked in a law office of an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, and in my understanding the Supreme Court does not work the way you say it does. The Court has overturned any number of prior decisions - it does not go back and retry those cases, overturn them, and then issue a new ruling. The ruling on the current case is what modifies or overturns the prior ruling.

Rulings of the Court are part of a long and continually changing body of case law that interprets the Constitution and the other laws of the nation and the states. It has been that way for 200 years, and it is the way the system is designed to operate.

If Justices who have opinions on issues were prohibited from voting, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia would also all have to recuse themselves. When a Justice writes an opinion for or against a case, or subscribes to a majority opinion, they are pretty clearly indicating where their partiality lies on the issue. The decision in the Defense of Marriage case would therefore disqualify all of the Justices from voting on the current case. Impartiality is not interpreted in that way, as both Justices Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly demonstrated.

Kenny

You mean like Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves in the Hobby Lobby case or Citizens United or Bush Vs Gore? I shall wait for you reply but I am guessing you weren't up in arms back then now were you Mr Gray?

Dan

So how about you PROVING they had to recuse themselves Kevin? Just saying so does not make it fact. I on the other had DID prove why these two justices MUST under federal law recuse themselves or the decision if it goes for SSM is now moot.

Dan

No walter, I am not and attorney and never claimed to be one. BUT I know what the law says as I looked it up in Blacks, something you would be very familiar with if you actually did clerk where you claimed to have done.

So sorry, you cannot make false implications or impune my post when I used the EXACT same law books that every attorney in the US and ever law school and judge in the US uses.

Dan

Sorry Chris, the law is clear, and as judges both kagen and Ginsburg MUST follow the law or any decision they make is invalidated. So if they vote for the SSM then they have violated the law and as such the decision if it is for the SSM, is unable to be enforced.

And please show us exactly WHERE in the US Constitution it says that you have a right to get married. Dont bother looking as it does not exist. As such if they rule FOR SSM, then they are violating Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution which clearly says that only CONGRESS has the right to make a law or give the weight of law to anything, thus making the decision for SSM unconstitutional and illegal and unenforceable.

This is not rocket science and its all clearly spelled out if you would bother to look.

preta4

In the end, when man's mixed and messed up laws try to usurp the God of Heaven and Earth, guess Who Is the Final Authority? NO matter what we think, on Judgement Day, those who've made "they're own choices", will be in for a very rude and mindblowing awakening. God/Jesus help them before it's too late?

Ric Basen

Daniel , so anyone who disagrees with a case must recuse themselves in your limited education of the law? Think about that. All of the right wing judges must also recuse themselves because they have NOT preformed the Same Sex marriages.. what works for one side MUST by reason work for the other.
You also have yet to show one place where Christ said anything against gays or gay marriage. He did condemn divorce, bigotry and judging others. He did not support hate nor discrimination but many so called christians seem to revel in it.. even to the extent of cherry-picking the very book they claim to base their religious beliefs on.

Dan

Sorry, not a rational argument in any case as this has nothing to do with straight marriage, its all about homosexual marriage.

Thanks for playing but you lost yet again

Ric Basen

Daniel.. give it up .... you apparently have refused to follow the agreement you made with the ULC when you joined.
" The Universal Life Church Monastery, also known as the "ULC", has been serving our online church community for over 35 years.

Our fundamental task is to promote freedom of religion and to "do that which is right." We appeal to a worldwide audience through our online church services and a belief that "we are all children of the same universe."

Over 20 million ministers worldwide have become ordained with the Universal Life Church. The ULC is open to people of all faiths, offering everyone the religious freedom to become an ordained minister and practice your beliefs."

BTW that is from the very front page of this site.

Dan

Beliefs is one thing, but the law still is the law and you follow the law or expect results from not doing so.

Its not rocket science.

Joe Stutler

Yes, follow the law. Don't bear false witness. Don't treat others badly. Don't be a Daniel Gray.

Ric Basen

I never saw either of their names mentioned in that law Daniel. If they must recuse themselves then the other side must as well. The others have NOT preformed same sex marriages so they have no basis for judging then.
You have a personal agenda do deny rights to others ... it is not based on law nor on the bible .. only on your feelings and your interpretations of both. You are not a lawyer nor a judge please dont try to decide the law for others.

Kenny

Kevin and Daniel you are so wrong it is mind boggling. The Supreme court does and will have the right to rule and in fact take that so called right of the state away. So based on your thinking interracial marriage is in fact illegal because it was the state's right to have laws regulating against it based on bible passages which were relied on as the reason against it. Wait, that was a ruling of the supreme court that ruled on marriage. Yes, welcome to the 1960's boys. Take off the blinders and try reading case law before spouting what you haven't been able to bully and insult people into believing,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

So tell us all again how the supreme court can not change the definition of marriage. I will be happy along with people study law and the rest of the of the world how you can tell this forum how things work. I'm sure everyone here is dying to learn from your infinite wisdom.

Krvin DeFranco

Bible passages denying interracial marriage. You're stretching things a little too far, Kenny. I'm not denying that there are loons out there who come up with some ridiculous things in the name of Christianity to put their thumbs on people, Westboro Baptist Church is a fine ex. of that, but show us where in the Bible God said no interracial marriage. The only reason that the Jews and the house of Israel stayed with their own was to preserve a pure blood line from Adam's genealogy, through King David's genealogy to Jesus Christ. And that was because the fallen angels impregnated the daughters of men to destroy the seed line. Besides, you injected interracial marriage into the conversation not us. My wife won't agree with that. I'm Caucasian and she's Chinese, and we're Christian. besides it will never happen again. And stop whining, nobody is bullying you about anything. They just don't agree with you, grow up. Its my opinion that its a state's rights issue I can't speak for Daniel. And its "my" opinion, you don't have to agree or even acknowledge it. Do you think I care? I'm not trying to impose my will on you, I'm stating my opinion relative to "me" based on my belief in the Bible. Believe whatever you want, just stop the name calling, its unacceptable.

Dan

Sorry Kenny, I am dead on accurate, but I see that you are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to try and prove me wrong and failing each time.

Oh and BTW, if you were in college and you tried to use wikipedia as a source, you would not only receive a failing grade on the assignment, but you would quite probably receive a failing grade on the whole class. You cannot use a source that can be altered or changed depending on the whim of the person reading it.. A source is something that is finite and does not change, unlike wikipedia. So how about you try and use a better source?

Kenny

Daniel, you are one of the most bitter, hateful, deceptive, dishonest, disingenuous people I have had the displeasure to encounter. Not because we disagree. Because if you can't get your point across and everyone tells you how brilliant you are you insult and lie. The case I cited was relevant to the point and the fact that it came up on wikipedia has no bearing on the validity of the case. Nice try. You are wrong again. Kevin, try backing out of Daniels backside because you are so far up there every time you sneeze Daniel has to wipe his nose.

Dan

Have not lied Kenny, everfything I have said I have backed up with valid proof and links. My apologies if this busts your bubble but you dont have to make up falsehoods to try and get your point across. Since you cant refute what I have said, why not just admit same instead of going on this little childish falsehood tirade of yours

Joe Stutler

More derpidity from Gray. No surprise there. He is a false witness, and he worships a false god.

Joe Stutler

Perhaps you're confusing this church with whatever church you belong to. Your doctrine and dogma aren't really relevant here, except perhaps to those folks who subscribe to them. I trust you don't eat bacon, don't wear cotton-poly blends, don't let sassy children live, and don't wear jewelry. I'll pray for you.

Len DeSecottier

Whoops, I saw you in a seafood restaurant the other day and what was on your plate did not have fins::::: Leviticus 11:9-12King James Version (KJV)

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. King James Version (KJV)

Let's not pick and choose which verse we carry a big stick with...........I love Jesus, I listen to Jesus, but the Jesus I know did not give us instructions to judge others, I think He said love one another..........or did I get that wrong too.

Joe Stutler

Daniel, please do try to remember the basics of the ULC:The Universal Life Church was founded on the basic belief that we are all children of the same universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by which it expects its ministers to conduct themselves:

1. Do only that which is right.
2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws. We have made it our mission to actualize these

Please try to conduct yourself accordingly.

Joe Stutler

Actually, it's about marriage, and what constitutes marriage in the United States. "Traditional Marriage" is a peacock term, as there are numerous traditions of marriage. We get it...you fancy yourself a champion of what Carrie Prejean so famously called "Opposite Marriage". That's fine. Still, neither your faith nor you have any say in what others do in their lives. I don't mind you being wrong (and you are, on so very many things), but here in my church I'd appreciate you not being so rude about it. Please Remember and Respect Our tenants in Our place.

Ric Basen

That exact same law can be used for the other side as well..since several of them have expressed feelings against the topic. That disqualifies them automatically ... but you only want the law to work your way.. it works for both sides. it is not 'smoke and mirrors' it is about what is fair for one is fair for the other. If you are so opposed to people having rights that you go against the law or against what Christ taught.. you need to examine your beliefs. The bible that you use as your weapon was NEVER meant to be used that way. it is a guide to live by, nothing more. The NT is supposed to be the guide for life at the time it was written. Many things have changed since. We no longer allow slavery nor use women as chattel or have to purchase a spouse, nor do we follow the OT laws. If you did... football would be banned as well as shrimp and ham and bacon, not to mention modern methods of farming all of which are 'abominations' in the OT.

Ric Basen

De Franco.. as you like to call people... that is OT which is outdated .. Christ himself taught that Divorce is condemned. I never called Christ a Bigot.. but you seem to be a pro at putting words into someone else's mouth. Please show us when and where God took a pen and papyrus and wrote that book.. if you look at the version you are using.. it will state who authored it. Either a Catholic Pope in around 600 AD or a British king several hundred years later(King James Version). Today there are hundreds of 'Versions" of the book.. including the Book of Mormon.
The stories in the bible were written as stories for people of the time. Each epistle begins as a 'letter to" written by a man to a group of people with guidelines for a problem they had. They were not God speaking, they were a preacher speaking to a flock. Many of the letters of the time were rejected when assembling various versions of the bible ..stories of Christ being married, or having children or Mary having other children ... those stories surface every so often and some embrace them others dismiss them for any number of reasons.
Paul's change happened years after Christ's ascension It would help if you actually studied scripture and not just memorized verses.

Ric Basen

Christ, When asked what commandments were the most important, stated simply there are but two laws: to love God above all and to love your fellow man as yourself. He further stated that he was the new law, his coming was the fulfillment of the old law.
Which documents are approved by revelations? Since there have been hundreds of documents written that could have been included ... some were eliminated by the Catholics, some by the Protestants, Some were included. All of those decisions were made by MAN.
Your being upset because I brought some actual historical facts to the discussion shows your lack of education on the entire history of the bible.

Kenny

Daniel, All you have provided was a tax code and name calling whenever someone asks for where you get your facts from. He asked you to show where you have proof this was a 501 c and you responded it's there for you to see. He simply asked you for help to see what you were talking about and you berate people.

Further the fact is Thomas did refuse to recuse himself repeatedly.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/29/partners-jeffrey-toobin

http://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Justice-Clarence-Thomas-recuse-himself-from-the-Monsanto-genome-cases

http://theprogressivecynic.com/2013/07/15/justice-clarence-thomas-and-monsanto/

http://voicesfromtheheartland.blogspot.com/2013/07/justice-thomas-refusal-to-recuse.html

Stop lying to fit your opinion and the name calling is just a sign you know your argument is unfounded. You answer every person with the falsehood "My post is based on fact and law. YOUR post on the other hand is based on supposition and myth.".

Dan

Sorry Kenny, I am stating fact. My apologies if stating fact is what you consider not telling the truth when it completely destroys your post.

Kenny

David, Where did you even come close to destroying anyones post here. You dismissed facts presented with your ignorant comments without ever addressing what was presented on many occasions backed with article after article. You sir are nothing more than a parrot who regurgitates things without the slightest bit of knowledge. You have repeatedly posted that code about recusing one self but ignored cases the right as failed to do so. Posting that again does not in any way diminish the facts. Sorry you are too shallow and slow in your ability to think, maybe someday you will understand hate is not anywhere in the teachings of Christ. Hopefully before you do any damage to others from your ignorance.

Dan

First off its Daniel, and second off Kenny, I gave you chapter and verse and sited my sources, so like it or not, your post WAS destroyed.

You can huff and puff all you want but it wont change the facts.

Kenny

First off, my apology. I meant Daniel, but David came out. Second you gave nothing of the sort and you never address anyones point you simply dismiss them with the I have facts you have opinion. To be honest, you are not a lawyer and you are certainly not someone with a thelogy degree. So everything you have stated has been opinion like most people. Try outlining your argument with something other than "I destroyed you".

Dan

Sorry Kenny, I DID give links to my information and sources as anyone can see by reading the thread. Just because I did not repost them to you doe not mean I didnt post them. And why repost the same thing over and over and over again when people such as yourself refuse to listen or read the links to start with? Nothing more then a waste of time and effort and space here to do that

Kenny

And there you have it folks, nothing. I said you posted that,I acknowledged that before. I asked you to respond to Thomas and Scalia failing repeatedly to do so under your own rules. Which would make the court empty by all accounts. You again failed to address anyone by simply claiming "I said that". The simple truth is you never did, and posting the rules is not advancing your position because you say so. Thank you for proving what more then just myself has stated. You have nothing to back up your claims. Here shall I copy and paste your rebuttal to all the questions asking for something to back up what you have stated. Here it is:

" "

That about all I could find. Hope this helps. I appreciate the fun convoluted conversation with you. Good luck in all you do. And may God grace you with his love.

Dan

and there you have it folks. I posted links documenting what I said and as usual, when they cant refute the links they run away. Typical.

Joe Stutler

Daniel, I'm sure there are sites who welcome your doctrine, dogma, and manner of sharing your opinion. Why not go to them instead of trolling here and violating the tenants of my church?

Dan

Sorry Joe, I state fact. And notice its only people like you that get destroyed by the facts that are complaining about "THEIR" church when this isnt a church, its a webpage.

And as for trolling, care to put up YOU post count against mine? I will make bet that mine is by far quite a bit lower then yours by a very large margine.

And sorry again Joe if the truth violates your tenants, but I am NOT going to stop telling the truth just to make you happy.

Joe Stutler

So, Daniel, I take it you're a sociopath. Got it.

Dan

So this is how you debate? You make personal attacks because you cant understand that this is a website and not a church, and you cant or wont understand that the links I provided clearly show you to be ignorant of the subject that you are trying to posture on?

You have my sympathy, and so do your parents.

Joe Stutler

It is the website of my church. But you knew that already. Blessings to you and your parents.

Dan

Sorry again Joe, but you seem majorly confused. A church is brick and mortar, it is not a website no m,atter what you claim.

And I see that because you cant refute the things I have shown you were false that you believed in, thats why you are ending this conversation as you have nothing more to give that would be relevant.

Have a nice day.

Ric Basen

Daniel once again please take your hate filled blinders off and look at the reality of what you are saying and denying. You are not the supreme truth giver. You are one very opinionated man who wants to deny rights to a minority based on your misconceptions.

Dan

Ok kenny, I have already posted part of the Constitution-federal law-the code of conduct for judges both state local and federal and even an article from the USA Today from last year where Chief Justice Roberts clearly says the same thing I have been saying, that Kagen and Ginsberg MUST recuse themselves.

Its not rocket science to find these.

Ric Basen

Daniel, once again you are "talking out of your hat" so to say. You want the two left leaning judges to recuse themselves but yet you refuse to acknowledge that the right leaning ones should also do the same since they are on the opposite side and have stated that they are leaning that way. That alone would require them to recuse themselves.. in which case the issue could be settled by executive order. Justice Roberts is known as extremely right wing and therefore should recuse himself since he will use non- constitutional rational to decide.

Dan

Sorry Ric. I am stating fact and backing it up with links and legal opinions and laws. If that is "talking out of my hat" then my apologies to you as I refuse to spout myths to be PC or to sooth hurt feelings. The laws are the laws and neither you nor I are going to change anything so you might as well get use to it.

Dan

Cmon Joe, stop your Pharisees type of proselytizing and show us WHERE in the 1st Amendment the phrase or words say "Separation of Church and State."

If its there then you should be able to produce it instead of trying to use the usual Joe Stutler smoke screen in trying to change the subject. Or is it the reason that you are not producing the proof you claim is because yet again you are making things up and then getting mad when nobody believes you.

Here I will help you. directly from the Cornell Law School library https: // www. law. cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment (remove the spaces)

"Amendment I

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 show us Joe, WHERE are the words or the phrase Separation of Church and State. Stop with all the bologna you are posting and come and show us.

Joe Stutler

Daniel, do remember that SCOTUS, not you, is the authority on what the Constitution says. Do remember that case law trumps "Daniel's Opinion". Your continuing down the path you've chosen shows you to be less cogent than a Midianite male after the Israelites got through doing the Lord's bidding.

Dan

Joe, and you DO know they can have their decisions overturned, so seemingly they are not the final say on the Constitution as you are falsely trying to claim. That is basic history 101 taught to every third grader, so the question is...how come you dont know this? Did you sleep though American history or are you just ignoring the parts you dont like?

Dan

Source on what? That you were personally attacking Mary, a poster here? All you have to do is ask her. Or ask the moderators of the board and it will be confirmed.

Or do you mean the separation of church and state? Ok here it is https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment and it says: "Amendment I

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 show us WHERE the words or phrase "separation of church and state" are in there anywhere.

Or do you mean Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii which says:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

And in case you missed it, here it is again:

"the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Under such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make, seems pretty specific and clear to anyone with any brain cells

Pretty much answers your non generalization post Joe.

Dan

Source on what? That you were personally attacking Mary, a poster here? All you have to do is ask her. Or ask the moderators of the board and it will be confirmed.

Or do you mean the separation of church and state? Ok here it is https:// www. law. cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment and it says: “Amendment I

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 show us WHERE the words or phrase “separation of church and state” are in there anywhere.

Or do you mean Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence? https: //www. law. cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii which says:

“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

And in case you missed it, here it is again:

“the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”

Under such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make, seems pretty specific and clear to anyone with any brain cells

Pretty much answers your non generalization post Joe.

Remove the spaces for the links

Krvin DeFranco

Hey Daniel, I think you've got the wrong guy, I believe everything you're saying. I must need psychiatric help too, according to some here.

Joe Stutler

You and Daniel make quite the couple, Kevin. I hope you two are blessed with many happy years together.

Krvin DeFranco

Joe, that's so not you. Rather unbecoming for an intellectual, don't you think? trying to be serious here Joe.

Joe Stutler

Perhaps you should that that up with SCOTUS. Their contact info is on the interwebz. Blessings to you and your parents.

Gary

Keep reading your constitution where there are three branches of government. You would have two. The entire purpose of the Judiciary is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Yet you would discard that (until it turned against you). When the Supreme Court expanded the second amendment to let any nut have an assault weapon, I bet you were fine with that. It has been well established in the courts that there is a separation of church and state. Second, even if we took your argument as correct, you are violating the Constitution by trying to establish you version of Judeo-Christian customs and laws into the national law and fabric. Yet, when Muslims do that, you scream jihadist. I am sorry but I see very little difference between you and them except you don't have the power to do all you would like, at least not yet. I do not doubt for a minute that if you could gain that power, you would ram your brand of Christian zealotry down everyone's throat.

Dan

Is this the best you can do Joe? an attempted insult and a pretty poor one at that?

Ok for your education and edification here is the 1st Amendment

Amendment I

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 please now show ANYONE on this thread where the term or phrase or even any of the words of "Separation of Church and State" appear? As you can plainly see, they do not appear here anywhere.

And as for the Supremes, try this Article 1 (powers of the legislature) section 1, which clearly says:

Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Now a simple search of any dictionary and the dictionary will tell you the meaning of legislation which is "to make law". So what Article 1 section 1 of the US Constitution is clearly saying is that only CONGRESS has the authority to make a law or give weight of law to anything, not the President nor the Supremes. As such ANY decision the Supremes make that makes law is null and void and unconstitutional according to the US Constitution. As such I dont have to go to the Supremes as the Constitution, which they are REQUIRED to follow and abide by; clearly says that this decision is illegal and unconstitutional. Heck even Justice Marshall clearly stated this, and he is the darling of the left.

you have just been schooled. You are welcome.

Dan

Gary Please go back to school and get an education on how our government works as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Article 3 (powers of the judiciary) does NOT even begin to come close to what you are claiming. And in fact shows a completely different side then what you are saying.

Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2, last sentence

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

You didnt miss it did you? Just in case you did, here it is again

"the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Now tell us please exactly HOW the Judiciary is suppose to be putting on the brakes for the other two branches of Government when Congress can come along and overturn a Supreme Court Decision and then tell the Supreme Court that they can never hear another case like that ever again. Say it cant happen? Oh yes it did, TWICE in less then 30 years! They are called the "Newdow" cases One case where Newdow (from California) tried to force the schools to remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. The 9th US Distric Court ruled for him, but the US Supreme Court stepped in and overturned the decision thus nullifying the 9ths decision. The Congress then stepped in and passed a resolution that NO lower court or the Supreme Court shall ever try or hear a case like this again. Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated that this was well within their constitutional right to do so, and was backed up by all eight of the justices on the court, both liberal and conservative.

Newdow did not appreciate having his rear stomped this badly so he sued yet again to get the 10 Commandments off the Supreme Court wall-"In God we trust" off our money, and "so help me God" out of the Presidential Oath of Office. The end result came swiftly and harshly! The 9th ruled against him and so did the US Supreme Court, which slapped him down so hard he is STILL bouncing! And Congress then stepped in and shut this down as they again told the Supreme Court and all lower courts that they could NEVER hear another case like that again. And again all 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed this was well within the powers of Congress.

So tell all of us reading this...exactly HOW can you have three branches of Government that are suppose to be equal, when ONE branch can tell the other two what they can and cant do, but the other two have no constitutional authority to tell Congress what it can and cant do?

Joe Stutler

Yes, Daniel, I have been schooled. You're completely, totally, fully, thoroughly, utterly, wholly, consummately schooled. You have said everything perfectly, Your opinion trumps POTUS, Congress, SCOTUS. You win. I bow to Your superior intellect and ego. You are a rock star, a hero, a genius, savior of the universe, beautiful, amazing, and such a treat to be around. I bask in the glory of Your mere presence here. Jesus looks up and smiles at your wonderfulness, as does his father. Yes, even God himself bows down to the greatness that is You. Your Blessings upon You and Your parents and all of us.

Dan

My opinion does not matter Joe and its pathetic that you would say that as All I have done is show links to prove you wrong in your claims. And you have degraded-called names-and worse when you could not prove my links wrong.

Nice try Joe, but we all know you for what you really are. A vindictive little shrew who attacks when someone dares to challenge your point of view.

Joe Stutler

I agree, Daniel, your opinion doesn't matter. You've already slandered God, so I'm sure He will deal with the likes of you. As for your demonstrated incompetence in secular law, you've proven yourself to be irrelevant.
I'll continue to pray for your soul, and I'll ask all my brethren to do so as well. You're going to need all the help you can get. Have a lovely weekend!

Randy Ford

The jurisdiction stripping bill based on Newdow was never passed into Law. Stripping can only be applied to SCOTUS appellate areas, not to ones where it has original jurisdiction. It has been used for such things as limiting the number of appeals a death row inmate may pursue.

The answer to a case where the Fed Legislature tries to use it to improperly gag the SCOTUS is for any state to bring it as a suit against another state or the Federal government. Then SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction and be unaffected by the Stripping law.

Of course, Separation of Church and State is a fiction propagated by the Left. "No Law concerning the Establishment of Religion" basically says that the Government can't pass a law that defines what is and isn't a religion. It keeps them from deciding on a list of acceptable religions.

The Newdow striping bill was not needed, because gov can use the word "God." The Left mostly uses the threat of a lawsuit to get what it wants. What the government can't do is to discriminate against people based solely on their religion. Having Christian holidays and not Islamic ones is OK, because it doesn't harm Muslims to have Christian holidays off.

The earlier 501(c)(3) discussion is pertinent: IRS has US Code that gives a list of things that defines a church. However, you can get one accepted that doesn't meet all of the items on their list, because of the Establishment clause.

The current administration is illegally discriminating against Christians in the Military by using threats and punishments that are disguised. Having a Bible on one's desk , esp. in the Air Force, can be used to "show" that the airman discriminates against homosexuals. Clearly, that action violates the heart and letter of the Constitution. The nature of the military makes it take time to get such things addressed. Military people basically give up the Rights we hold so dear for the period they are in service in order to protect those same Rights for others.

While I'm on this topic, I'd like to explain something about many Evangelical Christians' beliefs. Marriage is probably the most sacred institutions outside of the church itself. Two becoming one flesh is a Religious item, not a secular one.

Many churches will not allow a wedding in their church by any others than their members, possibly then only if the minister believes they are in good standing with Gd. Others will allow those in good standing in their denomination. Most won't allow divorced people to marry.

Homosexuals are not being singled out for hate or discrimination. They just don't meet what the church sees as meeting the Biblical standards for marriage. Some denominations will not accept divorced people as members unless they remarry their former spouse, unless it was the other partner who left and filed for the divorce. (Yes, this often has the effect of discriminating against the husband since, in general, the wife can kick him out, but it will still be seen as him leaving.)

Yes, marriage is still seen as being for life by Evangelical Christians. Most children have a Father and a Mother who live with them, and probably siblings and a dog.

Most churches, while they may be part of a larger denomination, are independent. The members, possibly with elected Deacons, own the property and make the decisions about the church. They clean it, repair it, cut the grass, and raise money if it needs a new roof or air conditioner.

The minister may be placed there by the denomination, but their control of finances and other things may be strictly limited. A church isn't just somewhere you go on Sundays, it is the major spiritual and social structure outside of the family.

In discussions like this. the typical Evangelical Christian may state that marriage is between a man and a woman, may quote the Bible, then will drop out of the conversation. The loud gay bashing and such is unlikely to be them. That isn't how they act. (I can generally tell by the choice of verses who they are. Not many will be on this site because they have their denominations to ordain them.)

(I'm speaking in the third person, but you've probably guessed that I am one, just one who has enough doctrinal differences from independent study that I don't fit in with the denominations here. I wish I did, but the Word of Gd is the will of Gd.)

BTW, I drop the "o" in "Gd" because some people in other religions take offense at having His name spelled out.

Joe Stutler

That is quite the pile of silliness there, Randy. I'm not sure why you bash on the "left", as those of us not indoctrinated by organizations like the misnamed "Family Leader" and their ilk know that there are folks on all areas of the political spectrum who understand the concept of "separation of church and state" as established by the Constitution and a few hundred years of case law. Only those radical regressive conservative Christian types push for ridiculous entanglement of church and state to promote their own faith over all others. Their narrow and stunted world view does not allow them to understand that we are not a Christian nation and they reject our Founders' vision of religious freedom for all. The hooey about Christian persecution anywhere in the U.S. is pure fabrication. It doesn't happen in the military; if anything it is Christians who persecute others. People are not punished for having beliefs, they are punished for antisocial and illegal behaviors. This is true both in the military and in society. As for the rest of your rant, it's naught but word salad, and a very wilted salad at that. I don't know why folks who don't believe in the tenants of this church bother to come here, except perhaps to proselytize and troll. You certainly don't convince us that your faith is reasonable, rational, attractive, or even worthy of attention. Millions of good and decent Christians know you are wrong, twisting God's message into an unholy mess, and this church is about more than one narrow view of one faith tradition. Perhaps some day a cure will be found for your particular mental illness, and you'll no longer pose a threat to yourselves and polite society. Until then, go play with your Westboro Baptist Church brethren...you'll be in good company there.

Randy Ford

First, I have no idea to whom you are referring as "Family Leader." I'm not much into pop culture.

I have not argued for, and I would fight against, the govt trying to impose any religious doctrine. I've lived where Christianity is not the dominate religion. The problem with the Left's definition of separation of church and state is the view that religion of all sorts, but mostly Christian, must be "purged" from all aspects of government. For instance, they often think that all organizations other than Christian ones should be prohibited from using class rooms for club meetings. Another example is the destruction of historical important and meaningful monuments because it contains a cross. The Establishment Clause prevents the govt from favoring any religion.

"Separation" is not a Constitutionally correct concept. There is nothing wrong with a city auditorium being used for religious activities as long as the city doesn't favor particular religions. And yes, atheism counts as a religion: it is religious belief that their is no gd. Therefore, Buddhism may not consider itself a religion, but the government must treat it with the same respect it does others.

When I was in the Navy, I never saw discrimination against any religion. The Wiccans were just coming out, but I never saw my Wiccan friend discriminated against other than the same type of kidding from peers that the Christians received. However, over the last several years there has been a complete change in that.

You state "People are not punished for having beliefs, they are punished for antisocial and illegal behaviors." Yet you appear to believe that non-Christians are improperly punished.

If you read my other posts here, I think you will see that I do believe in the tenants of ULC. (For instance, my May 6, 2015 at 1:18 pm post starting with "Here’s my Biblical reason for being willing to perform same-sex marriages.")

While I don't seek people for which to perform weddings, I am open to performing them for people of any beliefs if asked. Specifically, if you read above, I have also laid out an argument that I think could make it through SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriages.

I have no idea why you think that I care if you think my faith is reasonable, etc. In fact, I laid out truths about churches with which I do not agree, because so many people hide the truth about who they are behind lies that they hate gays. I tried to show enough of their culture so those who care to understand can see that many of them make similar decisions about marriage among their own members.

I can assure you that there are not hundreds, much less millions, who know what my beliefs are, and that you know way too little about them to know if they are an "unholy mess." I also have never heard anyone who considered them self to be be a Christian who supported anything about Westboro other than their Rights to Free Speech and Religion.

I hope this clears some misunderstanding up. It does illustrate how the people I was trying to give some understanding about are painted as something very different than they really are by people with knee-jerk reactions based on having been flooded with misinformation. It's hard for a person to treat them with the same respect for their beliefs that the person wants for them self after having been sold on how they are full of hate for that type of person. (I hope that last sentence parses: too many pronouns.) The fact that ignorant loudmouths rant out hate in forums like this makes it even harder.

Joe Stutler

Sorry, Randy, I seem to have conflated a few things in my post that I shouldn't have, didn't intend to. This site isnt particularly mobile-friendly, so commenting here when not at a computer is problematic. Apologies proffered for some of my comment. I saw Christians persecuting others not of their faith quite a bit in my almost 2 decades of service. Following news reports from many different sources I know that it still happens far too frequently. Christians in this country aren't persecuted, neither in the military nor in the civilian world. They are the ones doing the persecuting. Many on the left, as well as many on the right, don't like to see the entanglement of church and state. If there is going to be Christian prayer and symbols and such in government, any and all other faiths must be granted equal access. Sure, that pisses off some Christians, but that's their problem. They just want their special privilege to continue, and want others to be denied the same privilege. That's not how it works under law, as they are starting to learn. The rest wasn't intended to be directed at you so much. Yours was a lengthy post with some stuff I agreed with and some I dont. When you lump all folks of a particular political leaning together so broadly (" the left" for example) you damage your message. The latter part of my comment was more about the Daniels and Brians that show up here and trash the threads. They're the WBC types who have no respect for the ULC and our tenants. They're the ones who should leave and not come back until their mental illness is properly treated. Rational people can disagree and do so civilly. You appear to be one of those. Sorry for the confusion.

Dan

still up to your old tricks huh joe? When you cant refute anything said you outright lie and make up slimy innuendos and so on. You do remember that you were warned about this before by the mods right? Dont try and deny it because the mods can confirm this.

I would be very careful in your posts about making up lies about people as the mods wont be tolerating this for very long.

As long as someone agrees with you, they are happy happy joy joy in your book, but the second they disagree or show that you dont know what your talking about, then you go on the attack.

As I said, be very careful about this Joe as the mods are not going to tolerate your actions for very long before they take action.

Dan

Sorry Randy it IS law. Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence of the US Constitution clearly DOES give Congress the right to tell the US Supreme Court what cases they can and cannot hear. And that Randy is NATIONAL LAW as the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. Meaning Congress does not have to pass any bills for the President to sign as the Constitution already grants them this right, meaning this is already law and has been since 1787 when the Constitution was finally ratified as the supreme law of the land.

SO I am historically correct, constitutionally correct and factually correct. But since you dispute that, tell ya what. Go to ANY law school or local attorney and ask them a simple question. "Is the US Constitution the supreme law of the land" and see what they say. And be ready for a major smackdown as they will tell you flat out without hesitation that it IS the supreme law of the land. Now ask any politician if they must follow the Constitution, and they (weather they do it or not) will tell you that they DO have to follow it and even the US President in his oath of office says that he will follow the Constitution and obey it.

Now if all of these people have to obey it, that means that it is the final word. And if it is the final word then that means when it says that Congress can make regulations and rules on what the Supreme Court can hear, then that is law and does not need them to pass anything.

Sorry Randy, it clearly is YOU that is not being truthful nor historically or constitutionally accurate.

Or are you saying that Justice Kennedy-Marshall-Roberts are all not telling the truth when they clearly said that that Congress CAN do what I showed you they can do as per the US Constitution?

Dan

Randy, I did not refer to you as a "family leader' that was completely Joe's snarky insult. When responding please make sure you have the right person.

Joe Stutler

Daniel, who are these "mods" you're ranting about? Modulators? Models? Modernists? Modifiers? I've not been warned about anything by anyone here, except for the usual lunatic fringe railing against some alleged sins or some such nonsense. Still haven't gotten your meds adjusted properly, I see. Talk to your psychiatrist.

Joe Stutler

Family Leader is a radical regressive far right wing religious group fronted by Grifter Bob Vander Plaatz. They fleece their flocks of funds to try to infest government with their own special brand of hatred and bigotry. Daniel would fit right in with them if Westboro Baptist ever kicks him out for being too extreme even for them.

Dan

Dont play dumb Joe, you know darn well who they are as they have dealt with you in the past. Remember when you were calling mary a name that rhymes with witch and begins with a B? They shut you down REAL quick.

So keep up your actions and see what happens for a second time.

Joe Stutler

Cite source please.

Joe Stutler

Please cite specific source of "mods" saying anything aimed at me and only me specifically.

Randy Ford

It's hard to follow the 300 posts here even on a computer monitor. I know how hard it is to use a cell phone for such things. Some of the post are very long, too. Wait a minute, are those all mine? Uh, never mind.

I too am bothered by the immature behavior, especially on a site for those who supposedly are focusing on ministering to the needs of others. However, I guess it's no worse than in the rest of the world in which we live.

Dan

Whats wrong Joe, scared to ask the mods or have someone ask them and learn the truth? Or ask mary?

All anyone would have to do is look at the closed threads and see your abhorrent actions ad name calling and personal attacks, and then right after you started the personal attacks on mary (and I see you didnt deny it because you cant) all of a sudden now you start with the snarky attacks being very careful not to cross the line as you used to do. Since you wouldnt do this on your own it is entirely reasonable that the mods spoke to you about your actions.

You can deny it all you want, but the fact remains, if this was a court of law and all this evidence was brought before a judge and jury; you would have lost your case.

Joe Stutler

You've made assertions regarding "mods". The onus is on you to prove those assertions. You've been challenged to prove your claim. You refuse, instead choosing to rant. You've failed. Your streak remains unbroken.

Dan

No assertions have been made in any way. It can easily be proved with just asking.

Randy Ford

Daniel, See my May 8, 2015 at 10:35 pm post concerning Jurisdiction Stripping. The paragraph you quoted only applies to the court's appellate functions, not to cases where it has primary jurisdiction. Therefore it can't be used to remove a Justice from the court. Also see my above mentioned post for an easy workaround if the court sees that type of law as being harmful.

Dan

Randy, see the US Constitution. It makes no difference if it is an appellate court or a local court or the Supreme Court, the Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 give Congress the constitutional authority to tell them what they can and cannot hear.

Sorry you cannot refute the US Constitution no matter how hard you try.

Joe Stutler

[May 9, 2015 at 9:42 am] "No assertions have been made in any way. It can easily be proved with just asking."

Daniel, you made numerous assertions regarding "mods".

[May 9, 2015 at 8:26 am] "You do remember that you were warned about this before by the mods right? Dont try and deny it because the mods can confirm this."

[May 9, 2015 at 8:54 am] "Dont play dumb Joe, you know darn well who they are as they have dealt with you in the past."

[May 9, 2015 at 9:29 am] "Whats wrong Joe, scared to ask the mods or have someone ask them and learn the truth?"

[May 9, 2015 at 9:29 am] "Since you wouldnt do this on your own it is entirely reasonable that the mods spoke to you about your actions."

[May 9, 2015 at 8:54 am] "They shut you down REAL quick."

As I said, you've made numerous assertions. You've been asked to provide sources to prove your assertions. The onus is on you. You've failed to provide any source at all. Having once again failed to prove your assertions, everyone here - including yourself - know you to be full of male bovine excrement. Once again you've shown yourself to be a liar. Once again you've shown yourself to be a troll. Westboro is calling you home. Scamper off now, little dimwitted troll.

Dan

all they have to do is ask the moderators or check with Mary to see I am telling the truth and show that you are trying so desperately to hide your past actions as it reflects badly on you.

And if I wasnt telling the truth, then why are you trying so hard to say otherwise?

Guess you need to check your own membership in westboro.

And back to the name calling again are we Joe? That seems to be your fall back position when things dont go your way. But I will put my post count up against your post count any day of the week and I will bet almost anything you want that my post count will be far and away quite a bit smaller then yours by a factor of over 50 to 1 with you being the 50 and me being the one. In fact Joe in the last email I got from here there were 50 posts, and you took up 38 of them. So tell us Joe, who is the, as you said "troll" here?

Joe Stutler

Daniel knows naught of the Constitution nor of case law. He can quote bits of text but he has no understanding of what the words mean. His opinion is just that: opinion. He's virtually always wrong due to the combination of arrogance and ignorance which he gleefully embraces. I imagine his home life is terrible, and his past filled with dark secrets. It's no wonder he's such a bitter, twisted troll. Why he doesn't seek comfort from his own kind is beyond my ken. Why he doesn't seek professional help for his psychiatric issues is beyond my understanding.

Dan

Nice try joe, but yet again you are telling falsehoods. How can I be wrong on the Constitution when I am copying and pasting DIRECTLY from it? In short I am using the words that the Constitution has printed in it, so if I am wrong on that, then you Joe are claiming the Constitution is wrong since that is where I am obtaining the info from.

You really do get it twisted when you cant prove anything wrong. It seemingly infuriates you to no end that you cant disprove something that blows your beliefs out of the water.

You are just a sad person Joe.

Joe Stutler

"all they have to do is ask the moderators..."

That's not how it works, Daniel. You've made assertions. You fail to prove them. You've once again failed. You're batting 1000.

See: dictionary.reference.com/browse/onus

Dan

yea that IS how it works Joe. You asked me to site my source and I did. You cant now whine about the answer.

Joe Stutler

The only "sources" you've "cited" are your own statements (not credible), unknown "mods" (who appear to not exist), and someone you refer to as "Mary" (again, no evidence of her existence. Poor troll, failed again. I'll continue to pray for you, even as you seek to prey upon others.

Joe Stutler

Kevin, here in the ULC you do indeed have to respect other perspectives. If you come here attacking others, using your faith as a cudgel to bash others of a different perspective, you will deservedly be labeled a bigot and hate-driven. If you don't want to play nice with others, this is not the church for you.

themonastery.org/aboutUs

Galen M. Ross

Thank you Ric, I do know that there are lots of people who have a differing of opinion from mine on here but, the thing that we all need to remember as ministers is that it is not our doctrine it is Gods and Jesus's doctrine that we must support, Jesus inspite of what some may think never stated that we should turn people away in fact he stated that He was sent for the sinners, in fact, he lived among sinners and talked with them and, of them as they were his friends. I can see Jesus performing weddings for Gays, why can't people today be more Christ like and less "Christian".

Randy Ford

Minnesota's Baker v. Nelson 1971 set precedent that definition of marriage excluding same-sex ones doesn't violate the following by SCOTUS stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." The review was a mandatory appellate review, so the rejection set it as a precedent.

First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association),

Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment),

Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and

Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).

The DOMA case opinion goes to exhausting lengths to state that marriage is defined by the states, and it's not a Federal question. The 2012 case is called UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

I suggest that people read the actual majority opinion in important cases. They lay out the full argument and reference precedents. Much of the time, like in the Hobby Lobby case, almost everything published in the press is incorrect. In it, for instance, no new precedents were set. SCOTUS didn't do anything but apply existing decisions.

The pertinent parts are stated from other ruling referenced, so you don't have to search all over to understand what the court says. It isn't in contract legalese. They are mostly written to be as easy to understand as the U.S. Constitution.

Dan

Sorry, but the first two decisions have what is referred to in law as "supremacy" meaning they are the decisions that must be followed as any attorney-law school or judge will tell you if you would just ask. The only exception to this is if the first two decisions are overturned or over ruled. And that isnt going to happen.

Nice try but it still proves that YOU are in error. Want to try again?

Dan

Nothing was said about any "judicial stripping" that was all you. Federal law clearly says that in this case since Guinsberg and Kagen preformed SSM's, that their judgement in this case can be called into question.

Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

28 U.S.C. Section 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that when a party to a case in a United States District Court or the US Supreme Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge. But since there are no other judges higher then the Supreme Court, then this clearly means that the right to make a decision on this shall be removed from that judge, else why would they print it that it would be taken from that judge and moved to another judge?

The 14th Amendment states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But what you SSM supporters dont seem to understand, that same argument can be used by people AGAINST SSM to continue to ignore SSM No matter what the court decides and there is nothing you can do to stop it or change it. Not to mention the 1st Amendment bans making any laws that would violate the right of a citizen or a business owner to practice their religion or follow their religious teachings or tenants.

Sorry, but you lose all the way round.

Dan

yes Joe, you are. And your posts prove it more and more with every word you place here. Your parents must be so proud as you have a bright future in politics where the truth does not matter.

Dan

Oh really Joe? And I suppose you can try and claim this as a fake as well?

3:21PM EST ULC Monastery Universal Life Church Monastery Headquarters 2730 1st Ave S Seattle, WA 98134 USA

Please reply above this line --

Daniel Gray,

A request for support has been created and assigned ticket #46XXXX. A representative will follow-up with you as soon as possible. Our office hours are Monday-Friday, 9am to 4pm, Pacific Time.

If you wish to send additional comments or information regarding this issue, simply reply to this e-mail.

As I said Joe, I wouldnt make any long term plans for this site. You have angered some people in California. And since I just spoke with them about 4 minutes before I made the first post to you, there is NO way that you could have spoken to them, so making up a falsehood is not helping you in any way.

The Moderators will be taking care of you Joe as your actions cannot be allowed to continue and degrade this site nor allow you to act like you own it and people need to do what you say or else.

Enjoy the bed you made Joe, as I am very sure that you wont be liking the end results.

Joe Stutler

Gray, once again you succeed in letting us all know that coproencephaly is a terrible scourge that affects far too many in our nation and around the world. I hope you get the treatment and care you so deserately need before you completely succomb to it, and before you infect young Madison and others you come into intimate contact with. Gesundheit!

Dan

If you insist on telling people what your medical condition is Joe, then feel free.

Dan

Yes I know and the phone number goes to Washington and the email goes to California. Seems you are trying yet again to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And as for the headers?Ok Joe here ya go

“from: ULC Monastery Orders / Questions date: Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:21 PM subject: Support Ticket Opened [#46xxxx] mailed-by: themonastery.org

Sorry Joe, you cant refute this. You are in so much trouble you cant even BEGIN to understand how much trouble you are in. But then again you walked into this with eyes wide open and mouth flapping in calling names that are a direct violation of the Terms of Service you agreed to when you started posting.

As I said, the moderators will be dealing with you very soon, and if I were you I would not be making any long term plans concerning this site.

Joe Stutler

Still not able to comprehend simple English, Danny? I hope you don't infect young Madison. (remember, just because your god might tell you pedophelia is okay doesn't mean it actually is)

Dan

Keep it up Joe, you are just digging your hole deeper and deeper with each word that comes out of your mouth

Joe Stutler

46xxxx is not a valid ticket number.

All your email shows is that you lost faith in what passes for a god in your coproencephalic state and decided to try to appeal to a real authority - the leaders of a church (my church) you don't even acknowledge as legit. My, but how low you've plunged.

Dan

Getting nervous Joe? You will find out what the ticket number is soon enough when the moderators talk to you about your actions and your continues vile insults and acting like you are the big bear on this thread.

As I said before, I wouldnt be making any long term plans for this site or concerning it.

Joe Stutler

You've never demonstrated any prowess as a constitutional scholar before. Suffice it to say your streak remains unbroken.

Dan

Only because you cant refute what I have said or shown to be factual.

Nice try but you have failed yet again Joe.

Randy Ford

Danial, read the whole paragraph, not just the part you want to believe. This is a well established part of Constitutional Law that has been used at least five times.

Yes, they meant to do it; it was not a mistake. Alexander Hamilton wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, #80 I believe. I didn't refer to it in the first posting because it doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices recusing themselves.

"2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

"***" added to indicate area of interest."

Randy Ford

Sorry, I walked away and realized I misstated something. Judicial Stripping doesn't apply to removing a SCOTUS Justice from office for failing to recuse them self. I incorrectly just wrote wrote "recusing." I guess I rushed the post because I was just repeating myself.

Dan

Sorry Randy, you can claim whatever you want but you cannot refute what the paragraph says. Nor can you refute what Justices Kennedy-Marshall and Roberts have said and they are ON the US Supreme Court (Marshall is dead now but his words and writings still abide)

So for you to insist I am wrong, you are also insisting the three US Supreme Court Justices are wrong and the Article 3 of the US constitution is wrong all because you say so.

Joe Stutler

Funny how you reference SCOTUS when it suites you and deny them when you don't like their decisions, Daniel. You're more full of contradictions than the Bible.

Dan

Deny the Supreme Court? Since when. I am the one quoting from them, YOU on the other hand are saying what they said is not factual.

SO now I guess we know who is the one denying the court, and it clearly isnt me. yet more of your falsehoods Joe as anyone can see by simply reading the posts.

Joe Stutler

Daniel, see: Engel v. Vitale Lemon v. Kurtzman Wallace v. Jaffree Lee v. Weisman Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union The wall of separation of church and state is at least as old as our nation.

Randy Ford

Daniel, you don't seem to understand that most people aren't here to "Win" by having another "lose." We are sharing our understanding of things in case it helps others, and seeing what others share to see if it can help us.

I don't care if you choose to ignore the conditional aspect of the phrase "In all other cases" any more than I care if you choose to take verses, or parts of them, out of their context. Be ignorant of what you choose; believe what you will.

I do suggest that you research what it means in judicial language to have a conflict of interest. Just like when reading sacred or medical texts, one must understand the meaning of the words and phases used in that context. Hint: having performed a same-sex marriage where it was legal at the time does not cause a conflict on rulings if prohibitions of such marriages violate Constitutional Rights. However, giving a speech to convince people that a definition does or does not violate the Constitution would cause such a conflict. A quick google search to find arguments that agree with you generally will not lead to a greater understanding of anything.

Joe Stutler

Randy, well-said, good Sir.

Dan

Joe, See the Article 1 of the US Constitution. It clearly says that only CONGRESS has the authority to make a law or give weight of law, NOT the supreme Court. As such every decision you posted is in clear violation of Article 1 Section 1 and as such is not worth the paper its printed on.

Secondly your lack of knowledge of the US History is breathtaking. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The very FIRST mention of this mythical separation of church and state was in 1802. That means Joe that it was mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to his Baptist detractors a good FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER the Constitution was ratified as the law of the land.

Now the ONLY way to change the Constitution is by a Constitutional Amendment, PERIOD! And at NO time or place according to the Congressional Library OR the Congressional Voting record was ANY FORM of a Constitutional Amendment ever passed in the Congress and sent out to the states for the 1st Amendment to have this mythical Separation of Church and State. As such it does NOT exist in the Constitution.

Now as for the Supreme Court deciding it does, again NO. Article 1 Section 1 bans the President AND the Supreme Court from making a law. Not to mention the Supreme Court is very STRICTLY LIMITED by the Constitution in what it can and cannot do.The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it. and they are: Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction]; and in this case they can only hear or decide the Constitutionality of same, they are NOT allowed to claim something is there when it is not nor are they allowed to suddenly find "new" rights that have never been rights in the first place.

2. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and

3. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” 

If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para)

“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

Do you see?

So! Where are provisions addressing this mythical Separation of Church and State located in the Constitution?

The answer any competent 3rd grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”

Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: When they have fabricated individual “constitutional rights” outside of their Constitutional Authority so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”! But they did not and could not change Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution. And lest we forget Joe, the 10th Amendment clearly says that if the authority is not expressly given or authorized to the federal Government or any of the three branches therein, THEY DO NOT HAVE IT AND NEVER DID HAVE IT! And sorry Joe, I dont see anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the Supreme Court the right to "interpret" it. And if they dont have that right then any decision they made interpreting the Constitution is null and void.

A 3rd grader understands this, so the question is why dont you?

Joe Stutler

I'm sorry, Daniel, but you are not authoritative on Constitutional nor case law issues. While the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was coined in 1802, it was used to describe the concept as ratified in our 1st Amendment. I give more credence to the Founders who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights than I do to someone with no legal training (nor demonstrable understanding) over 200 years removed. I, and the vast majority of U.S. Citizens, will continue to proceed with the knowledge that elementary school children are taught in our schools: SCOTUS is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. Continue to rant away. Perhaps a small but vocal minority will agree with you. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to operate our country within the law.

Dan

Nice try Joe. Never said I was the final word on the Constitution now did I? That was all you as you are upset that I am able to show that you have no idea what your talking about.

Facts are facts and anyone can check with the links and items I posted to see I am quoting directly from them so they cant be faked in any way.

So you go on believing what you wish Joe, and the rest of us will go on believing what is written in the Constitution and the founding fathers papers as it can clearly be seen that reality does not intrude on your ivory tower.

Krvin DeFranco

Comment has been removed.

Joe Stutler

"Good luck getting this miscreant, despicable trash off the blog." Your mom's here, Kubli? Which one is she? (I'm guessing Brian)

Joe Stutler

I don't feel you need to apologize for your post, Randy. While perhaps none of the posts here have violated the letter of our tenants, many (including some of mine) certainly violate the spirit of them. I wish this commenting system had some of the features of Disqus, where comments can be Up- and Down-voted. I wish this commenting system had some of the features of Facebook, where someone can both Report and Block those harassing and trolling. Both of those systems also allow for editing of comments to fix spelling problems and such. Both of those systems allow for deleting - sometimes things are posted in anger, and it would be nice to have the ability to remove them. Both of those systems don't horizontally compress nested replies to the point of unreadability. One thing that some here don't seem to understand (or perhaps do very well understand but choose to ignore) is that the ULC is pro same gender marriage. Read both the Our History and Moving Forward sections of the About the Universal Life Church page. It's pretty clear. (see: themonastery.org/aboutUs ) Why folks who have no intention of following our tenants, who have no interest in basic civility, who don't even recognize our church as a church ("...this is a website and not a church...", "A church is brick and mortar, it is not a website ...") even bother to come here is a real head-scratcher. As the Our Mission section of the About page says, "The communication and fellowship of our scattered millions of ministers, we believe, is just as valid a form of worship as the weekly services held in some of the world’s more segregated and elitist religious institutions." You've done fine, Randy. No need to apologize for wanting decorum, for desiring all to follow the Golden Rule. Reasonable men and women can disagree on issues, but not all who come here are reasonable.

Joe Stutler

The above post is no longer relevant as Mr. DeFranco's threatening post has been deleted.

Brian Cook

Validity is is in the eye of the beholder. But the concentrated truth is in the eyes of God and his mighty kingdom. You are a mere man, mortal and disobedient to his will. I pray for you Joey. You have so much potential and yet you let if fail you. I pray that in time you will realize your true potential and adhere to the power of the Holy Ghost.

Joe Stutler

Once again, I feel compelled to explain to you that my name is “Joe”, not “Joey”. I’m beginning to think you’re a dimwitted critter as well as a rude one. I’ll pray for you.

Joe Stutler

Kevin, some of your faith perspective do come here and wield the Bible like a cudgel. Others come and respectfully share their perspective. If you're of the latter group, you are in keeping with our two tenants. If you're of the former, you deserve whatever blowback you call upon yourself. You get to decide.

Krvin DeFranco

Joe, this dialogue you're engaging in with Daniel is unacceptable in my church. Please stick to the two tenants required by the ULC to continue posting. If you are one of those who can't adhere to this maybe you should find another church. Just saying. Calling names and questioning someone's sanity because they disagree with you. Come on Joe, you're better than that.

Joe Stutler

Take it up with Daniel, Kevin. Considering what I just read from you in another post (date stamp [May 9, 2015 at 3:29 pm]), you are a double amputee - you don't have a leg to stand on. BTW, the ULC - MY Church - supports same gender marriage (themonastery.org/aboutUs) . If you don't like it, tough. Take your delusional bigoted hate speech back to your Westboro cult.

Joe Stutler

Yes, Kevin, it is getting tedious. Sharing one's opinion here in this church is one thing (which I support, as long as one abides by the tenants of this church ). Trolling is another thing entirely. If one is sharing and following the tenants, welcome. If one is trolling, one simply shames whatever faith that one purports to embrace.

Krvin DeFranco

relative to you.

Krvin DeFranco

It is what it is Stutler, last reply.

Joe Stutler

You are what you are. Stop being a bigot (or take your hate speech someplace that haters like you are welcome: godhatesfags.com), or expect to continue to be labeled just as you're labeling others. Galatians 6:7, Kevin. It is what it is. Let's hope that's your last reply. Your hate speech is getting tedious.

Joe Stutler

Good on ya, Ric. Kevin and his fellow trolls have no respect for themselves, no respect for God, no respect for the ULC. It's sad to see them shame themselves so terribly and consistently. Perhaps someday they'll find the loving God, the loving Christ, and repent and atone. Until then, I hope they find another bridge to live under. They're certainly welcome over at godhatesfags.com

Krvin DeFranco

You got nothing for me Basen, crawl back under your rock, but that won't protect you when Jesus arrives. no more replies to you either. The truth is irrefutable and dialoguing with you is an exercise in futility be content in your deviance I don't want anything to do with you.

Joe Stutler

See, there ya go, Kevin, spewing more of your douchebaggery. Fred Phelps called, he'd like his shtick back.

Ric Basen

De.. you are showing the typical right wing hate group made up phony christian attitude. When you are wrong and backed into a corner you start calling names and acting childish. You apparently have never actually studied scripture or you would not have that attitude. Christ was of love and understanding ... he condemned hate and bigotry. You and your buddies are serving the other 'master' and not the one from above. Joe has been trying to reason with both you and Daniel but the underworld has a strong grip on your hearts to the point that all you can see is hate. Apparently the Scriptures above really upset you as they pertain to the Love of Christ, Those of us who do, understand them ... the rest get mad and act as you have.

Ric Basen

Daniel, the difference is, if you own a commercial establishment that provides a service to the public.. IE a wedding chapel who preforms weddings...you must conform to all laws concerning the running of that business. If you are in an established recognized church, you are not required to. You would not be required to marry someone not of your faith as an example. There is a difference.

Dan

Sorry Rick, but there is NO law that can be made to force me to violate my religious beliefs or tenants, I dont care who tries to do it as that would be in violation of at least two US Supreme Court decisions (employment and santeria) as well as the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

You really should do your homework BEFORE posting what is clearly your opinion

Ric Basen

Daniel you apparently do not have a business license nor have ever had one. Every State in the US and most localities require you to register a business and you must also register it with the IRS. When you do that you become a business that must follow ALL of the laws that are in effect or come into effect. You can not cherry pick the laws like you do the bible.

Your attempts to claim that everything comes from your interpretation of the constitution are not based in facts. If your religion believes in attacking or harming another..you break the law. Religion does not go above the law. Even Christ instructed you to obey the law of the land. But you think you are above even his teachings. Sorry.

Dan

Sorry Ric but your assumption is incorrect. I have had a business license for well over 40 years so I do in fact have just a wee amount of knowledge as to what a business can and cannot do.

But that is very kind of you to make false claims just to try and prove your point and failing to do so

Ric Basen

Daniel, you are really quick to judge others and call others out ... if you really do have that license, you should know better than to make the comments you have. Unless that is, that you've never bothered to find out what the laws are that you are supposed to be following. If you are doing business with the public then you must follow the laws of the state and government. If you are a private religious church and licensed as such, then you are exempt from some of them. IE: Catholic Priests do not have to marry non-Catholics or divorced people, since both are condemned by Christ. BTW being gay never was.

Dan

Not quick to judge anyone Ric. But if I see a response to me that is both stupid and wrong, I am going to answer.

If that bothers you then you have my apologies.

And nope sorry, Hobby Lobby clearly shows that you dont know what your talking about. Not to mention the Religious Freedom Act signed into law by no less then Bill Clinton, which says that I can REFUSE service to anyone, no matter what state or local law says; if they violate my religious beliefs or teachings. meaning I can refuse to serve homosexuals no matter if my business is open to the public or not. And the 1st Amendment clearly says that NO ONE can make a law or enact a law that would force me to violate my religion or its teachings in any form or in any way.

Maybe you should read the 1st Amendment and the Santeria decision by the US Supreme Court out of Florida, just to name two. They will be very enlightening to you and force you to change your statements as they are not only wrong, but legally unenforceable as well as a violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Game set and match. You lose

Dan

Not quick to judge anyone Ric. my apologies if the truth is upsetting to you.

And nope sorry, Hobby Lobby clearly shows that you are wrong. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected" meaning that no local-state or federal government or agency can make a law that will force me to violate my religion or religious beliefs. The 1st Amendment and the Santeria decision by the US Supreme Court out of Florida, say the exact same thing. You should read them.

Kenny

That is a for profit company and not a church. Huge difference. But I happen to agree that no one should be forced into marrying someone if they do not support the couple. I also am amazed anyone would ask someone to bless their wedding by someone who would condemn the act of SSM itself . The only problem is the bible also says something that the religious zealots once used to condemn interracial marriage. So where and who decides what the bible says and when you can use it to say no.

Joe Stutler

Those are businesses, not bona fide religious institutions, Daniel. But of course you knew that already.

Randy Ford

There is a problem here, but it's not really with same-sex marriages being allowed, but with the laws that require any non-government contracted business from rejecting a potential client.

Any sole proprietor could have religious or other objections to some potential customer or request. Would you make flowers for somebody convicted of murdering one of your loved ones?

The market will, over time, take care of people who discriminate. Gov't shouldn't be involved in how a business chooses its customers. If you perform weddings for a living, will you take customers who you know will not pay? What if you doubt that it is truly without compulsion?

Dan

Sorry Kenny, your claim is not factual. According to their tax records they are a 501(c) meaning they are NOT a for profit. And that also lends the rest of your claim to suspicion that you got it wrong as well.

Dan

These are 501(c)'s Joe, meaning they are NOT for profit.

Yet again you try and mislead. Or are you now going to say the IRS is not telling the truth as it does not fit your agenda?

Joe Stutler

Daniel, I see no evidence that the Idaho business is a 501(c)(3). If it is (provide sources, please), the question then becomes are they registered as a bona fide religious institution or a regular 501(c)(3).

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/how_many_lies_is_the_religious_right_willing_to_tell_in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

Dan

Then you are not looking hard enough Joe. They provided their tax returns that clearly show they are a 501(c) to the judge, and as it stands they are now public documents.

Joe Stutler

The faithinourfamilies link is in regards to Canada. Not applicable nor relevant to the U.S.

Joe Stutler

The religionnews link is in regards to a business (a farm), not a bona fide religious institution. Again, non sequitur... Not relevant nor applicable.

Joe Stutler

I still see no evidence the Idaho business is registered as a bona fide religious institution 501(c)(3). Not one bit. Not my job to cite your sources for you. Look up arguments and onus.

Randy Ford

The whole 501(c)(3) discussion is useless. It doesn't matter how they choose to deal with the IRS. The IRS code is not a law concerning the establishment of religion. All individuals or association of individuals have the right of freedom of religion, regardless of the tax structure they choose. This has always been true, but you can read the SCOTUS majority opinion on the Hobby Lobby case to easily confirm it.

Dan

Sorry Randy, the high and mighty Joe swore that no person of the cloth had ever been sued for refusing to preform a SSM. I showed him that was not the truth. Then he whined that one of the links I gave was in Canada, but if you read his post he never mentioned that they all had to be in the US or any other specific country; he just said that NO pastor had ever been sued.

Once I showed he was wrong yet AGAIN, then he goes on the offense of implied insults and so on thus showing his true colors. He has already been told to calm it down by the moderators because he used to be very vicious, but he is still up to his old tricks.

Thats why I responded to him and thats why I am responding to you. Since you were civil I will be civil right back.

Now you know, as Paul Harvey used to say; "the rest of the story"

Joe Stutler

Poor Daniel, you reject His blessings, you reject His teachings, you reject His love. I will continue to pray for your soul.

Dan

the only thing I reject here Joe is YOU and your inane posturings. Even when you are proved wrong and are show the who-what-when and where that you are wrong you refuse to accept it and then start with the snarky and slimy innuendos and personal attacks.

Keep doing this and soon the mods will have to step in and AGAIN remind you that you cannot be doing this, or since they already warned you once, they might just take action themselves, the decision is theirs. Either way I am betting that you wont like the results.

Joe Stutler

What two ministers in Iowa were allegedly sued? I know for a fact that Iowa law has a specific exemption for bona fide religious institutions. Here is the text of Iowa Code 216.7.2.a: 2. This section shall not apply to: a. Any bona fide religious institution with respect to any qualifications the institution may impose based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose.

goo.gl/tL4UwM

Joe Stutler

Name-calling? Sure, you keep engaging in that. Calling homosexuality a "perverted lifestyle" is simply douchbaggery on your part. You're an ignorant, arrogant bigot. That's just me stating what I believe. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I believe in a far grander universe than you and your tiny, hateful worldview. if you don't agree, that's fine. Just stop the name calling. It's unacceptable in my church. Don't want to? GTFO. You know where the exit is.

Randy Ford

Much of the time the people in the Bible didn't follow Gd, but I haven't seen indications that Gd wanted women to be chattel. First indication is Gen 2:24: the man leaves his family to be one with his wife. If the woman was chattel, it would be her leaving.

The man's family taking care of a widow is another example of hew being honored, not just property. Punishment for "spilling seed" on ground because the man didn't want to treat his deceased brother's wife properly is another one. Read Pro 31 to see how women were seen.

Gd required accurate knowledge of parents, partially because the Messiah's linage had to be precisely known. It was a legal requirement that had to be met.

Gd gave the Law because people weren't happy to follow the one with His spirit upon him. Therefore, he had to include much that may only have been true for a limit time. Some of the food requirements, for instance, may not have been an issue all of the time. Male homosexual acts could have defiled the land: diseases. Also, Gd gave commandments to keep a separation between his people and the others around them. I, as a Christian, am not under the Law.

Has anybody found anything that would have prohibited two wives from having sex together? In the parts of the Bible written to the Christians, Heb 13:4 says essentially that there is no sin in the marriage bed. A man with multiple wives is less desirable for leadership, but I don't recall it being prohibited. I don't see that a man with two wives who became saved could divorce either of them.

The argument against two men being in a marriage is that there must be one head.

Anyway, I don't see that the Word gives me the right to say how you work your marriage. I'll share whatever wisdom and knowledge I have with anyone who seeks it.

Krvin DeFranco

Cut it out Basen. I have given you scripture, after scripture, after scripture where God states He hates homosexuality and it is an abomination to Him. Doesn't matter what I think, you think or anyone else on this planet thinks. He is the true Master and He does not approve of homosexuals. . Jesus Christ is going to slam dunk you and your perverted, deviant, degenerate lifestyle. Deuteronomy 23:17 states, There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the price of a whore or the price of a dog(homosexual sex) into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God. Case closed. Stop pretending to be a Christian. Remember, God will not be mocked. I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ, and am done with you.

Ric Basen

Kevin .. calling names is your strength? You refuse to follow the teachings of Christ and you claim to be the judge over me. Interesting how your mind works. Christ NEVER said that he hated gays nor did he ever condemn them. Only man has. A few here seem to be above Christ and know all there is to know. Your cherry picked verses do not include the entire story. I can cherry pick verses to say Christ says to go hang yourself. We all know he never said those words in that order but those words were used and could be cherry picked as you do to totally change the meanings. I suggest you do some real soul searching and prayer that your eyes may be opened to the love of Christ.. instead of the hate of Satan that you are swelling in.

Krvin DeFranco

I didn't call you names Basen. There is no name I could call you that would hurt you more than you have done to yourself already. I also didn't mention that you put another mans penis in your mouth, or let another man put his penis in your anus and vice/versa. If you can't handle the expose, tough stuff. You are dead wrong trying to twist scripture to fit your depravity. God hates your lifestyle. It is unequivocally put in print and you can't handle it. I guess we'll all see whose right and whose wrong in the end, but I won't be gloating over it, because you and yours will be just more souls yet again rebelling against God but using up all their chances at God's forgiveness. Sad, very sad. I don't really care, you have made your own choice and I'm not responsible for your actions. Repent while you have the chance. Remember Deut 23:17,18. God does not even want your tithe, let alone your unrepentant presence in His house. Your soul is at stake, so put your carnal unseemly lusts aside, and do what God requires to get to heaven. Your choice. If the Word of God didn't have any scripture concerning Homosexuals, or lesbians, or heterosexual fornication and deviances. I wouldn't be discussing it. It just doesn't fit your agenda and lifestyle. I have many resources at my disposal to make informed conclusions, not judgments about what God expects from me. All I can do is witness the Word, that's my job. I plant the seed, God cultivates the seed. If it becomes a tare it not my business. But neither you or anyone else will prevent me from teaching the truth about God's Word. You say I cherry pick, well here's a challenge. Show all of us, either in prior text or ensuing text after the stated verses where God gives the green light to homosexuality. If you can't, I will understand.

Ric Basen

I would challenge you to find a complete story where Christ condemned being gay ... he did tell the centurion to go back to his male lover and care for him after Christ healed him ... Christ never condemned him nor told him to leave him.
All of the scriptures that people love to cherry pick actually are part of larger comments or stories to a specific group IE: ministers. Paul said that a minister should not take a wife nor should he lay with another man.. But you take it out of context to say all should not lay with another man. Which is incorrect! The OT story of Sodom is a story of greed and slovenly living and not caring for guests to your land... it has nothing to do with gay sex. But it is twisted to have a very different meaning. if you bother to actually read ALL of the story .. you find it's real meanings.

Also the laws of this land clearly state that ALL persons are equal and should enjoy equal rights. There are no exceptions.

Krvin DeFranco

Stop hiding behind your feeble defense and answer the question Basen. Show us where God endorses homosexuality.

Brian Kneeland

I totally agree! The behaviors that put people down are the major regard - homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament about temple prostitutes (mostly non Jewish). So - I think we both agree on these issues!

Krvin DeFranco

Comment has been removed.

Joe Stutler

So, not really a Christian, eh Kermit? That post surely didn't meet the standard Christ Jesus set forth in Matthew 5:38–5:42. Asking for His forgiveness while continuing to sin isn't how it works, Kubby.

(and where the hell do you and Daniderp come up with "Kahn" as a pejorative? I've had friends whose last name is Kahn...good people. Unless...no, couldn't be....right? Oh crap, Kevin and Daniel are cuddle-buddies and sitting side-by-side as they rant! Shucks, I didn't mean to out you two...sorry)

Krvin DeFranco

Brian, don't let Basen get under your skin. He does not believe the Bible is divinely inspired. So whatever you believe, he will say the opposite. He doesn't study himself to be approved, a workman rightly dividing the Word of truth. He is of his father and his father's deeds he shall do, twisting and contorting the word of God Don't say anything that will get you censured on this site, calm down, stay in the Word and remember who wins in the end. You don't have to apologize to anyone here for your beliefs. They are as valid for you as their's are to them. God is not the author of confusion and that's all he's trying to accomplish by planting doubt in your beliefs. move on.

Ric Basen

De.. how do you know what I do and do not believe in? You claiming to be God now? You have absolutely no idea where I'm coming from nor do you care.. you have a hate filled agenda to push and like a few others here will do nothing but make offensive comments and continue to be extremely Anti-Christian. Too bad.
The Bible while inspired .. was in fact written by man, edited by man and re-written by other men. There are hundreds of books out all claiming to be the 'one true' book. No one is better than another. All have the basic premise that God is love. it doesnt matter what they call God as long as they follow the teachings of God. Which are to love God and your fellow man.. if you dont do that ... you are not following his teachings.

Brian Cook

Ric Basen you are the one who is showing that you are hiding behind sheep's clothing while demanding that real lovers of the Holy Word lay down their belief and embrace your way of life. Give the little boys and girls a chance. Not all of us want to see the continued sexual abuse and mental distortion of our youth by the sexual predators of homosexuality. Give our kids a chance to grow up naturally before you attempt to alter their way of thinking. Can you refrain from desiring to sleep with our sons???

Brian Kneeland

Also - he ignores statistics that child abuse is usually from heterosexual people and not homosexual people! Knowing the facts helps!

Ric Basen

Brian Cook.. you apparently have never actually seen any facts on child abuse nor on homosexuality. As Brian Kneeland said... the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of abuse comes from straight parents.

Marriage is being destroyed by abusive spouses and divorce.. not gays. Blaming gays for the failure of straight marriages and straight people is a cop-out.

BTW Gay people dont want to sleep with your kids. It's Straight parents who do that.

If a gay marriage has an effect on your marriage.. one of you is gay.

Joe Stutler

Do understand that the ULC is supportive of same-gender marriage, without opposing "opposite marriage". See the Our History section of the About Us page: "While proud of the work we’ve done and the victories we’ve won in areas like religious freedom and the legalization of same-sex marriage...

While it's fine to disagree, a respectful conversation is likely to garner more support for your perspective than rudeness. Just something to think about as you represent your particular faith tradition.

themonastery.org/aboutUs

Joe Stutler

You're stopping here? Good to know. Have a great rest of your day.

Dan

I am not stopping anything. I am saying that YOUR childish actions will be stopping soon. SO I assume that you cant read, as my 6 year old great niece Madison who is standing here beside me asked "Uncle Dan, why cant this person understand English?" And I had no answer for her.

Joe Stutler

Oh, so you don't intend to stop your boorish behaviors. I see. You're predicting my actions will be stopping soon? Remember what is written in Leviticus 19:26 - "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes." Perhaps you can explain to young Madison how you're defying the Lord, and how she should have nothing to do with you: Leviticus 19:31 - "Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God."

My 17-year-old read some of your rants and said "WTF is wrong with that guy? Is he mental?" Of course I did have an answer for him.

Dan

Typical, you always have to seemingly one up someone just to justify your posts.

As I said, keep up the name calling and the personal attacks as it is just making it worse for you

Joe Stutler

Poor Uncle Dan. Ignoring the Lord's commandments, making young Madison unclean. Don't blame me for your failings before the Lord.

Dan

Ok thats the last straw., I will be contacting the mods by phone. You have just stepped over the final line.

Joe Stutler

Please do. Please explain to them how you brought your niece into the mix to insult me. Please explain to them how you blame me for the Bible's teachings. Please explain to them how you don't even acknowledge my church as a legitimate church, yet you want them to police me when you defile my church. Oh to be a fly on the wall, or an NSA telecom monitor...

Dan

I didnt insult anyone, I stated fact. If you can understand that then her statement was correct. And Come tomorrow I will be making a nice little trip to the Law Office.As I said Joe,this time you crossed the line.

May I suggest you hire an attorney.

Joe Stutler

I stated what I believe to be fact, expressed my opinion. You know what they say about goose sauce... I have a good feeling I know what a competent lawyer will tell you. Hope you get an honest lawyer, else you might just be in for a lightening of your wallet and a hard lesson learned.

Dan

Sorry Joe,but what you did was illegal. You slandered me and I will not allow that. I will be talking to the Monastery's main office tomorrow morning and I will be talking to my attorneys tomorrow afternoon and I will be giving them a copy of your post. We will be filing a complaint demanding your real name and address which this site is legally required to provide, and then I will let the law take it from there.

You have tried to run roughshod over people in this site like you owned it. You have stepped over the line. I suggest you hire an attorney.

Joe Stutler

Please explain exactly how I have slandered you, for if that is indeed the case then I will certainly apologize.

Dan

Sorry but way too late. Your apology is not accepted. You have called a female here "a *itch" and stated that if she talked and acted like one then she was one.

You have constantly called names and attacked persons that proved you wrong even after the mods warned you. And you can continue to deny it all you want but simply asking them will confirm this.

You have called me a bigot and a racist. And now you make improper and slanderous remarks about me and my great niece? Oh you have not only stepped over the line, you sir have JUMPED over it with both feet!

As I said. I will be taking to the head office tomorrow and demanding that either they deal with you, or my attorneys and myself will. And I can assure you we wont be as gentle as the mods would.

I would strongly suggest you hire an attorney as you are going to need one.

Joe Stutler

Daniel, you misunderstand. I have not apologized to you for anything. I said "I will" apologize if I have slandered you. I do not see where I could possibly have slandered you, so no reason to do so at this point.

I have not called anyone on this thread a "*itch". Not once. Scroll up. Scroll down. Cite specific post with link and datestamp and we'll take it from there. Until you can produce evidence, you're just talking smack.

I have not attacked any person who has proved me wrong. I have not called anyone who has proved me wrong any names. I have NEVER been warned by any "mods" or gods or broads. Clods, on the other hand....sure, you and a few of your ilk have warned me, but you don't even recognize my church, so your rants here are naught but howling at the moon.

You have said things that I find to be rather bigoted. The only two instances of the word "racist" (aside from this one) in this entire thread come from you and your apparent sockpuppet (or fellow traveler) Kevin. How sad that you feel you must lie in a feeble attempt to make me look bad. Epic fail, as usual.

I have in no way slandered your niece. I have in no way slandered you. That you felt you must bring an alleged 6-year-old into the discussion to fight your battles for you shows how tenuous your position is.

Go and take your rant to your attorney. Likely they will tell you that "butt hurtz" isn't an actionable issue. Perhaps they will explain to you just how wrong you are. At this point, I hope your attorney sees you for the foolish git you are, and cleans out your wallet.

I won't be bothering my attorney on a weekend over your baseless and meaningless rants. Indeed, I won't be bothering my attorney at all over this. Until I receive communications from your attorney, I won't even be considering your empty threats. I will be praying for you.

Dan

No trying to weasel out of it now Joe, you cooked your own goose. I read what you posted to my attorney and he claimed that it WAS slanderous and it WAS chargeable.

As I said tomorrow I will be calling the sites home office and tell them either they deal with you or I will.

You cooked your own goose child because you let your mouth write a check that your body cant cash.

Well come tomorrow you will be paying for that check with interest! Hope you like the rates that you are going to live by

Joe Stutler

"Weasel out of it"? Quite the opposite.

I have no evidence that you even have an attorney, much less that you've talked to one.

Go and waste your time and money.

Dan

keep up with the attacks and remarks Joe, you are proving my case for me.

Your best option is to shut up now, but you wont do that as your ego wont let you. And I am not the only one that you are doing this to Joe, you are also doing this to Kevin DeFranco.

As the old saying goes, when you are digging a hole and the hole is over your head, STOP DIGGING! Sadly for you you have used a backhoe and have dug the hole so deep that you couldnt get out without a rope and a ladder even standing on the tip top of the scoop at full extension, both of which you didnt bring.

You put yourself into this position and now you are going to pay the price.

And as anyone can see when you thought you could talk your way out of this you were all nice and goodness, and when you found I was not having it; then you reverted back to your old ways of personal attacks and name calling.

Joe Stutler

Your continued empty threats don't really have an impact. Perhaps try them on someone who is afraid of bullies...that someone isn't me.

Dan

they have a word for people like you Joe, its called "Pharisees" as you are doing the same thing that they did, proselytising. maybe you should read Matthew 23:15 and take it to heart.

Joe Stutler

I can think of several words for you. I shan't share them here. Get those meds adjusted.

Dan

I didnt need to know you were on medication Joe.

Dan

No, it just does not show what YOU want it to be. Nice try but facts are facts and you cant change them

Joe Stutler

I'm sure He has a reason for denying you the Gift of Understanding language, Daniel. Perhaps someday He will show us the reason for doing so. Until then, I will do as He tells us and Pray for you to find Salvation. I trust He has a Purpose for even those such as you.

Joe Stutler

As there have never been any "mods" taking any action against me, you continue to slander me. And you continue to show your bigotry and hatred of people who are in my state a protected class and elsewhere still enjoy the same equal protection under law that we all enjoy. Call your "mods". Call your mages. Call your mother for all I care. In fact, how about you do call your mother...share with her your behaviors towards others, how you shame her on this Mother's Day Eve.

Dan

Sorry Joe, you are making up stories yet again and it clearly can be proven just by asking the persons that take care of this webpage and Mary, you remember her dont you Joe? The same woman that you repeatedly called a name that rhymes with which and begins with the letter B.

And right after the moderators saw this that thread was closed and you had to become a nicer person, something that you are falling back into your old habits yet again. SO dont try your stunts in claiming this didnt happen as it is very easy to prove it DID happen by just asking two people, the Moderators and Mary.. Protest all you want Joe but the fact remains you are not telling the truth.

Joe Stutler

You've asked, and no answer has been forthcoming. No "mods" intervened on your behalf, no "mods" suggested nor demanded anything of me, no "mods" communicated with me at all. Your continued claims that your "mods" did any such thing is pure fabrication. Had you even the slightest of evidence, I'm sure you would have posted. Had you even some unrelated piece that you could attempt to spin to fit your agenda you would have long since posted quotes and links. You have nothing. You're still batting 1000, still a 100% failure rate.

I'm curious, who pays you to troll here?

Dan

Again Joe, I will put my post count up against yours any day of the week and mine will be LARGELY less then yours. IN this thread alone you have over 100 posts, I have a grand total with this one of 27.

So tell us again Joe exactly who the troll is here? I know you see that person in your morning mirror.

Joe Stutler

Q: What does post count have anything to do with the definition of "Troll"? A: Nothing. Troll: noun. 1. a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting. Troll: verb 1. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

So, in answer to your question, "So tell us again Joe exactly who the troll is here?", you are the trolling troll, Daniel. Who pays you? Are you naught but a sockpuppet of Shirley Phelps-Roper perhaps?

Dan

Keep up the name calling and personal attacks Joe, you are only making it worse on yourself.

Joe Stutler

I thought you said you were stopping. [May 10, 2015 at 8:46 am]

Joe Stutler

Take your rants to Daniel, Kevin. You two make such an appropriate couple. I bid you both the blessings of a beautiful life together.

Krvin DeFranco

I gave you ample space to stop your attacking and name calling Joe. This has happened on every thread, the outcome is always the same. You make statements, people reply, you tell them to document their claims; and after they do time and time again, you start the name calling, question their sanity, question their beliefs, call them transgressors, or question their heritage. What exactly is your problem Joe? Is this the only place you've ever had a perceived feeling of victory? The only thing you've accomplished for yourself is building your vocabulary by trying to intimidate others with words. You seem to be a malcontent. I'm willing to bet when you get to paradise you'll be mad at God in 5 minutes. So sad. So here and now I'm calling out all Christians to get into intercessory prayer for YOU even though you don't believe in our God, or the Bible we hold as truth. I thought you were better than that but I guess I was mistaken.

Joe Stutler

There seem to be but a handful of folks who come here and troll, Kevin. You, Daniel, and recently Brian. I wonder if any/all of you are closeted or in denial about your sexuality...that seems to be a thing for some who rant and rail as you do. I'm not worried about your version of any gods because the three of you show yourselves to be just plain silly and rude and not at all in touch with anything divine. I'll keep praying for the three of you, and those of your ilk, to be saved, to be cured of whatever demons are twisting your minds so terribly, to come to know Him, and come to understand the Golden Rule.