That says a lot, and puts things more in context. Good luck to you and them.
- Status
That says a lot, and puts things more in context. Good luck to you and them.
I have not read the decision, so if Cards81fan is correct, that we are talking about contractual recognition, or civil unions, I have less of a problem with it. Though, it really should be decided by the voters, not the court. And, we seen that recognition of civil unions is generally not enough to put the issue to bed, so to speak....
State governments had laws on the books against miscegenation [mud-sharkery] long before 1922. The Feds "stuck their nose in" to reverse those state laws.
Ah but they're not re-defining church teachings. They're redefining government control of something, that government should not have outlawed in the first place. Here, now, the marriage ban that was overturned isn't a religious thing. It's a government thing. A government thing that many were perfectly happy denying to citizens of that same government, and many of whom cited religious grounds. In our system of government, deny on Religious grounds.
It's amazing that so many in history think government has no place in the church, but return to overtly advocate for the religious sanctity of government-enforced segregation, slavery or marriage restrictions, or whatever.
What the government does is and should not be religion, religious or founded in religion. Invariably there are many people of multiple religions or lack of religion: How can one religion do what's best for them all?
Personally I don't think the government has any business controlling any recognition of marriage in any way, but while we're here in the status quo we might as well make that simple-yet-overcomplicated government function available for anyone who wants it. Take my $50, give me a stupid piece of government paper. I was married before my wife and I ever set foot in the county clerk's office. That's not religion: That's common-law.
Everyone should have the right to be a fudge packer.
We asked Caesar to certify marriage, and he did. For years, the standard, even in the church, for marriage is the official, governmental standard. It didn’t matter to us if you stood before a minister or the justice of the peace, if you were married, you were married. Marriage was official. Caesar said so. The church affirmed.
http://spilledwine.org/2012/05/sleeping-with-caesar/
http://spilledwine.org/2012/05/sleeping-with-caesar/
Reread your history and my post.
You are exactly right. Who cares what the people think? Higher taxes, Obama Care, total anarchy! YES!!!!!
The issue I have with the ruling is that it was based on "Constitutional Interpretation"! No where in this glorious document is homosexuality, or "gay marriage" addressed. In this case, I would assume they used the 9th Amendment that protects rights not enumerated. However, an enumerated right was voted on by the people, and 75% agreed that "gay marriage" will not be recognized in Oklahoma.
Edit: Guess I should have read the article before posting. Should have guessed it was some form of discrimination! Limitless definitions there, open for all to point and cry "Discrimination"!!!!!!
My bad...... carry on!
To each there own, I could care less. I'm more worried about the liberal agenda "Constitutionally Interpreting" my 2nd Amendment rights, though at least these rights are defined verbatim! (arms=a weapon, especially a firearm; instruments or weapons of offense or defense)
Yeah well, isn't it just like the FED to watch 50 experiments then shut each one down at a time of their choosing?
- Status
Similar threads
