HitsRus;1738676 wrote:I am not buying that we have a slippery slope danger , in as much as a religious freedom issue where churches might be forced by law to marry same sex partners if they offer the service to heterosexual couples. Our government can remain true to the Constitution in both the 2nd and the 14 th just by defining terms. If you define marriage as a heterosexual union while still maintaining a state sanctioned civil union for LGBT couples, you can be true constitutionally to all parties.

HitsRus;1738676 wrote:I am not buying that we have a slippery slope danger , in as much as a religious freedom issue where churches might be forced by law to marry same sex partners if they offer the service to heterosexual couples. Our government can remain true to the Constitution in both the 2nd and the 14 th just by defining terms. If you define marriage as a heterosexual union while still maintaining a state sanctioned civil union for LGBT couples, you can be true constitutionally to all parties.

isadore;1738685 wrote:marriage has been defined, it is a basic right that should be there for heterosexual and homosexual couples.

QuakerOats;1738474 wrote:Please articulate your thoughts on the following 'damage' with particular emphasis on their exponential increases vis-a-vis the current regime's policies which is accelerating said 'damage', and the pathway to 'repair':

$18 trillion in national debt - 44% of which occurred in just the last 7 years

93.6 million Americans without a job -- which is 42% of available working age people, 16-68.

Lowest labor participation rate since 1977, and accelerating

46 million Americans on food stamps ----- record high and accelerating

11 million on disability --- record high and accelerating

20 million illegal aliens and/or criminals ---- record high and accelerating

obamacare ---- disastrous legislation continuing to inflict massive damage to health care and the economy

federal agencies turned oppressive and tyrannical


Thank you.

rmolin73;1738659 wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Al Bundy;1738699 wrote:No law exists at the federal level that says that. If they want that, write the amendment.

HitsRus;1738715 wrote:But there is no definition of marriage except thru religious authorities. For all people of the book, the bible is quite specific in talking of the union between man and woman, and it expressly warns against or forbids homosexuality. Most certainly, a secular state should provide the same benefits equally among it's citizens according to the 14 th amendment, but the second amendment demands that religious liberties not be infringed, hence religious institutions should not be forced to provide "marriage" for same sex couples if it is against their religious beliefs. Progressive fascists notwithstanding, fairness dictates that you can't pick and choose which elements of the constitution to follow based on your agenda alone.

HitsRus;1738715 wrote:But there is no definition of marriage except thru religious authorities. For all people of the book, the bible is quite specific in talking of the union between man and woman, and it expressly warns against or forbids homosexuality. Most certainly, a secular state should provide the same benefits equally among it's citizens according to the 14 th amendment, but the second amendment demands that religious liberties not be infringed, hence religious institutions should not be forced to provide "marriage" for same sex couples if it is against their religious beliefs. Progressive fascists notwithstanding, fairness dictates that you can't pick and choose which elements of the constitution to follow based on your agenda alone.

HitsRus wrote:I am not buying that we have a slippery slope danger , in as much as a religious freedom issue where churches might be forced by law to marry same sex partners if they offer the service to heterosexual couples. Our government can remain true to the Constitution in both the 2nd and the 14 th just by defining terms. If you define marriage as a heterosexual union while still maintaining a state sanctioned civil union for LGBT couples, you can be true constitutionally to all parties.

HitsRus;1738715 wrote:But there is no definition of marriage except thru religious authorities. For all people of the book, the bible is quite specific in talking of the union between man and woman, and it expressly warns against or forbids homosexuality. Most certainly, a secular state should provide the same benefits equally among it's citizens according to the 14 th amendment, but the second amendment demands that religious liberties not be infringed, hence religious institutions should not be forced to provide "marriage" for same sex couples if it is against their religious beliefs. Progressive fascists notwithstanding, fairness dictates that you can't pick and choose which elements of the constitution to follow based on your agenda alone.

Wolves of Babylon;1738725 wrote:Has this actually come up yet? Has any religious institution been forced to marry a same sex couple? Or is this just people whining?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

DeyDurkie5;1738729 wrote:Convenient you quote the bible when it goes with your argument. The bible says a lot of stupid shit.

DeyDurkie5;1738729 wrote:Convenient you quote the bible when it goes with your argument. The bible says a lot of stupid shit.

isadore;1738728 wrote:gosh a ruddies your arguments would be a lot stronger if you did not base them on the 2nd Amendment, you should use the First Amendment "free expression" clause not the Right to Bear Arms. Wow that is embarrassing for a member of the Fraternity council.

HitsRus;1738744 wrote:The strength of my argument doesn't change because I typed the wrong amendment. Neither does it make your argument any more valid. I am not embarrassed nor do I care because the accuracy of the intent is unambiguous. I am quite secure in being human ... In fact, I revel in it. I was as usual, multitasking yesterday... And typing on a message board is a low priority.

HitsRus;1738757 wrote:LoL . I guess you have to resort to personal attacks when you can't win the substantive argument.

Have a happy Fourth of July, Isadore. I hope that you truly appreciate the exceptional document that our founding fathers left us and for our posterity.

I have already won the argument. The Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution according to that document has said marriage is a basic right. It ended the ban on gay marriage. We have heard arguments just like yours after the 1967 Loving decision. Bigots tried to use the free expression clause to undermine that decision and they lost. For example Bob Jones University used the Book to justify its ban on interracial dating. They lost their tax exempt status and finally had to abandon the policy. <o></o>

Enjoy the Holiday and remember the document that is the basis for the day, &#8220;all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,&#8221; that includes the right to marry.<o></o>

HitsRus;1738757 wrote:LoL . I guess you have to resort to personal attacks when you can't win the substantive argument.

Have a happy Fourth of July, Isadore. I hope that you truly appreciate the exceptional document that our founding fathers left us and for our posterity.

superman;1738733 wrote:Yrs it has come up. The city of Cor d'Alene Idaho made a law that forced churches to marry them.

. We have heard arguments just like yours after the 1967 Loving decision. Bigots tried to use the free expression clause to undermine that decision and they lost.

HighRoller74;1738770 wrote:Sort've, but not really.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp

Only people being forced, or those that do so for-profit. So basically churches are exempt, but if you own a place of business that is specifically for marriage, you are required.

HitsRus;1738771 wrote:Since they have historical evidence of the origin of the term " marriage" being a union between a man and a woman, we should be sensitive to that.