Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A done deal, and given Connecticut’s deep blue electorate, one not likely to be overridden by amendment.
Probably good for McCain, though.
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”…
In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…
The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”
Here’s the opinion. Skip ahead to page 21 for the crux of it, declaring gays a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence. What “class” you are pretty much determines as a rule whether you can be discriminated against by law; if you belong to a class that’s “suspect,” i.e. historically powerless and persecuted, then the legislature has virtually no leeway against you. The Connecticut Supremes decided they couldn’t call gays a fully “suspect” class because the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t declared them that (yet), so they opted for “quasi-suspect” based on four factors: (1) historic discrimination, (2) whether sexual orientation is related to one’s ability to contribute to society (this is here to give the state extra power to regulate the disabled), (3) immutability of sexual orientation, i.e. is it a choice or is it inborn and thus unchangeable, and (4) whether gays lack political power, which starts on page 28 and is the most interesting section of the four.
All in all, the analysis is similar to the California Supreme Court’s, which also used an equal protection argument to strike down their state’s marriage statute. The fatal blow for gay marriage opponents is the fact that the state already allows civil unions for gay couples; I think laypeople look at that and assume that that means the state, having acted in good faith, will be given the benefit of the doubt when gays inevitably sue for full marriage rights, but as I’ve tried to explain before, it doesn’t work that way. To discriminate by law, you need a good reason. Admitting that gays should be entitled to all the same rights as married couples but not the label of “marriage” itself forces the court to conclude that the distinction is purely semantic, and semantics simply ain’t good enough as a “good reason.” From page 62:
Although we acknowledge that many legislators and many of their constituents hold strong personal convictions with respect to preserving the traditional concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution, such beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not constitute the exceedingly persuasive justification required to sustain a statute that discriminates on the basis of a quasi-suspect classification. ‘‘That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex couples—i.e., that the ‘historic
and cultural understanding of marriage’ has been between a man and a woman—cannot in itself provide a [sufficient] basis for the challenged exclusion. To say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’ [Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 635]. Instead, the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself [see id., 633, 635]. Because the ‘tradition’ of excluding gay [persons] from civil marriage is no different from the classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the basis of ‘history.’ Indeed, the justification of ‘tradition’ does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 7 N.Y.3d 395 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting)…It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage.
Exit question: Time to start talking about Obama’s judicial appointments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »
Evangelicals are only a small portion of Christians, and either way, saying people of one group believe on thing isn’t the same as speaking for that entire group.
For instance, people believe that you’re an intolerant bigot. This doesn’t mean that all people believe that, just that people do. Clear enough?
1. I haven’t said that.
2. It’s simply the truth. Non Christians don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, so you obviously can start a conversation off assuming they do.
I would never presume to speak for you, or anyone else who thinks like Phelps does. But I proved my point. Paul said on more than one occasion that he wasn’t speaking God’s word but rather his own. Are you calling Paul a liar?
Also, Timothy was a letter written about scripture, the only scripture that existed at the time, what we call the Old Testament. You’d be making an idiotic statement to try and say it was talking about scripture that did not yet exist.
That’s your opinion. I never once said it didn’t happen. Your big proof is that I said “if” though the truth is that even the Bible doesn’t claim Noah had to do this by himself. He wasn’t cleaning up crap by himself.
Also, at the time, I was merely explaining the problems with the story, the things that non Christians very clearly have problems with. I understand that it’s a difficult story to accept. The Bible says a lot of things that are difficult to accept. This is simply a fact. You would have to be removed from sanity to not understand this.
Again, I spoke of others, not myself. Get a clue.
It’s physically impossible, just as impossible as Adam being able to survive as an infant. This is a fact.
I’ve stated before that it’s likely that God didn’t create a young earth but instead created a mature earth that would be able to support life just as He created a mature human, likely 30 years old. I’m sure I even said it in that exact thread, but that would take away from your argument of me being a heretic.
So you don’t even listen to the youtube videos you like to? Of course not, that’s for others and not for you.
That video talks of several different forms of evolution. He even agrees with one of them. I guess that would make him a heretic as well.
I believe a man’s sin is between him and God, just like your sin of pride and anger is between you and God. I hope He forgives you and helps you learn to find peace and break away from the slavery of this sin, but ultimately that’s up to you.
You would know about contradicting fundamentals of Christianity. Your hatred and arrogance are prime examples.
I’ve explained my view of Christianity and sin several times here. A Christian communes with God. It’s not about Heaven; it’s about having a relationship. In that relationship God corrects His child, pointing out sin. God and JetBoy know whether or not he is sinning. You are not one to judge.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I disagree. I believe it’s one of China’s strengths.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I retort:
This might sound a bit fascist, but I am not meaning to imply any such connotations.
Adoption is a legal matter. Legal matters are regulated by the State and given force by the State. If the changes in who is eligible for adoption change, then adoption agencies must change to comply if they want to continue to enjoy the permission of the State.
Children without legal guardians are the wards of the State. They are, in effect, the State’s property. They have rights, but lack certain freedoms. They need a legal guardian. Adoption is the way for the State to transfer guardianship. If the State sees no reason to discriminate on the basis of gender in the case of marriage, then why would two couples, identical in all ways other than hetero- or homo-sexual be discriminated against?
The Catholic agencies seek to discriminate on the basis of a criterion that is not legally available for discrimination, so they would do so illegally. They chose not to comply with the law, and so closed. I see nothing wrong. If some children do not get adopted into loving homes, that is the fault of the Catholic organization who closed rather than accept the law.
I would expect Catholics to oppose this law. I can understand the reasons for doing so. I don’t think they are correct (logical) reasons, or very good (right, proper) ones, but I think I understand them.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Arguments such as this one tend to go nowhere fast. Liberals often say that opponents of homosexuality oppose it because they are ‘conflicted’ i.e. homosexual.
The fact is that liberal notions of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ permeate the modern world. MadisonConservative is most likely 100% heterosexual but feels that it is unjust to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Oh, now don’t go asking for facts of proof here.
I don’t think he’s hiding anything. If he could, he’d have me burned at the stake as a heretic in front of the world so all would know what happens to those who don’t agree with his version of Christianity.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:00 PM
So in other words, even though I’ve indicated that I’m straight, you’re going for possibly the most schoolyard of attacks by claiming I’m gay.
Ain’t you proud?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Are you a homosexual Viscount? I don’t ask to be condescending toward you or anything like that. I’m an Independant Baptist and the Bible says that ALL sexual sin outside of marriage is offensive to God. Homosexual or heterosexual.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Independent? I knew it. You are with Phelps. Aren’t you late for someone’s funeral?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Then what is his/her purpose of trying to insult me? I think it is more than a little beyond what you have stated.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 9:02 PM
I would say you’re right, but platypus has already shown himself to be so astute as to suggest that a government marriage consummation inspector actually visited Esthier, I think we ought not to dare question his obvious omnipotence.
In other words, the guy’s a turnip.
Yeah. Odd that he’s using that argument. Almost like he was a liberal fascist. Hm.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Because you’ve insulted others and their families, you puddle of camel diarrhea.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I see the trash hasn’t been taken out…still bending over for your gay allies I see, fat fascist boy.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:06 PM
can’t you come up with some new lines? talk about lame. guess you’re too full of HATRED for christians to have any intellect left!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM
And I see you’re still as vile as ever.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I think madisonwacko is in the closet. he sure does have a ‘thang’ for homosexuality!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:08 PM
better than fat ugly and stupid.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Ah, we’ve progressed to not only am I fascist, but I’m fat. Am I smelly and ugly as well?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:09 PM
oh yeah, bet ya smell too!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:09 PM
I don’t even know why you’re wasting your time trying to argue this terrible position Madison..
Are you a sodomite also?
I assumed that you just like to argue and ended up getting stuck with bad positions all the time..
You lost this debate a long time ago.
Hate crime laws offering special protection because of a group’s sexual preferences is a ridiculous concept….especially considering that these hate crime laws would lead to Christianity being outlawed!
How can you defend gay marriage with a straight face Madison?
Now let’s examine your question..
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 9:09 PM
If Phelps is your idea of a Christian, then yes. I hate people like him. They are far worse than the money changers ever were.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:10 PM
doubtless…but you are much uglier on the inside than you could ever be on the outside!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:10 PM
I guess you’re a member too.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Viscount_Bolingbroke,
I don’t think that you are “fascist” (the most overused and least uinderstood word in political vocabulary) as you are (I think) merely following a strain of thought to its logical conclusion.
They deserve religious exemption. The idea that discrimination is wrong per se is fashionable but totally crazy.
Homosexual marriage puts the Catholic Church’s (rightful) discrimination on legal thin ice which is why I say homosexual marriage should not be allowed at all. We all know by now the secondary consequences that this supposedly ‘harmless’ concept entails.
If homosexuals would advocate for same-sex marriage without their armies of lawyers and judges demanding a massive upheaval of religious institutions then perhaps they would not face such stern opposition. But that is not enough for you clearly. I’m glad that you at least don’t pretend homosexual marriage has no consequences for Christians.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:10 PM
I’d much rather be all three than have a heart as black as yours.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Phelps is your code-word for christians…like the liberal wacko you are…you’re really stating your hatred for christians.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Okay, so you’re not a sodomite. Neither am I.
So what is the purpose of supporting them? Do you secretly cheer that they are causing a 20 year drop in their own lifespans? Do you appreciate paying huge sums of money in taxes and legal fees to combat the diseases they spread by their deviant sex practices?
Or do you just support Big Pharma as it develops the drugs necessary to keep them alive so they can hide their condition and infect more people while appearing healthy?
Sorry but there is ZERO benefit to society from perversion and deviant sex, no matter how hard it may be for you to admit it.
When the message hurts, attack the messenger.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 9:11 PM
I am a dark man no doubt, but at least I’m not holier than thou…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Oh look. One poster fell into this trap, now the rest are tipping like dominoes.
As it happens, I’m happily engaged to my girlfriend of over seven years. By the time we’re married, we’ll have been together longer than the average marriage lasts.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM
So you’re Randall Flagg. Why am I not surprised that you’re an imp of Satan?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM
yeah homosexuals ape heteros…or breeders as they contemptuously refer to us as…so you’re saying you’re a top.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM
StOlaf,
Viscount Bolingbroke has indicated that he understands this but doesn’t care.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:15 PM
don’t worry, the day will come and we will see who is Whose…..ya gotta serve somebody…and you already do…you have no idea how terrifying the darkness is….but you will….
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I mean the concept that we are all members of various tribes. They can be social, genetic, geographical, whatever. What they are are dividing lines between what is “us” and “not us.” One tends to focus one’s efforts at furthering the tribe(s) of which one is a part. One can identify strongly with a tribe or weakly.
My implication was that desiring higher population growth stems from a desire to ensure one’s racial/cultural/etc. tribe retains or gains power in the future. Anti-immigration is a classic example of tribalism – keep the other tribe out of our land.
Frequently tribalism is ugly, simple, and unavoidable. It’s a result of our evolution and scarcity of resources.
I’m not sure about Thatcher fixing everything, but she certainly helped. In a way the British culture was its own worst enemy – they are so polite, tolerant, and unwilling to let suffering go unrelieved. They also saw the want and misery of WW2 and its aftermath and chose socialism. Honestly, I can’t blame them. It worked, for a generation.
Now they face a lot of problems they’ve always faced, but with a few more thrown in. I doubt gay marriage is part of it. Roving bands of chavlings are a true problem. Paying people to have babies and then paying them to loaf around is a problem. People getting married isn’t.
Well, if you mean a proliferation of hyphenated-Americans, I agree. Being special because one is a certain ethnicity isn’t egalitarian. I would contend that marriage being restricted based on gender isn’t very egalitarian either.
I agree that too much emphasis on individual rights can cause serious trouble, but so can arguments for the good of society. Though I find arguments based on societal aims as almost always forcing me to give something up rather than to accept something different.
Agreed. I prefer the word “culture” to “spiritual entity,” however.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Strawman.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
How does this aid us in our understanding of the issues on this thread?
[crickets chirping]
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
When a man molests a boy…that man is obviously a sodomite pervert.
Tell me again why should we allow sodomite perverts to adopt innocent children?
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
thats what these people want. because they hate Jesus, and they hate those who are His. thats why they cannot argue the issues, but immediately resort to personal attacks.
and by doing so they reveal whose they are…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I knew it! It *was* exercise time at the asylum!
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 9:18 PM
at least my exercises don’t consist of bending over! bottom boy.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Well I am against immigration which in the last 30 years has been an unmitigated disaster for the Western world. I don’t think that makes me ugly or simple. Am I unavoidable? No, I am avoidable.
The number one social problem in Britain (if you don’t count Muslim violence) is the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family. Homosexual marriage is a part of that. British registry offices have to remove pictures of heterosexual married couples because it is discrimination.
I concur with this statement but I am arguing for the good of society because the scales are tipped so dramatically in the opposite direction.
Fair enough.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:21 PM
have you ever checked out brusselsjournal.com? its a great blog, whats happening in europe is frightening…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM
You mean like the chlamydia that my best friend contracted from the woman he slept with? Considering that gay people constitute only 10% of the population, I’d place a hell of a lot more of the blame of STDs on my side of the fence. Granted, they do account for the majority of AIDS cases in this nation. In the rest of the world, however, straight people win the AIDS competition. As for paying for research against AIDS, I only support that because of children that are still being born with AIDS, as well as men who are raped in prison and contracting it. As far as I’m concerned, if in this day and age you contract the disease through your own free will, it’s your own damn fault and I won’t give you a penny for it.
I support it because it falls in line with my principles about freedom in this nation. Part of it comes simply from the fact that if radical Muslims had their way, they’d kill every last homosexual on this earth. If it pisses them off, I’m probably for it.
Part of it comes from the fact that was I was raised by conservative parents, spent several years in Catholic school being the kid who refused to believe whatever they told me, and learned to look at things logically rather than out of emotion. I’ve heard all sides of the argument, and used to be on your side. I give these types of things a great deal of thought, and came around to the other side because I found it had less conflicts with my views on everything else.
It ain’t easy. As I’ve said, I defend people like you for the simple sake of the fact that the people who normally attack you are also attacking the sensible Christians, and your reprehensible hatred for people of a particular sexuality just makes it harder and more frustrating to stand up for Christian conservatives. You know what, though? They annoy me a hell of a lot more than you do. So keep on trying, bitch.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Disambiguation is in order here:
I see forcing the Church and other religions to do what is morally right as a good thing. Let’s just leave it there, as we know we disagree on what is morally right in this case.
Now, as for adoption, the sticky matter here is that a child is the ward of the State. So the State, which cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (established by this and other cases) cannot allow organizations which will discriminate based on this class to be involved with its wards. Nowhere does the State say you cannot have these beliefs, or even act on them (that same-sex marriage is wrong).
As for the militant organizations of lawyers and those who seek to be aggrieved (such as the wedding photographer case), I have nothing to do with them. Just because they seek to test the limits of the law doesn’t make the law itself unjust.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 9:28 PM
That’s good for you but a depressing statistic.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM
spoken like the good little fascist you are…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM
as long as you and your gay allies get to play god, and decide what is right and wrong
nice.
next you’ll want to decide who lives and dies…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Not at all. As I told you yesterday, according to him, I’m worse than Phelps.
How does asking people if they’re gay contribute?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:30 PM
The State should NOT be in the position of handling adoptions if they are stupid enough to hand kids to self professed sexual perverts!
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 9:31 PM
How about having the state forcing you gays to do what is morally, and physically right, and cease to engage in your unhealthy deviant sexual lifestyle?
you know your behavior is a drain on medicare, health costs, insurance costs, etc. and since we can ban trans fat so people will be healthier, we should ban homosexual sex, for your own good.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM
how do you like being forced to do what is morally right there Adolph Bolingbroke? it would save our healthcare system, and its for your own good, and the good of the children.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM
When a man molests a child, that man is obviously a pedophile. It doesn’t matter what the gender of the child is. Are you saying that somehow straight pedophiles aren’t as bad as gay pedophiles?
Again, I’m waiting for you to provide me with proof of any link between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is kind of a trick question because there is none, but I want to see what you link to.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Yes I have. Its a great blog. As is Gates of Vienna.
I implore you to read this article, How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism, parts one and two, which explains the evil of mass immigration in light of the Book of Genesis. The arrogance which led the human race to build the Tower of Babel is the same that grips today’s multiculturalists.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:35 PM
ever hear of NAMBLA??? hmmm??? where is the heterosexual equivalent??
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Not me. However, it is a curious thing when seemingly normal people suddenly go off the deep end and start spewing insults.
Makes one wonder just what it is that might be hidden which could explain the unforeseen outburst.
But directly ask? Not me.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Sort of like “there’s nothing new under the sun.”
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM
I bookmarked it, I’ll check it out thanks…
yes it is a sign of the times….as we had a one world system at that time, it is forming again…this time with the Beast at its head…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Don’t be ridiculous.
What is the similarity between one dangerous and unhealthy sexual perversion and another dangerous and unhealthy sexual perversion??
The similarity is they are both corrupt people who lack self control.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Is NAMBLA that organization of Catholic priests?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
could be….but its just another example.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I think the beast was there before but today we know he’s here. They didn’t know.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Well we are back at the point of agreeing to disagree, seeing as there is nothing else that can be done.
What you believe to be moral is 180 degress from what was once universally accepted to be moral and what I still believe to be moral.
Our competing understandings of morality are in direction contradiction with no possibility of reconciliation.
I hope that homosexual marriage gains no traction and is consigned to the dustbin of history which in time I believe it will be.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM
So you are equivocating two consenting adults having sex and an adult having sex with a child?
Uh huh.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Oh dear, I do believe he’s run out of ammunition.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Please refrain from making these kinds of statements, Madison.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Nah. It’s the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Weren’t you the one asking if my mother is gay? That’s fairly direct.
Yes, that’s true, only I’ve never believes right or apacalyps to be normal in any sense of the word.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:47 PM
As for the heterosexual equivalent, have a gander at pro-pedophilia activism. The Netherlands makes NAMBLA seem like a treehouse club, and it ain’t a gay-dominated movement by a long shot.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:48 PM
If his best effort to prove the nonexistent link between homosexuality and pedophilia is some organization that is internationally reviled by heterosexual and homosexual communities alike, then he gets nonsequiters in return.
After all, he’s so much fun to toy with.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:50 PM
I’m not even going to bother replying to what you wrote because it’s a waste of my time. I just want to point something. How flawed your logic is. You claim to be a Christian. I asked you TWICE if an openly loud and proud homosexual could be a saved Bible-believing Christian and on there way to heaven. Here was your answer:
Your answer is not only dangerous to yourself, but for the sinner. “A man’s sin is between him and God,” which is what you just said. You’re literally saying the Bible has no answer for willful sinning. That is unbelievable. How dangerous is that not to warn the homosexual about their destructive lifestyle. The same lifestyle that’s gonna take them straight to hellfire! Practicing sins like homosexuality DOES separate a person from God, and a TRUE BORN AGAIN BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN SHOULD KNOW THAT!! AND TRY TO WARN THE LOST!!
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither FORNICATORS, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.” Matthew 7:21
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Yes.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Not surprising coming from a guy who believes in FEMA death camps for straights.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Then don’t reply to me.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Fine, but if you continue to liken the Catholic priesthood to NAMBLA you will lose my respect. So please refrain. Thank you in advance.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Then shut the fuck up and stop wasting hers.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:54 PM
“But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” 1 Timothy 5:6
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Take it up with the Catholic priests who do what NAMBLA does, not me. The good ones wouldn’t have the reputation if not for the bad ones.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:56 PM
I was saying that the root impulses behind much anti-immigration are more simple and primal than many would acknowledge. I’m not in agreement that immigration has been all bad, like most things in life it was good and bad.
I don’t see removing pictures as a big deal, but then again I didn’t campaign to have them removed. If you see it as a symptom, so be it. I have never been to Britain, but my impression from British sources is that the welfare society is their biggest social problem. If one of the consequences is a failure of families then we’re on the same side, but perhaps see things a bit differently. I see the root cause as welfare, you see it as social decay.
OK.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 9:56 PM
In other words, women should not have pleasure in their life.
How quaint.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Does the state have to benefit from a marriage? I already pay my taxes, I didn’t know that my marriage was also a service to the state. I had bought into the founders’ concept of a limited government.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Anyone who exposes you as a heretic you call Phelps. Nice little setup you have going there.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 9:58 PM
The same could be said for beer, McDonald’s, designer clothing, jewelry, sports cars, and numerous other things. What’s your point.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Well, how else is he supposed to make himself feel better for his inability to please a woman?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:00 PM
What’s to be done when you use identical rhetoric?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:00 PM
It is a big deal and it is a logical consequence of insane anti-discrimination legislation which you are in favour of knowing full well (and supporting) what happens when such legislation succeeds.
The welfare society is an aspect of the problem. Non-traditional families are subsidised and thus encouraged by the State. Homosexual marriage is of piece with this.
They are complementary.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Just the ones with positive things to say about the man. Would you prefer I got your route and argue that anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Simple. Make all lesbians feel subhuman for being able to do what he is unable to do.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:02 PM
platypus, please see my 9:25 response. I guess it was in moderation till now.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM
No doubt.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM
That’s not what I said.
Sodomite wannabe’s such as yourself will be sent there also!
I know you’re “confused” about your sexuality…but you don’t have to cuss and shout at the “breeders” just because you’re losing the argument.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:04 PM
You shouldn’t imply that the Catholic priesthood is wicked in its entirety. You acknowledge that is some priests (”the bad ones” – a very small number btw) and not all so theres no need to tar the vast majority with the same brush.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Well we are back at the point of agreeing to disagree, seeing as there is nothing else that can be done.
What you believe to be moral is 180 degress from what was once universally accepted to be moral and what I still believe to be moral.
Our competing understandings of morality are in direction contradiction with no possibility of reconciliation.
I hope that homosexual marriage gains no traction and is consigned to the dustbin of history which in time I believe it will be.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Fair enough. As long as I get my right to marry, I’m cool with whatever has gone before and what will come after.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I think that’s a good philosophy to take in general. I’m not a fan of women dressing like prostitutes out in public (in bed sure), but I’d be tempted to walk around naked around them.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:06 PM
You have the right to marry.
Find a woman and get married if you wish.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I agree with you, but I also feel the church brought much of this upon itself by refusing to be open about what was going on. Had they dealt with this situation openly, I think people would feel differently.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:09 PM
NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU!
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Is that really all you have left? Calling everyone who disagrees with you a homosexual? I get the feeling that this all has to do a lot more with projection than suspicion.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM
That’s right. The more people like Esthier talk the more they expose themselves as liberals posing as Christians.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:14 PM
You’re the one vehemently supporting gay marriage knowing full well that it will lead to Hate crime laws, child molestations and the outlawing of Christianity.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I think they have may brought it on themselves partly by denial–but the extent to which the media and Hollywood has seized on it is evil. The amount of people who have given up the Christian faith because of the constant drumbeat on this issue is astounding and very sad.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 10:15 PM
People like Esthier lie from the very beginning. And then have to continue to lie to not expose what they really believe. It’s very sad when you think about it. I’m not joking. She’s on my prayer list. I want to see her saved and in heaven. This isn’t about winning a debate for me. I don’t spend my time posting messages for fun.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »