Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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 ... 14 15 16 17 Next »
so you do speak for Him!!
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM
And to those who agree, you call them stupid, ugly, smelly, and homosexual even when they have stated otherwise.
You know, god hates hypocrites.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM
again, how do you know? unless of course you speak for him.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM
uh your statements reinforce just how stupid you are. with every post….its SO obvious.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
You know, you’re probably right. After all, the deeply religious people did reject Jesus and were largely responsible for His execution.
It was the prostitutes and tax collectors (the lowest of the low) who welcomed Jesus and were welcomed by Him, you know, all the people right hates and enjoys insulting.
Funny thing is, Jesus had plenty of insults for the religious people of His day but none for the people most often reviled as sinners. He didn’t even spend time in sermons calling them out for their specific sins. In fact, the most famous sermon in Matthew 5, instead of calling people out for the sins of adultery or murder, He called out the followers of legalism who believe they’re righteous if only they don’t act on their true feelings.
That actually makes sense. Allowing gays to marry would likely have no impact, but talking about giving gays the right to marry and making such a political and moral issue out of it… I can see that can make a difference in how society views marriage.
Even for myself, the more I talk about it, the more I feel that government should get out of marriage altogether and deal only in contracts. When you’re looking at it as nothing but a contract, I’m sure many people would decide it’s not all that romantic or worthwhile.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Eight years of Catholic school, Christian parents, and self-study ever since.
I don’t have to speak for him to know that he loathes hypocrites. I would think that to suggest that he like hypocrisy is blasphemy.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM
but you claim not to know him, or speak for him, but you sure do a whole lot of ‘ASSuming’ on his part…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
truth hurts, but it isn’t hatred.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I’m not spinning it with the claim that the study supports my view. Kurtz is the one who is making a claim that the study shows some causality. I’m skeptical in the same way that I’m skeptical of the reports and ratings provided by U.S. credit rating companies like S&P or Moody’s.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM
it was actually those who twisted scripture for their own ends, as the pharisees did, and as you do.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM
and of course you’re ’skeptical’ of the implications for pedophilia…which madisonlibwacko ran away from, right?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:04 AM
It’s in the Bible. Do you need a copy? I have an extra.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:05 AM
So you’re saying god likes hypocrites? You really seem uncomfortable making this clear. Just another doubt and fear in your heart, I guess. You should feel what it’s like to have a clear conscience.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I have no purpose here. You’re the one trying to prove something, and you’re the one twisting and cherry-picking scripture. Every time you insult anyone here, you’re spitting in God’s face and showing who you really are.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
hey madison…whassa matter boy, can’t handle this issue, you brought up???
but you wackos always run from the truth…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
As I recall, you ran away as soon as I mentioned Catholic priests.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Not at all. I haven’t insulted you. You can’t stop insulting me. Who’s dripping with hatred here?
You’ve got it the wrong way.
That’s good to know. I’m sure it’s hard for some people to do, especially in these threads.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM
laughable. your purpose here is obvious, to defend gay marriage, and twist christianity into a left-wing ‘tolerant’ new-age religion.
you don’t believe scripture that disagrees with you is even scripture!!! so who are you to complain about anyone twisting scripture?? hubris.
you’ve shown who you are too ‘honey’
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Wow. Logic weeps. So explain all the other countries with gay marriage and no pedophilia movement. Then explain all the countries without gay marriage but let people marry children. You know, Muhammed was a pedophile but ordered the death of homosexuals. Explain that away, schmuck.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 11:09 AM
wow, your own post says that…now you disagree…too funny…moron.
why don’t you go tell to the muslims? since you’re such a hero and all?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:11 AM
oh no, of course not…you are good pure and holy, you could never do anything wrong.
delusional.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM
moron, the catholic priest scandal shows the link between pedophilia and homosexuality….again, you are making my case for me…thanks!
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
You seem to have a lot of animosity for those who actually hold principles and practice them in life. You mockingly call them “legends” and “heroes”. It must be painful to live to unfulfilled, knowing you’ve not accomplished anything.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
If a pedophile wants to gay marry or straight marry that is fine. If he sexually abuses a little boy or girl then he goes to jail. When gay people are already school teachers I don’t see how letting them go home to a marriage increases the risk of pedophilia.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
talk about projection…
more projection. you sure do have a lot of animosity for christians and muslims…those who hold to principles and practice them, you know. but of course only you gay ‘tolerant’ ones have principles..right.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Christianity IS tolerant. We are all sinners, saved by God, not by our works. You seem to forget that.
And no, I haven’t defended gay marriage; there’s a difference between understanding an argument and making that argument yourself. Try learning that difference.
I’ve said multiple times that I think it’s stupid to keep redefining marriage as taboos in this country change and would rather government get out of marriage altogether in favor of only presiding over contracts. But I guess you’re selectively reading my posts.
And now you’re twisting my words for the 100th time.
The truth, that you won’t admit and always ignore when I mention this, is that I do believe scripture. I even believe Paul.
You’re the one who keeps calling Paul a liar.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM
It’s become clear you’re very hateful of others who are at peace with their beliefs because of your own failings and inability to reconcile your own self-loathing.
I hope you have your moment of clarity one day.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM
And yet another insult in response to a post where I did not insult you.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
It’ll hurt like hell if he ever does.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
of course gay adoption and all has nothing to do with it…
link
we’ve seen the future…and it sucks…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM
of course you never insult anyone, you’re too good…while at the same time you damn me to hell..
you’re just a sweetie..
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I’ll pray you do.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM
You don’t think paul’s writing are scritpure…so how do you even know what christianity is and is not? you have your own definition, your own made-up religion of ‘tolerance’ that you call christianity.
a distinction without a difference.
you flat out told me that Paul’s letters were NOT scripture.
oh but this is a new day, and this is your ‘truth’ for today….
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
but you have decided I am not, and am heading for hell….nice…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:26 AM
so you just take what you like out of the bible, and call that ’scripture’ while ignoring the rest, and declaring it is NOT the word of God.
and your guiding principle is, of course, ‘tolerance’…which is whatever the left wants it to be on any given day.
so you are not a christian, and have made up a god in your own image…a ‘tolerant’ liberal god…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM
No, I haven’t. I just posted scripture. If you feel convicted, that’s God, not me.
No, I said that’s what Paul said. Are you calling Paul a liar? Can you answer my question? I’ve asked you multiple times, but you seem to be avoiding it.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM
oh so you’ve decided that IS scripture huh? but what you posted is what you meant. obviously. at least have the guts to stand up for what you posted…don’t run away from it. its obvious.
you are twisting scripture…everything he wrote in those letters is inspired by God…scripture.
what question is that?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The article isn’t clear on whether gays who are married are more likely or less likely to abuse children than gays who are unmarried.
In the present most sexual abuse is on young girls by a relative, often a step dad. Should we prevent women with young daughters from remarriage?
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
a little more from britain…our future…
in this new gay society, children are chattel, for the needs and pleasure of the homosexual community.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:43 AM
whats VERY clear is that anyone who tried to stop it was labeled a homophobe…a bigot…hateful…you know the story.
why don’t you just admit that you are all for this. because this is the result of your policies.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
It was right there, and you cut it off.
Is Paul a liar?
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Right, right. And anyone who even disagrees with you is labeled a heretic, so even if we were doing what you claim, we’d be even.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:49 AM
no. but you are. and even when he said it wasn’t a command from the Lord, that does NOT mean it wasn’t inspired by God. I’ve already answered this. you refuse to see it. just as you refuse to acknowledge what scripture says about homosexuality.
you have a god in your own image. and by claiming to be a christian, you defame the name of Christ.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM
correction, everyone who claims to be a christian, and then picks and chooses what they want from the bible to be ’scripture’ or not…IS a hertic…
please stop lying about me…even though its against your nature…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
here’s what Peter said:
oh but you don’t think Peter was writing scipture either…nice…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Even though he says specifically, “this is me, not God” (paraphrasing)?
Paul says explicitly that he doesn’t believe anyone should marry. And that’s from God you say? People shouldn’t marry?
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM
But it’s you who do that, otherwise you’d acknowledge what Jesus said about calling others a “fool.”
I haven’t and don’t do that. You just have no idea what I’m talking about and thus assume I’m a heretic.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Paul knew what he was writing….
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Jesus called people fools…
Luke 11:40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?
you twist the scripture for your own ends…try reading it in context…..try reading it!
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM
It happened in Great Britain. I haven’t been there for years and don’t understand their politics. I’m not familiar with the workings of foster homes, and not big on anti-discrimination. The first priority in screening out people either at the airport or in a foster home is safety. Inevitably, there is some discrimination.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 11:58 AM
It is painfully obvious here that Jesus is talking in 5:22 about relations with one’s brother (not physical brothers, of course, but fellow believers) and about words said in anger to that brother.
but you are not my brother in Christ, obviously.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:58 AM
and we’re following them down the road to ruin…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM
in heaven people are not married or given in marriage.
Paul is saying people would be better off not marrying and devoting themselves to the Lord…but he also realizes thats not practical for most people.
you need to read the scripture sometimes, instead of twisting it.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:00 PM
How cute. You’re still ignoring my question.
I’ve said the same to you.
44″But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
46″For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
1″Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
21″(Z)You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22″But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
And this one, according to Jesus Christ, is the most important and is to be used to understand all other scripture (Christ’s words, not mine).
12″In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Yet you cannot even do that.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 12:11 PM
lying again. ok.
more lies. I don’t mind it when people call me names. I’m a big boy, I can take it.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM
and what is loving? telling a sinner everything is OK? their sin is no big deal, as they go down the road to hell? that is LOVING?? please….its loving to tell people the truth. thats why Jesus was HATED by people like you.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:15 PM
but you have judged my soul, and comdemned me to hell.
you don’t read what you paste, do you?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM
That’s true. It’s obvious we aren’t brothers, not when you refuse to follow the Jesus.
Yes, that’s what Paul is saying. Is that what God would say? Does God prefer that none of us marry? It would after all mean the end of human existence, since we are also not to have sex outside of marriage.
Did God say, “be fruitful and multiply”?
Not at all talking about what you can take. I’m talking about the very basic, Golden Rule. You cannot treat others as you would be treated. Many of us have shown you respect even though you hurl vile insults at us for our kindness.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM
wow you put your words right in there with scripture!!! nice…so to you scripture is ‘love’ and anything you don’t see as loving could not be scipture!! oh yeah thats real ‘consistent’
and ‘love’ to you is accepting whatever anyone wants to do.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I just answered it before…can’t you read???
I follow the Jesus of the bible…you follow the ‘jesus’ of your own imagining.
the golden rule is TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED…
its very hard to talk to someone who doesn’t know something this basic…
you have not shown me respect. you have accused me of being hateful, bigoted, homophobic, etc. and your ‘friends’ are even worse. accusing me of approving of murder etc.
you are delusional.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:24 PM
No, you didn’t. You said that Paul thinks it’s a bad idea. You didn’t say what God wants. Surely you know the difference.
Jesus of the Bible (it is capitalized, by the way), spoke of the Golden Rule, the one you do not follow and basically urinate all over.
Well, now I’m seeing why you don’t understand me. Your English comprehension is not as it should be, which is fine, not everyone has a degree in English. “Would” can also mean “want”.
You’re right. It is. I’m glad you understand.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM
No, you didn’t. You said that Paul thinks it’s a bad idea. You didn’t say what God wants. Surely you know the difference.
you think God is OK with homosexuality, so its obvious what you know…(nothing)
you don’t even know what it means!!! amazing.
this is what you said:
I understand you all too well.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Esthier you lie about me constantly, insult me, defame me, judge me, treat me like garbage, and then when I fight back, you whine like the little wimp you are.
grow up, get a backbone. oh yeah you’re ‘tolerant’ to the gay community, but hateful as hell to those who disagree with you or them.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM
And again, you won’t answer. Can’t say I’m surprised.
No, you don’t understand what “would” means and thus think I don’t know what I’m talking about. Once again, it is your lack of understanding of what I’m saying that makes you assuming these ridiculous things.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I’m not judging your or mistreating you, and I’m certainly not whining.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I did answer, its obviously above your ability to comprehend…no surprise!
let me know when you say anything that is not ridiculous. I won’t hold my breath.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
you’re a liar. plain and simple.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Esthier, you’re as good as trying to explain freedom of religion to a Wahhabist, or trying to talk about Lisa McPherson to a scientologist.
You’ll get nothing but a lot of abuse in return.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I’ve noticed you on this blog, and you cannot hold an intelligent conversation about any subject. much less this one.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM
No. Once again, all you said was what Paul believed, not what God wants. Does God want people to marry? It’s a simple question.
You’re a broken record with no proof and nothing but Pee Wee Hermon insults.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM
and the following is not clear enough??
I’ll speak S L O W L Y no God does NOT want everyone to marry…was Paul married?? apparently not. was John the Baptist married???
here’s a question for you:
is homosexuality a sin?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I’ve proved it over and over and over…why cast any more pearls before swine?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 1:06 PM
you’re twisting what Paul said, to make it appear that he is saying no one should marry. its pathetic.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Paul is saying just what Jesus said:
Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
as far as who should marry??
male and female…not male and male..not female and female…clear????
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM
crickets chirping…no surprise there…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM
No, because as I said multiple times, that’s Paul talking. I asked you if God agreed. Do you understand the difference?
He doesn’t?
18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
What you’re failing to understand is the historical context of Paul’s letter. At the time, Christians were being tortured and executed. Most people understand that Paul said this because marriage was not easy at the time. Those who did marry often had to watch as their wife or husband was killed in horrific ways.
That has nothing to do with what God wants but only with what was wise at the time.
You mean you actually don’t know for sure? Of course he wasn’t married. He had a female companion, but they were just friends.
No. Generally it helps to have a head if you want a wife. John lost his because of a little girl’s dance.
If you have anything else you’d like help on, I’d be more than happy to help.
I’ve answered your question. It really is not my fault if you don’t understand my answer. I cannot help you any further.
He did say that.
38So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
For a translation: He’s saying that it isn’t immoral to marry but that people are better if they don’t.
If I were to say that there’s nothing immoral about voting for Obama but that those who vote McCain do better, I may as well be saying that people should vote McCain. It’s really very simple.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM
You’re right, Madison. This thread has wasted both of our time and has gotten us nothing but hatred.
I may come back to it, but I’m done with this thread for awhile. Enjoy your bile, right.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Christianity has disagreed with you for the last 2,000 years…but what do they know when compared to the great and all-knowing esthier??
yes you have, you think its OK.
yeah so? duhhhhhhh
thanks for the bloviating.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM
you’ve certainly given a lot of hatred.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 2:10 PM
This is not relevant to whether it is a good idea for government to protect or advance it.
platypus on October 13, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Of course it is to right. He wants a theocracy so he can rightly prosecute the heretics under the law.
“Christianity has always been against marriage and only considered it as a last resort for those who cannot control their sexual impulses.”
Really does sound like it could have come from 1984.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Yes, thank you very much, Kennedy. I very much appreciate you pointing this out.
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 5:09 PM
more predictable lies and BS from our holier-than-thou left-wing wackos goddess wanna-be Esthier…
can you be any more predictable? but thanks for the laughs!!
don’t worry ‘honey’ Orwell would have understood a fascist neo-nazi lying thug like you all to well…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Just fuck off, already. You’ve got a witch trial to oversee.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 6:21 PM
more liberal ‘tolerance’ I see…oohhh you must think you’re real tough!!
looks like the truth hurts doesn’t it bottom boy?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I wasn’t commenting specifically about a beard my friend. I don’t know if He had a beard. I doubt it, but I don’t know. I was only commenting on the common depiction that Jesus had long hair. I have to disagree with ya here, buds. The Bible clearly tells us that it’s shameful for a man to have long, beautiful hair like a woman. I don’t know how one interprets the following Scripture:
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” 1 Corinthjj -^Z 3A14
The next verse says:
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” 1 Corinthians 11:15
The message is pretty clear to me. Add to this what Bible says about praying in public — ie, how men and women should conduct themselves in church:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (long hair, wearing hat, etc.), dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (without long hair, shawl or hat) dishonoureth her head:” 1 Corinthians 11:3-5
That section has to do with the church order which refelects the divine order. Women, in keeping with their divinely established subordinate role (ladies don’t get upset at me now — subordinate in role, not importance or essence) appropriately should indicate this by a covering on their heads — the most suitable covering being long hair. Maybe even an additional shawl or hat or something similar, but it’s not necessary. Men, however, in their leadership role, are to leave their heads uncovered in the church (short hair, no hat, etc.) as symbolic of their direct openness to their own head, which is Christ.
“For a man indeed ought NOT to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
Men are not to wear a head covering during worship. That’s what the Scriptur clearly says. Men should have short hair, and women long hair. So if Jesus had long hair like a woman He would have contradicted Scripture. That’s what it looks like to me. This kinda reminds me of the subject of alcohol and the Bible. Jesus never drank wine and He didn’t make it either, otherwise He would have been contradicting Scripture which gives clear warning against drinking wine or other intoxicating drinks.
“Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!” Isaiah 5:11
“Be not among winebibbers (drunkards; wine drinkers).” Proverbs 23:20
Proverbs 23:31 warns against even looking on the wine, lest it tempt one to drink.
Well, I don’t believe there are any eye-witness drawings of the good Lord Jesus available to us today. Really, I don’t think anybody living today knows exactly what He looked like except what we can derive from Scripture and what we understand about the times in which He lived. As I pointed out before. At the time Jesus lived, it was the accepted and general custom for men to have short hair. Josephus and other writers of that day indicate that most men, both Jewish and Roman, were usually beardless and short-haired. You look at pictures and the men are portrayed with short hair similar to what we find today. So, no. I don’t believe Jesus had long hair. I think the Bible teaches that a man’s hair should look masculine. A woman’s hair should look feminine. Men should look like men, and women should look like women. Now, I’m not saying that men with long hair are going to hell for growing their hair long, and you can still be my friend if you have long hair, but the Bible does say it brings shame or dishonor upon him. Anyways, that’s my answer and I’m sticking with it. And I still love ya like a brother, and we’re both going to heaven. Can’t wait to see you there, even if you disagree with me (big smiles).
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 7:19 PM
In his wet dreams.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 8:47 PM
nice little miss holier than thou!!!
oh yeah you’re a model christian
looks like you’re spitting in (the real) God’s face!!
thanks for the laughs honey..
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:05 PM
waiting for madisonwacko to come defend your precious honor…
oh but you don’t have any….nevermind!
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I’d like to add something to my previous comment. I came across this while doing some reading on the subject. While I don’t believe the good Lord Jesus had long hair, He may have had a beard. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it, but Isaiah 50:6 says,
“I (Jesus) gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”
Interesting. Cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. Could mean beard. This prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was arrested and brought before the high priest Caiphas.
“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.” Matthew 26:67
“Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.” Matthew 27:26
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Are you embarrassed of your wet dreams? You can’t control that. God won’t strike you down for them.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 9:23 PM
sounds like ya got a ‘thang’ there for me honey..
sorry, I don’t like em pale and poor…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:35 PM
That’s filthy. That’s not a Christian thing to say.
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 9:39 PM
You don’t see anything wrong with this kind of language? Especially for a Christian?
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 9:41 PM
yeah I too find it interesting that she would get into this after berating me so much for not being a christian…cause I said so many ‘mean’ things…oh well…sooner or later evil reveals itself….
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:41 PM
What I’m not fat and ugly anymore?
No, men who lose it in their beds don’t really do it for me. That became unacceptable after high school, and even then it was nothing to brag about.
I just don’t want you to be ashamed of your body or the things that go tingle on you.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 9:54 PM
That’s right. Sooner or later evil does reveal itself. Y’know right4life, you and I, we disagree on a few things. You know the main issue. I’m still hoping you’ll change your position on that one day. I’m praying for you. But, I actually think we agree on most things. For instance, I’ve agreed with you in this thread on Esthier. That’s why I’m motivated to remind you that we need to be careful not to sink to the level of the scoffer. When the conversation sinks to the level Esthier has brought it — into the gutter — it’s time to get out. The Bible says, “Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodlines.” (2 Timothy 2:16). The devil will use the things Esthier is saying as a way of tempting us into sin. Whether it’s participating in that “filthy communication” (Colossians 3:8) or something else. So don’t waste your time. I have to remind myself of this as well. That there are other battles to be won. You are in the right here, just be careful, that’s all. That’s my advice. No offence meant.
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Oh, of course. After all, they happen to every human being as a result of puberty, a process god included when he made man, so therefore it MUST be filthy.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 14 15 16 17 Next »