Yep, the sin of all sins is homosexuality, not the owning of another human being. Perhaps man did write the Bible and God had nothing to do with it.

SC.Charlie on November 29, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Perhaps you’re an ignorant troll presuming to know better than God, or for that matter a human being with an ounce of sense.

Oh wait…you are.

A pretty good indication of the abhorrence with which sodomy is held in Scripture is that slavery is merely regulated, but sodomy gets the ban hammer. – Akzed on November 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Yep, the sin of all sins is homosexuality, not the owning of another human being. Perhaps man did write the Bible and God had nothing to do with it.

That (exam vs. no exam) seems awful arbitrary in my not-lawyer mind.

Besides, let’s say Kansas makes you pass an exam consisting of “Do you want to marry this person?” in order to get a marriage license. Does that make marriage now the same as bar admission and concealed carry?

cptacek on November 28, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If I remember my Corfield v. Coryell the courts have found the Comity Clause to the rights of all free people (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.) and travel was specifically mentioned so that’s where the driver’s license thing comes from. You’d have an easier time arguing that marriage is a right of free people than carrying a concealed weapon on being admitted to a state bar is.

I don’t have the link handy, but it’s already happening – last I heard, the photographer was potentially going to go broke fighting the lawsuit…

affenhauer on November 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Again, try to get the anti-discrimination laws repealed. It’s a total red herring argument when it comes to the gay marriage debate.

Rebar on November 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I don’t have the link handy, but it’s already happening – last I heard, the photographer was potentially going to go broke fighting the lawsuit…

affenhauer on November 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Rebar had it one screen below… ;-)

This also goes to the freedom of churches to rent out their facilities to whom they wish. Once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, count on lawsuits against anyone, be it churches, photographers, wedding planners, florists, etc who decide they don’t want to deal with gay marriage.

STL_Vet on November 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I don’t have the link handy, but it’s already happening – last I heard, the photographer was potentially going to go broke fighting the lawsuit…

Besides, let’s say Kansas makes you pass an exam consisting of “Do you want to marry this person?” in order to get a marriage license. Does that make marriage now the same as bar admission and concealed carry?

And yet I see you go to a lot of trouble to attempt to define what the Christian teaching on slavery is, while muddling the considerably more clear Christian teaching on homosoexuality.
tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Excellent points all. The Christian faith is not revolutionary in the sense that it overturns societies and institutions overnight. It’s influence is like leaven, not C-4.

A pretty good indication of the abhorrence with which sodomy is held in Scripture is that slavery is merely regulated, but sodomy gets the ban hammer.

I am not trying to argue that other states should have to recognize my concealed carry permit. I am asking why a marriage license is different from a concealed carry permit or a law license.

I think you are stretching the 14th Amendment a little (a lot) too far.

In order to get my concealed carry license, I had to go to a class, take a test, get a background check and pay a fee. I then got the license issued by the state of Kansas.

If I go to Illinois, does the 14th Amendment require Illinois to recognize my Kansas concealed carry license? If not, then why does Kansas, which has a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman, have to recognize a marriage license issued by Massachusetts to a man and a man?

cptacek on November 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’m not stretching the 14th Amendment at all, I’m just reading the text.

The argument I usually hear with respect to concealed carry permits (and I have one of those as well and I travel a lot so I’m well aware of the issues you’re talking about) relates to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and not the 14th Amendment. If you’ve got a good argument for why they should be covered under the 14th then I’m eager to hear it. I don’t want to get totally sidetracked here but the status of concealed carry licenses not being valid in other states isn’t unique. Find yourself a Kansas lawyer with a Kansas law license and ask him if that entitles him to practice law anywhere he wants.

Sure. In the event of a conflict the 14th trumps anything that comes before it and is trumped by anything that comes after it. Is it your position that a later amendment doesn’t change an earlier one? The 21st certainly trumps the 18th. There are sections of the 14th that limit voting to people age 21 and older that are trumped by the 26th. Is this news to you?

alchemist19 on November 28, 2012 at 3:20 AM

I think you are stretching the 14th Amendment a little (a lot) too far.

In order to get my concealed carry license, I had to go to a class, take a test, get a background check and pay a fee. I then got the license issued by the state of Kansas.

If I go to Illinois, does the 14th Amendment require Illinois to recognize my Kansas concealed carry license? If not, then why does Kansas, which has a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman, have to recognize a marriage license issued by Massachusetts to a man and a man?

Does the 14th Amendment trump the 10th Amendment? Does it trump the 1st Amendment?

cptacek on November 28, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Sure. In the event of a conflict the 14th trumps anything that comes before it and is trumped by anything that comes after it. Is it your position that a later amendment doesn’t change an earlier one? The 21st certainly trumps the 18th. There are sections of the 14th that limit voting to people age 21 and older that are trumped by the 26th. Is this news to you?

The thing you’re forgetting (willfully ignoring because it undercuts your argument?) is that the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the power and reach of the government to do things like make sure laws treated people equally.

If you believe the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is too loose and it’s being used to in ways it was not intended then fine, make that argument and push for a new amendment to the Constitution that will narrow the language. Until that time though we’re left with what it actually says, plus perhaps a warning of the importance of specific wording when it comes to future amendments. For now though we’re playing the game with the existing rulebook as it’s written.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Does the 14th Amendment trump the 10th Amendment? Does it trump the 1st Amendment?

I can just as easily turn that around and ask why you are asking a hypothetical question about something that is not and never has been at issue. The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage, so asking whether the government has the power to enforce what the Constitution does address is beside the point.

But in the broader sense, the very definition of what the government has the power to enforce is the Constitution itself. And the fact that the Constitution limits itself to enumerated powers is the very reason that activists attempt to make the Constitution say what it clearly doesn’t.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

The thing you’re forgetting (willfully ignoring because it undercuts your argument?) is that the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the power and reach of the government to do things like make sure laws treated people equally.

If you believe the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is too loose and it’s being used to in ways it was not intended then fine, make that argument and push for a new amendment to the Constitution that will narrow the language. Until that time though we’re left with what it actually says, plus perhaps a warning of the importance of specific wording when it comes to future amendments. For now though we’re playing the game with the existing rulebook as it’s written.

Very shortly then, the issue is not driven by the Constitution at all, which actually lays out specific enumerated powers and scopes by design. The folly of then deliberately expanding those enumerated powers and scopes to further pet issues should be obvious.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I haven’t said anything about the issue to you and you seem very adverse to giving a simple “Yes,” or “No,” to a relatively straightforward question about whether the government has the powers to enforce the Constitution.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I can just as easily turn that around and ask why you are asking a hypothetical question about something that is not and never has been at issue. The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage, so asking whether the government has the power to enforce what the Constitution does address is beside the point.

But in the broader sense, the very definition of what the government has the power to enforce is the Constitution itself. And the fact that the Constitution limits itself to enumerated powers is the very reason that activists attempt to make the Constitution say what it clearly doesn’t.

Very shortly then, the issue is not driven by the Constitution at all, which actually lays out specific enumerated powers and scopes by design. The folly of then deliberately expanding those enumerated powers and scopes to further pet issues should be obvious.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I haven’t said anything about the issue to you and you seem very adverse to giving a simple “Yes,” or “No,” to a relatively straightforward question about whether the government has the powers to enforce the Constitution.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Simmer down there, Trigger. I was just asking if it’s okay to under the power of government to enforce the Constitution. Got to lay the ground rules before we can get to specifics.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Very shortly then, the issue is not driven by the Constitution at all, which actually lays out specific enumerated powers and scopes by design. The folly of then deliberately expanding those enumerated powers and scopes to further pet issues should be obvious.

Conflicting views are fine. Trying to use government force to make others accept your views is not.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

How about using the power of the government to enforce the Constitution?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Non sequitur. The Constitution says even less about marriage than it does about abortion. Though I’m sure there are some legal geniuses just aching to ‘help’ that little problem along, that doesn’t mean you get to pretend you’re standing up for the Constitution any time you have a pet issue you want some action on.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I should really apologize for treating the question seriously in the first place. There is no Constitutional issue here. The reason some pretend this a matter of the Constitution, is so they can overrule everyone else at one sweep and declare that the Constitution has always meant that two men can be just as married as a husband and wife. The mere fact that no one ever saw this in the Constitution before now is beside the point. The fact that marriage never included two men before, nor would it have even occurred to the people who actually wrote, debated, voted on, and affirmed the Constitution is irrelevant, nor would they have even hypothetically considered the possibility that someone might make such an odd and absurd claim.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Simmer down there, Trigger. I was just asking if it’s okay to under the power of government to enforce the Constitution. Got to lay the ground rules before we can get to specifics.

Conflicting views are fine. Trying to use government force to make others accept your views is not.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

How about using the power of the government to enforce the Constitution?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Non sequitur. The Constitution says even less about marriage than it does about abortion. Though I’m sure there are some legal geniuses just aching to ‘help’ that little problem along, that doesn’t mean you get to pretend you’re standing up for the Constitution any time you have a pet issue you want some action on.

Conflicting views are fine. Trying to use government force to make others accept your views is not.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

How about using the power of the government to enforce the Constitution?