Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland

posted at 11:21 am on July 23, 2013 by Allahpundit

Yes, he’s an Obama appointee.

Addressing the constitutional question, Black explained, “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”

To that end, the court examined the Supreme Court’s decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act this June in United States v. Windsor, the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, and in other decisions addressing differential treatment found to be unconstitutional under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Looking at Ohio’s bans on recognizing same-sex couples’ out-of-state marriages, while acknowledging its recognition of the marriages of opposite-sex couples who would not be allowed to marry in Ohio, Black concluded, “The purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.”

Needless to say, if other courts follow this lead, we’ll have coast-to-coast legal gay marriage as a matter of Full Faith and Credit with the only limitation on gay couples their ability to travel to a pro-SSM state temporarily to get hitched. The Windsor decision that the court cites here in support of its ruling held that section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages performed in pro-SSM states, is unconstitutional. The point of the Ohio ruling is that section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, should also be deemed unconstitutional under the logic of Windsor. Is that true, though? Read pages 18-21 of Kennedy’s majority opinion. He’s making two arguments, really. One is that, as the Ohio judge notes, the legislature can’t impose special restrictions on gays consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. The other, though, is that Congress overreached with DOMA by intruding on the states’ sovereign prerogative to regulate marriage as they see fit. It’s not just an equal protection ruling, it’s a federalism ruling too. And unlike Section 3, Section 2 of DOMA attempts to preserve state sovereignty by allowing each state to decide for itself whether gay marriages from other jurisdictions will be recognized there, which might be a complicating factor for Kennedy if this case works its way up to SCOTUS. It shouldn’t be, says the Ohio judge — equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment trumps states’ rights, especially when you have a history of full faith and credit for out-of-state marriages as precedent — but only Kennedy knows which way that shakes out.

Speaking of full faith and credit, a key passage from the Ohio court’s ruling:

[U]nder Ohio law, as declared by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1958, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 155 N.E.2d 206, 208 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1958) (marriage of first cousins was legal in Massachusetts and therefore is legal in Ohio regardless of the Ohio statute to the contrary).

Likewise, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors. See Hardin v. Davis, 16 Ohio Supp. 19, at *22 (Com. Pl. Hamilton Co. May 18, 1945) (“But, although first cousins cannot marry in Ohio, it has been held that if they go to another state where such marriages are allowed, marry, and return to Ohio, the marriage is legal in Ohio”); see also Slovenian Mut. Ben. Ass’n v. Knafelj, 173 N.E. 630, 631 (Ohio App. 1930) (“It is true that, under the laws of Ohio, if she were his first cousin he could not marry her; but they could go to the state of Michigan, or the state of Georgia, and perhaps many other states in the United States, and intermarry, and then come right back into Ohio and the marriage would be legal”); see also Peefer v. State, 182 N.E. 117, 121 (Ohio App. 1931) (where underage couples leave the state to marry in a state in which their marriage is valid and return to Ohio, the marriage cannot be set aside based on Ohio’s law against marriage of underage people); see also Courtright v. Courtright, 1891 Ohio Misc. LEXIS
161, at *7, aff’d without opinion, 53 Ohio 685 (Ohio 1895) (marriage between persons considered underage in Ohio married in a state where their marriage is legal “cannot be set aside, either because it was not contracted in accordance with the law of this state, or because the parties went out of the state for the purpose of evading the laws of this state”).

Ohio decided long ago that Full Faith and Credit means honoring marriages performed in other jurisdictions even if those marriages conflict with Ohio’s moral and legal preferences. Why should gay marriage be different?

All of that said, there may be an opportunity here for social conservatives. The big problem with a Federal Marriage Amendment, which seeks to ban gay marriage nationwide, is that not only is it opposed by gay-marriage supporters, it’s even opposed by some gay-marriage opponents who resist it as an infringement on federalism. The Ohio court ruling yesterday brings the federalism argument over to the social conservative side: Why shouldn’t the states, the laboratories of democracy, be allowed to follow their own rules on SSM rather than the rules of another state? There may be meaningful support in Congress and at the state level for an initiative that makes section 2 of DOMA a constitutional amendment. I give it near-zero chance of passing, but it’s a better talking point for opponents of SSM than the FMA is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 5 6 7

You know that scene in the old movie Scanners where the guy’s head explodes? That’s me right now. – alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Well, he is gay and he posts what he believes, even though it is sadly unbelievable.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:20 PM

After saying an NRA member with a Springfield 1911 on his belt likes to disparage the right to bear arms, a non-troll would have learned about making assumptions. But there you go again.

Not really. Number one liberal rule: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

After all, those disarmament rules weren’t meant to affect “enlightened” Obama supporters like you, no sir.

Just because you lost the argument and made a fool of yourself it doesn’t mean you were bullied, just that your arguments lacked merit. It’s okay, everyone’s been wrong before. Now do the adult thing, admit it, reevaluate your positions, change if it’s appropriate to do so and move on as a better person.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:11 PM

Uh huh.

That’s why you couldn’t explain who the “superiors” of a Chicago alderman were.

No worries. No one expects an antireligious bigot like you to be in the least coherent.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM

There is no need to. Why do you just continue to posts after posts what what some gay person said that you find offensive? Do you find it offensive that some conservatives post on this board that all homosexuals are mentally ill?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Not at all.

Because, if you actually read those examples, you would see that gays and lesbians tell other people to vote as ordered or commit suicide and call for the murder of others based on their political affiliation.

Why on earth would anyone call THAT sane?

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM

ND30, grow up.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:27 PM

You mean ND30 is real? And he really believes the things he posts?

.
.
.

You know that scene in the old movie Scanners where the guy’s head explodes? That’s me right now.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Yeah, it’s always difficult for a bigot like yourself when a minority member doesn’t act according to your stereotype.

And it’s also very threatening, because your entire jihad against religious belief and social conservatives becomes an obvious example of blatant hatred and bigotry when the gays quit allowing themselves to be used as an excuse.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:29 PM

Yeah, it’s always difficult for a bigot like yourself when a minority member doesn’t act according to your stereotype.

And it’s also very threatening, because your entire jihad against religious belief and social conservatives becomes an obvious example of blatant hatred and bigotry when the gays quit allowing themselves to be used as an excuse. – northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:29 PM

Whoa …………….. everything you post just rubbish. I truly feel sorry for you.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 PM

ND30, grow up.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:27 PM

LOL.

You have the leaders of the gay and lesbian community shrieking at teenagers to kill themselves rather than vote Republican and calling for all Republicans, including peoples’ parents, to be killed — and you’re telling me to “grow up”?

Why don’t you and your bigot friend alchemist19 grow some balls and go after the gay-sex marriage supporting…..oh, that’s why, I just answered the question.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Whoa …………….. everything you post just rubbish. I truly feel sorry for you.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 11:32 PM

No, you don’t.

You just want to demean and belittle me. That’s typical, and it’s all gay bigots like you can do — destroy, tear down, and vandalize.

Perhaps that’s why you’re killing off an entire new generation of children.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Not really. Number one liberal rule: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

After all, those disarmament rules weren’t meant to affect “enlightened” Obama supporters like you, no sir.

I’m still reeling from the fact you might be real…

I’ll take your odd deflection with a random story about some Media Matters idiot as a tacit admission that you stuck your foot in your mouth when you attacked my support of the right to bear arms. Apology accepted, but do try to learn from your mistake so that you don’t repeat it in the future. If you are real (and I’m still reeling) then you’re undermining everything you say when you make things up and then get called out doing it.

Uh huh.

That’s why you couldn’t explain who the “superiors” of a Chicago alderman were.

No worries. No one expects an antireligious bigot like you to be in the least coherent.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM

It was the Chicago zoning commission who said the next day that the alderman couldn’t block a Chick-Fil-A being built just because the owner of the chain advocated a political position with which the alderman disagreed. Seriously, you and I went through this in detail a couple months ago. Have you really forgotten it all, or is this a standard page in your playbook and you’re not able to deviate from it when your argument falls apart on you?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Yeah, it’s always difficult for a bigot like yourself when a minority member doesn’t act according to your stereotype.

And it’s also very threatening, because your entire jihad against religious belief and social conservatives becomes an obvious example of blatant hatred and bigotry when the gays quit allowing themselves to be used as an excuse.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:29 PM

I’m going to drop the braggadocio and the attitude for a minute here an attempt to talk to you human being to human being, at least as best as one can to an anonymous stranger over the internet.

I think you seriously need to think about talking to someone. I’m being totally honest and straightforward with you here and it’s borne out of nothing but concern for a fellow human being who I’m worried is dealing with some things. I’m not going to respond to you anymore because I don’t think I can in good conscience. You don’t need it from me or anyone else. Whoever you are, for your own sake, please, there’s no shame in it at all, find someone to talk to.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

I’ll take your odd deflection with a random story about some Media Matters idiot as a tacit admission that you stuck your foot in your mouth when you attacked my support of the right to bear arms. Apology accepted, but do try to learn from your mistake so that you don’t repeat it in the future. If you are real (and I’m still reeling) then you’re undermining everything you say when you make things up and then get called out doing it.

No worries. We already know you’re a malicious liar who will say anything just like your Obama. Since you have no history of truthfulness, and instead have a long history of being an antireligious and anti-conservative bigot, I’m quite OK with whatever hilarious fairy tale you have to spin to keep your grip on sanity.

Speaking of which:

It was the Chicago zoning commission who said the next day that the alderman couldn’t block a Chick-Fil-A being built just because the owner of the chain advocated a political position with which the alderman disagreed. Seriously, you and I went through this in detail a couple months ago. Have you really forgotten it all, or is this a standard page in your playbook and you’re not able to deviate from it when your argument falls apart on you?

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Oh yes, run with that. Invent an imaginary board. And then you can explain why he was doing it again months later.

Look, I understand that these type of stories really rip away the mask and reveal what bigots and fascists you gay-sex marriage supporters are. Indeed, this one is particularly damaging because it shows how, for all your blather about your “ancestors”, you support and endorse denying Christians their constitutional rights.

But don’t try to change reality with someone who actually DOES do research, m’kay? I know you’re used to gays being imbeciles who do whatever gay-sex marriage supporters like you say, but that’s not the reality, just their choice to be.

northdallasthirty on July 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM

I’m going to drop the braggadocio and the attitude for a minute here an attempt to talk to you human being to human being, at least as best as one can to an anonymous stranger over the internet.

Oh, this ought to be good.

I think you seriously need to think about talking to someone. I’m being totally honest and straightforward with you here and it’s borne out of nothing but concern for a fellow human being who I’m worried is dealing with some things.

How very pleasantly demeaning.

And how very typical of bigots, especially desperate bigots who see their excuse for the fact that they’re a raging hatemonger getting ripped to shreds right in front of them.

The Obama Party and liberals always try to claim that their opponents are mentally ill and “need help”. It’s nothing more than showing how desperately sick and depraved they are, not to mention unethical and hateful.

I’m not going to respond to you anymore because I don’t think I can in good conscience.

No, it’s because you’re getting your rear kicked by someone who you think should be your subhuman slave and be grateful to Massa Alchemist for his plantation kindness.

You don’t need it from me or anyone else. Whoever you are, for your own sake, please, there’s no shame in it at all, find someone to talk to.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

“No shame in it at all”. How repulsive and sick. This shows how depraved and manipulative and destructive you are, trying to shame someone else by implying that they are mentally ill.

Do you try to emotionally manipulate other people as well, abuser? Is this how you treat women and other gay people?

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And, those that are homosexual one day will have the right to marriage in all fifty states. Get used to the idea and stop with all the darn hysteria.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM

.
Homosexuality IS a disorder on all dimensions.

What is “hysteria” to you, is ‘disgust’ to us.

Homosexuality will never be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of normality.

That means “same sex marriage” will never be accepted … period.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 2:05 AM

I’m not afraid of Christians, nor do I bear any animus for Christians at all whatsoever. The fact that I reject your personal interpretation of the Bible as the basis for law in this country does not mean that I have anything against Christianity or any other religion.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Strawman and does not answer my response.

I said Christian morality has been a part of the nation since our founding. That is without dispute. You claiming people who want the freedom to practice their religion and to have laws that acknowledge their beliefs as theocracy shows you to be intolerant of faith.

We cannot be a nation without laws. Laws need to be based on something. If they are based on what feels good versus what is right, the law will be abused as it has.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 5:25 AM

Again you lie. I have never said such things. I do recognize that Christianity is not perfect.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM

ND30, I am a Christian, an Episcopalian.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

You realize you cannot reconcile these 2 statements. Christians are not perfect. We are only human. Christianity, the teachings of Christ is perfect. You cannot be a Christian and claim otherwise.

Thanks for admitting you pick and choose which of God’s teachings you choose to abide by. Wonder what you are going to say to Him when He questions you on your reasoning.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 6:34 AM

Why do you always use the word bigot against gays who think that gay marriage is something that they have a right?

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Perhaps bigot isn’t the right word. However, hatred toward “straights” always seems to be involved. You are welcome to voice your opinion, but we do not have to listen to it, or even give it any weight.

After all, there is no “right” to homosexual marriage in the US Constitution, which relegates it to a state issue per the 10th Amendment. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the 14th does not apply since (as per my original observation of fact), homosexual marriage is not a “right” being denied.

No equal protection under the law is being denied since homosexual marriage is not a right.

dominigan on July 24, 2013 at 6:56 AM

ND30, I am a Christian, an Episcopalian.

SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

If that is true, then you realize that homosexual acts are considered a grave sin in both the Old and New Testaments.

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Being tempted with sinful acts are not a sin themselves, but acting on them is. While I can be tempted by an attractive girl, it would be a sin to pursue intimate contact without being married to her.

So if you are a Christian as you claim, why would you pursue a legislative approach to making it easier for people in a sinful homosexual lifestyle to go to Hell?

If I didn’t care about homosexuals, I would allow them to pursue their destruction through “marriage” thus condemning their souls to Hell. But it is because I DO care for their souls that I seek to prevent laws that mire people in a sinful lifestyle, condemning them to Hell, rather than resisting the sinful urges. I pray that homosexuals seek God and turn from their sinful ways. Christians are taught to pray for people to turn from their sinful ways and lean on God for understanding. Do you believe that?

I guess the question you need to answer for yourself is… what is more important? Working out your salvation and denying the sinful urges of corrupt flesh? Or supporting a sinful lifestyle that condemns people to Hell?

This is a very real choice before you…

2Peter 2:4-9 – “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.”

dominigan on July 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM

dominigan on July 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM
njrob on July 24, 2013 at 6:34 AM

If the two of you want to say that Episcopalians and any other Christian denominations are no longer Christians because they believe that to be a practicing homosexual is no longer a sin, so be it. Different denominations of Christians believe in different interpretations of the Bible.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:01 AM

Homosexuality IS a disorder on all dimensions.

What is “hysteria” to you, is ‘disgust’ to us.

Homosexuality will never be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of normality.

That means “same sex marriage” will never be accepted … period. – listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 2:05 AM

Homosexuality according to medical professionals is not a mental disorder. You are welcome to disagree with them and myself on the issue. As for homosexuality and gay marriage being accepted, it appears that you are on the losing end of this part of the culture war. As for disgusting, I find the personal sexual behavior of some homosexuals and heterosexuals disgusting.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Romans 1.

Man is it coming fast and furious. It is going to get ugly very fast now. All the fence sitters are about to be forced to chose a side. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Chose wisely, people. Hint, He already won.

pannw on July 24, 2013 at 10:00 AM

All laws are subject to Constitutional interpretation.

unclesmrgol on July 23, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Of course they are, because the laws that are passed have to be checked to ensure that THE GOVERNMENT is not encroaching on enshrined liberties in the process of keeping people from stepping on each others’.

I’m not sure why you thought this was relevant to bring up. It certainly doesn’t make any point about so-called “freedom from religion”.

The Schaef on July 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM

If the two of you want to say that Episcopalians and any other Christian denominations are no longer Christians because they believe that to be a practicing homosexual is no longer a sin, so be it. Different denominations of Christians believe in different interpretations of the Bible.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:01 AM

You can either follow the Word of God or you can choose not to. But you cannot choose to ignore His Word and really be a Christian anymore than Nancy Pelosi is.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Homosexuality IS a disorder on all dimensions.

What is “hysteria” to you, is ‘disgust’ to us.

Homosexuality will never be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of normality.

That means “same sex marriage” will never be accepted … period. –

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 2:05 AM

.
Homosexuality according to medical professionals is not a mental disorder. You are welcome to disagree with them and myself on the issue. As for homosexuality and gay marriage being accepted, it appears that you are on the losing end of this part of the culture war. As for disgusting, I find the personal sexual behavior of some homosexuals and heterosexuals disgusting.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM

.
Only the “medical professionals” with an agenda.

Laziness on the part of American Christians is the only reason it appears I’m on the “losing end” of the “culture war”.

Your last line is too easy to agree with, and I don’t see how it applies to the debate.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM

You can either follow the Word of God or you can choose not to. But you cannot choose to ignore His Word and really be a Christian anymore than Nancy Pelosi is. – njrob on July 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Nrob, I don’t claim to be a Catholic, Pelosi does. She is in violation of her church doctrine. I am not in violation of my church doctrine. By the way, I am against abortion.

Someone can chose their religion, but one can not choose their sexual orientation. The religious based Exodus Movement that tired for something like 37 years to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals has admitted that their efforts were a horrible failure. And, the people who went to them for help were desperate to change their sexual orientation. Most who went to Exodus probably were convinced that they were going to hell unless they could somehow change their sexuality.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Only the “medical professionals” with an agenda. – listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Yep, medical professionals who have listened to millions upon millions of homosexuals and have made a sane observation that homosexuals are not mentally ill. Just as I said in my 10:37 am post, Exodus International has admitted that its efforts to change people’s sexual orientation over the last 37 years has been an utter failure.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 10:42 AM

dominigan on July 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM

.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 6:34 AM

.
If the two of you want to say that Episcopalians and any other Christian denominations are no longer Christians because they believe that to be a practicing homosexual is no longer a sin, so be it. Different denominations of Christians believe in different interpretations of the Bible.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:01 AM

.
Individual people are (or are not, as the case may be) Christian believers, and not “denominations”.

Being member to a particular Christian Church “denomination” neither makes, nor breaks an individual person’s ‘status’ as being a real true Christian.
A relationship with the living God is personal ….. and not ‘corporate’ (or ‘collective’).
.
II Peter 1:19-21 trumps the whole “different interpretations” issue.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I’m not sure why you thought this was relevant to bring up. It certainly doesn’t make any point about so-called “freedom from religion”.

The Schaef on July 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM

ok i have to say this once again it is NOT freedom from religion go back and reread it is freedom OF religion in other words the govt does not have the right to limit ones right to religion and the freedom to worship and express said religion it does not say anywhere that the govt must be free of religion

katee bayer on July 24, 2013 at 11:20 AM

. II Peter 1:19-21 trumps the whole “different interpretations” issue.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Exactly why I said Christians must follow His Word and did not specify a denomination.

Being Christian isn’t joining a social club. It’s committing yourself to following His Word.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Nope. My comment still hasn’t shown up.
I’m sure it must be a “glitch”. /
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Let’s try again, shall we?

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland

IF and WHEN Leftist States are forced to accept concealed-carry permits (reciprocity) maybe then we might consider it.
Maybe.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 24, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Only the “medical professionals” with an agenda. –

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM

.
Yep, medical professionals who have listened to millions upon millions of homosexuals and have made a sane observation that homosexuals are not mentally ill. Just as I said in my 10:37 am post, Exodus International has admitted that its efforts to change people’s sexual orientation over the last 37 years has been an utter failure.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 10:42 AM

.
That just means they were doing something wrong, or not doing something right.

Demonic influence figures very highly into homosexual temptation and behavior.

Too many Christians (especially Americans) are too lazy to do what is sometimes required to deal with demonic entities.

[Matthew 17:14-21] [Mark 9:14-29]

But I believe it to be necessary to clarify something here:

I personally am NOT holding it against anyone, that they are practicing sodomy or lesbianism discretely, in private.

This debate is about openly/publicly accepting homosexuality as normal, and I’m not going to do it … the “black-robed bench-sitters” be damned.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’m not a fan but I’m not a bigot. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is no business of anyone else so long as no one gets hurt.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Ah yes, the tired old “consenting adults” meme. Guess what, “adult” is a term that has been redefined often throughout history; so who’s to say an 11 yr old isn’t an “adult”?

“Marriage” has never been redefined until the last couple decades–by the very same people that vociferously claim there is no slippery slope to “pedophiles”.

Nutstuyu on July 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I bring up the term “theocracy” whenever anyone cites Christian morality as a reasoning for why the government should do anything, because that is what they’re advocating.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM

You don’t really know what a theocracy is do you? Simply using Christian morality to inform laws and policies does not create a theocracy. Placing a priest, clergy or deity into the Head of State position does (i.e., Iran).

Another example, with the Queen/King as head of state, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. If the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of state, it would be a theocracy.

Nutstuyu on July 24, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland

NEXT: A Federal judge will order Ohio to cease recognizing gravity, as it discriminates against the (now defined as “ill”) overweight citizens.

/sarc>

Apparently, some Federal judges are not aware of the limitations of their powers.

landlines on July 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I hope Ohio stops recognizing gravity, I need to lose about 30 el-bees, and this way may be faster than my previous efforts.

The Schaef on July 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM

That just means they were doing something wrong, or not doing something right.

Demonic influence figures very highly into homosexual temptation and behavior.

Too many Christians (especially Americans) are too lazy to do what is sometimes required to deal with demonic entities. – listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 11:51 AM

If you really believe this, I just don’t know what to say.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 1:13 PM

‘Unprecedented’ language targets those with traditional values

The leadership of the Texas metropolis of San Antonio is working on ordinance changes aimed at punishing those who speak out against homosexuality.

The San Antonio City Council is doing some housecleaning to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The consolidated ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology.”

According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.

“They said they’ve never seen this kind of language in any other ordinance in any other city that they’ve dealt with,” the pastor shares. “It is unprecedentedly wrong – and of course the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”

Flowers maintains the ordinance violates state and federal constitutions in terms of freedom of speech and religion. He is inviting people throughout the U.S. to call the members of the San Antonio City Council to politely voice their opposition.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Different denominations of Christians believe in different interpretations of the Bible. SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:01 AM

There is no interpretation of the Bible that condones sodomists’ behavior.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Homosexuality according to medical professionals is not a mental disorder

Prior to 1973 homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by medical professionals. And the only reason the AMA removed it from it’s list of mental disorders was due to political pressure, not because of some breakthrough medical discovery.

If everyone on the planet woke up tomorrow as a homosexual, that would be the end of mankind. Any physical or mental state that would lead to the extinction of the human race is disordered by definition. That’s why infertility is considered a disorder when it occurs with heterosexual couples. If infertility is considered a disorder, then why shouldn’t homosexuality be?

frank63 on July 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. SC.Charlie on July 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM

After having read hundreds of your posts on HA, I have concluded that it is.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM

I want to see gay marriage JUST for the divorces!

Being a former Marylander, I cant wait to see who the courts decide which of the partners is “the woman” because as anyone who has gotten divorced or knows someone whose been divorced in Maryland will tell you: Maryland ALWAYS sides with the woman!

ManWithNoName on July 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

ManWithNoName on July 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

When two lesbians divorce, they’ll each get most of everything.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Strawman and does not answer my response.

I said Christian morality has been a part of the nation since our founding. That is without dispute. You claiming people who want the freedom to practice their religion

I agree you should be able to do this. But your freedom to practice your religion does not mean you get to have the government also enforce law in total accordance with your religion.

and to have laws that acknowledge their beliefs as theocracy shows you to be intolerant of faith.

No, it shows you are intolerant of the Constitution. The Constitution and (your interpretation of) the Christian moral code are not synonymous.

We cannot be a nation without laws.

Duh.

Laws need to be based on something.

OK…..

If they are based on what feels good versus what is right, the law will be abused as it has.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 5:25 AM

Are you arguing against yourself here? You’re arguing for what feels good (or at least what doesn’t make you feel bad) and I’m the one arguing for what’s right according to the system of laws and government we have in this country under the Constitution. Again, this is why I suggested you either try to pass a bunch of amendments or find someplace else to live.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I agree you should be able to do this. But your freedom to practice your religion does not mean you get to have the government also enforce law in total accordance with your religion. alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Reynolds v. United States (1878) – SCOTUS determined:
“[Polygamy] is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

Davis v. Beason (1890) – SCOTUS said:
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.”

Huh. Lookie there…

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Perhaps bigot isn’t the right word. However, hatred toward “straights” always seems to be involved. You are welcome to voice your opinion, but we do not have to listen to it, or even give it any weight.

After all, there is no “right” to homosexual marriage in the US Constitution, which relegates it to a state issue per the 10th Amendment. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the 14th does not apply since (as per my original observation of fact), homosexual marriage is not a “right” being denied.

No equal protection under the law is being denied since homosexual marriage is not a right.

dominigan on July 24, 2013 at 6:56 AM

I’m beginning to think that not only am I one of the last people who reveres and respects the Constitution, I’m also one of the only people who has actually read it and knows what it says!

The Full Faith and Credit Clause can be found in Article IV of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says, among other things, no state can deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law (the Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from doing the same thing and was the basis for striking down DOMA because DOMA was a federal statute), or deny citizens of a state equal protection under the law.

So given that you don’t even know what the amendments you’re talking about actually say you’re going to have to excuse me if I don’t give your interpretation of the Constitution all that much weight.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:15 PM

You’re bringing up cases where SCOTUS unanimously didn’t buy the “It’s part of my religion!” defense as an excuse to do anything you want? Interesting.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM

So… you’re ok with Dred Scott?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:23 PM

You’re bringing up cases where SCOTUS unanimously didn’t buy the “It’s part of my religion!” defense as an excuse to do anything you want? Interesting. alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Also interesting is that SCOTUS said that a practice was repugnant to Christianity and therefore they’d have none of it. Did you notice, Mumpsimus?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:25 PM

You don’t really know what a theocracy is do you? Simply using Christian morality to inform laws and policies does not create a theocracy. Placing a priest, clergy or deity into the Head of State position does (i.e., Iran).

Another example, with the Queen/King as head of state, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. If the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of state, it would be a theocracy.

Nutstuyu on July 24, 2013 at 12:32 PM

If what you want is a system of laws and government that is perfectly in accordance with (your personal interpretation) of your particular religious doctrine then you’re talking about something different than the government we have under the Constitution. The United States was founded by Christians but with a secular government. If what you want are things like unequal protection under the law or denial of life, liberty or property without due process because your religious tenants command it when the Constitution forbids it then you’re fundamentally talking about a theocratic style of government. The people in power might not be church officials but they’re still bound by church doctrine and that’s a distinction without a difference.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM

So… you’re ok with Dred Scott?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Dred Scott has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM

dominigan on July 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 6:34 AM

If the two of you want to say that Episcopalians and any other Christian denominations are no longer Christians because they believe that to be a practicing homosexual is no longer a sin, so be it. Different denominations of Christians believe in different interpretations of the Bible.

SC.Charlie on July 24, 2013 at 8:01 AM

It goes way beyond different interpretations of the Bible. 1 Cor 6:9-11 can’t be interpreted to make homosexuality ok. It can only be ignored.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor idoloaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God.

If you’re trying to hide behind a claim of merely different interpretations, then you are one of those deceived. This was written to the church at Corinth, a place which was notorious for sexual immorality, including homosexuality, so you can’t hide behind the claim that it wasn’t being addressed in Scripture.

Note also that Paul says that the Christians in Corinth had been these things, and were not any more. Scripture then also teaches that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexuals can be converted and leave behind their homosexuality.

The problem isn’t interpretation of Scripture, but a determination to ignore those parts that are inconvenient.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Also interesting is that SCOTUS said that a practice was repugnant to Christianity and therefore they’d have none of it. Did you notice, Mumpsimus?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:25 PM

They also said it was repugnant to civilization. And the main thrust of both cases was the fact that your religion commanding something doesn’t give you free reign to break the law.

Are you okay with Dred Scott?

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:36 PM

So… you’re ok with Dred Scott?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Dred Scott has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM

That doesn’t answer the question.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:36 PM

That doesn’t answer the question.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Because it’s a stupid question that doesn’t deserve to be dignified with an answer.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Strawman and does not answer my response.

I said Christian morality has been a part of the nation since our founding. That is without dispute. You claiming people who want the freedom to practice their religion

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 5:25 AM

.
I agree you should be able to do this. But your freedom to practice your religion does not mean you get to have the government also enforce law in total accordance with your religion.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
It means we get to argue against “black-robed” “bench-sitters” issuing decrees on the false pretense that the Constitution framers really meant for us to be ‘tolerant’ of things like “same-sex marriage”.
.

and to have laws that acknowledge their beliefs as theocracy shows you to be intolerant of faith.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 5:25 AM

.
No, it shows you are intolerant of the Constitution.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
No is doesn’t.
.

The Constitution and (your interpretation of) the Christian moral code are not synonymous.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
Irrelevant.

We need only argue and prove that homosexuality is an “abnormality” whose ‘acceptance’ is being illegitimately imposed on all of the rest of us, by activist “black-robed” “bench-sitters” legislating from the bench.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM

They also said it was repugnant to civilization. And the main thrust of both cases was the fact that your religion commanding something doesn’t give you free reign to break the law.

Wow, bass ackwards. The polygamists were seeking approval of their sexually immoral practice. You know, like sodomists do today. And conservatives are basing their rejection of it on it’s repugnance to Christianity, and civilization, or Christian civilization.

It seems like you are purposefully misunderstanding this, Mumpsimus.

Are you okay with Dred Scott? alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:36 PM

No, why do you ask?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM

It means we get to argue against “black-robed” “bench-sitters” issuing decrees on the false pretense that the Constitution framers really meant for us to be ‘tolerant’ of things like “same-sex marriage”.

I remember it was you who got the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence confused so I’m not too surprised to see again that you’re a little off on your understanding. When you eventually lose on the gay marriage issue it will happen on Fourteenth Amendment grounds and it was a Reconstruction-era Congress who put that in the Constitution, not the original framers. And I have no doubt whatsoever that that long-ago Congress during Reconstruction never had gay marriage on their minds when they passed that amendment but with the text of what they did pass saying what it says, we’re now bound by it. Take it as a lesson in the merits of carefully and narrowly wording things you put in the Constitution. We could always pass another amendment to change it but at this point you don’t have the public support.

No is doesn’t.

I would suggest people find out what is and is not in the Constitution, and what everything that is in it means before they decide whether or not they are tolerant of the document.

Irrelevant.

We need only argue and prove that homosexuality is an “abnormality” whose ‘acceptance’ is being illegitimately imposed on all of the rest of us, by activist “black-robed” “bench-sitters” legislating from the bench.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Again, Step One is reading the document to find out what is and is not in it. Once that’s done we can go on to specific terms like “equal protection” and “due process” to figure out what those imply. And what’s this about legislating from the bench? Who is doing that exactly? Specific examples would be helpful. Or are you opposed to judicial review (Google it if you’re hearing the term for the first time)?

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Wow, bass ackwards. The polygamists were seeking approval of their sexually immoral practice. You know, like sodomists do today. And conservatives are basing their rejection of it on it’s repugnance to Christianity, and civilization, or Christian civilization.

It seems like you are purposefully misunderstanding this, Mumpsimus.

You’re being about a subtle as a Hillary Clinton cackle so it’s hard to misunderstand what you’re trying to say, it’s that you’re not drawing a good comparison. The cases you cite are First Amendment issues whereas the gay marriage debate in the states will center on the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s apples and oranges.

No, why do you ask?

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Because apparently it’s being brought up for no real reason so I thought I’d join in.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Again, Step One is reading the document to find out what is and is not in it. Once that’s done we can go on to specific terms like “equal protection” and “due process” to figure out what those imply. And what’s this about legislating from the bench? Who is doing that exactly? Specific examples would be helpful. Or are you opposed to judicial review (Google it if you’re hearing the term for the first time)?

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Reading the Constitution might give people the false impression that people were bound by what it actually says. The truth is we’re bound by whatever SCOTUS thinks it means at any particular moment.

There have been too many rulings made that cannot be justified by the text of the Constitution under the most charitable interpretation possible. Certainly, the Constitution never said that local governments were not allowed to restrict the sale of contraceptives. Yet that is exactly the case now. Regardless of the complete lack of any such provision in the Constitution, it has been ruled that the federal Constitution prohibits any state from passing any laws that restrict contraceptives, or prohibit homosexual acts, or punish adultery, or any of a long list of things the Constitution says absolutely nothing about.

And you of course know this. Which reveals your hypocrisy in claiming that you’re standing up for the Constitution, because — in a particularly shameless lie — “I’ve read it.”

The problem that we have had is not with what is actually in the Constitution, but with what leftist and left-leaning jurists insist the Constitution actually means even though it says no such thing.

The postmodern view of “truth” is that there is no such thing. “Truth,” they say, is merely the majority opinion of those in power.

I reject that self-serving description of the meaning of truth. But, ironically, it is the perfect description of what many mean when they talk about being “Constitutional:” the majority opinion of the elitist powers on the left.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Except that sodomy and penetration with toys can easily be practiced by heterosexual couples and is not required for sex between gay or lesbian couples. Marriage does not dictate anything about sex life, as many long suffering husbands can attest. So nice try.
libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM

If a man and a woman marry and never consummate the marriage, the marriage can be legally (not religiously) annulled. How are gay marriages consummated?

cptacek on July 24, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Dred Scott was a poor decision, based on the supposed inferiority of blacks.

Gutting DOMA was a poor decision, with Kennedy citing homophobic animus as the sole source of the law.

There is no constitutional basis for either decision.

The court, as I pointed out, once cited Christianity as a basis for denying legitimacy to polygamy, after you stated that the govt, contra your earlier statement about the govt not enforcing religion. This was in keeping with the founders’ many pronouncements that religion, particularly Christianity, is a prerequisite for self-government.

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” -Article III of the Northwest Ordinance (An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio), enacted under the Articles of Confederation July 13th, 1787, and re-enacted under the Constitution on August 7, 1789.

“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” -John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.” -John Adams (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

So, not everyone agrees with you.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

- John Adams
October 11, 1798

kingsjester on July 24, 2013 at 5:04 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Brilliantly stated.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 4:55 PM

He knows the truth. He’s being deliberately obtuse because of his animus towards Christianity.

njrob on July 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM

When you eventually lose on the gay marriage issue it will happen on Fourteenth Amendment grounds and it was a Reconstruction-era Congress who put that in the Constitution, not the original framers.

Which will show the hypocrisy, because “equal protection” does not apparently apply to pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, and others who are citizens of this country but whose sexual desires you refuse to admit you support publicly.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that that long-ago Congress during Reconstruction never had gay marriage on their minds when they passed that amendment but with the text of what they did pass saying what it says, we’re now bound by it. Take it as a lesson in the merits of carefully and narrowly wording things you put in the Constitution.

Which is hilarious, because marriage is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. You made it up, and now you’re screaming and whining and crying that we be bound by it.

Add to that how gay-sex marriage bigots like yourself openly ignore the CLEAR words of the First Amendment, and how Obama Party bigots like yourself openly ignore the CLEAR words of the Second Amendment, and what we see is the hypocrisy: bigot alchemist19 can make up whatever he wants and call it constitutional, then scream that whatever he doesn’t want isn’t.

We could always pass another amendment to change it but at this point you don’t have the public support.

No, we can’t, because the screaming idiot Kennedy just stated that amending constitutions is illegal and that voters should have no power to do so because it’s “animus”.

What you have made abundantly clear, alchemist19, is that both you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are fascists. You won’t respect the law, you won’t respect due process, and you absolutely will not give equal protection to anyone whose religious beliefs differ from yours.

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM

And you of course know this. Which reveals your hypocrisy in claiming that you’re standing up for the Constitution, because — in a particularly shameless lie — “I’ve read it.”

The problem that we have had is not with what is actually in the Constitution, but with what leftist and left-leaning jurists insist the Constitution actually means even though it says no such thing.

The postmodern view of “truth” is that there is no such thing. “Truth,” they say, is merely the majority opinion of those in power.

I reject that self-serving description of the meaning of truth. But, ironically, it is the perfect description of what many mean when they talk about being “Constitutional:” the majority opinion of the elitist powers on the left.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Exactly.

And that is because bigots like alchemist19 and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have the belief that our rights are granted by the government, just like their Barack Obama, and that those people who disagree with them are to be punished using governmental power.

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 5:43 PM

C’mon you guys. HA really needed a 1000-comment thread here. If you don’t step it up, HA might have to go see that friendly Detroit judge.

Nutstuyu on July 24, 2013 at 5:49 PM

ckquote> alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

.
Reading the Constitution might give people the false impression that people were bound by what it actually says. The truth is we’re bound by whatever SCOTUS thinks it means at any particular moment.

There have been too many rulings made that cannot be justified by the text of the Constitution under the most charitable interpretation possible. Certainly, the Constitution never said that local governments were not allowed to restrict the sale of contraceptives. Yet that is exactly the case now. Regardless of the complete lack of any such provision in the Constitution, it has been ruled that the federal Constitution prohibits any state from passing any laws that restrict contraceptives, or prohibit homosexual acts, or punish adultery, or any of a long list of things the Constitution says absolutely nothing about.

And you of course know this. Which reveals your hypocrisy in claiming that you’re standing up for the Constitution, because — in a particularly shameless lie — “I’ve read it.”

The problem that we have had is not with what is actually in the Constitution, but with what leftist and left-leaning jurists insist the Constitution actually means even though it says no such thing.

The postmodern view of “truth” is that there is no such thing. “Truth,” they say, is merely the majority opinion of those in power.

I reject that self-serving description of the meaning of truth. But, ironically, it is the perfect description of what many mean when they talk about being “Constitutional:” the majority opinion of the elitist powers on the left.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

.
Damn, that’s good. : )

It explains why we’re on the brink of a real ‘shooting’ civil war in this country, better than anything I’ve been able to say.

Worth saving.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Dred Scott was a poor decision, based on the supposed inferiority of blacks.

This is true.

Gutting DOMA was a poor decision, with Kennedy citing homophobic animus as the sole source of the law.

This is not.

There is no constitutional basis for either decision.

Does your Constitution not have a Fifth Amendment in it?

The court, as I pointed out, once cited Christianity as a basis for denying legitimacy to polygamy, after you stated that the govt, contra your earlier statement about the govt not enforcing religion. This was in keeping with the founders’ many pronouncements that religion, particularly Christianity, is a prerequisite for self-government.

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” -Article III of the Northwest Ordinance (An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio), enacted under the Articles of Confederation July 13th, 1787, and re-enacted under the Constitution on August 7, 1789.

I’ll give you this, you’re a more worthy opponent than most of what I run into around here but you’re still coming up short.

The First Congress under the Constitution did indeed reaffirm the act you cite that was previously passed under the Articles of Confederation. But we need to look at those dates a bit more closely.

Congress reaffirmed on August 7th, 1789. The First Amendment wasn’t a part of the Constitution at that time. It wasn’t through both Houses of Congress and ratified by the states until December of 1791. IIRC, at that time the House hadn’t even voted on the slate of proposed amendments which would eventually become the Bill of Rights.

Incidentally, back in those days most education was religious in nature. That’s probably why they chose the wording they did; not that it matters because it’s an act of a wholly different government than the one we have now though so I’m just throwing that out for your information.

“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” -John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.” -John Adams (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Adams also thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were worthy of being signed into law. Not every thought or notion that all the founders had was a good one. So rather than pick and choose our way through their writings to try to find ones that serve our purpose, let’s focus on what they actually put in the Constitution since that’s the thing that determines how the government functions.

So, not everyone agrees with you.

Akzed on July 24, 2013 at 4:55 PM

More’s the pity. It would be a better world if more did.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM

ND30, for what it’s worth, you’ve got at least one person in your corner.

Alchemist19 and SC Charlie, shove it up your overstretched @$$es.

You might be gun-toting, quasi-religious trolls, but you are trolls nonetheless. Stop hijacking the damn thread.

Maddie on July 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM

The law can not be arbirary, it must have a logic to it. You can not say “a law exists merely because it exists.” That totally violates the Enlightenment principles which undergird our system of laws, or do you need to freshen up on your Paine and Locke?

libfreeordie on July 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

That’s a false dichotomy. Laws can have “a logic” and yet be arbitrary.

The thing is that logic extends from premises–some of which are arbitrary, or everyone would hold them–or we would have to have some premise for finding the condition of not holding them a disqualification (“they all must be nuts or stupid”) and thus declare the class of people who hold the contrary view unequal and inferior. Which, face it, you already do.

Aren’t the New York food bans “arbitrary”–yet don’t they also have “a logic” to them? They are arbitrary because it’s one side’s logic and not another’s. Because the preemption of individual conscience is arbitrary–not that they don’t have a worthwhile purpose behind them.

What a lib equivocates “logical” to mean is “something I find acceptable”. Because libs have this idea that either everybody should agree–or, failing that, the elites should just have their say. Everything should be unanimous because then you’re not creating some downtrodden dissenting group who’s “not being heard” (and suppression eventually erupts in violence, per derrida), but barring that, given the adversarial nature of our system of laws, they advocate for their understanding above all others. This is fair in the adversarial system we have, but they counterfeit it by pretending that we all have to agree or it’s not “fair”.

The majoritarian system was set up to find a resolution when people cannot agree on the proper course of action. Now, they are all invalidated when libs don’t agree–just like Illinois laws were invalidated when Roger B. Taney didn’t agree that black people who were property in one state were considerably a different case from what Illinois considered property. Well, they can’t just have those laws–not when the Constitution forbids taking property!

Axeman on July 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Reading the Constitution might give people the false impression that people were bound by what it actually says. The truth is we’re bound by whatever SCOTUS thinks it means at any particular moment.

Someone has to interpret it.

There have been too many rulings made that cannot be justified by the text of the Constitution under the most charitable interpretation possible.

Everyone thinks this when they lose, myself included (Obamacare is not a tax!) so this isn’t really earth-shattering or persuasive. My libtard friends were saying the same thing after Citizens United, which is a decision I believe the court got right.

Certainly, the Constitution never said that local governments were not allowed to restrict the sale of contraceptives. Yet that is exactly the case now. Regardless of the complete lack of any such provision in the Constitution, it has been ruled that the federal Constitution prohibits any state from passing any laws that restrict contraceptives, or prohibit homosexual acts, or punish adultery, or any of a long list of things the Constitution says absolutely nothing about.

Those things can all be found right next to your right to raise your children as you see fit.

And you of course know this. Which reveals your hypocrisy in claiming that you’re standing up for the Constitution, because — in a particularly shameless lie — “I’ve read it.”

It’s not a lie, I really have read the Constitution. That’s why I’m so easily able to correct the people here who haven’t.

The problem that we have had is not with what is actually in the Constitution, but with what leftist and left-leaning jurists insist the Constitution actually means even though it says no such thing.

The Constitution says nothing about corporations and the contributions they can make to political campaigns but nonetheless we’ve got rulings that say the Constitution protects those rights. I agree with that despite the fact the specific text which protects it isn’t in the document. Do you disagree?

The postmodern view of “truth” is that there is no such thing. “Truth,” they say, is merely the majority opinion of those in power.

I reject that self-serving description of the meaning of truth. But, ironically, it is the perfect description of what many mean when they talk about being “Constitutional:” the majority opinion of the elitist powers on the left.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

It’s always refreshing to watch a pyromanic at work in a field of strawmen. So thanks for that.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Exactly. Same-sex couples can theoretically run into a problem where they have changed from a state of residence that recognized same-sex marriage to a state that does not. Since the new state of residence does not recognize the marriage, they can’t be divorced there. More amusingly, since they are no longer a resident of the state where they were married, they cannot get divorced in that state either.

Of course, the unhappy couple could appeal to the court in their new state of residence for equitable relief where the judge sort of waves his gavel like a wand and tries to make things “fair” for the couple.

Othniel on July 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Eh. The one wanting the “divorce” should just say their marriage was never consummated, so the marriage never existed in the first place.

cptacek on July 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM

A business owner who has employees in California should open a second business in Kansas, then have all new employees sign the contract to work for the business owner in Kansas, where the minimum wage is lower. Then, the contract should be upheld in California.

cptacek on July 24, 2013 at 6:24 PM

The Constitution says nothing about corporations and the contributions they can make to political campaigns but nonetheless we’ve got rulings that say the Constitution protects those rights.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 6:21 PM

There’s no knowledge of political contributions in the Constitution. Since Madison argued that, pre-Bill-or-Rights, the Constitution gave no power to suppress the press, the lack of mention in the Cons. actually grants that freedom–at least at the federal level.

States, of course, would be allowed to have other ideas. Since they were only bound by the express powers given to the federal government by the Constitution.

Axeman on July 24, 2013 at 6:31 PM

ND30, for what it’s worth, you’ve got at least one person in your corner.

Alchemist19 and SC Charlie, shove it up your overstretched @$$es.

You might be gun-toting, quasi-religious trolls, but you are trolls nonetheless. Stop hijacking the damn thread.

Maddie on July 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM

SC.Charlie is gay but as far as I know based off what he’s posted here in the past he’s never had sex, and I’m heterosexual so I don’t think either of us have “overstretched @$$es” for anything to be shoved up. And I’m not trying to troll, I just see SSM as the legally, politically and morally correct thing to do so that’s why I agitate for it.

I do thank you for your attempt to bring reasonable, constructive, intelligent and informed debate into the thread.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

And that is because bigots like alchemist19 and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have the belief that our rights are granted by the government

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Well, face it, the godless really don’t have an alternative to believing that some group of people decide who has a right to what. (Even Ayn Rand, pressed hard enough, believed that our “rights” were a social (“collective”) agreement.)

Of course, this is always true in the most de facto sense, people only enjoy the rights tolerated by their overseers. And to the skeptic, what rights do you “have”, that you can’t enjoy? But that’s the Humean distribution, if you characteristically analyze by the IS, it’s even harder to argue the OUGHTs. Things just are what they statistically and most typically are.

Axeman on July 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 5:43 PM

.
Well, face it, the godless really don’t have an alternative to believing that some group of people decide who has a right to what. (Even Ayn Rand, pressed hard enough, believed that our “rights” were a social (“collective”) agreement.)

Axeman on July 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

.
. . . . . . . . . . B I N G O . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 6:59 PM

And I’m not trying to troll, I just see SSM as the legally, politically and morally correct thing to do so that’s why I agitate for it.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Which is, of course, why you taunt social conservatives about “losing” and why you scream that gays and lesbians who don’t agree with you are mentally ill.

More precisely, you’re a vindictive and malicious coward and bigot who uses gay-sex marriage as a smokescreen for your hatred of Christians and social conservatives, and who sets out to attack and destroy anyone who gets in your way of doing so.

What is being made obvious is that bigots like yourself and your Barack Obama do not in the least respect the law, respect the will of the voters, or in any way care about what the Constitution actually says. You believe that government exists for you to abuse to punish those who you dislike, no matter how many gyrations you have to go through to do it.

Especially since it enables you to push your own perverse beliefs that monogamy and fidelity are “hurtful” and that people should give in to their baser instincts as preached by the gay-sex marriage community.

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I’m not sure why you thought this was relevant to bring up. It certainly doesn’t make any point about so-called “freedom from religion”.

The Schaef on July 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM

You mentioned the reason for laws. I was mentioning the reason people wind up in court either attempting to have laws enforced or enjoined from enforcement — which includes laws lying at the nexus of contention between the two clauses of the First Amendment regarding an establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof.

My point is that all such court cases depend on the Constitution as the guiding authority — not other laws.

unclesmrgol on July 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

My point is that all such court cases depend on the Constitution as the guiding authority — not other laws.

unclesmrgol on July 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

That has nothing to do with your flawed interpretation of the First Amendment as a freedom FROM anything, other than government control of your personal religion.

The Schaef on July 25, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Sounds like liberals willing to enforce the law and constitution only if it suits their agenda.

Why not push Full Faith and Credit into other areas?

If a state gives a person a concealed carry permit and that person goes to another state, shouldn’t the second state have to recognize the person’s right to concealed carry, regardless of the second state’s laws?

bartbeast on July 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM

northdallasthirty on July 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Oh, Alchemist19 can’t be anti-Christian (or homosexual). Why, he’s marrying a Catholic girl soon (or already did). He said so a few months ago. He was all sincere about how he knows the argument that this will all lead to Churches being forced to perform homosexual ‘marriages’ is just a false threat. He knows the Church won’t be forced to marry homosexuals, because it isn’t forced to marry him and his sweet female Catholic fiancé. See, he and his female Catholic fiancé are not allowed to marry in the Church because the Church won’t marry Catholics to non-Catholics, and if they can’t be forced to do that, they can’t be forced to marry homosexuals. Which is of course BUNK, because the Church does allow and perform marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics, (which I would know, having married a non-Catholic in the Catholic Church) and when called on it he claimed not to know what kind of Catholic his female fiancé is. Convenient argument, that… But he still isn’t anti-Christian, because he says so, (regardless of the evidence) so there./

pannw on July 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM

when called on it he claimed not to know what kind of Catholic his female fiancé is.

Probably one o’ them Shiite Catholics.

Credit to Jim Gaffigan for the line

The Schaef on July 25, 2013 at 12:53 PM

pannw on July 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Same-sex marriage has been legal in places in this country for almost a decade now. Please make a list of every Catholic church who in that time has been forced against their will to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

SPOILER ALERT: There aren’t any!

But since you’re clearly willing to latch on to ideas that don’t make sense you might counter by saying that it’s all part of a secret conspiracy to hold off on those court orders until after SSM has been made legal in all 50 states and that’s when the liberal activist judges will start forcing the churches to do things they object to.

Back around the time the Loving decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws there were churches who refused to perform interracial marriages because their interpretation of the Bible was that such unions were forbidden. So since there has not been a single church in any state where gay marriage is legal that has been forced to perform a wedding ceremony they object to then maybe you can find some churches who were forced to perform interracial marriages they objected to, and then you can make the claim that those churches being compelled back then (or who had their tax-exempt status threatened) provides the legal basis for the forthcoming case that will force the Catholic church to perform SSM ceremonies.

SPOILER ALERT AGAIN: There weren’t any churches compelled to perform interracial marriages they objected to either, and no church had their tax-exempt status threatened.

So to sum it up you’re worried about something happening that there is no evidence for happening, but there is a lot of historical precedence against. Seems reasonable to me!

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

pannw on July 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM

But the lesson I learned about my future mother-in-law apparently having no idea what she’s talking about was a valuable one!

And Karen, if you ever see this, I’m only kidding. :-)

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

For the hundred thousandth time, sexual preference does not equal race. A person can have sexual relations with anyone they want, and in the case of homosexuals they often do indiscriminately (ask Jim McGreevy).

Race is immutable and cannot be changed. It, like sex cannot be modified (sex changes don’t change your chromosomes).

No one knows your sexual preference till you decide to shout it from the rooftops. Why are you demanding that your sexual desires be trumpeted by the government to the known world?

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

You’re apparently a low-information commenter. I will try this again. Put your narrative aside for a moment and just read.

The issue is “Can a court order a church to perform a wedding ceremony that the church holds to be contrary to its teachings?” It is irrelevant if the reason the wedding is contrary to the church’s teachings because the couple is gay or interracial or whatever other reason you can think of, it comes down to a question of can the courts compel the church. The answer is “No.” We have seen ample evidence of this in the past and no evidence to the contrary.

Let me put it to you this way: There is more evidence for manmade global warming than there is to believe any church will be forced against its will to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 7:09 PM

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 7:09 PM

No, you ignorant troll. That’s what you want to change the issue to instead of understanding that sexual preference is not the same as race or sex. 1 of the 3 can and has changed often amongst the “homosexual” crowd. The other 2 are genetic and can never change. That’s why all your claims about violations of the Constitution fall on hollow ears. It’s also shows you to be nothing more than a leftist who enjoys a “living Constitution” that can change to give your preferred policy decisions.

Moron.

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 8:08 PM

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Who’s changing the issue? Someone addressed something to me personally talking about what the Catholic church would be compelled to do and I pointed out how that is belief is baseless, empty-headed and wrong. It’s not my fault the facts don’t support their belief.

What’s funny is your argument is so bad that you’re actually making points against yourself. Let’s assume for a second that everything you said is true (it’s not of course but we’re going to pretend for the purpose of exposing how flawed your argument is). If everything you say about sexual orientation is true; that, unlike race, it changes then there is even less reason for a church to ever be forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony that is contrary to their teachings. If the government can’t compel a church to perform a marriage ceremony because of something genetic about one of the participants that can never change (like their race) then, logically, they also couldn’t force a church to perform a marriage ceremony for something like a gay marriage that is based on a choice or something that can be changed like sexual orientation. So if you are to be believed then you have nothing to fear.

The fact you’re wrong on the gay marriage issue in general and that I have the guts to call you on it and the facts and historical perspective to back up what I say doesn’t make me a troll, and if forced to choose I would rather be right than popular anyway.

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM

I refuse to take the bait because this entire discussion is based upon the presumption that the judge’s ruling was correct. It was not. It will never be correct.

If you accept that the court can make up whatever law they want to fit their end desires, then it’s easy to see how churches and the religious will be attacked next.

But you know that. You’re just a Christo-phobe.

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I refuse to take the bait because this entire discussion is based upon the presumption that the judge’s ruling was correct. It was not. It will never be correct.

There’s no bait to take. I’m just informing you of the facts.

If you accept that the court can make up whatever law they want to fit their end desires, then it’s easy to see how churches and the religious will be attacked next.

They can’t make up whatever law they want to fit their end desires; they’re bound by the Constitution and its protections for religious liberty of the churches in their functions as churches. Show me examples in the past of churches being attacked in the manner you’re describing and I’ll change my position, and in the mean time know that if it ever does happen I’ll be screaming from the rafters with you about how the Catholic church (or any other) should not be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that is contrary to their beliefs.

But you know that. You’re just a Christo-phobe.

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Now you’re accusing me of hating my own grandmother. That’s low.

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 9:42 PM

The Constitution and (your interpretation of) the Christian moral code are not synonymous.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM
.

Irrelevant.

We need only argue and prove that homosexuality is an “abnormality” whose ‘acceptance’ is being illegitimately imposed on all of the rest of us, by activist “black-robed” “bench-sitters” legislating from the bench.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM

.
Again, Step One is reading the document to find out what is and is not in it. Once that’s done we can go on to specific terms like “equal protection” and “due process” to figure out what those imply.

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

.
Apparently you can’t be convinced that I’ve read it, so we’re already at a ‘dead end’.
.

And what’s this about legislating from the bench? Who is doing that exactly? Specific examples would be helpful. Or are you opposed to judicial review (Google it if you’re hearing the term for the first time)?

alchemist19 on July 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

.
Not a complete list:

Dredd Scott (1857)

Roe vs Wade (1973)

Ruling on the “Affordable Health Care Act” (2012)

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland (2013)

listens2glenn on July 25, 2013 at 11:52 PM

But you know that. You’re just a Christo-phobe.

njrob on July 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM

.
Now you’re accusing me of hating my own grandmother. That’s low.

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 9:42 PM

.
‘Phobic’ is not the same as “Hate”.

listens2glenn on July 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Now you’re accusing me of hating my own grandmother. That’s low.

alchemist19 on July 25, 2013 at 9:42 PM

You aren’t very good at this, are you? As L2G pointed out, hate =/= equal phobic. I’m sure you think your grandma is ignorant for practicing her faith and constitutionally protected rights. I’m sure you think she doesn’t have those rights outside the brick and mortar church. I’m sure you think she’s bigoted if she beliefs that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin as any practicing Christian must.

But you don’t “hate” her. Carry on.

P.S. You’re no different than Obama trying to limit free expression of religion to churches which is counter to the plain words of the Constitution.

Let me help you on this one. A church is…

njrob on July 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM

trying to limit free expression of religion to physical buildings called churches*

njrob on July 26, 2013 at 7:36 AM

Apparently you can’t be convinced that I’ve read it, so we’re already at a ‘dead end’.

Because you’ve convinced me you haven’t read it. This isn’t like earlier where I was accused of opposing gun rights despite the fact I’m a life member of the NRA with a CCW; that was an assumption based off no evidence. In your case however there was this exchange you and I had earlier.

Why would that be? God was never in the Constitution to begin with.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

.
Who or what is the “Creator” that endows us with certain inalienable rights ?

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

In a discussion of the Constitution you’re talking about the Declaration of Independence. How am I to square the fact that you don’t know what is an is not in the Constitution with your statement that you have read it?

Not a complete list:

Dredd Scott (1857)

Roe vs Wade (1973)

Ruling on the “Affordable Health Care Act” (2012)

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland (2013)

listens2glenn on July 25, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Just so we’re clear, are these examples of legislating from the bench or just a list of cases whose outcomes you didn’t agree with? The penultimate case you cite was incorrectly decided but I wouldn’t say it was legislating from the bench, and the final case was decided correctly and wasn’t bench legislation either.

‘Phobic’ is not the same as “Hate”.

listens2glenn on July 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Ok, stipulating that I’m still not a Christo-phobe (or whatever the term was). I have nothing at all against Christians; heck, given the choice if I had to live in a country where the majority subscribed to one of the world’s major religions I would pick the Christians in a heartbeat. You can stand athwart attempts to subvert the Constitution and replace it with some person’s individual moral code without having anything against Christians or Christianity in general.

alchemist19 on July 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

You aren’t very good at this, are you?

I’m excellent at this, and for your sake that’s a good thing. If someone who wasn’t good at this was making you look as bad as I’ve made you look then you, sir, would be in some trouble. :-)

As L2G pointed out, hate =/= equal phobic. I’m sure you think your grandma is ignorant for practicing her faith and constitutionally protected rights. I’m sure you think she doesn’t have those rights outside the brick and mortar church. I’m sure you think she’s bigoted if she beliefs that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin as any practicing Christian must.

But you don’t “hate” her. Carry on.

You can practice your faith all you want and believe anything you want to believe, I’m concerned with what the government (which is bound by the Constitution, not your faith) is going to do. For example, if your church wants to not believe in divorce, and that anyone who divorces cannot “remarry” and that they’re living in sin from there on out then you are free to do so. The question is will the government do anything about it. The government isn’t bound by your moral code and so they shouldn’t.

P.S. You’re no different than Obama trying to limit free expression of religion to churches which is counter to the plain words of the Constitution.

Let me help you on this one. A church is…

njrob on July 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM

You might want to reconsider how far you want to push this line of reasoning. But again, you’re free to practice your religion as you see fit so long as you’re not hurting anyone else. If you don’t want to acknowledge that a couple who had been previously married to other people or a gay couple or whoever are really married then you have that right. The thing is the government and the Constitution don’t practice your religion.

alchemist19 on July 26, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Why would that be? God was never in the Constitution to begin with.

alchemist19 on July 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM
.

Who or what is the “Creator” that endows us with certain inalienable rights ?

listens2glenn on July 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

.
In a discussion of the Constitution you’re talking about the Declaration of Independence. How am I to square the fact that you don’t know what is an is not in the Constitution with your statement that you have read it?

alchemist19 on July 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

.
They go together … and there’s no contradiction between them.
.

Not a complete list:

Dredd Scott (1857)

Roe vs Wade (1973)

Ruling on the “Affordable Health Care Act” (2012)

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland (2013)

listens2glenn on July 25, 2013 at 11:52 PM

.
Just so we’re clear, are these examples of legislating from the bench or just a list of cases whose outcomes you didn’t agree with?

alchemist19 on July 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

.
Uhhh ….. “yes”.
.

The penultimate case you cite was incorrectly decided but I wouldn’t say it was legislating from the bench, and the final case was decided correctly and wasn’t bench legislation either.

alchemist19 on July 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

.
Hotair commenter #1: That “federal judge ordering Ohio to recognize gay marriages performed in Maryland” constitutes legislating from the bench !

Hotair commenter #2: No, it doesn’t !

Hotair commenter #1: Does so !

Hotair commenter #2: Does not !

Hotair commenter #1: Does so !

Hotair commenter #2: Does not !

Hotair commenter #1: Does so !

Hotair commenter #2: Does not !

Hotair commenter #1: Does so !

Hotair commenter #2: Does not ! …………..
.
…………. (repeat, until the end of time, or civil war breaks out … whichever comes first).

listens2glenn on July 26, 2013 at 11:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7