By The Right Scoop


So now a church can’t determine the use of it’s own private property, according to a NJ judge. How absurd:

CBN NEWS – A New Jersey judge says the Methodist Church violated a state law in refusing to allow a same-sex ceremony on its property in 2007.

On Thursday, Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger said the decision made by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated New Jersey’s discrimination laws.

Metzger ruled the pavilion area where the couple wanted to hold the ceremony is a public space and is advertised as a wedding venue without any religious pre-conditions.

The church argued that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, an argument that the judge rejected.

Jim Campbell, the attorney representing the church, says they may appeal the decision.

“The government should not be able to force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs,” he said in a statement.

The plaintiffs in the case are not seeking monetary damages, and the judge did not impose any penalties when he made his ruling.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    If we don’t cry

  • Is_Sense_Common

    Ok folks – help me out again here. It is my understanding the marriage is a Biblical concept. A promise to God and to one another that you will remain true and work to further His Kingdom. The Bible clearly states that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman and specifically speaks out against same-sex unity. How about a division of church & state in this context? Why is that division only used to further the government cause, but never the church’s?

    • Persephone

      I think it’s because of the material benefits…the insurance, pensions, etc…that are afforded to a spouse, that made marriage attractive to gay people.
      And being able to adopt.

      Gays started out rejecting the ‘straight lifestyle’.
      Then, they demanded tolerance of their ‘alternate’ lifestyle.
      One obtained…they now demand that we alter our social institutions to accomodate them.
      Seems kinda hypocritical to me.
      But maybe that’s just me.

      • Is_Sense_Common

        Once again, since our liberal schools have attempted to rewrite history, there seems to be no understanding or acknowledgement of the fact that our nation’s laws and culture are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Therefore, marriage, to them, is simply a contract that seeks to exclude a certain population. Nope – not just you Persephone. It’s completely hypocritical and soulless.

      • Anonymous

        Persephone I agree with you, but I think they want more than accommodation. I think they want special treatment.

        The LBGTQ crowd doesn’t want “equality”, they want to be “more equal” than everybody else. Hmmm… seems we’ve heard that phrase before… where was it? I remember there was a farm… and some animals… and the pigs were in charge…

        • Persephone

          Oh yeah, I agree, 3seven.

          They already have the ‘right to marry’…the same as the rest of us…just marry someone of the opposite sex.
          The accommodation that they are demanding requires that they be afforded a new ‘special’ right, thereby changing the institution of marriage for our society as a whole.
          It’s rather selfish really.

        • Is_Sense_Common

          I have decided to go back & read that book again, as well as 1984. When I was in 7th grade & read those books, it seemed implausible. I’m curious to see exactly how today’s govt culture compares. I have a feeling my head will be exploding. If you hear shrieks or earthquakes coming from the Midwest, you’ll know my progress.

    • Anonymous

      The universal principle of marriage in the Bible, as practiced by Adam and Eve, is that marriage is the result of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It has been questioned whether the administrative laws in this country change this to require a marriage ceremony as well. On the other hand, among observant Jews like myself a religious ceremony is required, but I know some Jews who opt not to get a secular marriage license.

      • Anonymous

        Good for them. I personally will never seek the governments permission to marry. They have no place in it. They use it as a control mechanism. If you do as you are told, you might get a treat. (tax break, insurance, etc.)

    • Anonymous

      Marriage is a covenant relationship–not merely a contract as many mis-understand.

      This case enlight of the recent supreme court decision seems ripe to be overturned:

      This week the United States Supreme Court made a landmark unanimous decision that protected the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, rejected an argument made by the Obama Justice Department, which sought to eliminate the “ministerial exception” in employment discrimination law.

      • Anonymous

        I can’t believe you religious guys have to answer to the damn government. If I believed, I would make it clear by whatever means necessary that the government will, by force if necessary, stay out of my place of freaking worship.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          come and join us then steven! ;-)

  • Anonymous

    As Perry pointed out (and Gingrich and Santorum confirmed), there is a war on Christianity. The good: The bible told us that the time would come where good is bad and bad is good… welcome to the 21st Century. Jesus can’t come quick enough! The bad: We’ll have to live with assinine crap like this until we get good, solid, God-fearing conservatives in positions of power – people who follow God, the Constitution, and the will of the American people. Until then… this stuff sux.

    • Anonymous

      until we get good, solid, God-fearing conservatives in positions of power

      But here’s the problem with that assertion. Voting conservatives, real conservatives, into power is not going to change people’s hearts. When people themselves are reprobate and incapable of self government (self control) then more laws are required. That’s the dilemma we face with our humanistic society right now. We have lawmaking coming out of our ying yangs as it is.

      No! People have to change in their hearts. Conservative lawmakers can only hold their finger in the dyke for so long. Hopefully long enough for a 3rd great awakening. Then certain laws will not be necessary.

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps they should go to an Islamic nation to get their divorce. I understand that those laws would take care of them quite well. Or not!

      • Anonymous

        I might take exception to the idea that more laws are needed when people fail to govern themselves. In a nanny state, such as ours, government creates the environment for undisciplined behavior. Where you have no welfare, no government subsidized drug use, and no social safety nets, you have independently minded people who have to survive on their own in society. Families would discipline themselves, and so would individuals. If they do not, then nobody will do business with them, or hire them. Without government telling employers how to run their business’, bad people don’t prosper. Without prohibition of drugs, you don’t have the criminal element. Without the welfare you don’t have so many people who can afford not to work, while doing drugs.

        If you legalize personal behavior that does no harm to others, then take away the subsidies, you end up with a much better, and moral society. Rather than making a new law every time something bad happens, you simply prosecute people who cause harm to others. You put to death those who commit violent crimes such as murder and rape, rather than giving them food and shelter and releasing them back into society after a few years.

        You deregulate guns and get rid of law suits on those who use them to protect themselves. Islam would never be a threat to this kind of society. Free men would take care of that problem.

        Government created the mess of a society that we live in. Getting rid of most of our current government would solve a lot of problems.

        There is no need for government to be in the marriage business. If we had equal justice for all men and women, then a legal marriage before men would have no authority, and God could take his rightful place within the marriage covenant between a man and a woman without government intervention. If people knew that government was not going to favor them in a divorce and hand them another person’s paycheck for years on end, many would think twice about giving up the security of their family unit.

        Government destroys families.

        • Anonymous

          Yikes! What happened there, did the cat keep hitting your send post button.

          In a nanny state, such as ours, government creates the environment for undisciplined behavior.

          That is true, but I’d say it’s backwards actually. Where people don’t have self governance, moral behaviour or self regulation, or disciplined behaviour, they create conditions where a nanny state comes in to do it for them. From that point, once a nanny state is in place, the undisciplined behaviour becomes entrenched and the downward cycle exacerbates. It’s undisciplined and unscrupulous groups who pressure government for more regulations to enslave free men even further.

          The rest of your post… I couldn’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Bang on there! But are you sure you’re in the right business… the libertarian business. Because I’d say that your conservative Christian world view is going to scrape up against the anarcho-capitalists anarcho-libertarians among the Ron Paul groupies.

        • Anonymous

          Yikes! What happened there, did the cat keep hitting your send post button.

          In a nanny state, such as ours, government creates the environment for undisciplined behavior.

          That is true, but I’d say it’s backwards actually. Where people don’t have self governance, moral behaviour or self regulation, or disciplined behaviour, they create conditions where a nanny state comes in to do it for them. From that point, once a nanny state is in place, the undisciplined behaviour becomes entrenched and the downward cycle exacerbates. It’s undisciplined and unscrupulous groups who pressure government for more regulations to enslave free men even further.

          The rest of your post… I couldn’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Bang on there! But are you sure you’re in the right business… the libertarian business. Because I’d say that your conservative Christian world view is going to scrape up against the anarcho-capitalists anarcho-libertarians among the Ron Paul groupies.

          • Anonymous

            Discus kept coming up saying “error”. So I hit the button until it posted. That sucks.

            I don’t see a conflict with my Christian values and Libertarianism. In fact I see it as a superior philosophy from a moral perspective. Libertarianism says that we don’t have the right to use force, unless one person is harming another, or their property. Whereas God does not use force, but gives us free will to succeed or fail, Libertarianism is most like that which God affords us.

            God’s natural laws apply to all equally. Including the consequences for breaking those laws. Where a person fails, a consequence ensues, and therefor the behavior is corrected without infringement on a person’s inalienable right to self govern. In the case where other people, or their property, is harmed by someone, we believe that the use of force can be applied to correct it. This is also a natural consequence. God created the consequences, and when man adds to them unnecessarily, it only compounds the problem.

            What is not naturally accepted is men forcing their will on others. It is not God’s way either. A natural consequence of people using force to control a society is rebellion. This is the nature of man, which God created. Jesus said “treat others as you would have them treat you”. This does not include the use of force to regulate personal choices. Nobody accepts this well.

            God said “do not judge the world”. What this means is that we can not force our morality on those who do not know God. When we do, we turn people away from God, rather than let the natural consequences and the witness of Godly people bring them to Him. The use of force never changed anyone’s mind about their personal habits. It may create fear in them, which is wrong, but it won’t help them be a better person.

            I agree with you concerning the natural progression of things. Often times, it is certain people that petition government to intervene. This is where men lack the internal fortitude to tell people to “deal with it”. Some people are always going to want someone else to do it for them. If someone else has to pay for it, many are ok with that.

            Libertarianism looks at taxation for the purpose of redistribution as a moral issue. It is theft at its core, and therefor is wrong. Volunteerism is the Libertarian way. Jesus said that only what you do with a pure heart is of any good. (paraphrased) When government does something in the name of doing good, they destroy the real value of it by forcing people to do it, or pay for it. Whereas the charitable heart of a society will prosper greatly in a free society. Not to mention the fact that government does not do anything efficiently.

            Our society began its decline, primarily, after the civil war. The feds grabbed power that would be used from that point on to infringe upon the personal rights and incomes of the people. Not to mention their ability to govern themselves locally. In the early 1900s Americans conceded their ability to keep the fruits of their labor, and to own property. They exchanged these rights for a social welfare system that would begin the great decline of America’s moral superiority in the world. This led to the military industrial complex, which is now used to to force foreign nations into complying with our demands. America has forfeited its moral standing for world power and domination. Though it is not the American people, but the huge government that was created after forfeiting our personal freedoms and sovereignty.

            Governments are institutions of men, not God. Though God allows men to create them, and can use them for His purposes, they generally do no operate in such a manner as to be Godly in nature. The very nature of man, being that of sin, will perpetuate tyranny through the institutions of man.

            Libertarianism is not an anarchy related ism. Libertarianism does not exclude the creation of a structured government, but only includes it for the sake of the protection of liberty, rather than the regulation of all personal behavior.

            Our system is rotten to the core. Corruption is entrenched to the extent that a complete reset is going to be needed. Right now, there is a peaceful effort to change the system without violence, but the natural progression is rebellion which will produce violence.

            • Anonymous

              Everything you stated is just good old fashioned conservatism and right and proper classical liberalism a la John Locke and Adam Smith.

              One area (and we’ve discussed this before) where libertarianism goes off the rails in America is this hard left wing talk of empire, military industrial complex and isolationism (sorry… non-interventionism). This is not to defend all aspects of America’s foreign policy, but to highlight that America’s military presence in the world is vital to global trade and vital to some global order in an interconnected trade environment, and as a check and counterweight to unfettered belligerence by rogue states which threatens that order.

              The other area is what I touched upon… the anarcho aspects. It’s a strong component of libertarianism, and while many moderate libertarians may not buy into it… it’s a cover for licentiousness by non-Christian libertarians. And they hate Christianity and any limits placed on their personal morality. It’s the “rights of me” wing of libertarianism as apposed to the Founders’ Rights of Men. And they used liberty as a cover for immoral behaviours.

              Now my friend… it’s Saturday, I’ve got to go to the gym… so leave me in peace. (just joking… you can write me anytime).

            • Anonymous

              Everything you stated is just good old fashioned conservatism and right and proper classical liberalism a la John Locke and Adam Smith.

              One area (and we’ve discussed this before) where libertarianism goes off the rails in America is this hard left wing talk of empire, military industrial complex and isolationism (sorry… non-interventionism). This is not to defend all aspects of America’s foreign policy, but to highlight that America’s military presence in the world is vital to global trade and vital to some global order in an interconnected trade environment, and as a check and counterweight to unfettered belligerence by rogue states which threatens that order.

              The other area is what I touched upon… the anarcho aspects. It’s a strong component of libertarianism, and while many moderate libertarians may not buy into it… it’s a cover for licentiousness by non-Christian libertarians. And they hate Christianity and any limits placed on their personal morality. It’s the “rights of me” wing of libertarianism as apposed to the Founders’ Rights of Men. And they used liberty as a cover for immoral behaviours.

              Now my friend… it’s Saturday, I’ve got to go to the gym… so leave me in peace. (just joking… you can write me anytime).

              • Anonymous

                Don’t you think that those who want a higher level of government control than the Paulite Libertarians might just take an extreme position against Libertarianism in an effort to discredit it? I don’t really see a fair treatment of the man on the basis of his actual positions.

                I don’t think that Paul would consider the defense of free trade with our allies as being off limits concerning the use of military force. I think that he just draws the line at the borders of a nation’s sovereignty. If certain nations cannot control their criminal populations, then they would simply lose trade opportunity. I don’t have a problem with trade being cut back with a rogue nation, I just don’t think that the UN is a good organization to use for a collective effort against other countries.

                Obama should be tried, and then hanged for treason for taking orders from the UN. He should be imprisoned, as well, for usurping the rule of law and ordering the death of US citizens without giving them the same right to a trial that I would afford him. We are becoming a lawless nation, and it is starting in the halls of the White House, Congress, and the Senate. This will not end well for us.

      • Anonymous

        I might take exception to the idea that more laws are needed when people fail to govern themselves. In a nanny state, such as ours, government creates the environment for undisciplined behavior. Where you have no welfare, no government subsidized drug use, and no social safety nets, you have independently minded people who have to survive on their own in society. Families would discipline themselves, and so would individuals. If they do not, then nobody will do business with them, or hire them. Without government telling employers how to run their business’, bad people don’t prosper. Without prohibition of drugs, you don’t have the criminal element. Without the welfare you don’t have so many people who can afford not to work, while doing drugs.

        If you legalize personal behavior that does no harm to others, then take away the subsidies, you end up with a much better, and moral society. Rather than making a new law every time something bad happens, you simply prosecute people who cause harm to others. You put to death those who commit violent crimes such as murder and rape, rather than giving them food and shelter and releasing them back into society after a few years.

        You deregulate guns and get rid of law suits on those who use them to protect themselves. Islam would never be a threat to this kind of society. Free men would take care of that problem.

        Government created the mess of a society that we live in. Getting rid of most of our current government would solve a lot of problems.

        There is no need for government to be in the marriage business. If we had equal justice for all men and women, then a legal marriage before men would have no authority, and God could take his rightful place within the marriage covenant between a man and a woman without government intervention. If people knew that government was not going to favor them in a divorce and hand them another person’s paycheck for years on end, many would think twice about giving up the security of their family unit.

        Government destroys families.

      • Anonymous

        I might take exception to the idea that more laws are needed when people fail to govern themselves. In a nanny state, such as ours, government creates the environment for undisciplined behavior. Where you have no welfare, no government subsidized drug use, and no social safety nets, you have independently minded people who have to survive on their own in society. Families would discipline themselves, and so would individuals. If they do not, then nobody will do business with them, or hire them. Without government telling employers how to run their business’, bad people don’t prosper. Without prohibition of drugs, you don’t have the criminal element. Without the welfare you don’t have so many people who can afford not to work, while doing drugs.

        If you legalize personal behavior that does no harm to others, then take away the subsidies, you end up with a much better, and moral society. Rather than making a new law every time something bad happens, you simply prosecute people who cause harm to others. You put to death those who commit violent crimes such as murder and rape, rather than giving them food and shelter and releasing them back into society after a few years.

        You deregulate guns and get rid of law suits on those who use them to protect themselves. Islam would never be a threat to this kind of society. Free men would take care of that problem.

        Government created the mess of a society that we live in. Getting rid of most of our current government would solve a lot of problems.

        There is no need for government to be in the marriage business. If we had equal justice for all men and women, then a legal marriage before men would have no authority, and God could take his rightful place within the marriage covenant between a man and a woman without government intervention. If people knew that government was not going to favor them in a divorce and hand them another person’s paycheck for years on end, many would think twice about giving up the security of their family unit.

        Government destroys families.

  • Anonymous

    This is so predictable. Liberals wine and scream for “gay equal rights”, but that just means imposing their world view on everyone else. There is no such thing as equality in reality. They use “equality” as a strawman argument to try to force their agenda, but really, they are saying gays’ rights are superior to religious people’s rights. Such hypocrisy.

    • Anonymous

      How about NO! at gunpoint?

      • Anonymous

        You shouldn’t be allowed to own guns in the first place, so the point is moot. As a matter of fact, they’ll probably vote to send a flunky to your house armed with a gun and identified with a badge to relieve you of this weapon. For your own good, of course.

        • Anonymous

          Of course!

        • mike payton

          When the government tries to take my guns, I will gladly turn them over. One round at a time. And I will aim for their faces. They want to burn the constitution, then I will at least die knowing that I deprived their mothers of burying their stormtrooper sons with an open coffin.

          • Anonymous

            As a practical matter, aim center mass for faster target acquisition. Here’s to hoping it never comes to that.

  • Anonymous

    For such a small segment of society the homosexual community is trying to turn religion into a far out extreme concept of false dogma. Judges that rule in favor of the homosexual agenda are overtly going against their sworn allegiance to their office.

    • Persephone

      They prolly had their fingers crossed when they were swearing their oaths, 4Hoppes.

  • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

    Just like Hawaiian judge ruled same sex fake “marriage” can happen in churches against the will of the pastors !
    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12844

    Say bye-bye to your freedoms people your in your last days

    • Anonymous

      This is why we remain The Church Militant

  • http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

    This is why we need to support whoever is the nominee. The Supreme Court will have several vacancies in the next term. Santorum, Romney, even the ungrateful government worker, Newt, will choose better justices than Obama.

    Private property rights are about to die an ignominious death.

    • Anonymous

      Herein lies the whole root of the problem of allowing O to be re-elected. He would try to appoint 2 leftist, activist justices to the SC (by recess appointment, no doubt) and we would be SCREWED. Congress would be helpless to stop him.

      Lifetime appointments have to go for the SCOTUS. Having decades of radical decisions by the SC would end our Republic as we know it. The SC would look like the 9th circuit does now.

      • http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

        You might be right. All I know is right now we have to be smart about who we vote for in the general.

    • Anonymous

      First we need to make sure that that nominee isn’t the white republican version of the O. Romney needs to be stopped, though at this point I don’t know how it could happen. Hopefully he puts his foot in his mouth or something, but I do know that I will never vote for the architect of Romneycare.

      • http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

        If you believe that then you need to vote for Santorum – he’s the only other choice. Perry and Gingrich are the worst stereotypical government workers. They take, take, take, and are never grateful for the real workers who make their cushy government jobs possible.

        • Anonymous

          I can’t quite put my finger on it but I find something about Santorum to be off off putting.

          • http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

            Who are you leaning towards? Ron Paul is not an option for me. Newt, Huntsman, and Perry have shown their true colors as anti-capitalists, and while I think Romney is more conservative that what most people think, I understand people’s concerns about him and I am uncomfortable with those same issues. That leaves one guy for me with Romney as a second.

            • Anonymous

              I haven’t really done too much homework on Huntsman or Perry. I was starting, ever so briefly, to warm to Perry, if for no better reason than that he infuriated liberals, but then that thing with the painted rock, and the forced immunizations kicked up, and then Cain came along, so I moved on. Cain was the one I was really rooting for, and I’m a little sad that Huckabee decided not to run. I’ve long said that Gingrich is just another big government neo-con, as bad as, or worse than Bush. His one crowning achievement – balancing the budget – was just a smoke and mirrors game. The federal government hasn’t been balanced in either of our lifetimes (and yes, I make that assertion having no idea how old you actually are).

              I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, though the implications of his foreign policy are frightening. Given the history, the ideology, and theology of that nation, I don’t think there can be any doubts about what would happen, first to Isreal, then to the entire western world, if they are allowed to acquire nukes. For starters, anyway. I’m not too hot on returning to the gold standard either, mainly because there aren’t enough gold reserves in the world to run the American economy, let alone the world one, though I agree that there needs to be some outside resource that the dollar is tied to to prevent our government from doing exactly what it’s doing.

              If I may, why isn’t RP an option for you?

  • Anonymous

    Christians are commanded to obey the laws of the land, except where the State has clearly gone against God’s law.

    Acts 5:29 “Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!”

  • Persephone

    *grabs a pillow*

    *begins screaming into it*

  • Anonymous

    Here is a thought. You want to be gay then be gay. Do not force GOD’S house to change what he has created and demanded. Stand up church to these blasphemous people and take them on. It is time to take on these bastards!

    • Anonymous

      I’ve been convinced for the last several years that homosexuality will be a defining issue of this age of the Church. Many bow or turn a blind eye. Some twist God’s Word to suit themselves. God, however, is unchanged.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        Exactly! Well said steprock!

  • Anonymous

    ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service.’

    ‘No husband and wife, no marriage.’

    • Anonymous

      That should be a bumper sticker, if it isn’t already.

  • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

    This should be a clarion call to make a massive, massive, MASSIVE pushback against both this judge, Obama, and all levels of state and federal government that infringe upon the civil and Constitutional liberties of Christendom. The Southern Baptists Convention, COGIC, AOG and others need to form massive lawsuits, citing the government attempting to force them to abandon their faiths, in favor of government diktats, activist judges, and threats from the taxman to ruin their churches, if they dare speak against the government in their churches. Hell, while I’m not a supporter of the catholic church, I certainly wouldn’t oppose an outright lawsuit from the Holy See against the Obama regime and individual states through the US Supreme Court.

    • Anonymous

      Too busy to write much but right on. I agree. Back to work.

  • Joseph ewing

    And so it begins…

  • Anonymous

    Just keep pushing this country’s citizens. If obama wins re-election it matters not because he can’t force hundreds of millions of people to comply with laws/rules they refuse to follow.

    300+ million to (535 members of Congress + 1 President + 9 Justices). I’ll take those numbers any day of the week.

    Don’t think so? Look at Greece.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    The “judge” was not even a real Judge

    He was an “administrative” judge – like a DMV judge

    I blame the Church’s attorney for this

    Should have insisted on a jury trial

    Easily turned over in appeal

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    LOOK at point # 3 below

    THE FENCE

    You can’t get any more accurate than this!

    Which side of the fence are you on?

    If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

    If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
    If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    Democrat’s demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

    If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
    A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
    A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended”.

    Ciao!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kathy-Herron/762111476 Kathy Herron

      I am for sure passing this to all my friends … thank you for posting it …

  • http://fishygov.wordpress.com FishyGov

    This is akin to forced conversion.

    Imagine that a straight couple wanted to be married in a gay venue. If they were denied the accommodations how do you think the gay community would feel if the courts imposed the couple’s wish on them?

    wedding: the act or ceremony of marrying; marriage; nuptials.

    marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

    husband: a married man, especially when considered in relation to his wife.

    wife: a woman joined in marriage to a man; a woman considered in relation to her husband; spouse.

    The preconditions for renting the venue lies in the definition of the words: wedding, marriage, husband and wife.

    This ruling has got to be appealed.

    • Anonymous

      The US Supreme court just ruled unanimously in favor of Christian churches, schools etc. against this type of crap the other day. I guess their ruling only affects who they can turn down to be ministers. (?)

      There was an article on the ruling a couple of days ago and I linked to it. Here is an excerpt from John Roberts, and I quote from it:

      “Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out”:

      “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”

      Doesn’t this action also “interfere with the internal governance of the church”?

      This judge doesn’t know what he’s doing. What a time-wasting, money-wasting, PC, bast*rd. Poor little gay couple, they’d probably rage against Christians trying to “cram religion down their throats” but apparently have no problems cramming their abomination down Christian throats.

      Would a mosque be treated the same if a gay couple wanted to be married there? What do you think? How about some “free exercise thereof”? If Christians were like hard line Muslims, there would be no peace in this country. The powers that be have been undermining Christian freedoms for decades and trying to force us into a box and into their own image. We were created by God in His own image. Those that prefer to believe that they crawled out of primordial slime, perform as if they are still wallowing in it.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    One of the main arguments from homosexuals is that they want the “right” to marry, eventhough in reality, they already have that same right as we all do. What they want is a special right, which is not Constitutional, and which in this and many cases which have already been ruled against, go against our individual religious rights which ARE Constitutional.
    This doesn’t surprise me at all, as there have been many cases around the country where a judge rules against the Constitution or the will of the people, and rules for a politically correct social cause…
    We can fight, we can make people aware and spread these stories far and wide, but we will be fighting an uphill battle- so I hope you’re ready. The Word of Jesus tells us to expect persecution if you follow Him. This is only the begining. Soon, churches will lose their tax status, so pastors better get used to operations without tax breaks, people better get used to supporting those churches who will keep preaching the Word while being targeted for lawsuits. Bible believing Christians need to prepare themselves for a day where we may join other persecuted brothers and sisters behind bars, in prison or labor camps…. Unless Jesus comes first.

    • Anonymous

      There are alot of non-believers that support you guys, also. I’m all for gays being able to get married, but not by forcing churches to go against their damn doctrine, just to accommodate a few societal outliers.

  • Anonymous

    This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me want to move out of NJ; and I will at first opportunity.

    • Anonymous

      sjmom…I’m in the same boat.

      • Anonymous

        I have gotten an email from the Family Research Council and a phone call from the National Organization for Marriage to start calling legislators because of the Gay Marriage legislation. So far, I have signed a petition and called my state Senator.

        PS Are you in North or South Jersey? I am in South

  • Anonymous

    THIS JUDGE IS OUT OF LINE! IMPEACH HIM. HE CAN’T INTERFERE IN THE TEACHINGS OF A CHURCH! This is why I approve of Newt’s plans to rid this country of these lower Federal Courts. Just like all of these unconstitutional agencies, the FBI, CIA, DHS, EPA, ATF, DOE, Dept. of Indoctrination they need to be shut down.

    There are three Constitutional Agencies, the State Dept., The DOD or Dept. of War, and the Treasury, not the FED. That’s it!

    Time for them to go to the dustbin of history. LAY THEM ALL OFF!

    • Anonymous

      You know how much more of our paychecks we could keep if these agencies were abolished? Bloated government is the death of every dignified society.

  • Anonymous

    I’m so sick of these Gay rights groups! They’re nothing but a bunch of radical leftists!

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com On The Mark

    The two women are not merely trying to get married. They could do that at a great number of other places. The obvious goal here is religious persecution.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly! And if a church panders and submits to government intervention into their affairs, religion will become a thing of the past. You guys better represent!

    • Anonymous

      I wonder if the judge would be so brazen if this was a mosque?

      • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com On The Mark

        He’d have to come across two suicidal women in order for us to find out.

  • Anonymous

    Aren’t churches supposed to discriminate against gays?

    • Anonymous

      Leviticus 18:22:
      “You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”

      Leviticus 20:13:
      “If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”

      I Corinthians 6:9:
      “The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God.”

      “Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching.”

      I think the Bible is pretty clear cut. Therefore, any church that allowed same-sex marriage to take place on it’s premises would be directly violating the Christian foundation. I don’t believe in this, but screw off Judge. The state should never infringe on religious institutions tenets. Islam? Well that is another story!

      • Dan

        your so mean (B-{……telling the truth is not recommended in this world…better watch your self…..

    • Anonymous

      No, they love the sinner not the sin.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        We’re supposed to anyway, but unfortunately there are many who don’t :-( Then there’s the other side who believe they are loving, to the point of not offending, but that’s like loving someone straight to hell.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Dias/1680711668 Chris Dias

    Here’s my new math and people think I’m crazy for saying it, but prove me wrong.
    Progressivism=wanna be socialism=wanna be communism. Progressivism=communism in progress=evil.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, your math is correct. You passed with flying colors.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Sounds about right to me!

  • Anonymous

    The bible says that homosexuality is wrong, how can a bible-based church marry a gay couple?

    • Dan

      they are the Apostate church..”2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ”

      they are pleasers of man and not God

  • Anonymous

    So, the persecution of Christianity continues. This is not allowing the church freedom to follow the dictates of its religion. Marriage is a sacrament, civil union is the state version. The church should change it’s rules and demand that anyone who wants to use their property prove, that if they wanted to, they would be able to be accepted as a member of the Methodist Church. This would then let the person who wanted to rent out the space choose to be Methodist or not. If they made a choice, not to follow all the tenets of the Methodist faith (marriage being only between a man and a woman), then they would not qualify to rent the space. This would hopefully deal with the judge. A sad day for Christianity.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I agree freedomswatch, except if they agreed to become Methodist (or Episcopalian, UCC or any denomination really) they would, and would find themselves in one of the liberal branches which accept gays, or those who appoint gay ministers…

  • Anonymous

    I doubt this decision will stand. It is an obvious infringement of the First Amendment.

    • B-Funk

      I agree. Even so, it may be time for a little (peaceful) civil disobedience from the church and continue to deny same sex marriages despite the rule. I don’t think many of us are against gay people doing whatever they do, but I’ll never understand why they have this need to get validation out of people who will always disagree with their lifestyle.

      • Dan

        because they know in there heart what they are doing is sin and they think if they can force Christians to have to except them it will make them feel better about there sin….WRONG!!!! regardless of what a reprobate judge says the Judge of the Universe still has the last word.And it is an abomination and all the acceptance of the fallen world will not change that…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

    The left likes to claim that, if gay marriage is allowed, the only thing that will happen is that gays will marry. It’s obvious that this is not their only objective. If they manage to redefine marriage, every church will be in violation of their civil rights if they refuse to perform marriages for all comers. It is an assault on our religious liberties as guaranteed in the first amendment and cannot be allowed to occur.

  • mike payton

    I’m tired of these heathens and whores mocking our faith and denying OUR rights. Not just a mockery of faith, but of private property. If this judge wants to force his way onto private church property then he can perform this desecration himself.

  • Anonymous

    this is just another ruling by a worthless judge who should be escorted out of town…Where are all of our property rights going???when government comes knocking on our doors we must throw them OUT!!!

  • http://twitter.com/RADykal Robert D.

    Apparently when the church opened up its property to public use, it lost the right to religious preconditions for weddings. They should have kept their property to themselves instead of letting the local government defile it.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t obey it. Plain and simple. I would personally sit in jail for this cause if I was the church. Under Gods law you must obey the law of the land at all costs except when it goes against his doctrine.

  • bobemakk

    A man and a woman is marriage, not same sex. It disgusts me and I have gays in my family that really disturbs me.

  • Anonymous

    Its time for civil disobedience folks. If that fails…. Well, guess it maybe time to renew the tree of liberty as Jefferson foresaw..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IJYM277N7VJNF772U6DUVQKHAE TIMERUNNER

    The American people have the right to file for the removal of Activist judges. We should be moving to have this jude impeached. He is violating the law of the land and the law of God. Remove him from office. He has violated his oath of office not to meention the laws of human decency. Perverted in other words, indecent behavor by the judge.
    Don’t bother the US Congress they are just to busy helping obama with his FAT@sstWA.
    American Patriot
    PS: Vote 2012 Kick the bums out!!!!
    PS:inpeach obama!!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EFVVN4ILMQ42UE3ZEKHNDTZ3J4 Jim F.

    Tyranny Alert!

    New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Due Process ( A Fair Trial) Or Even Probable Cause.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/

  • Anonymous

    The Supreme Court just issued a ruling to Zero about a similar case like this. They took a very hard line on him and the DOJ. This will go a similar route. Something tells me they have their hands full with this rogue government.

    Supreme Court unanimously shoots down Obama admin in religious freedom case
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-unanimously-shoots-down-obama-admin-churches-have-right-to-ch