Judge rules church discriminated against gay couple for not allowing same-sex ceremony



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.

Comment Policy: Please read our 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.
newest oldest most voted
NJK
Member
NJK

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

Jim F.
Guest
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/

TIMERUNNER
Guest
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 [email protected]
American Patriot
PS: Vote 2012 Kick the bums out!!!!
PS:inpeach obama!!!

iidvbii
Member
iidvbii

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

bobemakk
Guest
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.

ryanomaniac
Member
ryanomaniac

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.

Robert D.
Guest
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
Guest
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!!!

mike payton
Guest
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.

Travis Pierson
Guest
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.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

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

B-Funk
Member
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
Guest
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…

Anonymous
Guest
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.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

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
Guest
Anonymous

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

Dan
Guest
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

Chris Dias
Guest
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.

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

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

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Sounds about right to me!

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

Aren’t churches supposed to discriminate against gays?

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

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… Read more »

Dan
Guest
Dan

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

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

No, they love the sinner not the sin.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

We’re supposed to anyway, but unfortunately there are many who don’t sad 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.

On The Mark
Member
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.

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

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
Guest
Anonymous

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

On The Mark
Member
On The Mark

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

NJK
Member
NJK

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

NJK
Member
NJK

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!

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

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
Guest
Anonymous

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

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

sjmom…I’m in the same boat.

Anonymous
Guest
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

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

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,… Read more »

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

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.

FishyGov
Guest
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.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

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… Read more »

Joe
Guest
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… Read more »

Kathy Herron
Guest
Kathy Herron

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

Joe
Guest
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

MJS
Member
MJS

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.

Joseph ewing
Guest
Joseph ewing

And so it begins…

Virus-X
Member
Virus-X

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
Guest
Anonymous

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

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

‘No shirt, no shoes, no service.’

‘No husband and wife, no marriage.’

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

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

johnos69
Member
johnos69

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!

steprock
Member
steprock

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.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Exactly! Well said steprock!

Persephone
Member
Persephone

*grabs a pillow*

*begins screaming into it*

steprock
Member
steprock

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!”

Mike Leavitt
Member
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.

Nukeman60
Member
Nukeman60

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.

Mike Leavitt
Member
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
Guest
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.

Mike Leavitt
Member
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
Guest
Anonymous

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

Mike Leavitt
Member
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
Guest
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… Read more »

DaMz
Guest
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
Guest
Anonymous

This is why we remain The Church Militant

Anonymous
Guest
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
Member
Persephone

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

Anonymous
Guest
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.

MJS
Member
MJS

How about NO! at gunpoint?

Anonymous
Guest
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.

MJS
Member
MJS

Of course!

mike payton
Guest
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
Guest
Anonymous

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

Sentinel
Member
Sentinel

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
Guest
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.

Nukeman60
Member
Nukeman60

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
Guest
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.… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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.… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
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.… Read more »

Is_Sense_Common
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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
Guest
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
Member
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
Member
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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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.

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

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.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

come and join us then steven! wink

steveart
Member
steveart

If we don’t cry

Back to Top of Comments