I am in total agreement with you, what is wrong with the democratic process, [the popular vote] where a federal judge can overrule the people. this is wrong. it goes against everything this nation stands for. democracy!!

as far as Ginsburg goes, she has no right being on the supreme court. her obvious disrespect of the constitution reveals her hidden agenda, to obstruct the will of the American people.

faithful, well thought out post, and the way its going, I find it very diffuclt to disagree with you,i don't care if someone is gay. but, I ask you not to rub your sexuality in my face. I find it sickning to have gay men kiss in public, with total disregard for children, or married couples, or the general public.

its gross, and rude, and they act like swine. and ones who defend such behavior are Indeed pushing their agenda by trying to recruit teens into their gay lifestyle, this is on their part is criminal. and such behavior should not be tolerated.

Binnie, thought you were going to finish that off with some extermination programme! What is wrong the gays getting married? Im not gay and I don't honestly give a shit what they do. If they get married and make a 'more real' commitment in their view, surely they will be more inclined to stay together, provide emotional and financial support for each other as opposed to short relationships etc AND SAVE ME, THE TAXPAYER, MONEY in the long run?

Its a different argument when you say you dont want gay guys (nice looking lesbians are ok, definitely!)kissing and rubbing their hands through each others chest hair etc in public, I don't want to see that either but that doesn't mean I don't want them to make whatever private commitment to each other. I assume the majority don't openly kiss etc in public, we just remember the minority that we might see who are no doubt annoying assholes, like straight couples who do the same. Tbh, I have no time for effeminate gay guys, why act like a woman? They annoy me like crazy and I avoid them like anyone else who annoys me, but again, Ill bet they annoy a lot of 'ordinary' gay guys as well. You know what would really annoy me if I was gay? Getting lumped in with the 'LBGT' acronym..lesbians ok, but people that aren't sure and others that are just batshit crazy and generally look like strange freaks would annoy the shit out of me.

As Ive said before though, this whole thing is unimportant and just a diversion from real issues..

I think the majority of people against gay marriage have those views because of their religious beliefs. Even though I do not think separation between church and state actually exists because religion shapes who you are, you morals and values. That is why the court needs to step in because imposing the values of one religion (all religions included) on the entire country is wrong.

I think the courts need step in when the majority will prohibit someone from pursuing Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If the majority got its way interracial marriage would be prohibited in some places and schools would be segregated.



I don't like seeing it either that is because I don't find it natural because I am straight but, I find it just as awkward and inappropriate when a man and a women are making out and groping each other in public. Isn't kissing someone you love a form of freedom of expression and therefore protected.

I as a straight male am defending rights of everyone, because I don't think it is right to deny the rights of anyone just because you don't like/understand them. I am certainly not recruiting teens to be gay or pushing the gay agenda. Are you saying it is criminal to be in support of gay rights? Doesn't that go against the first amendment?

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

The gay marriage movement started in 1989 with an article by Andrew Sullivan in The New Republic. Public opinion was decidedly against him at that time, but the movement picked up steam through Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank and a backlash against California's Proposition 22 in 2000. The state courts declared it unconstitutional and voters came back with Proposition 8. The majority of the state courts found 8 to be constitutional, but it was appealed to the Federal District Court in Northern California where Judge Vaughn Walker, who was himself gay (although he previously kept it a secret), claimed it wasn't constitutional under due process and equal protection clauses.

When challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that litigants had no standing. Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Harris refused to defend the proposition, something that was really without precedent. Meanwhile, other judges around the country followed suit in claiming that the anti-same sex marriage statutes were unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court, writing for the minority, said that standing should have been granted and the law allowed to stand based on the principles of federalism under the 10th Amendment. Even Andrew Sullivan agreed that voters should decided on a state-by-state basis rather than by judicial fiat. That's the history of this so far.

There will always be a dispute over this for several reasons: historically, Anglo-American laws were based on natural law and/or common law, both ultimately based on theism. Same-sex marriage is a new right that never before existed in history and is based on positive law, which in a sense declares that something is good because it is law and no deeper than that (in a sense based on circular reasoning). There's also original intent, which means when the federal constitution was written, what was the meaning of the clauses and amendments according to their authors? It does not mean that amendments are ignored or silliness like that. There are also religious differences that are significant. Liberal religious beliefs have no problem with same-sex marriage while conservative ones do. That means that it will never find acceptance among the majority of evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Hasidic Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Nor will it find acceptance in much of Asia, Africa and Russia. So to say, "just get over it" doesn't work and doesn't reflect the reality for most of the world.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

We should probably leave Bible quotes out of this because we could end up doing this all night .

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16- Stoning to death if you use the lords name in vain

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24- Rape victim should be stoned if they don't yell loud enough

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21- Should be stoned if you disobey your parents

The Bible is full of out dated ideas, we shouldn't pick and choose which ones are still valid since we are not "God" and therefore prone to error.

I was trying to appeal the the religious folk. I'll try to keep bible quoting to a minimum since I am no religious scholar.

well, bottom line, some of us will never accept gay marriage, and that doesn't mean that those of us that are opposed hate anything or anybody, myself I will never accept it.

and I know this will never happen, but, why not all of them just "stay in the closet" and do what they want to do behind closed doors.

can't he question just be easily flipped and asked why can't they just come out of the closet and do what they want?

this world belongs to those who can assert their will. everyone else is along for the ride.

what you think is right or wrong means nothing to someone who doesn't recognize the basis for YOUR definitions of right and wrong.

IMO there are more important things to worry about than whether a couple of cocksuckers can share benefits or not.

yes, that's true,there are more important things to discuss.

we agree on that.

Exactly, and I'll do likewise. My point was, anyone can cherry pick Bible quotes to suit their agenda.

Now I personally believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I also believe that man has translated it in very contradictory ways to suit their own beliefs. But Leviticus is pretty clear on homosexuality if you ask me. Because the translation is the same across the board (Greek, Aramaic, etc.).

But again, best to keep the Bible out of it .

We also have to remember that per the Declaration of Independence, our unalienable rights come from our Creator. Legal positivists tend to ignore that and only defer to the U.S. Constitution, which is more secular. It has to be remembered that both are founding documents and should be taken in that context. Another founding document is the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that says: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." It is also important to note that every one of the fifty states has references to God, or the Almighty or the Creator in its constitution. Even New York and California. That does NOT mean this country was founded as a Christian nation (see the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796), but it was clearly founded as a monotheistic one. Readers can debate their own conclusions.

Both the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance were composed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers composed the US Constitution not as a document that is more secular; they composed one that is entirely secular. The Founding Fathers could have composed a document that was sectarian; as James Madison's Convention notes reveal, the subject was never considered.

The US Constitution was composed and ratified in reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation as a national governing fundamental law. The states that emerged from the territory governed by the Northwest Ordinance composed constitutions that comported with the US Constitution.

Correct, Oli. But you know what else?

They were all God fearing believers who would be sickened by the Far Left's agenda to make this a Godless nation via the very documents that they labored over.

I won't quote anything, but I find religion/theology interesting so I will try to respond without bring up the specific Bible passages. I don't think I was cherry picking for an agenda. I think it is valid to "quote" Jesus from the Gospel of Luke, I say this because Christianity (Catholicism, Baptist, Protestant) are based on the teachings of Jesus. Regardless if you think he is the son of God or not, no doubt he was a radical figure who challenged the status quo. His teachings were in conflict with Jewish authorities and the teachings of the Torah(I very well could be wrong) which is why they challenged him, called him a drunkard etc. So since the we should take what Jesus "said" as gospel (pun intended) I kind of feel the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt.

I deliberately "quoted" Jesus because I feel his teachings are more important (for Christians) than the Old Testament which people seem to pick and choose (especially religious leaders) which verses that should be practiced (eating pork, shellfish and rabbit are all prohibited in Leviticus)

I'm not trying to offend you or insult your religion/book you may find holy, just what I took from my time at Catholic school (Christian Brothers 6th-12th) and Baptist church (11 years). I may have a lot to learn.



Definitely more important things going on in the US social issues like this are used to fill up news time so they don't have to report on important things

I'm a practicing Catholic. 55 years old. Catholic school Nuns from K through eight, four years of the Marist Brothers in high school, then four years of the Jesuits at Fordham University (and I needn't tell you that the Jesuits are a bit on the liberal side).

To be honest I am not sure what that "confused" face thing is referring to.

I was trying to cover my bases for anyone who read that.

I didn't know you had such an extensive Catholic history.

Growing up people are (in my case) indoctrinated with the traditionalist views and only after I "left" Christianity was I able to come to more liberal conclusions. Seems the Jesuit schooling did that for you

Even though there are sociological arguments that can be made against gay marriage, that many are against it because of religious reasons is beside the point. There is no Constitutional support for it. No more so than there is for abortion. But corrupt, activist judges have twisted the original intent and meaning of "right to privacy" and "equal protection under the law" in order to legalize these things. Everything not expressly written in the Constitution as being part of the federal government's jurisdiction belongs to the individual states. That includes gay marriage and abortion. But the liberals, for all their talk about public opinions changing in their favor, know they would lose in the court of public opinion. In fact, they did lose in most of the states when it came to gay marriage and that's why they chose to force their agenda through the courts just like they did abortion years before. It all comes back to so called "rights" they claim they have but is not given to them in the Constitution or anywhere else.



That's an unfortunately bad translation of the New Testament that secular liberals especially love to quote. No judgement means everything is OK and they can't be called into question about the things they support.

Of course, God knows we have to make judgement every day of one kind or another. The correct scripture reads: "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."



Secular liberals also love to cite passages in the Old Testament, which seem harsh and archaic, in order to call all of scripture into question.

Those of us, and unfortunately that doesn't include many Christians themselves, who understand the Bible know there is no need to "pick and choose." The Jehovah of the Old Testament, who gave the harsh laws you posted above, is the very same Jesus in the New Testament.

Many ask, How can that be?, as they seem so different. The Lord originally intended to give the Israelites the fullness of the Gospel (found on the original stone tablets that Moses later broke upon discovering their rebellion). Thereafter, with the Israelites having proven they were not ready to live the fulness of the Gospel, were given the lower law - known as the Law of Moses - and had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years before finally entering the Promised Land.

The Law of Moses was a strict law, one set up for a theocracy where the Lord was their King. Thus, something like blasphemy, for instance, was the same as treason under our law and punishable by death. The examples you gave above may seem harsh but they were only carried out only if the offender refused to repent. It's not like an adulterer or disobedient son was immediately taken outside the city and stoned.

You say these things are "out dated," and that's true, but it's not due to the reason you're assuming. They are outdated because the same God who gave those laws later came down as a man and gave the higher law or the fulness of the Gospel, which fulfilled, transcended, and superseded the lower law.

Many, including secular liberals, take more of a liking to what they read in the New Testament, finding it easier to stomach and easier to live. In reality, the higher law is such because it requires far more obedience. For instance, no longer were you commanded simply to not to commit adultery. Now, to even lust after a woman is already committing adultery in your heart. No longer were you commanded to just not kill. To even be angry with your brother put you in danger of God's judgement. And so on.

If you find the time I would like to hear some of these sociological arguments.

I feel that we are free independent human beings with the right to own yourself, which means you can do what you want with your body. We should be free to exercise these rights as long as you respect the rights of other human beings(W/O getting into when a fetus has rights). So with abortion I think the government (state and federal) should stay out of it which includes state funded abortions and it should be left up to the individual. Its really nobody's business

You are implying that only liberals are for equal rights for gays and lesbians. Log Cabin Republicans are for equal rights and 61% of republicans under 30 are in favor of same sex marriage(I really hates polls though). I think you will see this trend amongst younger republicans grow in the years to come. People don't have a right to invalidate a commitment made by a couple that they never met and will never meet because they don't agree with a lifestyle choice.

We obviously have different interpretations of freedom of expression (some would say marriage is the ultimate expression of love) and what the Declaration of Independence says of unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.



It is funny how republicans (which I can only assume you are) love to say think if you are not a Christian then you must be a liberal. I said liberal once but only to copy the language or a post I was replying to. Other than that I try to leave left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative out of the conversation.

You are quoting Matthew 7:1

Luke 6:37 King James version
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" Hasn't changed that much

So this is the correct scripture. So why is Matthews 7:1 correct and Luke 6:37 incorrect? God knows we judge but telling us we shouldn't, again we have different interpretations of the Bible and the meaning of the teachings of Jesus.



Being secular or being a liberal has nothing to do with it. I may be secular and I maybe liberal compared to you but its really irrelevant. I am not calling the scriptures as a whole in question.

I understand that you feel you know the Bible and you probably feel I don't because I am a "liberal" who cherry picks. We obviously have a different view on who Jesus was and the importance that his teachings should have. I kind of already stated my feelings on Jesus and the Old Testament in another post, expanding would be futile.

For one thing, marriage between a man and woman - and the subsequent family that usually results - has been the social norm for millenia. The family is the building block of society. But now, because of these newfound rights gays have, the definition of marriage is supposed to be turned on it's head? I've already gone on many times before how this country long ago outlawed polygamy, though that actually did have Constitutional protection due to religious freedom, unlike gay marriage. So what makes gay marriage any different? How long before we have people wanting to marry their dog or their car? How far do we stretch the definition of marriage to suit people's claims about their "rights."



If gays want to do their thing behind closed doors, that's one thing. Them trying to get government sanction for it, and changing the definition of marriage in the process, is another. That's when it becomes other people's business. A woman having an abortion is automatically somebody else's business - the child inside her. But, like the gay marriage issue, liberals are all about changing the definition of things, i.e. it's "not a child" or worthy of protection until it's crossed that magical second trimester line if not even later.



You can quote polls all you want. In state after state it was voted that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. It's why the gay marriage supporters had to get that changed through the courts. They didn't, and still don't, have the votes. Maybe that would eventually change over time but it should still be left up to the states. Not a single overreaching, activist judge.

And nobody is "invalidating" anything. Gays can be "committed" to each other all they want. They don't have a Constitutional right to redefine marriage in order to give their relationships legitimacy.



You are taking these words and stretching them extremely far in order to justify whatever suits you. Unless we're talking about freedom of speech, which is another matter, there's nothing in the Constitution about "freedom of expression." And, using your logic, anyone could use the excuse of having the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to justify almost anything.



This is why I don't think secular liberals should be quoting scripture - they don't understand it, much less believe it. Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37 are two translations of the same utterance by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. The correct translation I posted above applies to both.

So marriages that don't produce children are not part of the social norm and therefore shouldn't be allowed? So much for adoption. Its a good thing we don't allow older couples to marry and sterile people are prohibited from marrying also.

People marrying dogs is a stretch, I know that exist but it is not really a rational argument since animals can't think like us and have no choice in what they can do. Where marriage between two consenting adults who should not be restricted.



What business is it of anyone's if Rob and Joe or Jane and Mary decide to get married they aren't interfering with your life at all but, people have no problem telling someone them they can't do something because of a word. Marriage. Don't ideas and definitions change all the time? Words we use today have had different meanings during different periods of time.



Well if believing that no one has the right to restrict you from doing what you want as long as it does not interfere with the rights of another then I guess I am stretching these words. Using that logic does not justify almost anything.

I am talking about the freedom of speech, but also Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"



Having a little trouble mentioning religion without mentioning politics.

By your logic a Democrat could never write a book on Reagan because they don't understand being a Republican. Just because you like to classify someone as secular doesn't automatically make you the for most authority of religious doctrine

How do you know Matthew 7:1 wasn't a paraphrase of what was actually said? Perhaps Luke is elaborating on Jesus's words which you seem to have no problem discrediting to suit your purposes.

It is the correct translation because you say so, interesting analysis. Because I am a Christian, I am right and you are wrong. Doesn't necessarily work that way

Ive yet to meet any person - who takes religion serious- who isnt 2 or 3 conversations away from admitting they hate a certain group who don't agree with them, in this instance, gay people. By hate, I mean contempt/disregard and/or the And what right do they have to promise anyone an eternal punishment in hell etc. whilst its not been said outright in recent posts, itheres an undercurrent of contempt - its easy to hide your personal prejudices, in fact have them confirmed, in the pages of a book.

Two good quotes which I think explains how stupid and naive these beliefs can be when not kept in check:

"Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religion or denounced by them. And yet — the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us — from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction — itself composed of warring factions — has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

"One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think - though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one - that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell."
— Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything)

I dont see why anyone with more than a moderate belief in religion should be given any airtime in any debate. Its a fantasy and a delusion and people who push it should be treated as a bit flaky. In fact, just as its been said for gay people here, so as it should for religious people-I dont care what they do, as long as its behind closed doors and I don't have to listen or be witness to it.

That doesn't mean that the Constitution is based on positive law. The Constitution is derived from the Virginia Constitution, which is also secular, but both assumed natural law, much of the through John Locke. Considering that all of the authors were theists, considering their education and influences, and considering their own writings, there is no doubt that the Constitution is a natural law document up to and including the first ten amendments -- and probably several subsequent ones too. Remember, nonsectarian does not mean atheistic nor even agnostic. That means it's not "totally secular" as you assert. I recommend reading David Sehat, "The Myth of American Religious Freedom" (Oxford University Press, 2010) for historical context.

I am religious, and don't hate anybody just for disagreeing. In the case of gay people, my hostility is only due to the methods their enforcers sometimes use, but it's all about the method, I don't blame people for being born in a certain way because it wasn't their choice.

And I think you are wrong about religion being that bad; some people abuse it by threatening with hell anyone who disagrees, but that's just extremism, not welcome among normal religious people. Religion is meant to bring peace and hope, if somebody twists the concept, it's not the fault of the original concept.

Mainstream christianity teaches that sinners and non believers will go to hell does it not though Dwalin? And be punished for eternity...

Im not saying religion is bad, its just a faith some people have in a fantastical idea and if it somehow gives them hope and comfort, great, but it should go no further than that

First of all i'm not religious at all, but the vast majority of my family are and i find Fergies comments incredibly simplistic and offensive to people of (any) faith. To call anyone who believes in a religion stupid and naive; is in itself naive, since some of the most intelligent people on the planet are religious, take your two Christopher Hitchens quotes to any highly educated Theologian and you'll get laughed out of the room, in the same way a moron with two bible quotes will get laughed off by any highly educated Atheist. To look over the amount of good Theology has done for the planet is hilarious, the influence it's had on the Arts, Philosophy, Literature, Innovation and even Science is immense.

Hitchens and Dawkins while they come closer to my overall view are just as closeminded as any preacher who feels gays should be ashamed of themselves or whatever, and they do more harm than good towards other non-religious types as nutjobs like Pat Robertson do towards Christianity. Your last paragraph is... well saying that anybody of a religious persuasion shouldn't be able to put across their viewpoint is just... i don't even know.

I barely know anything about the Bible and have only read 3 of it's books as well as whatever i read in my time in Catholic School, so i would never feel comfortable quoting passages from it on the Internet whether it was positively or negatively supporting it, and i usually don't give much stock to people who do so.

I am sure they won't if they basically remain good people. There is a quote by Apostle Paul:



I get it that the important thing is how you live and how you act, and what you have in your heart. If your are a good person, even if you are not part of Christianity but live as a good person in conformity with general Christian principles, you aren't supposed to go to hell just because you aren't a believer.
Maybe somebody will say it's a misinterpretation on my part, but I am a believer in a merciful and loving God, not somebody whose main goal is to send most people possible to hell.
There are many atheists and members of other religions that are much worthier of Heaven than many of those who proclaim themselves Christians.

Hate is a word that's thrown around loosely. Hate means a passionate dislike for someone, an intense feeling of disliking someone. It doesn't mean disagreeing with someone or with what someone does or believes. There are moderate Muslims who disagree with Christian and Jewish beliefs but have no personal animosity toward them and do not wish them harm. Likewise, there are Christians who disagree with same-sex marriage, but that does not mean that Christians hate those who support it. That's a leap of quantum proportions. It is also not hate to have certain beliefs in the afterlife. Christianity, Islam and Orthodox Judaism all have their versions of eternal punishment, and they all believe that one who decides who receives it is God, not themselves. So let's keep the word "hate" out of the conversation.

PB, did you actually study religion/theology at Fordham or am I misinterpreting your post?

Dwalin, I pretty much agree with your post. Most people I know are non-practicing Muslims while I'm Orthodox Christian from my family, however deep down I doubt I will never be a believer no matter how much I'd like. I'm an atheist though and through, maybe even a nihilist and I'm okay with it.
I'd LIKE to believe since studies have shown that prayer and being able to believe in something wholeheartedly can increase your general feeling of happiness, health and optimism of a possible outcome, but I don't think I will ever be able to.

I think i have a similar outlook as you, something that could change as i get older but i doubt it. One thing i feel good about is that most of my family have a sincere belief in Religion and an Afterlife something that must be somewhat comforting, but at this point in time if i was to tell myself i believed i'd just be lying.