Alabama Supreme Court

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#1
Alabama Supreme Court Blocks Same-Sex MarriageThe Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.The ruling adds to the confusion surrounding gay marriage in the state.
Huffington Post
 
J

jennymae

Guest
#2
This is now about states rights.
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,860
9,579
113
#3
gay people should not get married anyways.. it's a sacrilege in God's eyes.. jmo
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#4
This is now about states rights.
That's what its always been about. When the majority of voters in a state have decided against an issue, no judge at any level has the render the voice of people meaningless. It is a clear violation of the Constitution, and brings about a clash of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and in such clashes previously, states' rights have always won out.

That raises another question in my mind. We're talking 650,000 LGBT unions versus over 63 million traditional marriages ... that means "non-traditional marriages" represent just slightly more than one percent of the total "marriages" in the U.S. If you throw in cohabitation numbers of both traditional -- male/female
-- cohabitants vs. same-sex cohabitants, LGBT formal live-in relationships are only three-tenths of one percent of all such households in the U.S.

That indicates to me that the numbers credited to LGBT population are greatly inflated -- there are not as many of them as they claim. So it strikes me as odd that such a small group of people have managed to stir up so great a number of people who would never think of partaking in the lifestyle, given that supposedly a majority of Americans favor same-sex mariage. Somehow, those numbers just don't add up. Somebody's fudging. The question is, "Why?"
 
Last edited:

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#5
That indicates to me that the numbers credited to LGBT population are greatly inflated -- there are not as many of them as they claim. So it strikes me as odd that such a small group of people have managed to stir up so great a number of people who would never think of partaking in the lifestyle, given that supposedly a majority of Americans favor same-sex mariage. Somehow, those numbers just don't add up. Somebody's fudging. The question is, "Why?"
The majority of americans might support them, doesnt mean they want to be in one. I'm confused how these numbers don't make sense to you. Is that hard to believe most americans dont care what people do if they arent hurting others and actively avoid being bigots?
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#6
The majority of americans might support them, doesnt mean they want to be in one. I'm confused how these numbers don't make sense to you. Is that hard to believe most americans dont care what people do if they arent hurting others and actively avoid being bigots?
You haven't been paying attention to anything I've said since I came to this board, and I demand an apology for insinuating that I or anyone who calls sin sin is a bigot who cannot love our neighbors.

Perhaps you should read my signature, slowly for understanding.

The issue of loving everyone is not an issue of accepting them whole-heartedly. The issue of gay marriage as an affront to God's plan for marriage is not an issue of whether same-sex couples should be together or not. The issue of sharing truth with those you love is not an issue of bigotry.

Your failure to understand all those things is what colors your opinions of those who you claim are your brothers and sisters in Christ.
 

gypsygirl

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2012
1,394
60
48
#7
i'm always curious as to why people think they have a right to "demand" an apology when the very point of requesting one is to expect someone to see their side of the issue, remove offense, and negotiate a peaceful resolution.

even more so when jesus, the only infallible man who ever walked earth, asks us to repent and confess sin--but doesn't demand that we do so. : )

perhaps there is a bigger problem when we are so easily offended that we find ourselves pridefully insisting that everyone else is wrong and we're right because our signature says so, and calling others' actual faith and salvation into question.

a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. proverbs 15:1

or perhaps part of the solution is that we shoudn't find ourselves so easily offended if we're going to come to the bible discussion forum and discuss matters such as these. : )

 
Last edited:

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
12,815
8,591
113
#8
The treadmill of this issue, the arguments and counter-arguments don't seem to me to be bearing any fruit. American Christians need to prepare themselves to the reality that the collective good morality that we enjoyed, or at least the perception thereof, is gone. I remember thinking in 08, "there is no possible way decent Americans are going to vote for this obviously wicked man" and then again in 12 "ok, many voted for this guy, for good or ill, merely because he was black, but now that they see how utterly wicked he is, there really is no way they would vote for him again". The question now becomes are our hearts ready for the coming real persecution.
What will happen when YOUR Church refuses to marry homosexuals? Will it cave, or be willing to face bankruptcy or prison?
Homosexual marriage is just the begining. How about Polygamy, Incestuous, Pedophillia marriages? If they argument is that 2 loving people should be allowed to do what they want regarding marriage, who is to say the other unions should be outlawed?

It's at this time we must remember Paul's various imprisonments and how he handled them. God Bless you in that endeavor.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#9
i'm always curious as to why people think they have a right to "demand" an apology when the very point of requesting one is to expect someone to see their side of the issue, remove offense, and negotiate a peaceful resolution.
I have the right to demand an apology based on the fact that I have been irrationally and wrongly insinuated to be a "bigot" and further, I explained exactly how that was the case.

even more so when jesus, the only infallible man who ever walked earth, asks us to repent and confess sin--but doesn't demand that we do so. : )
Every time He says "Repent!" it is a present tense imperative, which, contrary to your claim He doesn't "demand" it, is actually the same thing as saying politely, "Do it now, or else ... "

perhaps there is a bigger problem when we are so easily offended that we find ourselves pridefully insisting that everyone else is wrong and we're right because our signature says so ...
It isn't my signature that says so. It is Scripture.

... and calling others' actual faith and salvation into question.
Show me, please, where I called his faith and salvation into question.

a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
or perhaps part of the solution is that we shoudn't find ourselves so easily offended if we're going to come to the bible discussion forum and discuss matters such as these. : )
And if you and others were called bigots for standing on God's word, you would not be offended? I doubt that.



 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
837
113
#10
Hoorah, Hoorah, For Southern Rights, Hoorah...
 
K

kenthomas27

Guest
#11
That's what its always been about. When the majority of voters in a state have decided against an issue, no judge at any level has the render the voice of people meaningless. It is a clear violation of the Constitution, and brings about a clash of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and in such clashes previously, states' rights have always won out.
Well, I will have to disagree with you on this. The courts actually DO have a responsibillity to render the voice of the majority meaningless. Especially if they're wrong. Case in point would by the Civil Rights Law. In many states the law went against the will of the masses but the Supreme Court understood it as within the boundaries of constitutional law. That's their job. Same here with this. The rights of same sex marriage have actually not really been established by legislation. That's what I think the whole problem (from the prospective of law) is about. Essentially, gays and lesbians have the same rights I do right now. They can marry whomever agreeable person they want to as long as they're of the opposite sex and are not kin or are married more than once. What they're asking for is extra rights to marry the same sex and that's the delimma. That caveat have not been established by law. So it doesn't really matter who all supports or doesn't support gay marriage in the U.S. anyway.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#12
Well, I will have to disagree with you on this. The courts actually DO have a responsibillity to render the voice of the majority meaningless. Especially if they're wrong. Case in point would by the Civil Rights Law. In many states the law went against the will of the masses but the Supreme Court understood it as within the boundaries of constitutional law. That's their job. Same here with this.
Not in the least is this the same thing. We are talking about a lifestyle preference that individuals may or may not accept, and in doing so, exercise their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. You would be laughed out of any gathering of black Americans if you made such a claim in their presence. There are no "Jim Crow" type laws on the books discriminating against LGBTs, there are no poll taxes or literacy tests preventing them from voting, there isn't even widespread equal employment, housing rights of fair credit practice issues concerning them.

So don't dare compare what blacks in this country had to go through to any sniveling little slight LGBTs get because people don't accept, and in some cases are repulsed by, same-sex relationships and open displays between them. That's not to say that opponents should be allowed to refuse to hire them, rent or finance their homes, or decline credit cards or car loans because they don't like the lifestyle. But to claim this is a "civil rights" issue is b/s.

The rights of same sex marriage have actually not really been established by legislation.
Actually, most states and municipalities have laws on the books outlawing gender discrimination in all forms, so that is an incorrect statement.

That's what I think the whole problem (from the prospective of law) is about. Essentially, gays and lesbians have the same rights I do right now. They can marry whomever agreeable person they want to as long as they're of the opposite sex and are not kin or are married more than once. What they're asking for is extra rights to marry the same sex and that's the delimma. That caveat have not been established by law. So it doesn't really matter who all supports or doesn't support gay marriage in the U.S. anyway.
States rights and majority rule are bedrock tenets of our constitutional democratic republic, so actually it matters a great deal who supports or who doesn't support gay marriage. And that is the issue the SCOA addressed in their decision to ignore the federal court order yesterday.
 
K

kenthomas27

Guest
#13
Well, see I never claimed that gay marriage rights and civil rights were the same thing. I was pointing out that the masses do not and cannot dictate law. That's for the courts to decide and the case I made to help prove that point was the federal civil rights law and the fact that many states majorities had opposing views. Sorry you compared the two when there was no comparison offered.

The legislation I'm speaking of is on the federal level. Legislators have not concluded what the rights are of same sex marriage. Currently they have the same rights as everyone - as I pointed out. What they are asking for is the extra right to marry the same sex and that hasn't been decided by legislation (on the federal level). States can do pretty much what they decide, but again, federal law will take presedence. Federal legislators and the executive office have simply not stepped up to the plate to address it and neither has the judicial.

These state battles will continue until this is addressed but public opinion should not be the deciding factor of constitutional law. I mean, it's not that it hasn't. Roe v. wade is a good example where the masses concluded the wrong thing and court went along with it. It just shouldn't. It's the same as viligante law.

Again, I'm speaking entire from the perspective of law. Not emotion or of my personal opinions on gay marriage. Being a Christian I would naturally feel that those things reprehensible to God should be reprehensible to me. But this is not the issue from the perspective of law and imo, shouldn't be our issue as Christians. Christ himself did not ask us to come to Him under threat of the point of the Roman sword.
 

gypsygirl

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2012
1,394
60
48
#14
I have the right to demand an apology based on the fact that I have been irrationally and wrongly insinuated to be a "bigot" and further, I explained exactly how that was the case.

Every time He says "Repent!" it is a present tense imperative, which, contrary to your claim He doesn't "demand" it, is actually the same thing as saying politely, "Do it now, or else ... "
i'm not sure any of us have a "right" to demand things when there are no absolutes, only interpretations and perceptions as truth. besides, i still find "demanding" an apology to be kind of an oxymoron, in a sense.

i will accept your scriptural interpretation of God's call for us to repent. but i don't think demanding someone apologize for the veiled interpretations you claimed is actually politely resolving that matter, but aggrandizement on your part, and then demanding an apology for your somewhat reckless assumption.


It isn't my signature that says so. It is Scripture.


but you referenced he should "read your signature" not a statement like, "the scriptures state....". though i do understand what you meant now. note that you multiple signatures, so that statement was vague.

Show me, please, where I called his faith and salvation into question.

Your failure to understand all those things is what colors your opinions of those who you claim are your brothers and sisters in Christ.
i've highlighted and underlined the part that i found could be interpreted in the manner read that statement--in fact i can't think of any OTHER way to take that statement.

And if you and others were called bigots for standing on God's word, you would not be offended? I doubt that.


well, you should doubt that. because i work pretty hard to be difficult to offend, as i believe we're called to that--even those whom you vehemently disagree with. yes, if someone flatly, plainly called me a bigot, i would ask them to provide reasoning for that/and or disagree with their identification of that.

but, i didn't read that as you being called a bigot. i read that as someone's interpretation of how those voting were motivated -- with a desire to appear as though their voting position didn't reflect bigotry. that's not calling you a bigot.

therefore, it's a pretty valid example of why i think if you're going to post in the BDF, people need to be extra-careful to check their pride and work extra diligently to avoid becoming easily offended. because these valid issues for discussion are now secondary to the apology you're seeking for a post that is really an attempt to illuminate their position, rather than cause you personal offense.

as a christian, i am extremely concerned about this forum, because i know non-christians come here. and the way i see this, not only are the answers potentially helpful for those seeking to learn about the bible and Christ, but the bible tells us that it's actually in our manner of loving one another that will identify us to the world (john 13:35), as opposed to the "rightness" of our answers, the zeal of our arguments, the fervency in which we post, or how even how big our bible is.

i see these exchanges as every bit as critical to showing evidence and love of God, and our desire to be obedient to him, as i do the the exchanges which explain His love for us. : ) and thank you for reading this, brother.

 
Last edited:
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#15
Well, see I never claimed that gay marriage rights and civil rights were the same thing. I was pointing out that the masses do not and cannot dictate law.
Actually they can, in states that allow referendums to write constitutional law. But we'll just have to agree to disagree, because the courts have no right to "decide" anything other than how a law or a court case, be it civil or criminal, fits into the framework of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states clearly that any powers or rights not specifically granted to one of the three branches of government are assumed to fall to the states. Certainly tenets, such as majority rule, must prevail, and have many time over.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#16
Well, I will have to disagree with you on this. The courts actually DO have a responsibillity to render the voice of the majority meaningless. Especially if they're wrong. Case in point would by the Civil Rights Law. In many states the law went against the will of the masses but the Supreme Court understood it as within the boundaries of constitutional law. That's their job. Same here with this. The rights of same sex marriage have actually not really been established by legislation. That's what I think the whole problem (from the prospective of law) is about. Essentially, gays and lesbians have the same rights I do right now. They can marry whomever agreeable person they want to as long as they're of the opposite sex and are not kin or are married more than once. What they're asking for is extra rights to marry the same sex and that's the delimma. That caveat have not been established by law. So it doesn't really matter who all supports or doesn't support gay marriage in the U.S. anyway.
Yes, superior Courts have the right to adjudicate suits that go against the will of the people.........however, if one understands how this right of the Courts is to be implemented, they will see that it is ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. The Courts, superior or otherwise have no Constitutional right or power to Legislate from the Bench. In spite of the fact that for many, many years Democrat Controlled Congresses have allowed them to do so.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#17
i'm always curious as to why people think they have a right to "demand" an apology when the very point of requesting one is to expect someone to see their side of the issue, remove offense, and negotiate a peaceful resolution.

even more so when jesus, the only infallible man who ever walked earth, asks us to repent and confess sin--but doesn't demand that we do so. : )

perhaps there is a bigger problem when we are so easily offended that we find ourselves pridefully insisting that everyone else is wrong and we're right because our signature says so, and calling others' actual faith and salvation into question.

a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. proverbs 15:1

or perhaps part of the solution is that we shoudn't find ourselves so easily offended if we're going to come to the bible discussion forum and discuss matters such as these. : )

I don't understand how some can quote the bible to lecture believers into accepting something against their conscience and then ignore what the bible teaches in regards to this sexual perversion and the judgment it brings on a society?
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#18
As Christians what possible benefit could come from us approving something we know destroys others and leads people into bondage? For love sake we should not been seen as approving this destructive lifestyle and for the sake of our children we should stand against it as a society.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
837
113
#19
Vigilant Warrior may be a bigot, but he's my bigot.