U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This Year

[AgeofKnowledge]

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it is going to decide whether the U.S. Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry later this year.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Constitution Protects Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ

Now would be a good time for us Christians to revisit our early roots when we faced a hostile pagan culture immersed in sweeping sexual immorality up to and including homosexual marriage, pederasty, and the legal rape of non-freeborn slaves (both minors and adults).

Noted author and professor Dr. Benjamin Wiker (PhD Vanderbilt University) wrote an article for 'The Catholic World Report' introducing what we found ourselves up against in the early centuries with respect to this issue: Gay Marriage—Nothing New Under the Sun | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views

 

[Anonimous]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

This, the same group that legalized abortion. I guess that automatically makes it right then? Sorry, USSC, you can't veto God.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

I believe the Court will not outlaw homosexual marriage, but will reassert States' right. That means they will not allow a judge, on a whim or on a political agenda, to overrule the will of the electorate. They will rule that states where the majority of voters have determined they will not accept LGBT marriages must be heeded, and such marriages ruled null and void. States that have had no such referendum, where voters have not chosen to voice an opinion, or where voters have no referendum right will be allowed to do as their legislatures have acted, or their courts have ruled.

That is the most fair and equitable conclusion. Those of you who don't like majority rule will just have to get used to the fact it is the law of the land.

 

[psychomom]

I believe the Court will not outlaw homosexual marriage, but will reassert States' right.

that would be the constitutional thing to do (so i wonder if they will )

but is that also known as 'passing the buck'?
hehe

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Interesting point Vigilant_Warrior.

However, as we have seen already, anything less than a repudiation of homosexual marriage will open U.S. Christians who adhere to God's normative morality and refuse to condone or facilitate homosexuality to persecution by the government at the bequest of those who have chosen to engage in homosexual acts.

Whether the scope of that persecution will affect U.S. Christians, who adhere to God's normative morality and refuse to condone or facilitate homosexuality, nationwide or on a state-by-state basis remains to be seen.

This threat shouldn't even exist because God exists and His normative morality exists as well as the religious protection of the first amendment. Unfortunately, for many reasons (none of them good), the threat has been increasing over time.

Of course, the threat could be legislatively mitigated by passing a bill into law to protect the human rights and religious liberty of those who refuse to condone or facilitate sexual immorality when ordered to do so but it will take someone other than the anti-Christ (not to be confused with THE Antichrist) sitting in the Oval Office presently to sign it into law.

Let's hope that happens if the Supreme Court rules in favor of homosexual marriage (nationwide or state by state) because otherwise, persecution madness will begin with homosexuals destroying the lives and livelihoods of genuine moral Christians who refuse to condone or facilitate sexual immorality in the U.S. using the power of government en masse.

If the Supreme Court ruling legally legitimizes homosexual marriage, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis, those who choose to engage in homosexual acts and their liberal supporters will begin using the government to harshly persecute Christians who refuse to violate their moral conscience toward God's normative morality in the U.S..

If this happens, I very much hope those Americans left standing on the side of normative morality force a bill into law to protect the human rights and religious liberties of Christians; something that have always been protected in natural law and the first amendment but increasingly are not recognized anymore. Sad, I know, but the homosexual persecution of genuine Christians nationwide or in many of our states is a very real possibility at this juncture. Time will tell.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Also important, from a historical sociological perspective, is how homosexual marriage finishes devaluing marriage as a normatively moral institution in Western Civilization.

As Edward Gibbon wrote in 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' of pagan Rome, "The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians." Gibbon was speaking of the dropping birthrate of new Roman citizens to unsustainable levels because of a sweeping societal dissipation into the sexual immoralities of homosexuality/homosexual marriage, pederasty, what would be called today the rape of non-free born slaves including orgies, etc... that had largely replaced men and women entering into heterosexual monogamous marriage with each other and forming nuclear families.

Understand that the culture had produced a large share of Roman men whom were reluctant to marry. It got so bad that Roman Emperor Augustus passed a series of laws penalizing unmarried men and rewarding men who married and had at least three children. The disabilities imposed on unmarried men included serious social devaluations ranging from being barred from attending public games and banquets to being forced to sit in less desirable seats in the theatre. But that didn't matter to them because they were fully immersed in their "other" past times (see paragraph above).

Christianity turned the situation around and it's worth noting that even an anti-Christian historian like Gibbon who falsely blamed the fall of Rome on the weakness of Christianity over the barbarity of paganism patently affirmed that "the dignity of marriage was restored by Christians" in ancient Rome.

Fast forward to 2015 where we may watch homosexuals and their liberal allies finally finish what the feminists started. In a generation, few natural-born Americans will bother with what has become a devalued institution anymore (outside of deeply religious people that uphold it's original value in theological context) and Western Civilization will fully immerse itself back into the vomit of sexual immorality, homosexual marriage, and the persecution of Christians who fail to condone and facilitate homosexuality when ordered to do so.

If the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes homosexual marriage, the wheel will have come around back to 100 AD. The dogs will have "returned to their vomit" and the liberals will hail it as "progress." Historically, it won't be though.

 

[ServantStrike]

That is the most fair and equitable conclusion. Those of you who don't like majority rule will just have to get used to the fact it is the law of the land.

Majority rule has historically never scaled well.

The US is not a democracy. It never has been. It's only in the last 50 years that we've had people calling it as such, now everyone thinks it is and treats it as such. Majority rule is not going to work well for the United States.

 

[wisebeardman]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

majority rule is mob rule. and you do not want that. it is a double edge sword.

just like people who scream that "x" needs banned right now... yeah ok ban it. but eventually the mob will say "a" needs banned but you however like "a" but mob rule wins thus "a" is now banned and you are a criminal.

 

[Sirk]

It seems as tho the totalitarian regimes that come into being always use the "discriminated" class to chip away at the foundation of a nation and then they are the first ones sent to the firing range when unlimited power is achieved.

 

[kaylagrl]

Majority rule has historically never scaled well.

The US is not a democracy. It never has been. It's only in the last 50 years that we've had people calling it as such, now everyone thinks it is and treats it as such. Majority rule is not going to work well for the United States.

Thank you! I read something along these lines some time ago and it hit me.The US is not a democracy its a republic.

 

[Sirk]

Thank you! I read something along these lines some time ago and it hit me.The US is not a democracy its a republic.

Yup...and a limited one at that....well it is supposed to be.

 

[notuptome]

Thank you! I read something along these lines some time ago and it hit me.The US is not a democracy its a republic.

Correct a constitutional republic. A constitution written by men who had a desire to honor God having already tasted the tyranny of empirical rule.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Mitspa]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

My guess is they will move toward demanding the States accept this sin, but not all the way.... They will establish some right and then build off that later.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

My dream is for the sensible portions of the United States to send the nonsensible portions an eviction notice and call it a day.

Alas, the likelihood of that event is the same as gay marriage was a century ago.

Oh wait...

 

[Human]

I don't believe, just like many rational non-Christian people, that a Christian church (a religious institution whose very purpose is promotion of, and adherence to, biblical precedents) should be forced to marry a same sex couple. That said, I see no reason why consensual, adult, committed same-sex relationships shouldn't be recognized by the state, nor that ceremonies shouldn't be carried out by non-Church parties.

Secular, legal marriage of commited, consensual, adult gay people without force upon religious institutions to perform ceremonies does not in and of itself infringe any rights that Christians currently have in America. However, disallowing homosexual couples in a secular state to marry does infringe on gay peoples' right to equal treatment by the state regardless of consensual sexual choices, race, creed, colour or gender.

There's a massive difference between two consenting adults of the same sex in a secular state getting the same social entitlements as married couples, and between things like bestiality (where consent is impossible), paedophilia (where consent is impossible), rape (where consent is impossible) and slave-rape (where consent is impossible).

 

[PennEd]

I don't believe, just like many rational non-Christian people, that a Christian church (a religious institution whose very purpose is promotion of, and adherence to, biblical precedents) should be forced to marry a same sex couple. That said, I see no reason why consensual, adult, committed same-sex relationships shouldn't be recognized by the state, nor that ceremonies shouldn't be carried out by non-Church parties.

Secular, legal marriage of commited, consensual, adult gay people without force upon religious institutions to perform ceremonies does not in and of itself infringe any rights that Christians currently have in America. However, disallowing homosexual couples in a secular state to marry does infringe on gay peoples' right to equal treatment by the state regardless of consensual sexual choices, race, creed, colour or gender.

There's a massive difference between two consenting adults of the same sex in a secular state getting the same social entitlements as married couples, and between things like bestiality (where consent is impossible), paedophilia (where consent is impossible), rape (where consent is impossible) and slave-rape (where consent is impossible).

Trying to force your morality on others again I see.

Why do YOU get to decide who should marry or not? If I remember correctly you were against 2 loving consensual brothers marrying each other but couldn't quite explain why.

 

[RickyZ]

I believe the Court will not outlaw homosexual marriage, but will reassert States' right. That means they will not allow a judge, on a whim or on a political agenda, to overrule the will of the electorate. They will rule that states where the majority of voters have determined they will not accept LGBT marriages must be heeded, and such marriages ruled null and void. States that have had no such referendum, where voters have not chosen to voice an opinion, or where voters have no referendum right will be allowed to do as their legislatures have acted, or their courts have ruled.

That is the most fair and equitable conclusion. Those of you who don't like majority rule will just have to get used to the fact it is the law of the land.

You're not real familiar with the Supreme Court and it's rulings, are you?

This same court ruled that corporations are people.

This same court ruled that a police officer leading his drug dog around a stopped car is not conducting a search.

This same court ruled already on multiple occasions to strike down 'majority rule' and support gay rights.

Everything you said above should be right and true. So you can expect little else from the supreme court than to go the other way.

 

[Human]

Trying to force your morality on others again I see.

Why do YOU get to decide who should marry or not? If I remember correctly you were against 2 loving consensual brothers marrying each other but couldn't quite explain why.

Why should you get to either?

Give me a valid reason that consensual, committed, adult same-sex relationships -- whose validation does not require forcing religious institutions to perform ceremonies -- shouldn't be legal. How does it hurt you in any way?

 

[PennEd]

You're not real familiar with the Supreme Court and it's rulings, are you?

This same court ruled that corporations are people.

This same court ruled that a police officer leading his drug dog around a stopped car is not conducting a search.

This same court ruled already on multiple occasions to strike down 'majority rule' and support gay rights.

Everything you said above should be right and true. So you can expect little else from the supreme court than to go the other way.

Those opposed to citizens united are either ignorant or democrat or both. Corporations ARE people. They are not machines, they are made up of people. Why would freedom loving Americans ever be opposed to free speech. YOU say what you want, I'll say what I want, a group of people will pool their money and say what THEY want, and let the chips fall where they may. Become informed enough to decide for yourself if you agree with what someone says.

 

[PennEd]

Why should you get to either?

Give me a valid reason that consensual, committed, adult same-sex relationships -- whose validation does not require forcing religious institutions to perform ceremonies -- shouldn't be legal. How does it hurt you in any way?

It's not MY morality. It is the morality of all of human history, Scripture, and nature. There has never been a society prior to the 20th century, that recognized homosexual marriage. No religious text I am aware of advocates or allows it, and, by nature, if all were homosexual the species would die out.

If 2 people want to call themselves married, commit deviant acts with each other that is their business. My business is NEVER recognizing them in any way shape or form.

Now, how about answering your objection to 2 brothers marrying each other.