And my point is that minorities still have rights in this country. You see the law is designed for protection. It makes sure that you do not steal from me or kill me or damage my property. To same-sex people getting married does none of these things. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is their constitutional right.
U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
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.
I was thinking about it, and I see that this is contradictory. I think it has to do with both - proportionate-wise, not sure. But I do know that a lot of reasons given to break a marriage is the freedom FROM commitment, because the expectations were unrealistic. A lot of people seem conditioned to think good feelings are the glue. They're not.
We went to my pastor shortly after we engaged, the first thing he asked was "why do you want to be married, BESIDES that you love each other?" For this to be a standard question in his brief counsel to engaged couples, it's obviously a problem. Good feelings isn't the glue, because feelings flux. Which is why I don't think just getting together and calling that a beginning of a lifelong relationship will work any better.
People pay lots of lawyer fees, go through all kinds of stress to make changes, because they either married someone they know they shouldn't have, or they didn't realize that the kind of love that IS the glue is active, 1 Cor 13 sacrtifical love. I have a particular illness that is stigmized in this society, and personalities like Dr. Phil fuel the stigma with their entertainment that some people actually think is real psychology.
If something happens and I'm unstable, I want someone who makes in no uncertain terms that he wants to be with me, through better or worse - like having wedding before witnesses. Episodes can be very draining on all involved, it changes the way people who know you think of you, and my significant other would feel the blows from this. I want someone with legal privilege above all others to decide for me and manage my finances if I'm incompetent. And unless in writing and clear to all, that can be end up being a court battle very quickly between the loved ones with different ideas as to what should happen. And being legally married means that there is no question as to who to go to first in that event. It wouldn't comfort me knowing how tangled the situation could get if I had an episode and we weren't married.
My case in that respect is unique, but because marriage is so tied to the legal system and gov, that is the climate of handling illnesses. Really, I understand marriage equality, and in support of it (depending on how it's written into law) but at the crux of it, it's not really all about love - it's about having the same gov privileges (aka money and status).
So when people say "love wins" it's like "well, gay couples could get married before, just without the gov ties if they found a preacher willing to do the ceremony." (there's more of them than you think) Now, it's law that they can be married and the justifiable fear people are having is the suing and prosecution of churches for their beliefs. Because the Church got so intimately involved in the gov, not she's reaping the consequences of not leaving this as the institution/Sacrament of the Church solely as it should be. Others want to get married outside of church, cool, but the Church pairing with the gov (man's approval) in defining this has come back to bite her.
But instead of finding a different church, you'll probably hear cases of suing the first one to reject them, like the bakeries. It's narcissistic to expect to never have to "shop" for what you want. You want equality, then shop around like everyone else does without complaint. "Oh, you can't make that kind of cake? Ok, I'll just go down the road. Thank you for the reference." Some places may not have or offer what you need... you go to the next place. And in this respect, there's no sense in lawsuits, because there's liable to be someone who can do this for you (you might have to drive out of town! Oh noes!)
This behavior reinforces anti-gay bigotry, this pressing charges to the first Christian that says no is fanning the flames and making the environment more hostile. And I'm thinking "so, you don't care how you are projecting the gay community with your cake-entitled attitudes? It's a CAKE." I see it from the "well, no one should be able to just turn away someone because their gay" but at the same time, the publicity this is getting is not casting the gay community in a favorable light (except to in "preaching to the secular choir"), and it's counterproductive. I'm not against gay marriage as law, and I'm sitting here thinking "get over yourselves."
Anywho. The above was more related to what this thread was about, so yeah. Really I see it from both sides. I have concern for my fellow believers who are convicted about this. I also know many who are convicted are more prejudiced than convicted, and there's difference.
Last edited:
The problem is the protection the law crafted is being used more and more as ways to favor minorities over whites. Truth is no matter your skin color or whathave you, you are cable of crime. Look at custody laws. The woman would have to be a bona fide drug addict and prostitute to lose a custody battle - the courts naturally lean in her favor, and lots a women exploit this to "get back" at the guy.
How is marriage a right when you have to have a license for it? When it has to be APPROVED by someone? You know why the license requirement was written into law? To discourage interracial marriage after the Civil War. Because the clerk could just deny them being wed. When that's the predominate consensus (mob rule) it doesn't matter what is on paper because the authorities will look the other way. This prosecution of this clerk would not have flown 30 years ago. Ironically, what is being fought for was racist in intent.
How is marriage a right when you have to have a license for it? When it has to be APPROVED by someone? You know why the license requirement was written into law? To discourage interracial marriage after the Civil War. Because the clerk could just deny them being wed. When that's the predominate consensus (mob rule) it doesn't matter what is on paper because the authorities will look the other way. This prosecution of this clerk would not have flown 30 years ago. Ironically, what is being fought for was racist in intent.
Last edited:
M
Again the difference between being black and being a pervert is something any reasonable person should be able to see? If they are trying to be honest... in fact its rather insulting to some Black's that folks are trying to relate their godly struggle for equality with this Attempt to pervert our society.
I don't know about the resourcefulness of this site, but it gives the breakdown of the marriage license, that should be easy to verify with a Google or scholar engine search.
"See what the people fail to realize with these procedures for marriage given by the Government unto States is that, when you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage."
Marriage License Truth
"See what the people fail to realize with these procedures for marriage given by the Government unto States is that, when you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage."
Marriage License Truth
Last edited:
Exodus 1:15-17 (KJV)
15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
Daniel 3:16-18 (KJV)
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Daniel 6:13-16 (KJV)
13 Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.
14 Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.
15 Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.
16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
Esther 4:14 (KJV) For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
Daniel 3:16-18 (KJV)
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Daniel 6:13-16 (KJV)
13 Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.
14 Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.
15 Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.
16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
Esther 4:14 (KJV) For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
Last edited:
And your excuse for the apostles' disobedience?
Acts 5:28-29 (KJV)
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:28-29 (KJV)
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.