Supreme Court Says Marriage is Hateful

[Jefferson]

Supreme Court Says Marriage is Hateful

This is the show from Wednesday June 26th, 2013

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Today the US Supreme Court issued two tragic opinions, of course, strongly promoting homosexual marriage as an attack Judeo-Christian values. Not only that but what it means to be a human being, a man and a woman. Jesus said God made us male and female from the beginning of the creation. So this is a great tragedy.

This just in from Liberty Council, Matt Barber who says, "In other news the Supreme Court has ruled 5 to 4 that the Earth's gravitational pull is unconstitutional. Orders God to reverse it."

Summary:

Speaking of June 26, 2013, Bob Enyart analyzes today's destruction of civilization.

 

[Christian Liberty]

DOMA WAS unconstitutional. The 10th amendment clearly leaves the issue of defining marriage, if it is to be left to any government, to the states...

 

[Lighthouse]

DOMA WAS unconstitutional. The 10th amendment clearly leaves the issue of defining marriage, if it is to be left to any government, to the states...

Marriage necessarily must be recognized federally; thus it must be a federal institution.

Getting married in a state that recognizes such and then moving to a state that does not creates problems.:juggle:

 

[WizardofOz]

Getting married in a state that recognizes such and then moving to a state that does not creates problems.:juggle:

:doh:

So all states must recognize same-sex marriage even though the majority do not?

You didn't think this one through.

 

[Brother Vinny]

DOMA WAS unconstitutional. The 10th amendment clearly leaves the issue of defining marriage, if it is to be left to any government, to the states...

If there are federal benefits for married couples, marriage must be defined at the federal level. Ditching DOMA didn't stop the federal government from defining marriage; it gave it license to redefine it.

 

[Lighthouse]

:doh:

So all states must recognize same-sex marriage even though the majority do not?

You didn't think this one through.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

If there are federal benefits for married couples, marriage must be defined at the federal level. Ditching DOMA didn't stop the federal government from defining marriage; it gave it license to redefine it.

Yup.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

This is what is occurring now, same-sex marriages are recognized in some states but not all.

If there is one federal mandate that all states must follow, which way do you think that ruling will come down?

Advocate state rights, otherwise we'll end up with the Roe v Wade of marriage law.

I don't know why you and other Enyartians are stuck on the notion that the federal government is ever going to rule in your favor.

Let the states decide. So far, only a minority recognize same-sex marriage. We've seem with the DOMA ruling where the SCOTUS stands on the issue.

Like I said, you clearly have not thought this one through.

 

[Sherman]

Supreme Court Says Marriage is Hateful

This is the show from Wednesday June 26th, 2013

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Summary:

Speaking of June 26, 2013, Bob Enyart analyzes today's destruction of civilization.

It is the price our culture pays for not appointing godly leaders and not educating our children in the way of God. Instead we have left their spiritual upbringing to the public school system. These kids become adults and some of them enter legislative branches and pass bad laws. Some of them even sit on court benches passing into law rotten policy. It's the boomerang effect. Want to heal our culture? It starts at home.

 

[Michael C Adray]

It is the price our culture pays for not appointing godly leaders and not educating our children in the way of God. Instead we have left their spiritual upbringing to the public school system. These kids become adults and some of them enter legislative branches and pass bad laws. Some of them even sit on court benches passing into law rotten policy. It's the boomerang effect. Want to heal our culture? It starts at home.

Michele Bachman will not be re-elected.:drum:

 

[Lighthouse]

This is what is occurring now, same-sex marriages are recognized in some states but not all.

If there is one federal mandate that all states must follow, which way do you think that ruling will come down?

Advocate state rights, otherwise we'll end up with the Roe v Wade of marriage law.

I don't know why you and other Enyartians are stuck on the notion that the federal government is ever going to rule in your favor.

Let the states decide. So far, only a minority recognize same-sex marriage. We've seem with the DOMA ruling where the SCOTUS stands on the issue.

Like I said, you clearly have not thought this one through.

I never claimed the government would ever rule in favor of criminalizing homosexuality; and neither has Bob nor anyone else who listens to and agrees with him on this issue, on TOL.

And you have no idea how long I've been considering this issue.

My argument has nothing to do with what this particular government will/would do, but what a government should do in concert with God's commands.

 

[WizardofOz]

I never claimed the government would ever rule in favor of criminalizing homosexuality; and neither has Bob nor anyone else who listens to and agrees with him on this issue, on TOL.

:freak:
Dude, can you read? Who said anything about criminalizing homosexuality?

If you want a federal mandate, take one guess which way the ruling will go...

 

[Lighthouse]

:freak:
Dude, can you read? Who said anything about criminalizing homosexuality?

If you want a federal mandate, take one guess which way the ruling will go...

You're an idiot. It's ironic that you accuse me of an inability to read.

 

[WizardofOz]

More projecting...

More projecting...

You're an idiot. It's ironic that you accuse me of an inability to read.

No, really. Who was talking about criminalizing homosexuality? :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

No, really. Who was talking about criminalizing homosexuality? :idunno:

You accused me of having the notion of the government ruling in my favor; and if they did rule in my favor they would criminalize homosexuality, as anything less is not ruling in my favor.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

 

[WizardofOz]

You accused me of having the notion of the government ruling in my favor; and if they did rule in my favor they would criminalize homosexuality, as anything less is not ruling in my favor.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

We were never talking about criminalizing homosexuality. We were discussing a federal ruling on marriage. That is all.

Focus grasshopper.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Marriage necessarily must be recognized federally; thus it must be a federal institution.

Getting married in a state that recognizes such and then moving to a state that does not creates problems.:juggle:

Well, it may "Create problems" but we've been doing it ever since the first state started recognizing gay marriage.

This really isn't a problem.

Ideally, government would be outside of marriage entirely, but if its going to be involved, the 10th amendment gives the power to the states.

If there are federal benefits for married couples, marriage must be defined at the federal level. Ditching DOMA didn't stop the federal government from defining marriage; it gave it license to redefine it.

Federal anything for marriage is unconstitutional since it isn't mentioned. However, taking as a given that they will have some defintion, for the Federal government to recognize any marriage in a given state that is recognized by that state is the method that least subverts state's rights...

 

[Nick M]

DOMA WAS unconstitutional....

How do you figure? You obivously have never read the document, nor paid attention to the loop holes they wrote themselves.

Section 8.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It is necessary, and proper, to exlclude faggots from any sort of assitance, help, means or anything else.

 

[Lighthouse]

We were never talking about criminalizing homosexuality. We were discussing a federal ruling on marriage. That is all.

Focus grasshopper.

Well aren't you just stupid?

To make any ruling on same sex marriage without criminalizing homosexuality as a whole is not a ruling in my favor.

Well, it may "Create problems" but we've been doing it ever since the first state started recognizing gay marriage.

This really isn't a problem.

Ideally, government would be outside of marriage entirely, but if its going to be involved, the 10th amendment gives the power to the states.

It is of the utmost ignorance to believe there is never anything for which there must necessarily be a federal mandate that the states/provinces/etc. must follow.

 

[WizardofOz]

To make any ruling on same sex marriage without criminalizing homosexuality as a whole is not a ruling in my favor.

The two issues are miles apart. Focus. We're discussing marriage only. Full stop.

If the Supreme Court upheld DOMA wouldn't that be a ruling in your favor?

 

[Jukia]

It is necessary, and proper, to exlclude faggots from any sort of assitance, help, means or anything else.

Ah Nicky, hate the sin and the sinner. Such a show of Christ's love.