christundivided said:
Izdaari said:
DOMA basically said "We know some states recognize these people as legally married. We don't like it but don't have the authority to override it... but we're going to deny them federal benefits anyway. In other words, we want to state our intent to discriminate as explicitly as possible because we just want to deny them equal treatment under the law."
And they actually thought the Supremes would uphold that?
At best, it's a Paula Deen mentality, but more likely they were taking hallucinogenic drugs. DOMA was always doomed when it got to the Supremes. It was a stupid idea to begin with, done for short-term political expediency.
Written like a true believer of same sex marriage. The government has always discriminated through the vote of democracy. Its amazing how people want certain types of discrimination and then reject others.... .solely on their own personal beliefs. No group of peoples have a right to do as they please in this country. NONE. We restrict behavior at every turn. I could name dozens of instances in which one groups of peoples personal preferences are allowed and others are not. I openly admit that I discriminate against the ideals of same sex marriage. I don't care if you know it and I don't plan to change.
Do you consider me to be a bigot? Do you discriminate against my discrimination?
Be honest. I don't expect you to answer because it will reveal your true feelings on the matter.
I'll go a little further...... You don't actually care about serving God. You want to bring God down to your level. Religion is a tool for you're own personal agenda. In many ways, you're no different than "fundamentalists" you discriminate against.
Yes, I am a supporter of same sex marriage, so far as Washington State is concerned. In our federal system, every state gets to decide that, and I can't tell the voters of another state what to do. But I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely, and leave it to private contracts and churches. I didn't think anybody here who bothers to read my posts was in any doubt about that.
My point was that according to precedent, it was entirely predictable that the Supremes would void that section of DOMA.
And my comments were based solely on legal precedent and my libertarian political philosophy, which is utterly opposed to using the State to impose theological views. That's all that I said that bears on my service to God.
Are you a bigot? Maybe, I certainly couldn't rule it out based on what you've said. But so long as you don't have legal authority, I don't care. I will of course oppose giving you such authority by every legal, democratic means.
It's true that I'm a whole lot more theologically liberal than you and most other members of this board, which is mostly IFB: I'm a happy member of two mainline/liberal denominations (TEC & ELCA). I am also creedally orthodox (that is, I can say the Nicene and Apostles Creeds without mumbling or crossing my fingers behind my back), and in agreement with the Five Fundamentals (depending on which version, since there are several in circulation). Again, I thought everybody who was paying attention knew that already.
Is God ok with SSM? I'm not so sure, so I am not advocating for my church to perform them. If they decide to, I'm not against it, but I'm not pushing for it. But that should be between the couple and their church (if any). IMO, the State doesn't get to decide. Nor does an IFB church get to decide if a Metropolitan Community Church is allowed to marry them. Or vice versa: each church should do what they believe is right.
But do you believe that the definition of marriage should change to allow every one in America to marry who they want? I think that's the main issue. This is different from just being for same sex marriage which can be seen as separate from common marriage entirely and not fall under the current/traditional definition.
