Supreme Court will take up gay marriage cases (In Late March)

Fox News ^ | 12/07/2012 | Shannon Bream and AP

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

[VRWC For Truth]

My error, ‘twas Breyer. Same wuss factor.

[Lmo56]

This should be interesting ...

Could be like peeling the layers of an onion - theres always another one underneath.

6 Catholics, 3 Jews - might depend on the degree of their orthodoxy as to how they rule. They could rule same-sex “civil unions” as legal - but that marriage is a religious tenet. If they do, then all civil ceremoonies [heterosexual and gay] would have to be considered “civil unions”. Although, previous civil marriages might be grandfathered in.

As far as DOMA - if the Court rules that same-sex marriages are “civil unions”, it might also rule that Congress has the right to restrict DOMA to “marriages” as far as the disbursement of federal funds and benefits is concerned.

Then, there is the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. If “civil unions” are allowed, do states that do not recognize them have to honor the “civil unions” of the states that do?

Food for thought ...

[Lmo56]

Correct, Kennedy will vote with the three hags and the wuss Souter.

Souter ain't on the Court anymore - Breyer is still there.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Who knows? I’ve been surprised so many times I can’t count.

[TheBigJ]

The language in itself has already been compromised by libby-speak B.S. repeated by this hack journalist. “gay marriage” “right to marry like hetreosexuals”

Marriage defined is between man and woman. Hardly discriminatory by design, much like the Puerto Rican Day Parade or The Girl Scouts. Institutions, groups that serve a function. Marriage would be the rearing of children by a father figure and mother figure. Just a few hundred years of sociological studies on child rearing, that’s all.

Question for the sodomites, pervs, and liberal lightweights, what is YOUR definition of marriage?

[Eric Blair 2084]

As a libertarian I would be inclined to support gay marriage and legal pot. It’s not my business. Live and let live.

Then I watched the statist, leftist, progressive or whatever central planners call themselves today. I don’t like who is on their side.

These are the same authoritarians who want to take our, in no particular order:

Guns
Fireworks
Money
Cigarettes
School lunches
Lightbulbs
Plastic bags

But somehow they think they are for freedom because they will let people kill their unborn children and normalize anal sex between men as a social norm?

They can go straight to Hell/liberal state.

[RB156]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has a liberal majority.

Liberal on everything = Sotomayor/Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg
Liberal on fiscal issues = Roberts
Liberal on social issues = Kennedy

[rcrngroup]

As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that those who claim they were born that way, probably were....

Then you need to read and re-read Romans 1:18-32 (especially verses 24-28) which clearly state that homosexuality & lesbians are UNNATURAL acts and against nature. No one is born a homosexual or lesbian... it is the result of abominable sin & perversion. It is learned behavior due to willful depravity & perverse abomination.

In Leviticus 20:11-16 homosexuality is condemned in the same context as incest & bestiality. It is in no way a "natural" act or that a man or woman are born as homosexual or lesbians, according to the Bible.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

[rcrngroup]

See my post #108

[KTM rider]

they will probably declare Gay Marriage is “just a tax” or “ a homos right to choose” or some other non sequiter non-sense they are famous for

[hattend]

Exactly.

Deconstruct the Constitution little by little to where is no longer means what was written.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You either didn’t read my entire post or you intentionally cut out the relevant part.

Here is what I said in full:

As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that those who claim they were born that way, probably were, but are suffering from a neurological condition like seizures, etc. for which science should find a cure/treatment. That is not to say that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it absolutely is. One makes a conscious choice to engage in homosexual acts just like one chooses to engage in heterosexual acts.

I never implied that “born that way” made homosexuality a natural act. I very clearly stated that it is a lifestyle choice. I know of Christian men who confess they have a preference for (physical attraction to) other men. However, they choose not to engage in homosexual acts. It is that preference that I believe could be a neurological disorder with which they were born.

To address your citation of Romans 1:18-32, I’ve read it many times. I think what you are missing there is that “God gave them over” to the power of sexual immorality and sinful desires.

Now read Romans 9:19-23 NIV

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

Could it be that God allows homosexuality as a plague upon mankind for His purpose?

[newzjunkey]

We don’t need to wonder how this will go. They’ll find at least 5 to go with homosexual marriage on this court.

[newzjunkey]

That certainly splits the baby. I guess if they don’t go that route, it’ll tell us how ‘activist’ this court really is.

[Hebrews 11:6]

You and I agree that scripture teaches homosexuality’s sinfulness as a chosen behavior, and because we accept scriptural authority that settles it for us. For those who do not accept scripture as the final authority, other arguments are needed.

[rcrngroup]

I did read your entire post. It appears to me that you acknowledge that homosexuality is because they "were born that way, probably were" and then claim it's because of "some neurological disorder for which science should find a cure". I can hear the liberal/socialist/homo/lesbian heads popping with ferocity over claiming they have a neurological disorder. It is a sin act, not a neurological condition over which they have no choice. I would say it is deliberate act of conscious sin & rebellion that they are engaging in, which you state in your following comments that homosexuality is a choice. It seems (to me) that you are claiming they are "born that way, probably were because of some neurological disorder" and then acknowledge that it is a conscious act of sin.

I fully acknowledge that God has given these people "fully over to their own reprobate minds" to do those things which are vile & degrading to themselves and to mankind.

Also Romans 19:19-23 is dealing with questioning God's sovereignty and right to rule in our lives, and I think it is a far stretch to use this passage to imply that God "made" homosexuals in order to reveal His glory.

[Darksheare]

The original died in some boating event years ago.
But dark rumor has it that several spare clones are kept on hand.

[Hulka]

Civil Unions are for homos.

Marriage is for heterosexuals.

What is so difficult about that.

Are the homos trying to get the government to force churches and religious people to accept homos. . .surely not!? (\sarc)

[Hulka]

Interesting.

Question: If California legalizes marriage between a man and his sister or first cousin. . .or even his dog, will other states be forced to accept this?

Because a state may make something “legal” does this force other states to accept that?

Curious.

[Hulka]

To me it is this:
1) If you believe in the Bible, then man and woman were created to perform two different sexual functions/roles.
2) If you believe in evolution, then man and woman evolved over millions of years to perform two separate and different sexual functions.

Therefore, to engage in homosexual behavior is to act against God or nature.

Last thought: If, say, they discover some sort of genetic component that “makes” someone homosexual, that means being born that way is the result of a natural process. However, it is not normal.

Much like being born with a bi-cuspid valve in your heart instead of a tri-cuspid valve, this condition occurred naturally but is not normal. Same with homosexuality

Just my two cents. . .