The Family Heritage Alliance, led by Executive Director Dale Bartscher, issued a statement contained in their e-mail newsletter today in which they note their opposition to the ruling handed down yesterday by Federal Judge Karen Schreier:
The South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance sincerely believes that marriage has always been – and will always be – between a man and a woman. Ultimately, no court can change that truth. So regardless of legal outcomes, we’ll continue to address the importance of one-man, one-woman marriage. It is important to families, society and especially for children who have a right to both a mother and a father.
Over the last 15 years, more than 40 million Americans in more than 30 states have voted at the ballot box to define marriage as one man and one woman – the same definition of marriage used worldwide and throughout history. In the last 12 months, some U.S. judges have attempted to erase those votes much like what has happened recently here in South Dakota.
Marriage is about more than who you love; it’s about bringing together the two halves of humanity which are male and female.
Also it’s important to recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage comes at a high cost. It costs kids either a mom or a dad (who are not interchangeable). Furthermore it costs people of faith their First Amendment rights as government imposes the new definition across all aspects of society. We need to carefully count these costs before we run headlong into this latest social experiment with marriage.
What is before us today in the courts is a process and we pray for the sake of society that ultimately marriage as traditionally and naturally defined will win the day.
Dale Bartscher
Executive Director
Family Heritage Alliance / FHA Action
The future judicial argument for polygamy, statutory rape, prostitution rings, sex trafficking, pedophilia, Hedonism, along with every financial and immigration/green card scam ever hatched by humankind in a neat little package: “Plaintiffs argue that the right to marriage is not limited by the person attempting to exercise that right, and that the right to marriage necessarily encompasses the right to same-sex marriage.” There is absolutely no reason it will stop there. Looking through the ruling, it becomes painfully obvious that it is all about a political thumb in the eye and personal greed than anything else. All of the plaintiffs are either last-minute political stunt artists and/or scam and financial profiteers. Their sole purpose for moving to South Dakota was this lawsuit while the justice draws on Planned Parenthood versus Casey to justify this garbage. All of the plaintiffs and justices involved should be ashamed.
That would be great if you could offer some level of proof, Spencer. Support your assertions.
American Oligarchy,
Have you read the ruling. Schrieir’s essential argument was Loving determined marriage is a right. While arguing in her slippery slope portion it didn’t include polygamy, incestuous marriage or pedophilia, she is wholly confident that Loving’s definition was either intended to include same-gender or that she decided it should have included same gender.
If she has the confidence to redefine it to include same gender, we have no protection that a future judge won’t expand it to include even incestuous marriage.
Or, if she has insight that that Loving included the definition of same gender, what is the protection that a future judge won’t decide it also included polygamy?
These are legitimate questions because the law is built on the law of prior rulings and room for redefinition/expansion.
I find your resistance to the idea that ‘marriage is a right’ curious, Troy. Are you really saying that there is no natural human right for a person to get married and have a family?
Marriage laws actually vary from state to state, with differences about age, consanguinity, and unpaid child support. If marriage is a “right” do first cousins have the right to marry? Do people under the age of 18? Do people who haven’t paid their child support?
Hey, look, I found a slope that seems pretty slippery.
Well, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, after all. It’s too bad so many people use it as a form of argumentation. You deal with each case on its merits, period. 14 times since 1888, the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right. So what does that mean? You already know: compelling interest, narrowly tailored and least restrictive means.
The compelling interest, which Family Heritage seems to be trotting it as the “traditional family” one has been shot down so many times, is that children have a right to a mother and father. I assume the justification for this is that it provides better outcomes for children, even though such an assumption is against the weight of peer reviewed evidence (and look, Troy, most of the peer reviewed studies don’t support the claim.) So what is the issue. Is it just liberal academia screwing with the religious folk? Or, perhaps, maybe it’s just the fact that homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable and they think it is wrong, ergo we need to separate them out so they know we think they are immoral?
For pete’s sake, look at some of the comments just here in this section. People are treating gay marriage as a portent of the downfall of human kind. Some are using bible passages to justify that claim, and then want the government to rule accordingly. You honestly, I mean honestly, don’t see a damn problem with that?
Troy, I think almost every question concerning the ruling is legitimate. However, the bizarre assertions made by Spencer:
1. Comparing same-sex marriage arguments to polygamy, statutory rape, prostitution rings, sex trafficking, pedophilia, Hedonism, along with every financial and immigration/green card scam ever hatched by humankind
2. All of the plaintiffs are either last-minute political stunt artists and/or scam and financial profiteers
3. Their sole purpose for moving to South Dakota was this lawsuit
If it walks like dogma and tastes like dogma and smells like dogma – it probably is dogma.
I am simply asking Spencer to supply some sort of evidence to support the assertions. I know that’s usually out of bounds in these one-sided political hack blogs, but among reasonable people, evidence is really important to support a person’s credibility.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Just so you know the attitudes of the players involved, pushback in CO began Monday.
DENVER | Colorado baker Jack Phillips was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, but his attorneys said Monday that a state official who ruled against him is guilty of anti-religious bias.
“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the last meeting [on Mr. Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust,” Ms. Rice said at the July 25 hearing.
In its ruling, the Colorado commission ordered Mr. Phillips to re-educate himself and his staff on state anti-discrimination law, adopt policies to comply with the order and file quarterly compliance reports for two years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/12/colorado-cake-case-pits-religion-against-tolerance/?page=all#pagebreak
business has anti-discrimination requirements that shouldn’t be directly comparable to private individuals practicing their religious preferences privately. i know phil jensen tried to head this off with his bill that caused outrage last year, but businesses expecting to be licensed and operating in the usa have certain non-discrimination requirements and that’s just the way it is. it’s just a cake, outsource the decorating or do whatever you have to do, but it’s a tough way to make an important moral stand.
A wedding cake is not “just a cake.” It’s a contract.
If you want “just a cake” you walk into the bakery, buy it and walk out.
If you want a wedding cake, you make an appointment to taste samples. After an hour or more you make your selection of the flavor. You spend another hour or so looking at designs. Finally, you select the color of the frosting. Then the contract comes out. Details such as deposit, the date and time of delivery and payment of the balance, cancellations and other obligations and liabilities are worked out. The baker is sizing you up to see how much of a tantrum you’re going to throw if the sugar flowers aren’t exactly the same color as the bridesmaids’ dresses.
It’s not just a cake, it’s a contract. And forcing anybody into a contract with a party he wants nothing to do with is wrong.
I totally agree with you and believe our government needs to not be involved in the decision of who businesses do business with. I however believe and pray that we can be a more loving and caring country as a whole. Same sex marriage does not affect me on a daily basis. I am not the final judge and jury. I believe God’s got this and no matter what laws are in place or not in place he will take care of what needs to taken care of. The anger, hate and uproar is just wrong in my opinion. Do you really not sleep at night knowing that people of the same sex can legally get married?
Right. We all know about the case… The point of my post was to expose the attitude of a commission member in which a counter suit has been filed exposing her demeanor. It’s not all unicorns and rainbows ! Bile.
regarding ms rice’s comments cited above, there are many mainstream denominational christians who hold the opinion that there are too many instances where appeals to religious faith actually mask selfish or criminal ulterior motives. now whether you think ‘mainstream denominational christians’ are “real christians” is a different debate. upshot: her comment doesn’t automatically mean that she has an anti-religious or anti-christian bias.
The argument that marriage is a right is bogus. If it were a right you wouldn’t need a license.
How about that second amendment, Anne? How about concealed carry permits? Or how about the laws surrounding lobbyists (redress of grievances). We put those sorts of requirements on fundamental rights all the time.
You don’t need a license to own guns. You can keep all you want in your house. Carrying concealed and hunting are privileges, not rights. Priviledges and rights are very different things.
You need a license to carry your weapon concealed.
Actually, it seems that the children of incest DONT have more genetic defects.
Incest has been practiced in many societies without problems. Judaism prohibited it. That’s all.
….that’s not true. Look up consanguinity and recessive gene expression. It’s absolutely an issue.
It does not have to be an issue–with widely available contraceptives and abortions, the state has NO RATIONAL BASIS on which to deny incestuous marriage. Gee, there are MILLIONS of couples today who get pregnant and decide to exercise their fundamental right to abort “deformed” fetuses–why not allow loving [close] relatives the same opportunity???
After all, how does incestuous marriage affect YOUR life or YOUR marriage? Marry the one you love, right? Who are YOU to deny love to those different from you? We have hundreds if not thousands of caring brothers & sisters and cousins who have cared for their loved ones/relatives, and CANNOT make end-of-life decisions for them. In fact, these loving caretakers/relatives can even be barred from hospital visits. IT’S AN OUTRAGE!!!
What a BIGOT you are Dicta!
The problems are theoretical. It was commonly practiced all over the world. When practiced consistently, in successive generations, genetic defects were bred out.
The science does not matter to intolerant bigots like Dicta. He and his ilk believe that they can tell whomever they want who they can and cannot sleep with. His pathetic attempt to use pseudo-science to make a claim about strict scrutiny is well, rather lame.
It is not of his or the state’s business if closely related people, whether gay or not, wish to get it on.
I find Dicta’s interest in the subject truly weird—a rather prurient pastime of his apparently.
Por arguendo, let’s concede that fetal defects MAY arise more often from incestuous marriage. Isn’t it 100% up to a woman to decide whether to abort or not? Gosh, it sure sounds like Dicta is part of that war on women if he thinks he knows better about a woman and her body and whether she can raise a “defective” child that SHE chose to conceive.
In sum, it sure sounds like Dicta’s old fashioned views on incestuous marriage are as unjustifiably intolerant as those of the anti-gay marriage fanatics. Toss in his bizarre and unscientific statements about genetic defects arising from incestuous relationships, and you pretty much have Dicta in bed with the Westboro Baptist gang.
Again, that is not true, Anne. Where inbreeding was practiced over multiple generations, more and more genes were shared. You might argue that more distant cousins do not have such risks, and that is fair, but this is patently untrue for close relatives. Further: only on the War College can someone sarcastically compare a person opposed to incestual marriage and not gay marriage to the Westboro Baptist Church and feel like they checkmated you. High level of discourse we got ourselves here.
“Where inbreeding was practiced over multiple generations, more and more genes were shared.”
What does that concern have to do with incestuous marriage?
1. Gays cannnot “inbreed”, right? There is NO concern with gays producing offspring, because that’s biologically impossible. So, with that concern removed, are you ready to support homosexual incestuous marriage?
2. How does incestuous marriage affect your (or anyone else’s) hetero marriage?
3. The decision of what to do with possible offspring of hetero incestuous marriage is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, right?
as a bystanding observer, i think the connection to incest is a presumption (valid or not) that the opening of marriage to same-sex couples is a pretext to open marriage up to same-family marriages. not that i think it’s actually true.
Because concealed carry is a privilege not a right
You have an extremely unclear definition of what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.
This relationship “is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results … [Their children turn out] generally effeminate … [their relationship is] productive of evil.”
“It not only is a complete undermining of … the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down … It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.””Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man.”
“They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies” not allowing their marriage.
This type of relationship is “distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce.” Such marriages would lead to “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
This type of marriage is “regarded as unnatural and immoral.”
Bill,
Good question or issue you raise. Simply, that is not what I am saying.
For mostly simplicity and not to get distracted by personal and individual ideas of marriage’s religious aspect, I’m trying to restrict the conversation only from a secular, societal perspective. And, avoiding the immediate definition question as it can overtake the big picture conceptual discussion. We can discuss definition and who is eligible after we reach consensus on what it is fundamentally and then as sanctioned by the State.
The right to forming a household is fundamental to individual liberty. My point is do we have a right to demand public recognition/approval/subsidy/privilege in our formation?
I don’t think so because rights are by definition matters that are ours without regard to approval from the government. For instance, the government doesn’t grant me the right to free speech. My humanity is the source of the right. The government’s job is only to protect that right and not infringe on it.
Marriage is first and foremost a fundamental contract/covenant between two people. If it is the right, I don’t need the state’s permission to enter into marriage as my right.
The question that gets lost in this discussion is in ADDITION to the fundamental marriage (formation of a household between two people) is a state sanctioned marriage which bestows on it certain privileges (tax benefits, legal rules with regard to the marriage’s dissolution, parenting, etc.).
Thus, I think we have a fundamental human right to marriage (forming a household) but we don’t have a fundamental right to state provided privileges. Think of it this way: I have free speech rights but I don’t have the right of demanding the State to approve my speech or subsidize it.
So, what is your suggestion: remove the privileges entirely, or grant them only to heterosexual couples?
Good clarification, Troy. And I agree that one’s right to marry and thus become family with another is fundamental and pre-constitutional. And unalienable. It was my impression that that was what the judge was asserting when she said marriage is a right. Sounds like we agree on that as a starting point, yes? So what we are really exploring is in what ways government should be allowed to limit that unalienable right?
BF,
I would say it a bit different. The question is what are the parameters under which people can form their household and receive privileges from the State.
I want to always stress that marriage and forming a household are not the same thing (with or without regard to State sanction).
Analogy.
Like all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs, all marriages are households but not all households are marriages.
No argument there, Troy. My wife owns half of my stuff (okay, maybe all of it…). The grandkids don’t. (Now if I can just convince the grandkids of that… and their grandma. 🙂
I’m just kidding of course… It’s just the toddlers who think everything is theirs, and yeah, grandma tries… everybody tries… 🙂
No matter how often I slip and refer to my children’s Shih Tzus as “cats,” they are still dogs, and they will always be dogs. Even after they feast on the cats’ food, they are still dogs.
my grandkids are generous in sharing my things with me. They always take me when I am buying ice cream and sit on my lap if they have an inclination an answer might be no. Any appearance I am in control is a delusion in my head. They know the truth.
Best line of the entire post TJ.
I get the sense that I am being ignored. Too bad, because I thought my questions and points were fair.
Dicta, sorry for the distraction. I think your points are fair as well. So I’ll bow out now so Troy can get to them. Just wanted to get that ‘rights’ thing cleared up. Peace.
Sorry, BF. I did not mean that as a personal shot at you. Thanks for being so nice.
Dicta,
I had a hard time grasping your points. After reading your post a couple of times, this is what I grasp so i’ll address that.
First, yes, slippery slope is a fallacy. I didn’t bring up slippery slope. Schrieir did in her ruling. In it, she essentially said that Loving and her ruling did “authorize” the right to polygamy or incestuous marriage because it isn’t before the court. She gave no explanation why it wouldn’t apply.
And, if you read the substance of her ruling, you could contextually insert the phrase “right to form a household” for marriage. In other words, the right to form a household is a fundamental right. Few disagree with that on the simple basis of liberty.
But, the essential question here is does one’s right to form a household entitle them to privileges and approval from the State? And, can the State decide which households they will extend those privileges?
Her ruling was essentially that privileges granted to opposite gender households should be given to same gender households. Her only explanation why the privileges shouldn’t be extended to polygamous households or incestuous households is it isn’t before the court. Certainly opens up for me that this ruling is a precedent for such households getting the same treatment as opposite gender households.
Your mention that some oppose same gender marriage because of their views on homosexuality or they quote Scripture appears to imply that opposition to same gender marriage is thus illegitimate is itself a logical fallacy (Argument from fallacy- Because a particular argument against same-gender marriage is faulty, opposition to same-gender marriage is faulty).
Troy, I think this is the question Dicta was asking you to address:
Jan. 14, 9:07 am
“So, what is your suggestion: remove the privileges entirely, or grant them only to heterosexual couples?”
Seems like this would apply regardless of your choice of terminology (household or marriage.)
Yes, this. I will type out a response to Troy’s post. It’s pretty clear, however, that he is leaning on a state’s rights argument re: the question, Fleming, and thinks states should be able to decide if only heterosexuals get certain privileges. (Which is a a completely inapposite point, btw, as the states’ decisions have implications in federal laws that apply to the citizens in question)
She is addressing the argument that has been put before the court, i.e. “Well if gays can get married, why can’t people marry their sister, or their dog?” She is responding to a slippery slope argument, Troy, not making one. I’d just wish she’d ignore it, as it is a terrible argument.
As to your fourth paragraph (beginning “But, the essential”): that is most certainly not the point. The Supreme Court was clear on this, Troy. Civil unions, as a matter of law, are not entitled to the same federal benefits as marriage. By creating this subgroup of unions that aren’t quite marriages, gay couples are losing a financial benefit on a federal level.
And I still haven’t heard a justification for why states need to refuse privileges to homosexual couples in the first place. The claims that it’s bad for kids are bunk, and peer reviewed literature largely bears this out (there are some studies that have different findings, but they are a clear minority). So what is the driving factor? As it is clear in this comments section, for some it is religious (note that I never said all, and only addressed that subgroup. Your attempt to put words in my mouth so you can launch a fallacy back at me was odd), and their a clear church/state issues there. For some, it’s the bad for kids argument that I addressed above. For you, it seems to be a states rights issue which clearly misses the point and is inconsistent with precedent.
So, again: what is the problem?
“There are” I need to proofread a hell of a lot better.
” She is responding to a slippery slope argument, Troy, not making one. I’d just wish she’d ignore it, as it is a terrible argument. ”
No, it’s not a “slippery slope” argument.
The Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution (and most state’s) means that similarly situated people should be afforded the same rights (and treatment), unless there is a compelling state interest, a clear & convincing state interest, or simply a rational basis for treating similarly situated people differently (the level of scrutiny/review depends on whether there are protected classes involved) .
That’s EXACTLY what the gay marriage people were and are arguing. And that’s the SAME argument that plural and incestuous marriage advocates will and are using.
It’s not a slippery slope argument–it’s an EQUAL PROTECTION argument applied to different groups, JUST LIKE the gay marriage advocates used!.
Ooops. “did NOT authorize”
Dicta/Bill,
To that question, I think it would be a good and healthy debate which in large part removes or diminishes many of the moral and religious questions. I’m open to that debate.
Personally, at this time and without full consideration and debate of each on their relative merits, I think it is mixed. Some privileges should remain just with opposite gender couples, some should be extended to both, and some should be eliminated.
Dicta:
Re “By creating this subgroup of unions that aren’t quite marriages, gay couples are losing a financial benefit on a federal level.” I think it legitimate that the State has the prerogative to determine which privileges/benefits it grants to who. Federal government, via our representatives, are empowered to change their law. Courts shouldn’t be legislating prerogatives of the legislative/executive branches.
Re “And I still haven’t heard a justification for why states need to refuse privileges to homosexual couples in the first place.” Like I said, I’m open to the debate of the will of the people on who it grants privileges to and who it doesn’t. Legislative prerogative. Schrieir has basically usurped legislative/executive prerogative and decided herself this answer.
Based on your answer regarding mentioning religious or moral arguments, you had no reason to mention it all.
Finally, what is my problem with what?
Not your problem, necessarily, but the problem with gay marriage generally that it is something people feel the need to protect against.
I balk at the idea that the court is somehow legislating anything. Anyone who has been to law school might have Marbury v. Madison singing in their head that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” She is doing her job, and it isn’t some sort of usurpation to do it.
Traditional marriage is not threatened by whatever same sex couples want to call their relationships. Legal challenges to marriage actually occurred in Marvin v Marvin, when a couple who never married in the first place got a “divorce” agreement which included “palimony” and Marshall v Marshall, in which a legally married and subsequently widowed wife was denied an inheritance based on bizarre arguments that could be summed up as ” the marriage didn’t last as many years as the parties’ age difference.”
Both cases denied the validity of legal marriage, Marvin by declaring the lack of a legal marriage was irrelevant, and Marshall, by declaring that the existence of a legal marriage was irrelevant.
Marriage is now irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how this is ultimately decided: the winners have nothing to win.
“Marriage is now irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how this is ultimately decided: the winners have nothing to win.”
Perhaps this is true, from a cynical perspective. Makes you wonder why people are warring so hard against it.
some are warring hard, to ‘win one for god’ i guess. when the state leans against and depends on something that is an unresolved mess with regard to legal precedent in other areas of discrimination, then the state should proactively work its bureaucratic magic to build the right structure for the real world, and not let things slowly collapse while the parties involved fight over whether the mess should simply be left to exist. there are aspects of religious faith that are supposed to be hard and mysterious, maybe this is one of them.
“the problem with gay marriage generally that it is something people feel the need to protect against.” Using this as an argument is a logic fallacy I mentioned before(Argument from fallacy) plus the introduction of a red herring. Why do you keep going there? You are as being as egregious as what you criticize.
Mentioning Marbury v. Madison hits several logic fallacies: False Equivilance, Proof by Assertion, and False Analogy.
I assert it is an usurpation. I believe it is a legislative/executive prerogative to determine which households upon which it will grant privileges and benefits. She has limited and possibly reading, her opinion to its logical conclusion, eliminated it all together.
Dicta, I’ve spent a lot of time answering you (as well as responding to arguments that aren’t mine). Give me the same courtesy. Answer me this:
Read her opinion and tell me how her opinion can’t logically be applied to each of these (and thus gaining privileges and benefits) besides her saying so or it isn’t before the court:
1) Polygamous Household
2) Two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and sister
3) Father and daughter
As for people believing it’s something they should protect against, I don’t think that’s it. I think voters reject it because same sex marriage is stupid. And when they go to vote, they just can’t bring themselves to vote for something they think is stupid.
The best argument for it is “Americans should have the right to be stupid.”
If same sex couples want to pay the higher taxes that straight married couples pay, let them.
If they want to register their sexual orientation with government agencies, and make it easier for Muslims who want to impose Sharia law on them, let them.
But when they don’t live happily ever after they should not be allowed to sue the caterer.
Wait, wait: mentioning precedent is a logical fallacy? You realize that is the basis for our legal system, right?
I’ve read the opinion. As with all government action that impact different groups, they are subject to a test that looks to their justification for the action. Polygamous and incestuous relationships have numerous justifications for disallowing marriage that, in my mind, survive even strict scrutiny. The most obvious, of course, being that children born of incestual relationships have a much higher chance of genetic defects. This is why you argue each case on its own merits, and not the way you are proposing.
As to your assertion that it is the legislature/executive’s job re: grants of privilege and benefits: again, marriage is not a privilege and existing precedent is not consistent with your reading of it. But even if I grant you that, it is absolutely the court’s job to determine if the dissemination of those benefits is consistent with the constitution. Period.
Actually, it seems that the children of incest DONT have more genetic defects.
Incest has been practiced in many societies without problems. Judaism prohibited it. That’s all.
Offspring–deficient or otherwise–is IRRELEVANT Anne.
Gay couples and straight couples are allowed to marry, use contraception, and abort on demand.
To procreate or not is a fundamental right according to the US Sup. Court (Griswold & Eisenstadt). The right to an abortion is a fundamental right according to the US Sup Ct. (Roe v. Wade). To marry is a fundamental right, according to the US Sup. Ct. (Loving, as applied today).
Dicta appears to be arguing that incestuous couples be denied that same rights to marry, practice contraception ,and abort as desired—as such, he is a intolerant bigot.
So Dicta, on what basis/bases are you arguing that incestuous couple be denied the SAME rights to marry and abort?
(Remember, since contraception and abortion are available as rights, ANY possible state interest in the offspring of these incestuous relationships is IRRELEVANT. Or better yet, to alleviate your apparent irrational fear of defects, condition incestuous marriage licenses on testing every fetus for any defect that may spring from such incestuous relationships).
Let’s hear why you oppose incestuous marriage Dicta!
All would be better if the state just stopped issuing marriage licenses. What purpose do they serve anyway? The churches could still bless and celebrate marriages the same way they do their other rites and offices. The government should treat everybody equally without regard to marital status. As for what do to about the dissolution of relationships, couples can be told “clean up your own mess.” No more going to court to make a judge decide who gets the dog.
The only involvement from the state should revolve around the care of minor children.
Anne that just can’t happen. It makes too much sense.
Again can I just state that God is the final judge and jury. He will decide. People of the same sex getting married does not cause me to lose sleep at night. It truly does not affect my marriage, my family, etc. Why are we so concerned? I believe that God really wants us to be more loving and kind. I don’t have to love the sin but I believe God says to love thy neighbor. If I truly believe that homosexuality is a sin than again God’s got this. I need not worry about my neighbor’s sin. I am convinced that being Gay is not a choice and God has plan for each and everyone Gay or not. I honestly believe that our Government is run by middle-aged white men that are threatened by the progression of society and want badly to control all aspects of life, including who we should and shouldn’t love. Love who you love and God will take care of the rest.
many middle age white men running government are very comfortable with progress and change, and that’s what gets some people in here soooooooooo angry. please use your broad brush to paint a house or something. re: gay marriage – – i saw a hardcore republican / moral majority lawyer put it best when asked about gay marriage a few years ago, at the height of the obamacare/climate change debates – he said in light of the REAL problems we’re facing the argument about gay marriage is the most useless waste of time and we shouldnt’ let it divert us at all. amen.