Christian Conservatives: We Will Defy...

Christian Conservatives: We Will Defy Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

There are 223 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Jun 21, 2013, titled Christian Conservatives: We Will Defy Supreme Court Marriage Ruling. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

A group of Christian Conservatives have said they will defy the US Supreme Court ruling over same-sex marriage- but they don't say how they will do that

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

Sheik Yerbouti

Furlong, PA

#50 Jun 22, 2013
If these fundietard vermin want to defy the law let them pay the penalty. There's not a dime's worth of difference between christian fundies and muslim fundies!

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#51 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
What they obviously meant, and what was understood, was "all white male property-owners of at least 40 acres".
Of course, that's why they wrote it precisely the way you explain. Oh wait, they didn't.

And the reasoning you give is exactly why even today only white male property owners with at least 40 acres are allowed to vote. Oh wait, that's not true either.

Funny how that little bit at the start of the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal," turned out to have such an important role in expanding the right to vote to all citizens.

You might have read bits and pieces about history but you've failed to learn one of its biggest lessons -- those who fail to learn from history will be doomed to repeat its mistakes.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#52 Jun 22, 2013
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
If these fundietard vermin want to defy the law let them pay the penalty. There's not a dime's worth of difference between christian fundies and muslim fundies!
Ad what "law" will they be defying ???

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#53 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founding Fathers never believed in, promoted, nor promised "Equal Rights". Their isn't even a right to vote mentioned in The Declaration Of Independence, The Articles Of Confederation, nor the U.S. Constitution.
Many ill-informed Americans seem to think that the U.S. was "founded as a democracy", that people were given the "right to vote", and that we were founded on "equal rights" NONE OF THAT IS TRUE.
Our Founding Documents, say what they mean, and mean what they say. Nothing more and noting less.
So that whole "all men are created equal" stuff was just a load of crap?

How about "the Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges & immunities of citizens in the several states"?

A more accurate statement would have been "all white Christian male property owners are entitled to the same specials rights & privileges as most other white Christian men unless we don't like their sexuality or religion or who they want to marry or what country they came from or if they have slanty eyes or brown skin etc, etc, etc".

Like I said, good ideas- poor execution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#54 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
What they obviously meant, and what was understood, was "all white male property-owners of at least 40 acres".
Remember that even after the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the necessary states, only about 6% of the population had the right to vote. Even as late as the 1830's, many states did not allow their citizens to vote for electors to POTUS. Remember that there is not U.S. Constitutional "right to vote" (most recently affirmed by SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore (2000).)
Try reading a little bit about U.S. history sometime, ya might learn somethin !:)
Again, poor execution of a good concept. Exactly why we need the SCOTUS to enforce the concept of equal rights, even when the privileged class doesn't agree.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#55 Jun 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So that whole "all men are created equal" stuff was just a load of crap?
How about "the Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges & immunities of citizens in the several states"?
A more accurate statement would have been "all white Christian male property owners are entitled to the same specials rights & privileges as most other white Christian men unless we don't like their sexuality or religion or who they want to marry or what country they came from or if they have slanty eyes or brown skin etc, etc, etc".
Like I said, good ideas- poor execution.
"the Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges & immunities of citizens in the several states" did not come until after The War Between The States when there was GREAT CONTROVERSY about that very point.

And as I said earlier, for nearly half a century, the average American had NO RIGHT to vote for electors for POTUS. In fact, the very first capital of the newly-independent U.S.A. was The City Of New York (at that time consisting only of the island of Manhattan).

George Washington was sworn into office as President of the United States, at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. and guess what, NO NEW YORKER (in the entire STATE OF NEW YORK, not just The City Of New York, was ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE FOR POTUS OR EVEN THE ELECTORS FOR POTUS).

You obviously don't know anything about American history at all !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#56 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
"the Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges & immunities of citizens in the several states" did not come until after The War Between The States when there was GREAT CONTROVERSY about that very point.
And as I said earlier, for nearly half a century, the average American had NO RIGHT to vote for electors for POTUS. In fact, the very first capital of the newly-independent U.S.A. was The City Of New York (at that time consisting only of the island of Manhattan).
George Washington was sworn into office as President of the United States, at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. and guess what, NO NEW YORKER (in the entire STATE OF NEW YORK, not just The City Of New York, was ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE FOR POTUS OR EVEN THE ELECTORS FOR POTUS).
You obviously don't know anything about American history at all !
Wrong again- that's a quote from Art 4, Sec 2 of the Constitution.

Your blather is just more proof that the execution of the ideals set out in our founding documents was pisspoor at best.

The good news is we CAN continue to improve of what they started. We just need less old white men in charge. Thankfully they are literally dying out, and being replaced by a more diverse society.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#57 Jun 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again- that's a quote from Art 4, Sec 2 of the Constitution.
Your blather is just more proof that the execution of the ideals set out in our founding documents was pisspoor at best.
The good news is we CAN continue to improve of what they started. We just need less old white men in charge. Thankfully they are literally dying out, and being replaced by a more diverse society.
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" as recently articulated by SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore (2000).
And as I said earlier, for nearly half a century, the average American had NO RIGHT to vote for electors for POTUS. In fact, the very first capital of the newly-independent U.S.A. was The City Of New York (at that time consisting only of the island of Manhattan).

George Washington was sworn into office as President of the United States, at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. and guess what, NO NEW YORKER (in the entire STATE OF NEW YORK, not just The City Of New York, was ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE FOR POTUS OR EVEN THE ELECTORS FOR POTUS).

You obviously don't know anything about American history at all !
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T8E3COQHL...
Patriot

Loveland, CO

#58 Jun 22, 2013
The Full Cup Principle

Proverbs 2:1-6

"If you accept My Words

and store up My Commands within you,

turning your ear to Wisdom

and applying your heart to understanding—

indeed, if you call out for insight

and cry aloud for understanding,

and if you look for it as for silver

and search for it as for hidden treasure,

then you will understand the fear of The LORD
and find The Knowledge of GOD.

For the LORD gives wisdom;

from His mouth come knowledge and understanding."

----

All through Scripture it is shown that our Creator allows the accumulation of sin before His Wrath breaks out. Examples found here http://biblehub.com/genesis/15-16.htm , http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-32.htm & here http://biblehub.com/niv/1_thessalonians/2.htm note vs 16.

Notice the "measuring basket" and what it is filled with in vs 6 http://biblehub.com/nlt/zechariah/5.htm

GOD gives us a picture of the sins of a wicked city piling up in Revelation 18 unitl her sins have finally reached the zenith which acts as a trigger for The Wrath of GOD to completely obliterate her. http://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/18.htm

Do Not Be Deceived -

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

The Bible is clear and on this topic GOD leaves no middle ground. The practice of homosexuality puts an impasse between people. On the one hand, homosexuals want acceptance and "freedom" to fulfill any sexual desire, but many heterosexuals want freedom from the immoral influence of homosexuality for themselves and their children. How can the needs of both be met while sharing the same land? Homosexuality is a deviation caused by the curse of sin. It is real, not imaginary. It is incredibly powerful. I have no doubts that for some, homosexual tendencies began early in life. Homosexuality affects people of every nation, race and religion and this sexual deviation is a behavioral sign of the end. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for defiant sexual immorality, the entire world will suffer the same fate.

Let me make this point clear. A person who is homosexual is not unlike any other sinner. He/she has a soul to be saved and is due Christian kindness and charity. The need of a Savior is no less for the homosexual than any other sinner. However, Salvation belongs to those who overcome sin through faith in Christ. The power unto Salvation includes power over sin!(Rom 6:9-18, 1 Cor 6:9-11) The only cure for homosexuality is the same cure for every sinner – a miracle, the miracle of rebirth! Pray for those individuals who have adopted the homosexual lifestyle. Instead of judging the individual, pray for victory over a besetting sin. May the Holy Spirit speak to their hearts and help them grasp the divine condemnation that rests upon this sinful course of action!

"If you return to The Almighty, you will be restored: If you remove wickedness far from your tent" http://biblehub.com/job/22-23.htm

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#63 Jun 22, 2013
Lilith_Sparkles wrote:
<quoted text>who cares morazz what it meant in 1776... a lot has changed... what part of its 2013 do you just not get.. the document is a living document you know dynamic.. not static like your brain
That's not what SCOTUS said in 2000.

And it's obviously NOT "a living document you know dynamic". You're a bigger loon than I originally thought you were if you think that.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#67 Jun 22, 2013
Lilith_Sparkles wrote:
<quoted text>y your right ammendments were never added over the decades... snicker snicker you dumbazz
There's no right to vote. Never has been. And SCOUTS reaffirmed that in Gore v. Bush (2000). go back to whoring which is apparently something you know about.
Lilith_on_the_ro ad

Seattle, WA

#68 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no right to vote. Never has been. And SCOUTS reaffirmed that in Gore v. Bush (2000). go back to whoring which is apparently something you know about.
Good then now you funditards have no right to cry for public votes on gay marriage... thanks for the help

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#69 Jun 22, 2013
Chance wrote:
"In fact, it appears that the idea of the sacredness of marriage only came about some seven or eight hundred years ago." What a blatant falsehood. Gays are now going well beyond twisting the Bible to actually lying about it. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, and he reiterated what had already been established about marriage being the union of a man and a woman since creation. Read The Bible, specifically Matthew 19.
Gays twisting the Bible? Guess that means you just came out sweetie!

How you get that Jesus was condemning gays and lesbians when the passage you refer to is about DIVORCE is beyond me.

But I'm used to your lies by now.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#70 Jun 22, 2013
Chance wrote:
"In fact, it appears that the idea of the sacredness of marriage only came about some seven or eight hundred years ago." What a blatant falsehood. Gays are now going well beyond twisting the Bible to actually lying about it. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, and he reiterated what had already been established about marriage being the union of a man and a woman since creation. Read The Bible, specifically Matthew 19.
My conservative christian stepmother used that passage to tell my sister she was a whore after she divorced and re-married. I don't think she ever thought that the passage was about gays and lesbians.

John 21:25
New International Version (©2011)
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
http://biblehub.com/john/21-25.htm

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#71 Jun 22, 2013
Dear Lilith. I've reported you for posts 26, 27. I've told you when you advocate violence I will report you.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#72 Jun 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And the elimination of religion from government is a significant improvement we can make, just like when we got rid of slavery.
The founders weren't perfect nor were they saints- they were flawed men who were a product of society at the time. They had a lot of great ideas, but failed miserably on the execution of many of those ideas. Like equal rights for all- except blacks, Indians, women, religious minorities, poor non property owners, etc, etc, etc.
Good ideals, but we can still improve on the execution/implementation of those ideals.
Well said.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#73 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
What they obviously meant, and what was understood, was "all white male property-owners of at least 40 acres".
Remember that even after the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the necessary states, only about 6% of the population had the right to vote. Even as late as the 1830's, many states did not allow their citizens to vote for electors to POTUS. Remember that there is not U.S. Constitutional "right to vote" (most recently affirmed by SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore (2000).)
Try reading a little bit about U.S. history sometime, ya might learn somethin !:)
WAIOT A MINUTE FA FOXY!

You said there isn't a right to vote. Now you8 are saying there was.

Pick a lane honey!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#74 Jun 22, 2013
IrishmanLA wrote:
<quoted text>
The person who said this for the article has it COMPLETELY wrong! The Supreme Court has NEVER assumed the role of a MORAL authority! They have assumed the role of a LEGAL authority! They only decide what is LEGAL in this country - they have NEVER decided morality.
Someone needs to learn how their government REALLY works!
NEVER??

Polygamy:
Probably never in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance."
Davis v. Beason
133 U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890)


Polygamy :
"It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United States
136 U.S. 1 (1890)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#75 Jun 22, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
"the Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges & immunities of citizens in the several states" did not come until after The War Between The States when there was GREAT CONTROVERSY about that very point.
And as I said earlier, for nearly half a century, the average American had NO RIGHT to vote for electors for POTUS. In fact, the very first capital of the newly-independent U.S.A. was The City Of New York (at that time consisting only of the island of Manhattan).
George Washington was sworn into office as President of the United States, at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. and guess what, NO NEW YORKER (in the entire STATE OF NEW YORK, not just The City Of New York, was ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE FOR POTUS OR EVEN THE ELECTORS FOR POTUS).
You obviously don't know anything about American history at all !
Again Fa Foxy, pick a lane.

You keep saying there is no right to v0ote in the Constitution then you say (from post #55) "Remember that even after the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the necessary states, only about 6% of the population had the right to vote."

There is a right to vote. Both in the Constitution AND in Federal Law (The Voting Rights Act!)

Stop being a twit.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#76 Jun 22, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>WAIOT A MINUTE FA FOXY!
You said there isn't a right to vote. Now you8 are saying there was.
Pick a lane honey!
There is no FEDERAL right to vote. That was left to the states. The states can basically set any requirements they want. and most STATES, at least the ones who CHOSE to give people the right to vote, set those requirements I states above.

During the FIRST Presidential election, where George Washington was UNANIMOUSLY elected POTUS, New York State dd not give ANYBODY the right to vote for POTUS.

And South Carolina didn't allow their citizens to vote for POTUS the first 48 years of POTUS elections in the republic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 1 hr Mike Schmidt 342
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Mike Schmidt 5,001
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Constitution 101 24,080
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 44,161
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 960
News Kylie Minogue and husband Joshua Sasse refuse t... 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 1
New President of the US 2 hr Forest 5
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 3 hr June VanDerMark 12,687
More from around the web