Quote: Cedric wrote in post #14

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #12

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #11

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #10

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #9

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

...the US Constitution is the law of our land,not the Old or New Testament.

---

The U.S. Constitution is based on the precepts of the Bible.

{Including the Trinity (co-equal) Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Legislative, Executive, Judicial.}

---

You must be joking?

---

Isaiah 33:22

---

Speak English, son.

---

Here ya go, laddy:

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison (Father Of The Constitution) proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22

“For the LORD is our judge, [judicial]
the LORD is our lawgiver, [legislative]
the LORD is our king; [executive]
He will save us.”

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #8

---

The problem is that government should have never gotten involved in marriage at all.

---

Zitat

---

The law “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage,”

---

Maybe because two poles and and two holes can't be married.

The upside to this is that now I can marry my father and be able to transfer his wealth to me upon his death without any tax implications. The benefits of being a spouse.

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #18

---

The problem COULD be addressed - solved - by granting equal legal standing between "civil unions" and "marriage". In other words, in the eyes of the law, two homosexuals living under a "civil union" would have equal legal rights with a heterosexual couple living under a "marriage".

Yes, that would solve the issue - it would be a compromise (as with any compromise, each party does not get EVERYTHING it wants)

But then, that wouldn't serve the purpose of undermining the society now, would it?

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #8

---

The problem is that government should have never gotten involved in marriage at all.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #18

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #8

---

The problem is that government should have never gotten involved in marriage at all.

---

Hindsight is always 20/20, but BINGO!

Marriage is one of those terms that have RELIGIOUS as well as SECULAR/LEGAL roots. It wasn't a "problem" until recently, but with our society's propensity to squash anything religious it HAS evolved into an issue.

If one thinks about it - having government regulate marriage makes as much sense as government regulating any other religious ritual - like communion or baptism.

The problem COULD be addressed - solved - by granting equal legal standing between "civil unions" and "marriage". In other words, in the eyes of the law, two homosexuals living under a "civil union" would have equal legal rights with a heterosexual couple living under a "marriage".

Yes, that would solve the issue - it would be a compromise (as with any compromise, each party does not get EVERYTHING it wants)

But then, that wouldn't serve the purpose of undermining the society now, would it?

---

What about the Christian church in the states that already have gay marriage? Obama said it wouldn't affect them, that they would not have to perform a gay marriage or be in contempt of the law.
Ha! He has other plans for those churches. They will probably lose their tax exempt status because of it. One way or another, he will certainly punish them for their religious beliefs.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #5

---

I don't agree with ya Pete.

Marriage is defined already. Husband and wife. Now begins the cesspool of redefinition.

As far as rights go, pffft. Any man always had the right to wed any woman and bed any dude he wanted. It's a war on faith, don't kid yourself.

---

Zitat

---

The DOMA decision makes clear that marriage is a state-to-state issue, meaning that religious institutions that receive non-profit status on the federal level but do not perform or accept same-sex marriages in states where it is legal could have non-profit status revoked. Furthermore, should the IRS move to revoke federal non-profit status for churches, synagogues and mosques that do not perform same-sex marriage more generally, the Court could easily justify that decision on the basis of “eradicating discrimination” in religious education.

---

Yeah just watch when the IRS camps outside a Mosque that refuses to cooperate vs. an Evangelical Christian Church. Anybody want to guess which group gets a pass and which group is forced to comply?

If a church refuses to comply the congregation will have to tithe more to make up the shortfall. Most congregants do not tithe. The church will be severely impacted.

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #19

---

Zitat

---

The law “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage,”

---

Maybe because two poles and and two holes can't be married.

The upside to this is that now I can marry my father and be able to transfer his wealth to me upon his death without any tax implications. The benefits of being a spouse.

---

No,you can't. There are still laws against incest.

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #23

---

What about the Christian church in the states that already have gay marriage? Obama said it wouldn't affect them, that they would not have to perform a gay marriage or be in contempt of the law.

Ha! He has other plans for those churches. They will probably lose their tax exempt status because of it. One way or another, he will certainly punish them for their religious beliefs.

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #24

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #5

---

I don't agree with ya Pete.

Marriage is defined already. Husband and wife. Now begins the cesspool of redefinition.

As far as rights go, pffft. Any man always had the right to wed any woman and bed any dude he wanted. It's a war on faith, don't kid yourself.

---

I have to agree. Within hours, hours of this ruling this first salvo strikes:

Breitbart

IRS Could Revoke Non-Profit for Religious Institutions -

Zitat

---

The DOMA decision makes clear that marriage is a state-to-state issue, meaning that religious institutions that receive non-profit status on the federal level but do not perform or accept same-sex marriages in states where it is legal could have non-profit status revoked. Furthermore, should the IRS move to revoke federal non-profit status for churches, synagogues and mosques that do not perform same-sex marriage more generally, the Court could easily justify that decision on the basis of “eradicating discrimination” in religious education.

---

Yeah just watch when the IRS camps outside a Mosque that refuses to cooperate vs. an Evangelical Christian Church. Anybody want to guess which group gets a pass and which group is forced to comply?

---

Thank you for providing the proof you are wrong. Even you and the fundie churches admit the feral government does NOT have the authority to tell churches who they can and can not marry. The ferals get them to comply by threatening to cut off some of their cash,and the cash is more important to them than any religious viewpoints they might have. Otherwise they would tell the feral government to stick their tax-exempt status in their ears.

THE IMPORTANT PART TO KEEP IN MIND HERE IS THAT THE CHURCHES STILL HAVE A CHOICE. If they choose to put their religious values behind their love of cash money,it's nobody's fault but their own. Nobody made them do anything. Their own greed is responsible.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #25

---

If a church refuses to comply the congregation will have to tithe more to make up the shortfall. Most congregants do not tithe. The church will be severely impacted.

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #29

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #25

---

If a church refuses to comply the congregation will have to tithe more to make up the shortfall. Most congregants do not tithe. The church will be severely impacted.

---

So what? The churches are like any other business. If they can't survive on their own they deserve to die out. If their own members won't support them financially,why should the taxpayers?

After all,who do they think they are,banks?

---