GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[ABX]

How about the feelings and deeply held beliefs of devout Christians? Are they or should they be irrelevant?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does a government contract change the belief of a Christian? A good case I saw made was that the government contract of marriage is not the religious sacrament of marriage- and that sacrament actually varies based on faith and denomination.

Too many of faith (not just Christians) try to replace God with Government and want Government to become the blessing of their personal religious sacrament.

[ABX]

How God feels about a religious covenant is irrelevant?  Well...ok then.

Following up on my prior 'devil's advocate' argument, we aren't talking about a religious covenant, we are talking about a government contract. Unless, of course, government is the religion.

[Sanguine]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does a government contract change the belief of a Christian? A good case I saw made was that the government contract of marriage is not the religious sacrament of marriage- and that sacrament actually varies based on faith and denomination.

Too many of faith (not just Christians) try to replace God with Government and want Government to become the blessing of their personal religious sacrament.

If it's not the same thing, it shouldn't be called the same thing.  At one time, the two: civil and religious, were the same.

[geronl]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does a government contract change the belief of a Christian?

Then they should call it something else besides "marriage"

[Jazzhead]

How God feels about a religious covenant is irrelevant?  Well...ok then.

I'm not talking about a religious covenant.  I'm talking about a legal contract - an entirely secular matter.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing.   The latter is a concern of God, not the former.   

[Jazzhead]

How about the feelings and deeply held beliefs of devout Christians? Are they or should they be irrelevant?

How is religious belief, no matter how deeply held, relevant to the question of the application of the law's equal protection respecting the state's extension of valuable benefits to the parties to a legal contract? 

     

[geronl]

soon enough those who support same-sex "marriage" will support kiddie porn and kiddie sex

[Jazzhead]

Then they should call it something else besides "marriage"

You can call it whatever you want.  But when a judge married me and my spouse, it was a marriage, not a civil union.   Marriage isn't just for religious folks, you know.   

[geronl]

legalising sodomy won't lead to same-sex "marriage", they said

They[ll be marrying their own minor children soon.

[Jazzhead]

soon enough those who support same-sex "marriage" will support kiddie porn and kiddie sex

That's a stupid and offensive thing to say. 

A gay couple is as much entitled to the law's equal protection as you and your spouse.   Live your own life and let others live theirs.   

[geronl]

A child molester is as much entitled to the law's equal protection as you and your spouse.   Live your own life and let others live theirs.

Yet, Christians have to be forced to serve and approve the pedophiles, become slaves to them eventually.

[geronl]

That's a stupid and offensive thing to say. 

The slippery slope was very real and we're falling now.

[SirLinksALot]

How is religious belief, no matter how deeply held, relevant to the question of the application of the law's equal protection respecting the state's extension of valuable benefits to the parties to a legal contract? 
   

Some examples will suffice:

1) Why are devout Christian bakers, florists, lodge owners, etc being forced (under pain of fines, jail time and losing their businesses ) to service gay weddings when their conscience tells them not to?

2) Will Devout Evangelical/Catholic and even Muslim military chaplains be forced to officiate gay wedding ceremonies?

If the answer to the above is 'No', then we have a basis for a "live and let live" policy. Otherwise, this has First Amendment implications.

[geronl]

I guess baby killing is also "settled law"

[txradioguy]

I guess baby killing is also "settled law"

That's different!  /sarc

[SirLinksALot]

I guess baby killing is also "settled law"

How is gay marriage "settled law" ? Was it passed by Congress?

[geronl]

I am not surprised to see many briefers take the leftist side.

[Cripplecreek]

I am not surprised to see many briefers take the leftist side.

Its often easier than admitting they were duped.

[jmyrlefuller]

Marriage is an institution for legal recognition of the family.  A gay couple has as much right to that recognition as you do.

A family requires a mother and a father.

[truth_seeker]

That's a stupid and offensive thing to say. 

A gay couple is as much entitled to the law's equal protection as you and your spouse.   Live your own life and let others live theirs.

I'm curious. Does your libertarian attitude extend to muslim genital mutiliation, of minors?

They do that supposedly for religious reasons. Keep the state out of their religion?

Likewise child-wives, polygamy etc? For religion's sake?

[mirraflake]

legalising sodomy won't lead to same-sex "marriage", they said

They[ll be marrying their own minor children soon.

Heterosexual divorce is at a 35 year low and heterosexual marriage rates are going back up..even after gay marriage. I posted an article about it the other day. So much for gay marriage hurting traditional marriage
@geronl

[mirraflake]

I'm curious. Does your libertarian attitude extend to muslim genital mutiliation, of minors?

They do that supposedly for religious reasons. Keep the state out of their religion?

FGM is not done for religion but cultural reason in African and N. African countries.  Africans who are non muslim practice it was well.

It is not done in other Muslim countries unless Somalies etc migrate to those countries. It is not done in Iran, Iraq, Saudi etc

What about male circumcision?

@truth_seeker

[TomSea]

FGM is still largely a phenomenon found more in Islamic countries and plenty of Muslim clerics defend its use even if say, one says they can not find it directly in the Koran or their holy writings.

Map of where it is practiced. No figures for Russia but it apparently is practiced there in the Muslim areas (see article below of Cleric defending it); it surely is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/04/female-genital-mutilation-iran-fgm


Yes, and if the US is pink per above, that is because of the custom being imported here by migrants.

    “Most Singaporeans have little idea of the procedure’s existence in the city-state, but it is observed, typically among Malay Muslims, who make up some 13% of the total resident population. 
    Sunat Perempuan, as it is known in Malay, is usually carried out on girls before the age of two, who normally have the tip of the clitoris cut, with a tiny piece of skin sometimes removed.”

- BBC  http://theindependent.sg/some-malay-muslims-take-issue-with-bbcs-report-on-female-genital-mutilation-in-singapore/

Senior Muslim Cleric: Universal Female Genital Mutilation ‘Would Be Very Good’
Breitbart: A senior Muslim cleric in Russia has suggested that universal female genital mutilation (FGM) would be a positive development, after a rights group released a report denouncing the practice earlier this week.

Female genital mutilation does not pose health risks and “does not contradict the dogmas of Islam,” said Mufti Ismail Berdiyev, the head of the North Caucasus Muslim Coordination Center.

http://iotwreport.com/senior-muslim-cleric-universal-female-genital-mutilation-would-be-very-good/

Or go to other sources; there are plenty. It's use is defended. It is probably most common in Egypt. There was a post on this months ago.

More: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/168661/female-genital-mutilation-islamic-crime-jamie-glazov

[Hoodat]

Marriage is an institution for legal recognition of the family.

Shouldn't that legal recognition be defined by the State?  For example, should a blood test be required?  Are 17-year-olds allowed to marry without parental consent?  Can 11-year-olds get a marriage license?  Is there a waiting period for obtaining a marriage license?  Does a license have an expiration date?

These are state issues to be determined by the people of that state.  At least that's what the Constitution of the United States of America dictates.  But our Supreme Court decided otherwise when it came to the central definition.  They took it upon themselves to force their own morality upon the entire nation - States be damned.

The only response I see at this point is for states to absolve the marriage contract since their right to regulate it has been usurped by the tyranny of five.

[Jazzhead]

A family requires a mother and a father.

No doubt about it - kids get raised better by two parents, not one.   That's why marriage is such a crucial institution.   

Think about it -  marriage equality has had one benefit about which I bet we can all agree:  Now that gays have the right to marry,  there's a lot less clamor for alternatives to marriage like domestic partnerships.   Domestic partnerships (DPs) represent, IMO, the true threat to traditional marriage.   As DPs proliferated over that past 20 years as an alternative for gays unable to marry,  they began to be recognized more and more as an alternative for straights too.   Many companies' benefit programs have recognized both gay and straight DPs, and extended benefits and perks formerly reserved for married couples.    But a DP can be dissolved at the whim of either party, with kids left in the lurch.   A domestic partnership is a terrible substitute for marriage when it comes to encouraging intact, permanent families.   

For years,  I have (as an employee benefits professional)  been touting marriage equality as the best way to strengthen traditional marriage by stemming the scourge of domestic partnerships as an acceptable alternative.