Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

Aren't those in favor of gay marriage actually condoning sin? Aren't they actually asking for approval of their conduct?



In the LDS Church you are ONLY allowed to have sexual relations with your husband or wife to whom you are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded.



You can't just go in your backyard with your girlfriend, exchange some vows you each wrote and then go upstairs and get it on.



By allowing gay marriage you are saying that sexual relations between two members of the same sex is proper and not wrong.



Homosexual conduct is wrong, immoral and sinful. Those who support gay marriage are holding apostate views. There is no other way to describe it.

In response to all those changing their profile pictures to various symbols to show their support for whatever they are supporting, I have created this and invite all who want to to use it as their facebook picture.


BYUCougars-Y-Logo.png

hawkwing wrote:
In response to all those changing their profile pictures to various symbols to show their support for whatever they are supporting, I have created this and invite all who want to to use it as their facebook picture.


BYUCougars-Y-Logo.png

This is a FANTASTIC idea! Well done.

I just used a picture of "Family: A Proclamation to the World"

SpiffCoug wrote:
Aren't those in favor of gay marriage actually condoning sin? Aren't they actually asking for approval of their conduct?



In the LDS Church you are ONLY allowed to have sexual relations with your husband or wife to whom you are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded.



You can't just go in your backyard with your girlfriend, exchange some vows you each wrote and then go upstairs and get it on.



By allowing gay marriage you are saying that sexual relations between two members of the same sex is proper and not wrong.



Homosexual conduct is wrong, immoral and sinful. Those who support gay marriage are holding apostate views. There is no other way to describe it.

I agree. For me, what these people do on their own is not my business. I have to deal with my sins and they have to deal with theirs. If the court (I am having a tough time calling them supreme) approves some or all of these things, I am very concerned that they'll go after the churches to force them to perform these so called marraiges next. That is my business!

I just wonder why the government is involved in marriage at all?



Remember, because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. Because something is unlawful (as we saw with polygamy) doesn't make it immoral.

I'm not going to get into the sticky details, but gays are allowed to marry. Marriage is the union between man and woman, and they're more than welcome to do that. What they're not welcome to do is change the definition of what marriage is.

BroncoBot wrote:
I just wonder why the government is involved in marriage at all?



Remember, because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. Because something is unlawful (as we saw with polygamy) doesn't make it immoral.

This. Long term this is the only viable solution. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution about marriage yet the federal government enforces rules both benefiting and injuring people who are married. Any of those rules privileging people who are or are not married should be abolished at the federal level. Unfortunately when they are abolished I'm sure the congress will use that to raise taxes on everyone when they should use the ruling to decrease taxation on everyone.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I am 100% for gay marriage. I want them to be just as miserable as the rest of us. ;)

Wickedness never was happiness. They can attempt to gain acceptance and even license for their behavior. But when they continually mock that which God has made sacred, they will never find the happiness they are after by trying to gain approval for their sins.

DOMA is a horrible law. The federal government has no right to decree from on high what constitutes marriage. It is a power reserved to the States. Now that means some states might legalize gay marriage and at least as far as the federal government, that is too bad-- if it is legal in a state, then that is the law. I think states have a proper role to define marriage both to protect it and guard against abuse. For the states that have legalized gay marriage, however,I sustain the brethren and do not support such efforts. For thousands of years marriage was a vertical relationship--concerned fundamentally with protecting and raising children. It is only in the past 30 years with gay marriage that the focus is on inter or lateral relationships between two adults with children no longer the focus. What are the consequences of this shift? We do not know and it is hubris on gay marriage advocates' part and judges issuing decrees to think there will be no problems or concerns as they disrupt thousands of years of experience.

Yep. Marriage is not really about love or sex. It's about bringing children into this world and providing a solid foundation in which they can grow and develop into adults.

The more I read same-sex marriage opponents talking about the issue of DOMA lately, the more I am convinced they don't fully understand the implications of their own "solutions." Same-sex marriage advocates would be ELATED if the Supreme Court agreed that same-sex marriage is a states' rights issue.



The problem with marriage being limited to the states comes with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. If marriage is a relationship under one state's laws and is a "state act", the other states would be compelled to recognize any marriage legitimized in any of the other 49 states. That was the issue DOMA was crafted (clumsily and overbroadly) to address. The Supreme Court in Hawaii had just announced that under its state constitution a law banning same-sex marriage was void. Congress saw the writing on the wall where Hawaii would become THE state where all same-sex couples would wed and via the FFC clause foist it upon the rest of the nation. So DOMA was born to remove marriage from the reach of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and as long as they were doing it they eliminated same-sex marriages from federal benefits. Hawaii eventually amended their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, but the scare had its effect.



Note that this also helps people identify what is at stake before the Supreme Court with DOMA. Everyone is focusing on federal benefits since that is the narrow issue before the Court, but if the Court strikes DOMA, a left-leaning state can craft a definition of marriage that subjects it to the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the rest of the nation will be forced to recognize those unions--Utah, Wyoming, Texas, and the Dakotas included. The stakes are pretty high.



http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/The_More_You_Know.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:
The more I read same-sex marriage opponents talking about the issue of DOMA lately, the more I am convinced they don't fully understand the implications of their own "solutions." Same-sex marriage advocates would be ELATED if the Supreme Court agreed that same-sex marriage is a states' rights issue.



The problem with marriage being limited to the states comes with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. If marriage is a contractual relationship under one state's laws, the other states would be compelled to recognize any marriage legitimized in any of the other 49 states. That was the issue DOMA was crafted (clumsily and overbroadly) to address. The Supreme Court in Hawaii had just announced that under its state constitution a law banning same-sex marriage was void. Congress saw the writing on the wall where Hawaii would become THE state where all same-sex couples would wed and via the FFC clause foist it upon the rest of the nation. So DOMA was born to remove marriage from the reach of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and as long as they were doing it they eliminated same-sex marriages from federal benefits. Hawaii eventually amended their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, but the scare had its effect.



Note that this also helps people identify what is at stake before the Supreme Court with DOMA. Everyone is focusing on federal benefits since that is the narrow issue before the Court, but if the Court strikes DOMA, a left-leaning state can craft a definition of marriage that subjects it to the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the rest of the nation will be forced to recognize those unions--Utah, Wyoming, Texas, and the Dakotas included. The stakes are pretty high.



http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/The_More_You_Know.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Very well stated. The stakes are high. I just do not see in our federalist system that the Congress gets to be the arbiter of marriage--states do. That has its own set of repurcussions to be sure.

I feel sad for the LDS people who are fighting against the Prophet and the Lord on this issue. They make excuses to justify their stance of supporting and fighting for gay marriage, but in the end it will only lead them away from their relationship with their Heavenly Father.



As long as the Prophet has instructed us that it is our duty to stand against gay marriage and the erosion of the family then anyone standing on the other side can't be said to be doing anything but opposing the work.

Great post Sno. Good insight. Thanks for opening your box of crayons and explaining it to commom "tards" like me. Mongo needs help all the time.



The way I look at gay marriage is akin to Prohibition (18th Amendment). Eventually, because it was unenforceable, it did nor have it's intended purpose (lowering crime - it actually increased crime thru the various mafia and Capone type syndicates), and the mood of the citizenry changed. So, the 21st Amendment passed and repealed Prohibition (18th Amendment).



I think gay marriage is in the same universe. The mood of the nation has changed. It's a matter of time and gay marriage will be legal. Just like consuming alcohol, do I have to like it? Endorse it? Celebrate it? No. But, it is legal, and there for those that choose it. For me and mine - we choose to not use alcohol and include it in our lives. I think the gay marriage issue will fall into the same category. It's a juggernaut that will eventually come to be.



Whatever ...... I have my 44 oz. Coke Zero and a large bag of Frito's.

For me the best answer is either for DOMA to stand, or for all levels of government to get out of the marriage business. They got involved for all the right reasons (if we give tax benefits to married people, they're more likely to get married and less likely to get divorced), but we all know how the road to Hell is paved...

I'll have to post the link at home, but Mark Levin gave a great explanation that the full faith and credit clause doesn't necessarily apply in the instance of contradictory statutes. States are entitled to their own laws.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'll have to post the link at home, but Mark Levin gave a great explanation that the full faith and credit clause doesn't necessarily apply in the instance of contradictory statutes. States are entitled to their own laws.

I heard Levin, but I believe Levin just read some cases or summaries and got excited about something he read and assumed it would apply here--I don't know that he understands the distinction between laws and judgments. The Full Faith and Credit clause has differing tests and exceptions between the two. Levin assumed/argued it would be treated as another state's law and therefore subjected to public policy exceptions.



I think Levin is flat out wrong, and evidently Congress did too or else DOMA wouldn't have passed. The Full Faith and Credit clause has already be used as the vehicle for enforcing the common-law marriages, child custody orders, and restraining orders in divorces of one state in a different state even in the face of "home state" statutes or laws that would otherwise prohibit it.



While the law might be what permits same-sex marriage, what solemnizes it is a subsequent state action--the issuance of a permit and certificate, and those acts are looked upon in a Full Faith and Credit analysis as judgments even though they arise out of an enabling law. A court deciding whether to enforce it or not is not looking to enforce the law of one state in another, the court is deciding whether the marriage certificate is entitled to full faith and credit in the other 49 states. FFC has already been used in deep red Oklahoma to compel Oklahoma to revise a birth certificate for a child born in Oklahoma and adopted by a married same sex couple in another state to list the same-sex couple as married on the child's birth certificate.

snoscythe wrote:
For me the best answer is either for DOMA to stand, or for all levels of government to get out of the marriage business. They got involved for all the right reasons (if we give tax benefits to married people, they're more likely to get married and less likely to get divorced), but we all know how the road to Hell is paved...

I really feel that if the government, state and federal, got out of the marriage business and as a nation got rid of all the entitlements that "marriage" brings to the table, this would become a non issue.



The government ALWAYS gets involved for the right reasons (or so they tell us). Our safety is at stake, our communities are going to crumble, our women and children will be dying in the streets, our elderly need help, our banks will destroy our economy if we don't pump them some more money, etc etc etc. It's amazing that our American way of life was the envy of the world before our government decided to step in and save us for the past 100 or so years. It's also amazing how quickly we have become just like the rest of the world with our government's "best intentions" to take certain rights and freedoms away from the uneducated and helpless citizens that we are.