Flames of Liberty

I fail to find the point of your post?

This is a topic that brings out strong feelings on both sides. I apologize for my inappropriate post and have deleted the words of it.

I repeat the same thing because you keep trying argue that marriage is a privilege. It isn't. It is a freedom. Marriage isn't a privilege related to US citizenship. If there is no law guaranteeing marriage, then equal treatment doesn't apply because it is "equal treatment under the law." It is connected to law, not just to whatever it is you want to do. If gays want to live as husband and wife, they are free to do so. No one is saying that being gay is illegal and no one is trying to make it illegal. But as it stands there is no "right" of marriage for anyone. If gays want to buy a house together, they have the freedom to do so. Equal protection under the law guarantees that our laws apply equally to all citizens. Since there are no laws regulating gay marriage, then no laws have been broken and no one has been denied equal protection under the law. You don't equal protection under a law that doesn't exist in the first place. There are no laws that regulate marriage? Really? You really, honestly believe there is not a single law on the books regulating marriage? By the way, legally there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage.

I do want to clarify something about the widows. First of all, we are not forbidden to take up a love offering for widows under 60. We can't take them in among the number of the widows getting regular support. I had to deal with 4 widows that were getting regular benefits, and none of them met all the qualifications so I had to cut them off. Age wasn't the primary reason. In one case, the woman had family living with her that was working and she didn't really need the money, and the church didn't have it to give. It wasn't an easy thing to do, but it clearly had to be done to come in line with the Bible. Here is how I see it. If there is any issue where the church is doing contrary to scriptural order, the church is wrong. If I am personally doing something contrary to Biblical order, I am wrong. Even if you were to find such an example of wrong doing on my part, it wouldn't make anything change with regard to the scriptural teaching on women, so it is a smoke screen type of argument. What I would say is we need to fix our problems, but not justify wrong because we find other wrong taking place. Never mind

I don't recall ever saying Butero was wrong. I don't have time for this. I said it came across that way, and I gave the quote and the reason why. Can you at least say if you do agree or if you don't agree and why? Why is it so important for you to have her say that? Isn't it enough for you to express your views and for her to do the same? People can read both and make up their own minds.

No. what you understand is how the gay agenda twists and manipulates the very words of the constitution from its original content and meaning and calls it right. No I understand the legal process and I am not blinded by my emotions. If I were King the law of the land would be Mark 10, and this lady would not be legally married either. But our country is neither a monarchy nor a theocracy.

What that means is that they will take the charity from the church for a while and be completely devoted to Christ for a time, but then will desire to marry again and leave the service of the Lord. That is why we aren't to count them among the widows who receive charity from the church. The Bible actually encourages the young widows to re-marry. Paul does encourage remarriage, or any marriage. And yet you are married. The mischievous side of me wonders if your wife calls you Lord.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, seemingly hoping it will switch from patently false to correct. That or you are trying the age old strategy of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it. You are correct, there is not a constitutional guarantee of marriage. But there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment. If a state chooses to marry people and to provide those people with certain rights and privileges it must do so equally. This is where the 14th comes in to play. To deny one group the rights and privileges you give another group you need a compelling legal justification. The states that tried to deny gay couples marriage benefits and privileges failed to provide that justification to the Supreme Court. While I do not agree with gay marriage, I do understand the process. This is where you and I go down different paths, you fail in understanding the process.

Yes, I am very sure. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+5%3A9-12&version=NKJV

shouldn't they be looking for husbands instead of charity? Paul's reasoning is that if you give them charity they will then look for husbands, which to him is a bad thing indeed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

I wonder if this guy and his church deny any charity to widows under 60?

Please show me the words of the 14th Amendment which indicates it applies only to the first 10 amendments. Or feel free to provide court cases where such a decision was rendered. Or feel free to point out which of the first 10 amendments deals with racial discrimination, or will you also argue that the 14th does not cover that either? Have you ever even taken a class on constitutional law or anything remotely close to that? Do you have any training or education in this area at all or are you just making it up as you go?

According to the Supreme Court, marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. No such legal justification exist. I do not agree with same sex marriage, but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound. i disagree. There is no constitutional right to marriage. Unlike race, sex, disability, marriage is a choice, not something forced upon one over which one has no control. The supreme court acting in a manner which pushes an agenda does not reveal sound reasoning. The opinions of the dissenting justice are quite sound as they actually uphold the constitution. A supreme court gone amuck and overstepping their bounds does not well reasoned decisions make. You are correct, there is no constitutional right to marry, but there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment. If a state chooses to marry people they must do so in accordance with the 14th.

According to the Supreme Court, marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. No such legal justification exist. I do not agree with same sex marriage, but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound. But you see here is the problem with that... that amendment has to do with the civil rights. And there are things that validate if something be a civil right or not. one of which is they must be born that way. nowadays one may even say genetics. there has been numerous studies done to prove that being gay is hereditary, genetic, or some other way of proving. every single one of these studies has been disproven due to no use of controls, falsified or manipulated data. the first of these studies that was made public was done by an openly admitted homosexual named dean hammer. there are many others. every one of them turned up no proof that people are born gay. furthermore, we have finished mapping the human genome, and guess what, no gay gene. therefore it is NOT a civil right. therefore, all of the supreme courts judgments are nothing more than horsefeathers. there are boat loads of info on the internet and a really good youtube video that documents these studies i speak on. Being gay is not a civil right. Edit: also not one of the studies can be replicated, which means the studies are not scientifically sound. The results could and would happen again and again if it was true. The 14th amendment is not limited only to "civil" rights.

According to the Supreme Court, marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. No such legal justification exist. I do not agree with same sex marriage, but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound. Actually, it was not. They made their decision based on equal protection under the law. Since there is no guarantee of the right to marry in the Constitution, for ANYONE, there is no denial of equal protection; their ruling is flawed and needs to be challenged. Marriage is a state institution, has never been federal; the SCOTUS overstepped their authority. Equal protection is not limited to only things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, it goes much deeper than that. You are right there is no constitutional right to marry, thus the states could choose to no longer be involved in marriage. But as long as they are they have to follow the equal protection clause.

I like your two cents Lady Kay. I find the people who use the Patriarchs of the OT as an example of how women should act are missing the boat. I also wonder where their other wives and concubines are. If the women are supposed to emulate those women then the men should too.

Actually, as long as the states are part of the union called the United States, the opinions of the Supreme Court are binding. You don't have to like it, but that does not change the reality of the situation.

I thought this was a football thread!

It is not my comparison, it is the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Disagreeing with it does not change the facts of the case or the ruling. The honorable thing for this lady to do would be to say that she cannot comply with the new reality and set down.

Was it the world that drew and then disowned a "red line" ultimatum for Syria and also claimed ISIS was just a JV terrorist team, or were both done by Barack Hussein Obama? ISIS is a world problem, not that of a single country. It is not our responsibility alone to deal with them. If you wish to point fingers at a single person, the person who removed Sadam Hussein would be a good target.... The same person who invaded Libya and removed Kaddafi? No, that was not the same person. Also, Gaddafi did not hold the same power in the region that Sadam.

Well said morning glory.

No, that is not what it is set up to do. The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. They are a check and balance on Congress. There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws. She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws. States are sovereign. KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only. They have no laws providing anything for gay couples. It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law. The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress, never was and never will be. The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. But there are no laws in the US federal government that legalize gay marriage. KY's Constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman. That's how their constitution defines it. And since there are no Federal laws that define marriage any other way, KY's Constitutional definition of marriage isn't violating federal law. Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of KY, so she is not in violation of either federal or state law. She is in violation of the opinions of corrupt gov't officials and the desires of a depraved, sick culture. Her imprisonment is illegal because she has committed no crimes. There does not need to be a federal law defining marriage any more than there did when the ban on interracial marriages were done away with. The same legal justification was used for this. And from a legal standpoint, it was the correct decision. That is a ridiculous comparison (but then consider the source). Gays are not a minority. To compare gays to African Americans in that way is a slap in the face to African Americans. There IS a definition of marriage, DOMA, that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. The president chose not to defend it. There is no legal basis for her imprisonment as she violated no law, committed no crime other than offending the liberal sensitivities of some people. When you say consider the source, are you speaking of me? If so the source is a born again evangelical Christian who is heading to law school in January. I am capable of disagreeing with the ruling and still understanding the legal reasoning behind it.

She is an elected official that cannot be fired. She can be impeached, but only when the state legislature is in session, which is not till next year.

No, that is not what it is set up to do. The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. They are a check and balance on Congress. There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws. She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws. States are sovereign. KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only. They have no laws providing anything for gay couples. It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law. The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress, never was and never will be. The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. But there are no laws in the US federal government that legalize gay marriage. KY's Constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman. That's how their constitution defines it. And since there are no Federal laws that define marriage any other way, KY's Constitutional definition of marriage isn't violating federal law. Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of KY, so she is not in violation of either federal or state law. She is in violation of the opinions of corrupt gov't officials and the desires of a depraved, sick culture. Her imprisonment is illegal because she has committed no crimes. There does not need to be a federal law defining marriage any more than there did when the ban on interracial marriages were done away with. The same legal justification was used for this. And from a legal standpoint, it was the correct decision.