[Matt Q]

Charlie

Are you saying that same-sex relationships are immoral or a sign of moral decline? That certainly seemed to be the implication of your Timothy citation and this latest quote. And if not, then I'm confused by what exactly it is you are saying about the gay marriage ruling.

Personally, I see the ruling as a significant improvement in moral/ethical standards and hence little evidence of the end of days being imminent.

best,

-Matt

[Max Goodman]

Glad as I am to see the celebration, the ruling has mostly made me anxious, expecting a lot of unproductive antagonism.

The vast majority of us have similar interests on important, urgent issues like climate change and income inequality, but same-sex marriage, like other social issues, has been successfully used to make sure we don't work together, by convincing some of us that others of us are evil. I fear this ruling will convince those that feel that way that evil is winning, and they had better stand firmer than ever against anything liberals are for.

[John Whitworth]

I am all for income inequality and a sturdy climate change denier. However, gay marriage is an unequivocally good thing and if you disagree I will kill you.

[Charlie Southerland]

No, Matt.

I am speaking Constitutionally here. It was the opinion of at least one Founding Father that morality was an issue when it came to framing the constitution. I make no judgements whatsoever. But when the constitution was being drawn up, lots of things were considered, all by men who were just as flawed as you and I. One obvious example was slavery. The only way to get the document ratified was by making slavery legal. It was atrocious. And then we fought a war to end it. There are no perfect men, only a perfect God.

[Janice D. Soderling]

To hark back to what Bill Dyes wrote earlier and re Max above:

The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the United States federal government, of 3 million slaves in the designated areas of the South from "slave" to "free."

As recent events clearly show, that proclamation still hasn't won over the hearts and minds of a whole lot of folks.

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

No, Matt.

I am speaking Constitutionally here. It was the opinion of at least one Founding Father that morality was an issue when it came to framing the constitution. I make no judgements whatsoever. But when the constitution was being drawn up, lots of things were considered, all by men who were just as flawed as you and I. One obvious example was slavery. The only way to get the document ratified was by making slavery legal. It was atrocious. And then we fought a war to end it. There are no perfect men, only a perfect God.

Sorry, Charlie, you've lost me. What's the relevance of this to gay marriage? Remember I'm not an American, so what may seem obvious to you may not be to me.

best,

Matt

[Charlie Southerland]

When President Obama signed the ACA into law, he made slaves out of the rest of us. Neither he or the US Supreme Court have won over the hearts and minds of a lot of folks. They don't have to.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

[Charlie Southerland]

Matt, the framers of the constitution were silent on "Gay marriage"

I don't think it ever crossed their minds to make it a right. There had always been— the "Institution of Marriage" between a man and a woman.

If a person (a supreme court justice, for instance) is a strict constitutionalist, then he cannot make "gay marriage" legal. He has no remedy. However,if the states hold a convention on the issue, and if 3/4 of the states ratify it or affirm it, and then Congress ratifies it, it becomes the law of the land without recourse.

That hasn't happened. Some states legalized it, others haven't. It has always been a state's rights issue, not a federal issue. I am only speaking about the powers delegated to the specific branches of government, not whether I agree with the decision of the court or not.

The Supreme Court made law. It is not within the scope and authority of the Court, Constitutionally speaking, to do so. It has overstepped its authority delegated to it by the Constitution.

We may as well have no Constitution.

[ross hamilton hill]

The bible bans sodomy not homosexuality, that's my interpretation , the whole story of Sodom was about buggery, not same sex love and buggery or sodomy, pleasurable though it is, ( I have given but not recieved) (well I was buggered once but I was unconscious) and the ban is sensible since buggery/sodomy is very dangerous re transmitting deseases.
But homosexuality per se hurts nobody.
Personally I think there is a serious distinction between marriage and gay marriage since marry originally means sexual intercourse and there is none of that in either gay or lesbian relationships , not to mention procreation, so I think the two are different, so I have no problem with 'gay marriage' but I do have a problem with calling 'gay marriage'.. 'marrriage' which I have noticed some gays advocating. Gay and straight sex is different, gay and straight marriage is different, not the love but the sex. I like the law to be precise.
Charlie I have seen many displays of the divine world although I still have fears and doubts. You have to bear witness from your own experience, bring the divine into reality, quoting from the bible adds nothing new.

[Michael Cantor]

Charlie, I'm not even going to try to be polite because I'm tired of hearing people carry on about their God, and their morals, and their interpretation of their Bible; and I don't care whether it's a Chassidic student who has clambered off a bus to restore my Jewish soul, or you and your catalogue of myths that you choose to regard as utter truth and I don't. These are private beliefs and should remain as such. I am not only not interested in mixing religion and government; but what I find very revealing is that I believe that the only part of the world where a portion of the populace pays more attention to religion and the Bible than America is the blood-soaked Middle East.

This started out as a discussion of America. You've turned it into a discussion of religion. And I have no more patience for that. Perhaps you'll get a better reception in the Middle East.