A quote from the judge who ruled for marriage equality in Utah
Evol =
-
Join 31,715 other subscribers
-
Recent Posts
- The plight of refugee children: deplorable facilities in the U.S.
- A year later, and we’re still monsters
- How 2017 Became an Absolutely Horrible Year
- A Gay Dad Sounds Off on the Day Donald Trump Ruined America
- She May Be a Trans Hero, But Don’t be Caught on an Ill-Fated Cruise Ship With Her – Here’s Why
Featured Posts
- A Gay Dad’s Perspective on the Hate Note Writing Father
- A Recovering Evangelical
- Defriended Over a Wedding
- I Don’t Necessarily Agree
- The Brother of a Gay Man Says, “It’s Important”
- The Homosexuality Question, Answered: Not A Sin
- The Reality of Rape and My Disgust of the Disbelievers
- They Walk Among Us
The Blogroll
- A Father, a Son and a Fighting Chance
- A Note to My Kid
- Ask a Gay Christian
- Bible-Thumping Liberal
- Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented
- Famous Gay Men
- Famous LGBT People
- Gay.Geek.Dad
- Gaychurch.org
- God Made Me Gay
- How Can Religious Cultures Become Less Fundamentalist?
- I Thank You for Changing My Life
- Is Pleasure a Sin?
- It Gets Better: SAP Employees
- LZ Granderson: The myth of the gay agenda
- My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
- Robert Spitzer, Psychiatrist Behind Retracted 'Ex-Gay' Study, Apologizes To Gay Community, Patients
- The Reality of Rape and My Disgust of the Disbelievers
Who We Are
-
allydavidstevens
-
apeene
blazingbeau
-
guestposting600
-
kzottarelli
-
Ono Kono
-
robw77
-
thomsense
-
evoL = 
Reblogged this on Wright-Wang Extreme Mystery, Inc. and commented:
Here was comment I made:
All laws not defined in the Constitution are left to the States. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Hard to envision the Commerce Clause being invoked on this one…. The way to solve this is via Constitutional Amendment. All rulings should be set aside until such time as the Constitution has been amended to define marriage.
All laws not defined in the Constitution are left to the States. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Hard to envision the Commerce Clause being invoked on this one…. The way to solve this is via Constitutional Amendment. All rulings should be set aside until such time as the Constitution has been amended to define marriage.
Actually you are partially correct but you fail to note a few things. Yes marriage laws do come from the state and not from the federal government, but those state laws must not violate the federal constitution. There are a number of Constitutional Amendments that, although not originally applicable to the states, are now due to the 14th and 15th Amendments. A state has a right for example to define marriage, but it must not do so in a discriminatory way, it must follow due process and have a legitimate reason to discriminate against people. All the federal judges are saying is they don’t have any such legitimate reason or if they do they’re keeping it well hidden. All of the first eight amendments were not applicable to the states when they were adopted. Do you seriously believe that a state should have a right to embrace a certain religion and require everyone to follow that religion? How about restricting freedom speech. Perhaps states should be permitted to say speech is good and what isn’t, or perhaps the press. Be nice to only have controlled media wouldn’t it? All of those did not apply to the states initially but were considered to apply after the adoption of the 14th Amendment which states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Notice the part where it says not deny any person the equal protections of the laws? Or the part about due process? None of those ruling should be set aside because they all follow the constitution. What should be set aside are all those bigoted laws and so-called constitutional amendments from states that seek to make opposite-sex couples more equal than same-sex couples.
So… no State should be allowed to promote Secular Humanism in schools by teaching the Theory of Evolution…. Or all States are required to teach Creationism… and any other topic anyone wishes to inject….
Attacking Christians for pointing out that origin of Christmas was worship of Christ’s Birth is bigotry. Rewriting Christmas carols to exclude reference to Jesus and God is bigotry.
The obvious answer to the marriage situation is to remove marriage from legal system. Make it a religious sacrament as it was originally intended and separate Church and State completely. Call ALL legal contracts Civil Unions. Then everyone can be happy. Or no one. At least no one can complain because no one has power over anyone else. And that’s what this really seems to be about.
Bigotry cuts both ways. Only seeing bigotry in others is in fact bigotry.
Thank you for your reasoned reply. Good points.
Thanks for your conversation and ideas. As written, they are not making any sense to me. Evolution is an anthropological study and scientific concept, it is taught in classes as part of a scientific discipline. “Creationism” has no fact, study or information scientifically and is a religious belief. To teach it as science whether you believe it or not, is just dishonest– it is not “bigotry”.
I have not heard Christian’s being “attacked” for pointing out that Christmas is about the birth of Christ (and I am Christian). I think you are uninformed if you think that all the celebration traditions around Christmas are based on the Bible or Christ’s birth– many are not and were lifted from pagan traditions (some of which are actually condemned by the Bible, ironically.)
Your suggestion for marriage would not change the situation much as there are religions that perform same sex marriage, and if free to do so would in 50 states. Also, marriage was first a governmental entity and then the Church got involved and some made a sacrament around it. If they took over Thanksgiving and made it at sacrament, it would be unfair to later claim that Thanksgiving could only be seen as a religious event.
Sorry, your quest to find bigotry against you because you hold bias towards others is not adding up. Thanks for the input, though.
Reblogged!!!
Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
There you have it!!!