Marriage in many instances has two aspects: 1) a religious sacrament; 2) a secular contract between two citizens that imposes particular responsibilities, rights, and privileges. Thus, any denomination, church, or cleric can refuse to participate in a same-sex sacrament. The couple can find another and accepting religious venue. The civil status and benefits should all apply under the equal protection clause.
I really must be a nerd to sit and listen to this whole thing but I did. And wow, looking at these comments they seem like things jihadists would be saying. Theocrats are all the same
44:02 - 47:57 Classic Scalia. Judges don’t make decisions based on changing social norms, they simple interpret the law. It’s up to the legislature to create laws that reflects changing social norms.
Ruling on laws is not "Making law". The Supreme Court decided in this case that under the 14th amendment, the law the federal government passed cannot enforced because it was in violation of a constitutional amendment. That's all.
Like I said, you cannot understand being gay if you have not lived it. I absolutely was born homosexual. The action of sleeping with another man does not make me gay, but being attracted to men is why I am homosexual. Even if I never chose to indulge my same-sex desires and lived a straight lifestyle by getting married to a woman and having children, I would still be a homosexual. Would it not be a greater sin to drag a woman that I could never love into a relationship that was a lie?
I understand that you do not agree with it, and I apologize for my childish previous remark. Please just believe me that you cannot understand it if you have not lived it. It is not an experience that anyone can adequately put into words. I know you disagree with it, but please, do not stand against us. We are just people looking for the same things than any other person is looking for, love, happiness, and fulfillment. We will not make you do anything you don't want to.
Also, every religious and non-religious gay conversion therapy method invented has been discredited, most of them done so by the very people that have founded them.
this sounds identical to the hearing on interracial marriage. taking rights away is an EXTREMELY slippery slope and I think our freedom of choice as Americans is at grave risk.
@@Besthinktwice that's true, and it's really scary that there's such a strong impulse in government to curtail individual rights for essentially arbitrary "reasons".
Sweetheart, I can most DEFINITELY promise you that I never chose to be gay. I think you are getting confused on one part. A person can chose to come out of the closet and live a life that is authentic to who they are. A person can NOT chose who they are attracted to. You could not chose to suddenly become sexually attracted to women, I did not chose to be sexually attracted to men. I chose to sleep with men because that is what I am attracted to, but I most certainly never chose to be this way.
And the unplanned levity hits "I can assure you that if the woman and the man are over the age 55 there aren't a lot of children coming out of that marriage"
Like Socrates said to the people who called him a corrupter rather than a philosopher. "I prefer to die with my beliefs." I'm not gay but I love the very idea that people have argued this bias from examples over and over again with standpoints of singularity. GodCreatesGay2 you have earned my respect, and thus get a cookie. I am not of religious preference but I think that if the creator wanted to then he would create these individuals because wouldn't he love you regardless, hmmm? Riddle me this, would you believe me that one of my friend's mothers is a devote christian and yet a Lesbian. Mind blowing right? I don't find it so. Religion is, in my opinion, based off ideals that are flexible to the time and generation which is happening now ,and from that basis are interpreted and implemented accordingly. I see this issue as a time in which that it will be as flexible to include those who follow the church who can be gay, bisexual, transexual, etc.
FUNNY, but it sends a message. Judge James DePiazza in Denton County, Texas, said that he would follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and marry gay couples, but only if they agree to sign a waiver. The waiver reads: “While we may not necessarily agree with, we acknowledge Judge DePiazza’s position that he prefers not to conduct same-sex marriages and agree not to address the topic of same-sex marriages with Judge DePaizza before, during or after the ceremony.”
I want my money from twc , insurance claim , pendemic, I've told tell that that TELE-SERV call services it mixing it everyone's claims badly, . An I've told them over an over an they still take money from are government when they know that everyone isn't going to get the money for help like we as taxes payers isn't fair to us at all . Texas fortworth
Plus I've tryed to file a devoice , an they never got back to me so I can move forward . Im not getting back with her , for cheating on me by lieing to me. Plus I got videos on her online .
This debate isn’t over whether gay marriage should be legal but rather whether or not marriage is a constitutional right. If it isn’t a constitutional right, then the states have jurisdiction and thus are sovereign and privileged in regulating their own laws, whether it be to make marriage include gay couples or not. The majority opinion didn’t just make gay marriage legal, it said marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and thus it compelled all states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and between two men, two women. Where does the constitution mention anything about marriage? This never should’ve been a federal government isssue. The status quo should have been upheld (domestic relationships are to be regulated by state and local govt) so that the states and the people within them are deciding their own laws instead of the unelected judicial activists that conflate their role with that of legislators. How undemocratic that a simple majority of the 9 justices can rewrite the constitution and fundmartnally alter the law of the land? The least dangerous branch huh Hamilton?
Joey Hopf if the states refused marriage for all people would that be illegal? Is marriage a liberty? Do citizens in this country have the right to marry? If so then gay citizens in this country also have that same liberty of marriage. Can the state restrict marriage based on color or would that break your liberty of choice in marriage. The 14th amendment is about equality and upholds the liberty to marry.
Kate Shall The difference between race and sexual orientation is that the former is considered a suspect class requiring the burden of strict scrutiny whereas the latter has never been ruled suspect class and thus only stipulates a burden if intermediate scrutiny or rational basis. There were state laws on the books in the mid 20th century that banned interracial marriages. There were never laws on the books in any state that outlawed gay marriage because marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you want to change the definition of marriage, let that change come from the people in a given state, not from some 5 justices in DC. Again this goes back to the fact that marriage is not a constitutional right, where does constitution mention marriage? Domestic relationships have always been regulated by state and local governments. Before the SCOTUS ruling in Oger, 9 or so states already legalized gay marriage by either amending their constitution or passing a state law. The debate was on going. The beautiful thing about democracy forces it to sometimes be inefficient as changing public opinion takes time. It is not democratic when unelected, insulated justices with life tenure rewrite the law for the whole country, especially when it doesn't involve a constitutional right. And when the 14th amendment was written, it was never thought to include gay marriage which is why gay marriage wasn't legalized back in the 19th century when the 14th amendment was passed. Right why did women need the 19th amendment to vote? shouldnt it have beenn included in the 14th amendment. No because the EPC was written to protect blacks, it was a safeguard against racial discrimination not against sexual orientation discrimination.
Joey Hopf Marriage was defined by religion and now has government interference. If the conservation was about Gays being able to marry but unable, because it is forbidden by the religious institution the courts and government would have no say. But that is not the case, marriage involves government, you must get a marriage license due to the fact that you’re taxed differently when you marry. The argument being made is that marriage has never considered a man and man, and a woman and woman to be apart of the definition of marriage. Although I believe marriage is a deeply religious union. The government cannot go off the definition created by those off the religious sector. It’s highly recognized that marriage is a union of two people. It is also argued that the states should be left to make the decision because the constitution has no remarks on this issue. However the constitution has no remarks on many issues and the constitution is supposed to be a guide on maintaining a fair and democratic government. It is not fair or just that a same sex couple can not obtain same government rights given to those who marry within the guidelines of the religious definition of marriage. The privilege of marriage was being withheld from gay citizens in this country by the state governments. In my opinion since government is involved with marriage it oversteps its bounds in preventing a certain population to marry.
@ Joey Hopf You're quite wrong. If you are of the opinion that since it is not spelled out explicitly, marriage is not a constitutional right, then you accept that in a hypothetical scenario, any of the 50 states could redefine marriage to mean only the union of same-sex couples and de-recognize hetero-sex unions and it would be constitutional. Yes, marriage is not explicitly spelled out as a right in the constitution. But that is not what this case was about. The issue before the court was whether restricting the state-afforded recognition (and consequent benefits) of marriage to a certain class of unions, while excluding others, violated their right to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment. Also, you do not need a right (constitutional or otherwise) to get married. It's essentially a private contract between two consenting adults. The only thing that the Government does is to recognize it as a legal union under the law (which has certain ramifications). This case argues that the Government cannot recognize certain unions as marriage and not others, as long is it is between two consenting adults, without violating the 14th Amendment. So this was not judicial overreach at ALL in my opinion.
I want to know who allowed that bull shit , to help , because I only noticed twc ,on the civil suite on then . I still have the document to proof it was done some where else .
+Tino H I thought getting screwed by another man was a 'sin'. That same chapter says screwing an animal is not a sin, only confusion. So much for morality.
YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF!!! And you STILL failed to answer my question. You said, "if I was attracted to the same sex, it would be my decision to indulge in such perverse behavior to satisfy my flesh." So you ADMIT that you believe that what you are attracted to is NOT a choice, engaging in the action is. Doesn't it sound un-christian like to force someone to live their life alone? Not a life I want to live. I'll take my chances, I won't believe in a god that made me to be miserable.
Of course no god would create something only to turn around and call it an abomination. That's one reason we know that the silly stories of the Bible are wrong. No god would hate black people either, regardless of the religious stance that he does.
I never said homosexuality was normal, we're a fabulous few. I know that I am happier now than I have ever been by living my life as my honest truth and authentic self. I have never been more fully happy in my life than I am right now. I never said I was miserable, but I would be if I was still living the a lie, living with the mask of heterosexuality in my life. That mask is gone now, I couldn't feel more complete and whole than I do right now. Whether it is sin or not, I choose happiness.
2 Angeles witnessing us, animals, our feet, ears, skins, ...they are all witnessing against us on the day of Judgment so we would not have any excuses! There is No Compulsion in religion and we do whatever we feel like to do. But God is helping us with His Scriptures as how we can save ourselves a make it back to Him in perfect security, like a GPS.This is Only for those who Seek the Truth and want to know why we are here and where we came from so they would look for the Untouched Message of God
I would like to change my employee ratio due to the lack of friendships, the fact I still am not working in the oil and gas industry to 35 % white causcasion and reduce the Latino jobs and see if I can acquire income and a job before I shut down Texas oil and gas industry due to the fact I am still not employee. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GARCIA
That is where you are completely wrong. I ask you, could you choose to be attracted to the genitalia of another woman? That repulsion and disgust that you feel when you think about being intimate with another woman, is exactly the same as what I (as a gay man) feel when I think about being with a woman. I never made a decision to feel this way, but I have for as long as I can remember. Since I was a small child. I urge you to watch Matthew Vines' video "The Gay Debate" here on TH-cam...
I repeat I do not want African, African American business, employees, Business partners, and do not contribute, fund any kind of African, African American welfare, education or feed or house those person. Any employee who employs , finance or contribute to those person will be brought up on civil suits and charges immediately. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GARCIA
The terror level was raised from Alfa to Bravo today 5/9/15 and the Supreme Court decided that they had the right as citizens to burn the American Flag, were they burning the American Flag as an art piece for their Munich show when they took 5 years to honor the soldiers on my dad's Texas military base with their Purple Hearts? Since the Justices decided in their own interest, a special interest, I think that they should take it upon themselves to burn the American Flag, asking the citizens to stand up for that decision is uncivil. I do not agree with the decision to burn the American Flag.
When we were in the other side we committed a crime and became arrogant people except very few of us. We were in total freedom without any witnesses. Angels said forget about these humans we worship You. But because God is the most Gracious and Merciful He wanted to save those Few people. That is why the majority of us are arrogant here, because we are the same people. But now we have surveillance cameras all over.
Sexual Orientation is not currently a legal factor in marriage. Gender is the significant point. Every member of society, to my knowledge, has a claim to a gender, and therefore has a claim to marriage, should they have the privilege of finding someone willing to enter into marriage with them. A gay man and a lesbian woman are freely allowed to marry. Sexual orientation does not prohibit them from marrying each other. They have in their possession the very right that they claim is denied.
my question to any of you on the supreme court just where in the hell did you get the authority to deicide any thing the people have decided is appropriate
The constitution. If "the people" vote to strip rights away from a minority, then the court should strike that down, rightfully so. That's what a check and balance system is supposed to do, not be a rubber stamp.
@Karol Palazej Both of you educate yourself go read about the John Jay court and what they thought were the limits of their power just beacuse they have been outside that rule since 1933 does not make it right and shut the fuck up about slavery idiot
TRex Beach The Jay Court decided a whopping 4 cases in 6 years Turn to the Marshall Court for how the Court has operated, and been generally accepted, since 1801-not 1933
@@rexleereid3592 You're an idiot. The Marbury V. Madison case established judicial review and declared that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether or not the SC can determine if a law is unconstitutional or not. That's why the constitution exists. It gives absolute protections that cannot be broken unless they are repealed
@@JohnRichards67 No you are a moron no body of government was ever given the right to take on to itself what is the duty of the people. Learn to read or admit you are a fascist.
I respect you views, although I do not agree. Again, I urge you to watch a video here on TH-cam by Matthew Vines entitled, "The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality." It is just over an hour long, but it may give you a perspective on the issue that you have not seen before. It is an extremely well researched and compelling argument that has been backed by biblical scholars since it was released last March. Please watch it. It may give you a new perspective on the issue. Please do this for me
+Tino H Amen. And US Supreme Court brought us Obamacare - demanding money from you. They care less about upholding the US Constitution. I smell a corrupt minded Supreme Court making laws just to foul the USA .
Yes, homosexuality is a choice made by God, when he creates some of His children to be gay. If you say being black is not, then you must feel that the Bible story about black people being cursed by the mark of Cain is true. How sad for you. Ignorance breeds contempt, which is why you are so filled with hate, and which is why you will never have a relationship with the Lord.
America was founded on God's word and its principles.. sorry Mr. President can not agree on this one! .. where is God in all of this??? God have Mercy ! For this is a stepping stone into what is to come and a slap on God's face . Its all about choice and funny how its labeled "Gay Pride" .. nothing with Pride is good and nothing good at the end ever comes out of it. Pride goes against our God in anything we do. Eventually you will forget God and not do his will for your life as you immerge now legally in your fleshly desires which are too much to give up because it is believed you were made this way. i can speak from experience as well. God have mercy all i have to say and im praying for all my gay friends and family that i love much.. Have mercy oh Lord and let them see the rainbow for what it really stands for "Covenant between Man & God".. all i can also say is our adversary is one hell of a liar!!! Deceiving Nations in his end days ~ God never will compromise his creation and how he made things. He made this planet for us to enjoy it and relate with him so he could subdue it completely and there is so much corruption, worldwide.. so much even more than this. Yes love is love.. how much do we love God??How real is he?? its a personal relationship but there comes a time to love him so much and not offend him even if it means giving up our most pleasurable thing and love. God is a persona with his own character and values. This is why he has to come back!! be ready folks.. be ready for the day he returns or the day you depart! In Jesus name!
I realize your comment is 6 years old, but you are completely confused about the U.S. This country was not founded on "god's word". Many of the founding fathers were actually not Christian and others were actually atheists. So which god's word would have been used? They didn't all believe in the same one. If they don't all worship, much less worship the same sky fairy, what would be the basis to decide which sky fairy's tales to use?
Marriage in many instances has two aspects: 1) a religious sacrament; 2) a secular contract between two citizens that imposes particular responsibilities, rights, and privileges. Thus, any denomination, church, or cleric can refuse to participate in a same-sex sacrament. The couple can find another and accepting religious venue. The civil status and benefits should all apply under the equal protection clause.
I really must be a nerd to sit and listen to this whole thing but I did. And wow, looking at these comments they seem like things jihadists would be saying. Theocrats are all the same
44:02 - 47:57 Classic Scalia. Judges don’t make decisions based on changing social norms, they simple interpret the law. It’s up to the legislature to create laws that reflects changing social norms.
Yes they do, that is basically the supreme court's job.
@@awayforthewin1325 Then what's Congress's job stupid? To vote on SCOTUS members who then decide the laws?
Ruling on laws is not "Making law". The Supreme Court decided in this case that under the 14th amendment, the law the federal government passed cannot enforced because it was in violation of a constitutional amendment. That's all.
Like I said, you cannot understand being gay if you have not lived it. I absolutely was born homosexual. The action of sleeping with another man does not make me gay, but being attracted to men is why I am homosexual. Even if I never chose to indulge my same-sex desires and lived a straight lifestyle by getting married to a woman and having children, I would still be a homosexual. Would it not be a greater sin to drag a woman that I could never love into a relationship that was a lie?
I understand that you do not agree with it, and I apologize for my childish previous remark. Please just believe me that you cannot understand it if you have not lived it. It is not an experience that anyone can adequately put into words. I know you disagree with it, but please, do not stand against us. We are just people looking for the same things than any other person is looking for, love, happiness, and fulfillment. We will not make you do anything you don't want to.
I am agnostic on gay marriage but it is fun to listen to Scalia and Olsen spar.
Also, every religious and non-religious gay conversion therapy method invented has been discredited, most of them done so by the very people that have founded them.
45:00 when it gets interesting
this sounds identical to the hearing on interracial marriage. taking rights away is an EXTREMELY slippery slope and I think our freedom of choice as Americans is at grave risk.
@@Besthinktwice that's true, and it's really scary that there's such a strong impulse in government to curtail individual rights for essentially arbitrary "reasons".
Sweetheart, I can most DEFINITELY promise you that I never chose to be gay. I think you are getting confused on one part. A person can chose to come out of the closet and live a life that is authentic to who they are. A person can NOT chose who they are attracted to. You could not chose to suddenly become sexually attracted to women, I did not chose to be sexually attracted to men. I chose to sleep with men because that is what I am attracted to, but I most certainly never chose to be this way.
And the unplanned levity hits "I can assure you that if the woman and the man are over the age 55 there aren't a lot of children coming out of that marriage"
Like Socrates said to the people who called him a corrupter rather than a philosopher. "I prefer to die with my beliefs." I'm not gay but I love the very idea that people have argued this bias from examples over and over again with standpoints of singularity. GodCreatesGay2 you have earned my respect, and thus get a cookie. I am not of religious preference but I think that if the creator wanted to then he would create these individuals because wouldn't he love you regardless, hmmm? Riddle me this, would you believe me that one of my friend's mothers is a devote christian and yet a Lesbian. Mind blowing right? I don't find it so. Religion is, in my opinion, based off ideals that are flexible to the time and generation which is happening now ,and from that basis are interpreted and implemented accordingly. I see this issue as a time in which that it will be as flexible to include those who follow the church who can be gay, bisexual, transexual, etc.
FUNNY, but it sends a message. Judge James DePiazza in Denton County, Texas, said that he would follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and marry gay couples, but only if they agree to sign a waiver. The waiver reads: “While we may not necessarily agree with, we acknowledge Judge DePiazza’s position that he prefers not to conduct same-sex marriages and agree not to address the topic of same-sex marriages with Judge DePaizza before, during or after the ceremony.”
1:19:18 What is that? 😂
So where does justices comes in when there still trying to lock me up over bull shit ,.
Keep posting these. Thank you.
I want my money from twc , insurance claim , pendemic, I've told tell that that TELE-SERV call services it mixing it everyone's claims badly, . An I've told them over an over an they still take money from are government when they know that everyone isn't going to get the money for help like we as taxes payers isn't fair to us at all . Texas fortworth
Plus they office keeps deining our governments on some donations , unless that think it's enough for them to receive, like 1.2 trillions .
I promise there is data on what I said earlier, because I have access to it. Keeping them from getting to it.
I say put that on the back burner, an let's get to the real facts.
Plus I've tryed to file a devoice , an they never got back to me so I can move forward . Im not getting back with her , for cheating on me by lieing to me. Plus I got videos on her online .
This debate isn’t over whether gay marriage should be legal but rather whether or not marriage is a constitutional right. If it isn’t a constitutional right, then the states have jurisdiction and thus are sovereign and privileged in regulating their own laws, whether it be to make marriage include gay couples or not. The majority opinion didn’t just make gay marriage legal, it said marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and thus it compelled all states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and between two men, two women. Where does the constitution mention anything about marriage? This never should’ve been a federal government isssue. The status quo should have been upheld (domestic relationships are to be regulated by state and local govt) so that the states and the people within them are deciding their own laws instead of the unelected judicial activists that conflate their role with that of legislators. How undemocratic that a simple majority of the 9 justices can rewrite the constitution and fundmartnally alter the law of the land? The least dangerous branch huh Hamilton?
Joey Hopf if the states refused marriage for all people would that be illegal?
Is marriage a liberty?
Do citizens in this country have the right to marry?
If so then gay citizens in this country also have that same liberty of marriage.
Can the state restrict marriage based on color or would that break your liberty of choice in marriage.
The 14th amendment is about equality and upholds the liberty to marry.
Kate Shall The difference between race and sexual orientation is that the former is considered a suspect class requiring the burden of strict scrutiny whereas the latter has never been ruled suspect class and thus only stipulates a burden if intermediate scrutiny or rational basis. There were state laws on the books in the mid 20th century that banned interracial marriages. There were never laws on the books in any state that outlawed gay marriage because marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you want to change the definition of marriage, let that change come from the people in a given state, not from some 5 justices in DC. Again this goes back to the fact that marriage is not a constitutional right, where does constitution mention marriage? Domestic relationships have always been regulated by state and local governments. Before the SCOTUS ruling in Oger, 9 or so states already legalized gay marriage by either amending their constitution or passing a state law. The debate was on going. The beautiful thing about democracy forces it to sometimes be inefficient as changing public opinion takes time. It is not democratic when unelected, insulated justices with life tenure rewrite the law for the whole country, especially when it doesn't involve a constitutional right. And when the 14th amendment was written, it was never thought to include gay marriage which is why gay marriage wasn't legalized back in the 19th century when the 14th amendment was passed. Right why did women need the 19th amendment to vote? shouldnt it have beenn included in the 14th amendment. No because the EPC was written to protect blacks, it was a safeguard against racial discrimination not against sexual orientation discrimination.
Joey Hopf Marriage was defined by religion and now has government interference. If the conservation was about Gays being able to marry but unable, because it is forbidden by the religious institution the courts and government would have no say. But that is not the case, marriage involves government, you must get a marriage license due to the fact that you’re taxed differently when you marry.
The argument being made is that marriage has never considered a man and man, and a woman and woman to be apart of the definition of marriage.
Although I believe marriage is a deeply religious union. The government cannot go off the definition created by those off the religious sector.
It’s highly recognized that marriage is a union of two people.
It is also argued that the states should be left to make the decision because the constitution has no remarks on this issue.
However the constitution has no remarks on many issues and the constitution is supposed to be a guide on maintaining a fair and democratic government.
It is not fair or just that a same sex couple can not obtain same government rights given to those who marry within the guidelines of the religious definition of marriage.
The privilege of marriage was being withheld from gay citizens in this country by the state governments.
In my opinion since government is involved with marriage it oversteps its bounds in preventing a certain population to marry.
Exactly. People are arguing from all the wrong places, but what you said is the fundamental problem in this case.
@ Joey Hopf
You're quite wrong.
If you are of the opinion that since it is not spelled out explicitly, marriage is not a constitutional right, then you accept that in a hypothetical scenario, any of the 50 states could redefine marriage to mean only the union of same-sex couples and de-recognize hetero-sex unions and it would be constitutional.
Yes, marriage is not explicitly spelled out as a right in the constitution. But that is not what this case was about. The issue before the court was whether restricting the state-afforded recognition (and consequent benefits) of marriage to a certain class of unions, while excluding others, violated their right to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.
Also, you do not need a right (constitutional or otherwise) to get married. It's essentially a private contract between two consenting adults. The only thing that the Government does is to recognize it as a legal union under the law (which has certain ramifications). This case argues that the Government cannot recognize certain unions as marriage and not others, as long is it is between two consenting adults, without violating the 14th Amendment. So this was not judicial overreach at ALL in my opinion.
I want to know who allowed that bull shit , to help , because I only noticed twc ,on the civil suite on then . I still have the document to proof it was done some where else .
“I am the LORD.
22 You are not to have sexual relations with a male as you would with a woman. It’s detestable.”
+Tino H while you're either a non-English speaker or not. You are the Lord? Tito for God
+Tino H I thought getting screwed by another man was a 'sin'. That same chapter says screwing an animal is not a sin, only confusion. So much for morality.
Marriage is a civil contract nor a sacrament as far as the law is concerned.
YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF!!! And you STILL failed to answer my question. You said, "if I was attracted to the same sex, it would be my decision to indulge in such perverse behavior to satisfy my flesh." So you ADMIT that you believe that what you are attracted to is NOT a choice, engaging in the action is. Doesn't it sound un-christian like to force someone to live their life alone? Not a life I want to live. I'll take my chances, I won't believe in a god that made me to be miserable.
I know, I am really apathetic on gay marriage but damn, Cooper sounded so bad I couldn't believe what it was hearing.
cuz you're not gay?
Of course no god would create something only to turn around and call it an abomination. That's one reason we know that the silly stories of the Bible are wrong. No god would hate black people either, regardless of the religious stance that he does.
I never said homosexuality was normal, we're a fabulous few. I know that I am happier now than I have ever been by living my life as my honest truth and authentic self. I have never been more fully happy in my life than I am right now. I never said I was miserable, but I would be if I was still living the a lie, living with the mask of heterosexuality in my life. That mask is gone now, I couldn't feel more complete and whole than I do right now. Whether it is sin or not, I choose happiness.
2 Angeles witnessing us, animals, our feet, ears, skins, ...they are all witnessing against us on the day of Judgment so we would not have any excuses! There is No Compulsion in religion and we do whatever we feel like to do. But God is helping us with His Scriptures as how we can save ourselves a make it back to Him in perfect security, like a GPS.This is Only for those who Seek the Truth and want to know why we are here and where we came from so they would look for the Untouched Message of God
I would like to change my employee ratio due to the lack of friendships, the fact I still am not working in the oil and gas industry to 35 % white causcasion and reduce the Latino jobs and see if I can acquire income and a job before I shut down Texas oil and gas industry due to the fact I am still not employee. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GARCIA
That is where you are completely wrong. I ask you, could you choose to be attracted to the genitalia of another woman?
That repulsion and disgust that you feel when you think about being intimate with another woman, is exactly the same as what I (as a gay man) feel when I think about being with a woman. I never made a decision to feel this way, but I have for as long as I can remember. Since I was a small child.
I urge you to watch Matthew Vines' video "The Gay Debate" here on TH-cam...
Hmm... yeah... That's not true... Not even a little bit...
I repeat I do not want African, African American business, employees, Business partners, and do not contribute, fund any kind of African, African American welfare, education or feed or house those person. Any employee who employs , finance or contribute to those person will be brought up on civil suits and charges immediately. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GARCIA
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GARCIA ur crazy
The terror level was raised from Alfa to Bravo today 5/9/15 and the Supreme Court decided that they had the right as citizens to burn the American Flag, were they burning the American Flag as an art piece for their Munich show when they took 5 years to honor the soldiers on my dad's Texas military base with their Purple Hearts?
Since the Justices decided in their own interest, a special interest, I think that they should take it upon themselves to burn the American Flag, asking the citizens to stand up for that decision is uncivil.
I do not agree with the decision to burn the American Flag.
When we were in the other side we committed a crime and became arrogant people except very few of us. We were in total freedom without any witnesses. Angels said forget about these humans we worship You. But because God is the most Gracious and Merciful He wanted to save those Few people. That is why the majority of us are arrogant here, because we are the same people. But now we have surveillance cameras all over.
HEY GAy people......Do what makes you happy🍓. who am I to judge you go with god🙆🙆🙆🙆👑🍓🍊🍊👆😅😅🎅🎅🎅👋👋👏👏👏🐮🐮🐮🐴🐆🐅🐯🐯🐓🐣🐧🐧🐧
Sexual Orientation is not currently a legal factor in marriage. Gender is the significant point. Every member of society, to my knowledge, has a claim to a gender, and therefore has a claim to marriage, should they have the privilege of finding someone willing to enter into marriage with them. A gay man and a lesbian woman are freely allowed to marry. Sexual orientation does not prohibit them from marrying each other. They have in their possession the very right that they claim is denied.
Christian Consumerism
my question to any of you on the supreme court just where in the hell did you get the authority to deicide any thing the people have decided is appropriate
The constitution. If "the people" vote to strip rights away from a minority, then the court should strike that down, rightfully so. That's what a check and balance system is supposed to do, not be a rubber stamp.
@Karol Palazej Both of you educate yourself go read about the John Jay court and what they thought were the limits of their power just beacuse they have been outside that rule since 1933 does not make it right and shut the fuck up about slavery idiot
TRex Beach The Jay Court decided a whopping 4 cases in 6 years
Turn to the Marshall Court for how the Court has operated, and been generally accepted, since 1801-not 1933
@@rexleereid3592
You're an idiot. The Marbury V. Madison case established judicial review and declared that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether or not the SC can determine if a law is unconstitutional or not.
That's why the constitution exists. It gives absolute protections that cannot be broken unless they are repealed
@@JohnRichards67 No you are a moron no body of government was ever given the right to take on to itself what is the duty of the people. Learn to read or admit you are a fascist.
I respect you views, although I do not agree. Again, I urge you to watch a video here on TH-cam by Matthew Vines entitled, "The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality." It is just over an hour long, but it may give you a perspective on the issue that you have not seen before. It is an extremely well researched and compelling argument that has been backed by biblical scholars since it was released last March. Please watch it. It may give you a new perspective on the issue. Please do this for me
Us supreme Court obey the word of the Lord in not your opinions
Tino H idiot
Tino H This is the court of the United States not ISIS. They follow the US Constitution not some religion text.
+Tino H which Lord? There are thousands of gods out there.
Michael Dennis
Jesus Christ my LORD
+Tino H Amen. And US Supreme Court brought us Obamacare - demanding money from you. They care less about upholding the US Constitution. I smell a corrupt minded Supreme Court making laws just to foul the USA .
Yes, homosexuality is a choice made by God, when he creates some of His children to be gay. If you say being black is not, then you must feel that the Bible story about black people being cursed by the mark of Cain is true. How sad for you. Ignorance breeds contempt, which is why you are so filled with hate, and which is why you will never have a relationship with the Lord.
America was founded on God's word and its principles.. sorry Mr. President can not agree on this one! .. where is God in all of this??? God have Mercy ! For this is a stepping stone into what is to come and a slap on God's face . Its all about choice and funny how its labeled "Gay Pride" .. nothing with Pride is good and nothing good at the end ever comes out of it. Pride goes against our God in anything we do. Eventually you will forget God and not do his will for your life as you immerge now legally in your fleshly desires which are too much to give up because it is believed you were made this way. i can speak from experience as well. God have mercy all i have to say and im praying for all my gay friends and family that i love much.. Have mercy oh Lord and let them see the rainbow for what it really stands for "Covenant between Man & God".. all i can also say is our adversary is one hell of a liar!!! Deceiving Nations in his end days ~ God never will compromise his creation and how he made things. He made this planet for us to enjoy it and relate with him so he could subdue it completely and there is so much corruption, worldwide.. so much even more than this. Yes love is love.. how much do we love God??How real is he?? its a personal relationship but there comes a time to love him so much and not offend him even if it means giving up our most pleasurable thing and love. God is a persona with his own character and values. This is why he has to come back!! be ready folks.. be ready for the day he returns or the day you depart! In Jesus name!
I realize your comment is 6 years old, but you are completely confused about the U.S. This country was not founded on "god's word". Many of the founding fathers were actually not Christian and others were actually atheists. So which god's word would have been used? They didn't all believe in the same one. If they don't all worship, much less worship the same sky fairy, what would be the basis to decide which sky fairy's tales to use?
you're reading the wrong book.. The Noble Qur'an in the speech of God
Gut wrenching! #vomit