Homosexuals Sue Christian Bed & Breakfast Owner

[John81]

Common law marriage was, well, very common in much of the country for a long while. It's still legal in some areas.

For the most part, marriage in earlier America didn't entail all the legal factors that are present today, which is why for some, marriage is such a big deal today. It's more a matter of the tax and legal perks that come with marriage.

[trc123]

So, the fact that President Obama is not enforcing DOMA is the right thing to do then.......correct? The Federal government has no business being in the business of marriage. That is supposed to be up to the states, right?

[HappyChristian]

So, the fact that President Obama is not enforcing DOMA is the right thing to do then.......correct? The Federal government has no business being in the business of marriage. That is supposed to be up to the states, right?

There is both truth and error here.

#1. Marriage is not up to the federal authorities. Things like that should be decided by the states. However, DOMA has not been made a part of the Constitution and so, since states have reciprocal recognition of things like marriage, it is actually a legal thing.

#2. No POTUS has the constitutional authority to overthrow a law, whether or not it's constitutional. That is solely under the purview of Congress and for good reason: else we become a society governed by a dictator.

[John81]

So, the fact that President Obama is not enforcing DOMA is the right thing to do then.......correct? The Federal government has no business being in the business of marriage. That is supposed to be up to the states, right?

"If" Obama and the federal government were going to abide by the Constitution, the issue of marriage should indeed be a State matter.

However, Obama and Company are not willing to allow this, it is their intent to enforce, from the federal level, legal marriage for homosexuals across the land.

[John81]

There is both truth and error here.

#1. Marriage is not up to the federal authorities. Things like that should be decided by the states. However, DOMA has not been made a part of the Constitution and so, since states have reciprocal recognition of things like marriage, it is actually a legal thing.

#2. No POTUS has the constitutional authority to overthrow a law, whether or not it's constitutional. That is solely under the purview of Congress and for good reason: else we become a society governed by a dictator.

Good points, but also, the president does have the option, as chief executive, of not enforcing laws, as enforcement power is to be in the hands of the executive.

[mattd]

Illinois recently signed into a law a "civil union" law which proclaims any adult can have a legal civil union with all the benefits of marriage and this civil union law applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Since they were unable to get homosexual marriage passed, they took this tactic which basically makes marriage irrelevent because all may have a legal civil union and get the benefits of traditional marriage without even have to have an actual marriage.

Now those pushing total and special acceptance of homosexuality are looking for opportunities to force this acceptance in Illinois, as elsewhere, and they are looking to create legal precedence to have legal backing for being able to force everyone to not only accept their wickedness, but to be a participant.

I believe that the only "benefit" of marriage is the spiritual joining of two people by God that sanctions their physical relationship and legitimizes their procreation. The state has nothing to do with it, other than recognizing it and extending collateral "benefits" that are more akin to contractual arrangements and tax cuts. Those who enter a civil union are more or less just entering into a state recognized contract, not a marriage. They are no more spiritually one than two business engaging in a joint venture.

[John81]

I believe that the only "benefit" of marriage is the spiritual joining of two people by God that sanctions their physical relationship and legitimizes their procreation. The state has nothing to do with it, other than recognizing it and extending collateral "benefits" that are more akin to contractual arrangements and tax cuts. Those who enter a civil union are more or less just entering into a state recognized contract, not a marriage. They are no more spiritually one than two business engaging in a joint venture.

True, anything done bases soley upon legal matters isn't for spiritual benefits or for the honour or glory of God.

Most of those pushing for homosexual marriage and civil unions are not interested in God. Most either don't believe in God or they believe in a god of their own design. They are, for the most part, not seeking any spiritual (especially not seeking true Spiritual benefits) benefits, they are seeking the benfits offered by the government and society.

The new civil union law in Illinois is set up in a manner to replace marriage. In effect, civil union in Illinois now is equal to marriage; only what each is called is different. In attempting to do away with marriage, Illinois made their new civil union law so that it applies not only to homosexuals, but to heterosexuals also. For propaganda purposes, this means that civil union in Illinois is not bigotted, not exclusive, does not discriminate; while marriage in Illinois can be painted as being those things and something "fair minded" people should avoid.

The pro-homosexual and ungodly lobby hope to cast marriage as an outdated evil, akin to racism. They seek to totally eliminate marriage in favor of civil union which has no Christian baggage and is therefore clearly a secular matter. They seek to push God out, sideline Christians as being the modern version of racists, and establish their wickedness as good.

[mattd]

True, anything done bases soley upon legal matters isn't for spiritual benefits or for the honour or glory of God.

Most of those pushing for homosexual marriage and civil unions are not interested in God. Most either don't believe in God or they believe in a god of their own design. They are, for the most part, not seeking any spiritual (especially not seeking true Spiritual benefits) benefits, they are seeking the benfits offered by the government and society.

The new civil union law in Illinois is set up in a manner to replace marriage. In effect, civil union in Illinois now is equal to marriage; only what each is called is different. In attempting to do away with marriage, Illinois made their new civil union law so that it applies not only to homosexuals, but to heterosexuals also. For propaganda purposes, this means that civil union in Illinois is not bigotted, not exclusive, does not discriminate; while marriage in Illinois can be painted as being those things and something "fair minded" people should avoid.

The pro-homosexual and ungodly lobby hope to cast marriage as an outdated evil, akin to racism. They seek to totally eliminate marriage in favor of civil union which has no Christian baggage and is therefore clearly a secular matter. They seek to push God out, sideline Christians as being the modern version of racists, and establish their wickedness as good.

It really makes no difference to me what they call it. God marries two persons, not a law written on a piece of paper. The state could completely do away with marriage and God wouldn't bat an eye.

[JerryNumbers]

Isn't it all about the homosexuals, ungodly people, forcing their way upon us. Of course suing is a way to have financial gain, while putting down your enemy.

[John81]

Isn't it all about the homosexuals, ungodly people, forcing their way upon us. Of course suing is a way to have financial gain, while putting down your enemy.

That's the plan. Once they have forced their wickedness upon the country, once they get their pet wickedness approved by law and they get it firmly established by use of lawsuits, they will have their way and most will fear to challenge them or ever say "no" to them.

[JerryNumbers]

That's the plan. Once they have forced their wickedness upon the country, once they get their pet wickedness approved by law and they get it firmly established by use of lawsuits, they will have their way and most will fear to challenge them or ever say "no" to them.

May I add one more thing, it was that way in Jesus' day as well, nothing has changed.

[Invicta]

On a similar note,

There was areport on the news today, that a couple who had fostered children, were no longer allowed to as they were Christians and could not teach children that the "gay" lifestile was acceptable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Also

http://www.ashbournenewstelegraph.co.uk/News/National-News/Couple-distressed-over-foster-ban-143532.xnf?BodyFormat=0&

Edited February 28, 2011 by Invicta

[John81]

On a similar note,

There was areport on the news today, that a couple who had fostered children, were no longer allowed to as they were Christians and could not teach children that the "gay" lifestile was acceptable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Also

http://www.ashbournenewstelegraph.co.uk/News/National-News/Couple-distressed-over-foster-ban-143532.xnf?BodyFormat=0&

This sort of thing is beginning over here. Christians in custody battles are now finding that the closer they follow the Bible, the more the other sides lawyer will attack them and some judges are going along with the anti-Christian views.

[JerryNumbers]

This sort of thing is beginning over here. Christians in custody battles are now finding that the closer they follow the Bible, the more the other sides lawyer will attack them and some judges are going along with the anti-Christian views.

Doesn't the Bible teach that? I honestly believe most people today think the closer they walk to God, the better this life will be. Yet that was not true for Christ, nor the apostles, nor others we read of in the New Testament that followed God closely. I can't but help think of Stephen being stoned.