Should the government prohibit same-sex marriage?

[Yeshua1]

I am old enough to remember that was the same feeling concerning abortion. In my day it was an horrific crime, now it is almost a standard procedure - elective abortion. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness , still protected?

Great exampole, as all it would take is not act of Coingress, as it should, but a liberal SC!

 

[Baptist Believer]

All it would take would be a liberal biased SC suddenly find or make up a reason to have PC in churches...

No, that's not how it works at all. It is clear you don't understand the issues or the history of the First Amendment.

Moreover, from a historical perspective, the more liberal the Supreme Court, the more likely it is to uphold separation of church and state.

...and then Pastors would be forced to give sermons/marry people against their convictions!

If the Supreme Court, Congress, or President somehow discarded the First Amendment, AND the government absorbed all churches into a government-run institution, AND pastors were forced to remain with the official government-run institutions as government employees, THEN something like what you say could happen.

But otherwise, that is simply fear-mongering nonsense.

Would any have seen legalized gay marriages hapenning?

I predicted it back in the early 1990s, as well as did a number of Christian advocacy groups.

The Baehr v. Miike decision in the early 1990s had Hawaii's Supreme Court rule that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. The "Defense of Marriage" Act was passed by Congress in 1996 to prohibit same-sex marriage. One of the unintended consequences of that Act was to put the federal government in the role of defining marriage, which led directly to the situation today.

So yes, lots of people saw this coming. If you didn't, you weren't paying attention.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that's not how it works at all. It is clear you don't understand the issues or the history of the First Amendment.

Moreover, from a historical perspective, the more liberal the Supreme Court, the more likely it is to uphold separation of church and state.


If the Supreme Court, Congress, or President somehow discarded the First Amendment, AND the government absorbed all churches into a government-run institution, AND pastors were forced to remain with the official government-run institutions as government employees, THEN something like what you say could happen.

But otherwise, that is simply fear-mongering nonsense.


I predicted it back in the early 1990s, as well as did a number of Christian advocacy groups.

The Baehr v. Miike decision in the early 1990s had Hawaii's Supreme Court rule that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. The "Defense of Marriage" Act was passed by Congress in 1996 to prohibit same-sex marriage. One of the unintended consequences of that Act was to put the federal government in the role of defining marriage, which led directly to the situation today.

So yes, lots of people saw this coming. If you didn't, you weren't paying attention.

The same arguements were used to state that abortionss and gay marriages would NEVER became the established norm in America though!

 

[Alcott]

No, that's not how it works at all. It is clear you don't understand the issues or the history of the First Amendment.

As long as the SC determines what all branches of government can do, that can be how it works.

 

[Yeshua1]

As long as the SC determines what all branches of government can do, that can be how it works.

The SC can and have legislated law drom the bench, and this is why we must hve the Judges who read the constitution as it was written, and not how they wished it would have been!

 

[Salty]

Back to the OP - Should the govt prohibit same-gender marriage.
Why just "same-gender" how about bigamy, marriage of first cousins, brother/sister, parent/child, human/animal - and the list could go on.

When I was in Germany, American Forces Network had a local affairs program - the host interviewed
a man who had married a plant. (Any of you EUCOM personel recall that TV show?)

 

[Baptist Believer]

The same arguements were used to state that abortionss and gay marriages would NEVER became the established norm in America though!

I am not old enough to remember the debates and arguments over abortion before Roe v. Wade. I was a child when that case was decided and had never heard of abortion. However, it would be strange for someone to claim that the First Amendment would have to be rescinded and the government take over all religious institutions to assert that abortion would became legal in all 50 states.

Moreover, I can assure you that no one has used that argument to claim that gay marriage would become protected under the law.

What you are writing makes no sense.

 

[Baptist Believer]

As long as the SC determines what all branches of government can do, that can be how it works.

It would be a very strange thing for the Supreme Court to gut the First Amendment, somehow nationalize all religious institutions, and then force religious leaders to maintain their employment and perform marriages for LGBTQ citizens.

That's not how things work. It is far more likely for us to become a totalitarian nation where the whole constitution was thrown out than for your scenario to happen.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The SC can and have legislated law drom the bench...

Not the way you allege. Have you ever actually read a Supreme Court case?

...and this is why we must hve the Judges who read the constitution as it was written, and not how they wished it would have been!

Yeah, that's a standard line we hear. But the reality is that, almost every time, the Supreme Court makes rulings based on principles of the Constitution, as it was written. The differences of opinions come from disagreements about the meaning and intent of the Constitution, not because the Court is making things up from whole cloth.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not old enough to remember the debates and arguments over abortion before Roe v. Wade. I was a child when that case was decided and had never heard of abortion. However, it would be strange for someone to claim that the First Amendment would have to be rescinded and the government take over all religious institutions to assert that abortion would became legal in all 50 states.

Moreover, I can assure you that no one has used that argument to claim that gay marriage would become protected under the law.

What you are writing makes no sense.

I am only saying that what shoudl be illegal in this nation has been made legal by zealot liberal SC judges, and not that far a reach to have them find ormake a loophole to have ways to restrict religion/churches!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not the way you allege. Have you ever actually read a Supreme Court case?


Yeah, that's a standard line we hear. But the reality is that, almost every time, the Supreme Court makes rulings based on principles of the Constitution, as it was written. The differences of opinions come from disagreements about the meaning and intent of the Constitution, not because the Court is making things up from whole cloth.

The is NOTHING prior to Roe V Wade that had a woman right to privacu to include killing of babies!

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am only saying that what shoudl be illegal in this nation has been made legal by zealot liberal SC judges, and not that far a reach to have them find ormake a loophole to have ways to restrict religion/churches!

The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage will be legalized and protected because some conservative Christians and other moral warriors pushed for laws that legally defined marriage in a certain way. That opened the door for LGBTQ folks to claim equal protection under the laws.

In the same way, many of the movements for state-sponsored school "prayer" and religious teachings in the schools has the potential to open the door for the government to start picking winners and losers in religious matters. That's why Muslim bans and Muslim registration movements are so dangerous to religious liberty. They can easily be turned around and used against Christians.

The is NOTHING prior to Roe V Wade that had a woman right to privacu to include killing of babies!

You need to learn about things before you make your pronouncements. There were a number of states who permitted abortion to various degrees. There was also an implied right to privacy in the Constitution from the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

I'm sure you disagree with the way it was used in Roe v. Wade, but it is there regardless.

 

[Alcott]

It would be a very strange thing for the Supreme Court to gut the First Amendment,....

And strange things never happen, do they?

 

[Baptist Believer]

And strange things never happen, do they?

Nothing like that. There is no precedent for it. Moreover, it is much more likely that the whole constitution and form of government go away than the Supreme Court to gut the First Amendment precedents.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage will be legalized and protected because some conservative Christians and other moral warriors pushed for laws that legally defined marriage in a certain way. That opened the door for LGBTQ folks to claim equal protection under the laws.

In the same way, many of the movements for state-sponsored school "prayer" and religious teachings in the schools has the potential to open the door for the government to start picking winners and losers in religious matters. That's why Muslim bans and Muslim registration movements are so dangerous to religious liberty. They can easily be turned around and used against Christians.


You need to learn about things before you make your pronouncements. There were a number of states who permitted abortion to various degrees. There was also an implied right to privacy in the Constitution from the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

I'm sure you disagree with the way it was used in Roe v. Wade, but it is there regardless.

Which counts more, the Constitution of USA or the Law of God the?
Sionce we claim for rights granted by a Creator, under natural law, shoudl not His Law trump all else?

 

[Yeshua1]

Nothing like that. There is no precedent for it. Moreover, it is much more likely that the whole constitution and form of government go away than the Supreme Court to gut the First Amendment precedents.

You mean like how they removed prayer and scriptures from school was not a "gutting of firstAmendment rights?"

 

[Baptist Believer]

Which counts more, the Constitution of USA or the Law of God the?

Obviously, God's Law as interpreted in the teachings, character and life of Jesus is more important, but we are also citizens in the world. We have dual citizenship, but the Kingdom of God stands over any kingdom of the world.

Sionce we claim for rights granted by a Creator, under natural law, shoudl not His Law trump all else?

If I can properly interpret your fragmented sentences, I would agree that the teachings of Jesus trumps President Trump and the constitution. But we can also know that we have no right nor calling from Jesus to set us a theocracy and bear the sword in the name of Jesus.

You mean like how they removed prayer and scriptures from school was not a "gutting of firstAmendment rights?"

It was certainly not a "gutting" gutting of First Amendment rights. The government has no right to mandate prayers, compel people to assume a posture of prayer, or even set aside compelled attendance time for prayer ceremonies. Nor is it the government's business to handle scripture and set up a program of compulsion to read or listen to scripture. Scripture is the domain of the church and individual believers who share it will audiences not under compulsion. That's a Baptist distinctive.

 

[Alcott]

And strange things never happen, do they?

Nothing like that.

No constitutional government has ever been overthrown or its provisions ditched?

 

[Salty]

And strange things never happen, do they?


No constitutional government has ever been overthrown or its provisions ditched?

There is always a first time.....

 

[Alcott]

One ?of the unintended consequences of that Act was to put the federal government in the role of defining marriage, which led directly to the situation today.

Was the federal government not in such a role when Utah applied for statehood? To be recognized as a state, Utah was forced to define marriage as between one man and one woman only. I think the fed has been defining marriage for a long time.