Dr. David Noebel - The Homosexual Revolution - (1978)

[Smellin Coffee]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

Kennedy interpreted it that way. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the Constitution so if he literally 'said' it, he was wrong. Scalia did not interpret it the same way. In matters of civil rights, the rights of a same-sex couple should be the same as that of a heterosexual couple in matters of legal issues. THAT is the civil right, civil rights which in general are upheld by the Constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

I didn't say it wasn't agenda driven, here is the quote:

To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

For the SC, it was about civil rights for gay couples.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

According to your thinking, the SC will next grant "benefits" to horses who have sex with men.  It amazes me (no, not really) what Christians will do to support the most anti-biblical, deviant "lifestyles".  I mean, I can relate to most libertarian viewpoints, but really.  Again, it's a states issue.

Nice try, but horses are not people, hence, no civil rights.

With intra-state benefits, employment, familial legalities, it HAD to be settled one way or another federally.

Supporting people's civil rights is not the same as supporting their lifestyle. I believe drug addicts should be allowed to use their medical benefits when the OD and not be refused service. That doesn't mean I approve of their drug abuse.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

Kennedy interpreted it that way. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the Constitution so if he literally 'said' it, he was wrong. Scalia did not interpret it the same way. In matters of civil rights, the rights of a same-sex couple should be the same as that of a heterosexual couple in matters of legal issues. THAT is the civil right, civil rights which in general are upheld by the Constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

I didn't say it wasn't agenda driven, here is the quote:

To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

For the SC, it was about civil rights for gay couples.

No, it was about furthering the agenda....both sides understood that.
Kennedy had to offer the drivel about it being in the constitution because the SC's job is to 'interpret' the constitution. Scalia minced few words in the minority opinion pointing out that is was based on agenda and far removed from the constitution. The same liberal agenda drove the SC to say in the 70's that killing babies was a constitutional right.

Liberal idiocy, perpetrated on us by liberal idiots...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

Kennedy interpreted it that way. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the Constitution so if he literally 'said' it, he was wrong. Scalia did not interpret it the same way. In matters of civil rights, the rights of a same-sex couple should be the same as that of a heterosexual couple in matters of legal issues. THAT is the civil right, civil rights which in general are upheld by the Constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

I didn't say it wasn't agenda driven, here is the quote:

To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

For the SC, it was about civil rights for gay couples.

No, it was about furthering the agenda....both sides understood that.
Kennedy had to offer the drivel about it being in the constitution because the SC's job is to 'interpret' the constitution. Scalia minced few words in the minority opinion pointing out that is was based on agenda and far removed from the constitution. The same liberal agenda drove the SC to say in the 70's that killing babies was a constitutional right.

Liberal idiocy, perpetrated on us by liberal idiots...

And it IS the civil right of the woman to abort her baby.
,
Not all civil rights are good and proper (such as your example of abortion) but that is the basis for our Constitution. In the case of abortion, the civil rights of the unborn is being challenged and I do ADAMANTLY disagree with the SC on this. For same-sex benefits, there is no other person who is having his civil rights violated by allowing same-sex marriage. Now when they force clergy to perform ceremonies, then yeah, but the actual Obergfell case, no.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

Kennedy interpreted it that way. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the Constitution so if he literally 'said' it, he was wrong. Scalia did not interpret it the same way. In matters of civil rights, the rights of a same-sex couple should be the same as that of a heterosexual couple in matters of legal issues. THAT is the civil right, civil rights which in general are upheld by the Constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

I didn't say it wasn't agenda driven, here is the quote:

To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

For the SC, it was about civil rights for gay couples.

No, it was about furthering the agenda....both sides understood that.
Kennedy had to offer the drivel about it being in the constitution because the SC's job is to 'interpret' the constitution. Scalia minced few words in the minority opinion pointing out that is was based on agenda and far removed from the constitution. The same liberal agenda drove the SC to say in the 70's that killing babies was a constitutional right.

Liberal idiocy, perpetrated on us by liberal idiots...

And it IS the civil right of the woman to abort her baby.
,
Not all civil rights are good and proper (such as your example of abortion) but that is the basis for our Constitution. In the case of abortion, the civil rights of the unborn is being challenged and I do ADAMANTLY disagree with the SC on this. For same-sex benefits, there is no other person who is having his civil rights violated by allowing same-sex marriage. Now when they force clergy to perform ceremonies, then yeah, but the actual Obergfell case, no.

Oh, clueless one....

The magistrates who were Christians were forced to marry gays or resign.
The Christian baker....photographer....wedding venue owners who were forced to marry gays (a Biblical oxymoron, btw) or close their business. The Catholic hospitals who were coerced concerning performing abortions.

Liberalism is all about craming their agenda down the collective throats of the rest of us.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

Kennedy interpreted it that way. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the Constitution so if he literally 'said' it, he was wrong. Scalia did not interpret it the same way. In matters of civil rights, the rights of a same-sex couple should be the same as that of a heterosexual couple in matters of legal issues. THAT is the civil right, civil rights which in general are upheld by the Constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

I didn't say it wasn't agenda driven, here is the quote:

To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

For the SC, it was about civil rights for gay couples.

No, it was about furthering the agenda....both sides understood that.
Kennedy had to offer the drivel about it being in the constitution because the SC's job is to 'interpret' the constitution. Scalia minced few words in the minority opinion pointing out that is was based on agenda and far removed from the constitution. The same liberal agenda drove the SC to say in the 70's that killing babies was a constitutional right.

Liberal idiocy, perpetrated on us by liberal idiots...

And it IS the civil right of the woman to abort her baby.
,
Not all civil rights are good and proper (such as your example of abortion) but that is the basis for our Constitution. In the case of abortion, the civil rights of the unborn is being challenged and I do ADAMANTLY disagree with the SC on this. For same-sex benefits, there is no other person who is having his civil rights violated by allowing same-sex marriage. Now when they force clergy to perform ceremonies, then yeah, but the actual Obergfell case, no.

Oh, clueless one....

The magistrates who were Christians were forced to marry gays or resign.
The Christian baker....photographer....wedding venue owners who were forced to marry gays (a Biblical oxymoron, btw) or close their business. The Catholic hospitals who were coerced concerning performing abortions.

Liberalism is all about craming their agenda down the collective throats of the rest of us.

I have no issue with the "Christian" baker being in trouble for discrimination. If he refused to bake a cake for a black couple would that be ok? Of course not! (I've actually heard Christians argue that business owners should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish because of the free market system but that's just silly)

 

[prophet]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

Kennedy interpreted it that way. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the Constitution so if he literally 'said' it, he was wrong. Scalia did not interpret it the same way. In matters of civil rights, the rights of a same-sex couple should be the same as that of a heterosexual couple in matters of legal issues. THAT is the civil right, civil rights which in general are upheld by the Constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

I didn't say it wasn't agenda driven, here is the quote:

To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

For the SC, it was about civil rights for gay couples.

No, it was about furthering the agenda....both sides understood that.
Kennedy had to offer the drivel about it being in the constitution because the SC's job is to 'interpret' the constitution. Scalia minced few words in the minority opinion pointing out that is was based on agenda and far removed from the constitution. The same liberal agenda drove the SC to say in the 70's that killing babies was a constitutional right.

Liberal idiocy, perpetrated on us by liberal idiots...

And it IS the civil right of the woman to abort her baby.
,
Not all civil rights are good and proper (such as your example of abortion) but that is the basis for our Constitution. In the case of abortion, the civil rights of the unborn is being challenged and I do ADAMANTLY disagree with the SC on this. For same-sex benefits, there is no other person who is having his civil rights violated by allowing same-sex marriage. Now when they force clergy to perform ceremonies, then yeah, but the actual Obergfell case, no.

Oh, clueless one....

The magistrates who were Christians were forced to marry gays or resign.
The Christian baker....photographer....wedding venue owners who were forced to marry gays (a Biblical oxymoron, btw) or close their business. The Catholic hospitals who were coerced concerning performing abortions.

Liberalism is all about craming their agenda down the collective throats of the rest of us.

I have no issue with the "Christian" baker being in trouble for discrimination. If he refused to bake a cake for a black couple would that be ok? Of course not! (I've actually heard Christians argue that business owners should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish because of the free market system but that's just silly)

Liberty is just silly!!

earnestly contend

 

[Twisted]

Liberty is just silly!!

Remember waaaaay back when we had liberty?

 

[prophet]

Liberty is just silly!!

Remember waaaaay back when we had liberty?

Nope.

Just read about it.

earnestly contend

 

[LongGone]

Liberty is just silly!!

Remember waaaaay back when we had liberty?

Nope.

Just read about it.



earnestly contend

So is liberty and justice for all or just those who live the way you like?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Oh, clueless one....

The magistrates who were Christians were forced to marry gays or resign.
The Christian baker....photographer....wedding venue owners who were forced to marry gays (a Biblical oxymoron, btw) or close their business. The Catholic hospitals who were coerced concerning performing abortions.

And no individual should be forced to go against his religious beliefs (within reason). Businesses that are not religious institutions should be held to a different standard. They should not be allowed to discriminate.

Liberalism is all about craming their agenda down the collective throats of the rest of us.

Conservatism does the same thing to the liberals. Just look at your posts and how you demean those with whom you disagree politically.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Liberty is just silly!!

Remember waaaaay back when we had liberty?

Yeah, those wonderful days of "keeping coloreds at their own table" and a few lynchings here and there!

Good old days, I tell ya!

(Sarcasm off now)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The magistrates who were Christians were forced to marry gays or resign...Liberalism is all about craming their agenda down the collective throats of the rest of us.

Hmmm...

...The new law, signed by Republican Gov. Matt Bevin in April, ?expressly modifies the Kentucky marriage licensing scheme to remove entirely a county clerk?s name, personal identifiers, and authorization from any license, thereby providing through a change in the law the very religious accommodation Davis sought from the beginning of this litigation,? according to the Tuesday filing.

Davis?s attorneys also asked the appeals court to vacate the district court?s orders, saying the contempt decree should not have issued.

?I am pleased that I can continue to serve my community as the Rowan County Clerk without having to sacrifice my religious convictions and conscience,? Davis said in a statement.

Kentucky clerk opposed to gay marriage says state law negates appeal

In the end, justice won out. Gay couples can legally get their marriage licenses and the clerks don't have to use their name to endorse it should it oppose their religious beliefs.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Oh, clueless one....

The magistrates who were Christians were forced to marry gays or resign.
The Christian baker....photographer....wedding venue owners who were forced to marry gays (a Biblical oxymoron, btw) or close their business. The Catholic hospitals who were coerced concerning performing abortions.

And no individual should be forced to go against his religious beliefs (within reason). Businesses that are not religious institutions should be held to a different standard. They should not be allowed to discriminate.

Liberalism is all about craming their agenda down the collective throats of the rest of us.

Conservatism does the same thing to the liberals. Just look at your posts and how you demean those with whom you disagree politically.

Verbiage doesn't put you in jail or close your business, only liberal totalitarians can do that!
Maybe the Admin could open a Safe Place Forum for you....