PDA

View Full Version : Federal Judge: Indiana Must Recognize Gay Couple's


Rudy
04-11-2014, 10:36 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/gay-marriage-indiana_n_5126782.html

Is the pulpit next? It's seems to be getting uncomfortable allowing secular government to be involved in marriage.

Should we get out of the 501c3 tax exempt trap?

kclee4jc
04-11-2014, 11:23 AM
What is crazy is that the federal government is now stepping in and forcing this on the states. When the 'revolution' first began it was up to the individual states to decide.

I work in the County Clerk's Office at my local courthouse. I will NOT issue a marriage license to a same-gender couple. It appears I could be job hunting at some point in the near future.

Rudy
04-11-2014, 11:30 AM
What is crazy is that the federal government is now stepping in and forcing this on the states. When the 'revolution' first began it was up to the individual states to decide.

I work in the County Clerk's Office at my local courthouse. I will NOT issue a marriage license to a same-gender couple. It appears I could be job hunting at some point in the near future.


There was a gay bash-back at the church I use to attend. Spray painted the van-lol.

n david
04-11-2014, 09:28 PM
States rights are being trampled right and left.

This ruling. Bundy Ranch and the BLM.

This is an overreach by the fed judge.

Rudy
04-12-2014, 08:53 AM
States rights are being trampled right and left.

This ruling. Bundy Ranch and the BLM.

This is an overreach by the fed judge.

Amen!!

Rudy
04-12-2014, 04:53 PM
501c3 -- oh my!

Originalist
04-13-2014, 03:44 PM
What is crazy is that the federal government is now stepping in and forcing this on the states. When the 'revolution' first began it was up to the individual states to decide.

I work in the County Clerk's Office at my local courthouse. I will NOT issue a marriage license to a same-gender couple. It appears I could be job hunting at some point in the near future.


Yet the SCOTOS threw out the Defense of Marriage act because they deemed it a violation of States' Rights. But of course there is no contradiction here.


:throwrock

Aquila
04-15-2014, 02:13 PM
Ultimately, the state shouldn't be regulating private associations and relationships. I like the way the Quakers used to do it. They'd have a meeting and the couple would exchange promises, a Quaker marriage certificate was given and they signed their Bibles and husband and wife. They often refused to seek a state license to marry or file their marriages with the state. The marriage was entirely a private association. And even the termination of their marriages were handled privately unless there was a criminal violation of the law such as assault or kidnapping.

We really need to begin drawing a distinction between "Civil Marriage" and "Holy Matrimony". Some religious communities will unite couples in "Holy Matrimony" and leave it up to each couple as to rather they want to legalize their marriage with the state. In a sense, these churches have taken marriage back and defined it in accordance to their convictions within their fellowship.

Aquila
04-15-2014, 02:35 PM
I think the following would be a far better idea than having GOVERNMENT in control of marriage:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

Aquila
04-15-2014, 02:51 PM
Another interesting link:

http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/privatize-marriage/

Disciple4life
04-15-2014, 04:31 PM
What's up with all the Gay threads?

In the old days Christians used to talk about Jesus.

Now all people want to talk about is gay stuff! :throwrock

n david
04-15-2014, 04:44 PM
What's up with all the Gay threads?

In the old days Christians used to talk about Jesus.

Now all people want to talk about is gay stuff! :throwrock

:lol

C'mon bro, it's 2014! You're a bigot unless you talk about loving them over and over. Get with the times!

Disciple4life
04-15-2014, 05:36 PM
Jesus showed us that we should love everyone.

You can't shine the light if you are always talking about darkness!

Rudy
04-16-2014, 08:12 AM
What's up with all the Gay threads?

In the old days Christians used to talk about Jesus.

Now all people want to talk about is gay stuff! :throwrock
These rulings will eventually effect the pulpit.

Dichotomy Girl
04-16-2014, 11:36 AM
Ultimately, the state shouldn't be regulating private associations and relationships. I like the way the Quakers used to do it. They'd have a meeting and the couple would exchange promises, a Quaker marriage certificate was given and they signed their Bibles and husband and wife. They often refused to seek a state license to marry or file their marriages with the state. The marriage was entirely a private association. And even the termination of their marriages were handled privately unless there was a criminal violation of the law such as assault or kidnapping.

We really need to begin drawing a distinction between "Civil Marriage" and "Holy Matrimony". Some religious communities will unite couples in "Holy Matrimony" and leave it up to each couple as to rather they want to legalize their marriage with the state. In a sense, these churches have taken marriage back and defined it in accordance to their convictions within their fellowship.

I agree, and for the record, I am pro-gay Marriage. Allow gay people to be civilly married, for reasons such as taxes, inheritances, medical proxies, estates, etc., in no means that you need to believe they are married in the eyes of God.

And I don't think any of the gay people I know would have any interest in forcing a minister who believes that they are biggest hellbound perverts in the world to marry them in a church. There are plenty of gay-affirming churches these days.

Ultimately it doesn't hurt you! (fundamentalists, not you personally Auquila). Oh, it erodes the family, it erodes good Christian Values.....

Do you protest allowing Muslims to marry in the United States, what about Atheists, who are going to raise little Atheist children?

You can't control the world. You can't legislate your morality. God gave us free will, and this country gave us freedom of (and from if the case may be) religion.

Aquila
04-16-2014, 12:30 PM
I agree, and for the record, I am pro-gay Marriage. Allow gay people to be civilly married, for reasons such as taxes, inheritances, medical proxies, estates, etc., in no means that you need to believe they are married in the eyes of God.

And I don't think any of the gay people I know would have any interest in forcing a minister who believes that they are biggest hellbound perverts in the world to marry them in a church. There are plenty of gay-affirming churches these days.

Ultimately it doesn't hurt you! (fundamentalists, not you personally Auquila). Oh, it erodes the family, it erodes good Christian Values.....

Do you protest allowing Muslims to marry in the United States, what about Atheists, who are going to raise little Atheist children?

You can't control the world. You can't legislate your morality. God gave us free will, and this country gave us freedom of (and from if the case may be) religion.

Also, if we legalize gay marriage... we'll soon see, "gay divorce". And that will make for fabulous television! lol

Aquila
04-16-2014, 12:31 PM
And frankly, as many married man will testify... if you want two people to stop having sex... let them get married. lol!

Rudy
04-16-2014, 02:57 PM
I agree, and for the record, I am pro-gay Marriage. Allow gay people to be civilly married, for reasons such as taxes, inheritances, medical proxies, estates, etc., in no means that you need to believe they are married in the eyes of God.

And I don't think any of the gay people I know would have any interest in forcing a minister who believes that they are biggest hellbound perverts in the world to marry them in a church. There are plenty of gay-affirming churches these days.

Ultimately it doesn't hurt you! (fundamentalists, not you personally Auquila). Oh, it erodes the family, it erodes good Christian Values.....

Do you protest allowing Muslims to marry in the United States, what about Atheists, who are going to raise little Atheist children?

You can't control the world. You can't legislate your morality. God gave us free will, and this country gave us freedom of (and from if the case may be) religion.

There are gays who would like to force the issue. Some have bashed-back and spray painted the church van. There is the radical element. I know you said you did not know any, just saying.

The phrase "bash-back" tickles me for some reason-lol.

The radical element in politics will threaten the pulpit with 501c3 tax exempt. One can't use the pulpit to speak against government policy under 501c3.

ludwig_v_m
04-18-2014, 09:36 AM
Yeah - I think I fall into Aquila's side with this.

Government (of any sort) has no business in the marriage, well, business. Marriage is either religious or individual.

jediwill83
04-18-2014, 11:05 AM
I agree...I dont believe government should be involved in legislating marriage @Dichotomy-Girl...love your take on that as well...I honestly havent seen it put like that exactly but I like it.

obriencp
04-19-2014, 12:03 PM
Yes, the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, but it is primarily because of social security benefits. Since the gov't has allowed tax and other benefits to those that are married, the gov't cannot discriminate as to how those benefits are handed out.

As long as there are legal/tax benefits tied to marriage, we cannot stop the fed or state gov'ts from legalizing same-sex marriage. It will happen and I predict that it will be legal in all 50 states within the next 5 years. That doesn't mean we have to like it or agree with it.

Oh yeah and I almost fell out of my chair laughing at Aquilla's "fabulous" divorce court tv comment.