The Supreme Court Quietly Gave In To Gay Marriage:

[good samaritan]

I as a christian am not expecting my government to enforce my values any more than the homosexual is theirs. It is gays seeking the governments approval not christians. I don't want to change anything, but instead leave it the same.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Those who would use GOVERNMENT to enforce their values always provide very sound philosophical reasons as to why it might be necessary. However, when actual implementation of said values is presented, the position falls like a house of cards. When specifics are discussed they begin squabbling over whose morality will be imposed and to what degree. For example, do we prohibit remarriage and deny marriage licenses to divorced individuals as Catholic and many Protestant values would require? Or do we allow remarriage only if the previous divorce was on the grounds of adultery? How do we prove adultery upon denial and lack of evidence? Do we consider the Pauline Privilege of abandonment? How do we prove the spouse was an unbeliever if they profess to be a believer? Or do we ignore these values and single some other social sin to regulate while leaving this one (which affects far more people) unaddressed?

After a while... it gets real stupid. Government isn't equipped to be a good Big Brother that regulates our private choices unless those choices specifically endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. Government is best when it governs least and protects and advances human liberty.

Government is always established on someone's value's. Who's will it be? You make more laws for homosexuality you are not making government smaller you are making it bigger.

[good samaritan]

Why do gays not look at it like Aquila and say I do not need the government to sanction our union. Marriage is sanctioned by God not the U.S. so why do homosexuals want their unions to be recognized. By saying we need to keep our christian values out of government, in essence, we are really saying I don't care if someone else builds our nations value system.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Why do gays not look at it like Aquila and say I do not need the government to sanction our union. Marriage is sanctioned by God not the U.S. so why do homosexuals want their unions to be recognized. By saying we need to keep our christian values out of government, in essence, we are really saying I don't care if someone else builds our nations value system.

Because married couples get rights that non married couples dont like benefits ect...

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Why do gays not look at it like Aquila and say I do not need the government to sanction our union. Marriage is sanctioned by God not the U.S. so why do homosexuals want their unions to be recognized. By saying we need to keep our christian values out of government, in essence, we are really saying I don't care if someone else builds our nations value system.

Why are they Christian values? Why not Muslim? Why not Hindu? You can still have values without being a religious person.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

This should be the end of it. But my guess is it wont be. Also, lets say we start enforcing Christian values on all, where do we stop? Should we also let the govt enforce Islamic beliefs? We are a nation of no religion. Its funny how small govt constitution thumpers forget that the minute it comes to same sex marriage.

A true libertarian would also be a Constitutionalist. Libertarians understand that libertarian ideas must be encouraged within the framework of the Constitution. To cheer activist courts imposing their values on the sovereign States without any Constitutional authority is not libertarianism. The authors of the 14th Amendment would laugh if you were to go back in time and tell them their amendment was going to one day be used in such a manner. It was the same with the 1962 ruling that outlawed prayer in school. We're supposed to believe that for 200 years we really did not understand what the constitution meant until a modern day court told us. It's the same as saying these modern judges understand the Constitution better than the men who wrote it.

[good samaritan]

Aquila

The Supreme Court Just Quietly Made Marriage Equality The Law Of The Land In Many States

FMC
As well as they should have.

To be a libertarian you started out on this thread to say that you agree with the federal govervnment making laws quietly without the people. Sounds to me that you are doing things that you accuse christians of doing. You agree with the government pushing things in as long as they agree with your values.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

How is gay marriages going to affect the liberty of christian preachers who refuse to perform a gay marriage. What is going to happen if someone walks in during a church service while I am teaching against the sin of homosexuality. How is that going to affect my liberty. By giving liberty to one you are really taking it away from another. What about all the christian justice of the peace officers who have to sign their name authorizing a gay marriage? You think when they keep going to their boss and saying I can't do this do you think it is going to affect their employment.

Don't keep christian values out of the government keep government out of christian values. I don't hate homosexuals, but I don't want to make it easier for them to infringe on my values and my family. When schools teach about reproduction and sex ed. how is that going to go when we equate homo and hetero unions? Are my children going to have listen to how it is normal to be gay in school?

You asked a lot of good questions. Let me share my thoughts...

How is gay marriages going to affect the liberty of christian preachers who refuse to perform a gay marriage?

Catholic churches can refuse to perform second marriages, as with many Protestant churches. Any church can refuse to conduct ANY marriage (even straight marriages) for any reason. Straight people can't sue a church and demand to be married by that pastor. Gay couples won't be able to either.

What is going to happen if someone walks in during a church service while I am teaching against the sin of homosexuality. How is that going to affect my liberty. By giving liberty to one you are really taking it away from another.

This is something I've never quite understood. Your rights aren't violated UNTIL they are violated. If someone walks into your church while preaching anything and wants to sue you... you have to defend your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion. That's defending YOUR rights. Unless you're advocating violent action against an individual or group of individuals, you're well within your right to say and teach what you wish. And until your liberty is actually violated... you're just seeking to curtail the rights of others FOR FEAR that your rights might be challenged. And guess what... I predict that a pastor's right to preach what they wish will be challenged. And it NEEDS to be. Why? To establish legal a precedent that protects freedom of speech and religion.

What about all the christian justice of the peace officers who have to sign their name authorizing a gay marriage? You think when they keep going to their boss and saying I can't do this do you think it is going to affect their employment.

They have no problem authorizing the second marriages of divorcees wherein their previous marriage wasn't terminated on biblical grounds. Why would they feel comfortable authorizing an adulterous marriage but not a gay marriage? Both are sinful, are they not?

The truth is, some duties come with responsibilities. If you cannot perform those responsibilities in good conscience, then the job isn't for you. I can't work for a grocery store and refuse to sell pork or demand that they stop selling pork because I'm Jewish. If it bothered me that much, I can get a job doing something that doesn't offend my conscience.

If any of these justice of the peace protests authorizing a "gay marriage" when they've authorized countless "adulterous marriages" they only highlight their hypocrisy.

Don't keep christian values out of the government keep government out of christian values. I don't hate homosexuals, but I don't want to make it easier for them to infringe on my values and my family. When schools teach about reproduction and sex ed. how is that going to go when we equate homo and hetero unions? Are my children going to have listen to how it is normal to be gay in school?

Then whose Christian values are imposed? Yours or mine? Mine or the Catholics? The Catholics or the Baptists? And once Christian religious values are allowed in government... the Muslims will be more than happy to begin flexing their muscle as a demographic. Do you want Islamic Law written into the United States Legal Code???

I'd approach it like this... sexuality is natural. It's normal. And being fallen creatures many have innate sexual proclivities that are sinful. You have to PARENT and define what they learn for them. You can't just pass them off to the public educational system and expect your values to be instilled. They are going to learn that many things are normal that are sinful. You have to address it all as a responsible parent.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I as a christian am not expecting my government to enforce my values any more than the homosexual is theirs. It is gays seeking the governments approval not christians. I don't want to change anything, but instead leave it the same.

If a segment of the American people are not granted equal representation under the law... would you agree to allow them to live here tax free???

If they are paying taxes, working in our economy, serving in the military, working as medics, police officers, doctors, and lawyers... shouldn't they have the right to seek equal representation that allows for them to enjoy their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What if the government banned religious weddings, seeing that "civil marriage" is a civil construct of the government? What if they banned second marriages?

You might not realize... the GOVERNMENT wasn't always in the business of issuing marriage licenses. Marriage used to be a private contract. Many Quakers and Amish still practice marriage as a private contract. However, the GOVERNMENT began requiring and issuing of marriage licenses so that they could deny interracial couples the right to marry. The entire marriage license process is a hold over from institutionalized racism. If you want to keep things the way they had been historically... you'd want GOVERNMENT out of marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Government is always established on someone's value's. Who's will it be?

Our government should be established on the values of the Constitution. Government's proper role is to preserve the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens.

You make more laws for homosexuality you are not making government smaller you are making it bigger.

There is a difference between making laws specifically for a group of people and abolishing laws that discriminate against them. When interracial couples won the right to seek marriage licenses and marry... they didn't write new laws for them. They abolished the laws that stood against them. Thereby, reducing the number of laws that regulated the personal associations and behaviors of interracial couples.