The News Headlines
April 5, 2020
Latest comments from Facebook, lively discourse- last names removed. https://www.facebook.com/AmericanLawJournal?ref=hl
Ana I hope not!Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:50am
Frank What was used against interracial marriages??? The Bible??? Arguments sound the same against same sex marriage??? Jim Crow's legacy seems to live onLike · Reply · 4 · 23 hrs
Rafael The sodomites /brainwashed/bullies /victims are going to win.Like · Reply · 23 hrs
Joe . Good thing for lawbreakers then.Like · Reply · 18 hrs
Amanda I think it should be legalized in the whole United States forealLike · Reply · 10 hrs
Matt Collecting interest on your savings account is also a sin…Like · Reply · 10 hrs
Randy If we have to be tax paying citizens of the USA. Than we should have the right to marriage and all the benefits of marriage and having a family,ect and all the other things that you haters, bigots and so called Christians have. We should have the same rights as our straight brothers and sisters.Like · Reply · 3 · 8 hrs
Nick s I think everyone should be treated equally under the law and constitution!!! Discrimination is still a huge issue in this country!Like · Reply · 2 hrs · Edited
Randy-Chad Well Randy if we don't have these right then we don't need to pay taxes period……Like · Reply · 1 · 57 mins
Chuck If anyone can find an old dictionary that has not been perverted by political correctness, the definition of marriage may say "The legal union of a man and a woman." Or something similar. Therefore if the 2 people are not 1 male and 1 female, there can be no marriage.Like · Reply · 32 mins
ShaunaThings that used to be right, no longer are because the damage is more visible. It was the practice to marry girls off at 14, now it is rape. We grow. We are slowly growing up as a species.Like · 6 minsThe American Law JournalWrite a reply…
The American Law Journal Link to yesterday's argument (abridged) http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/…/04/SSM-Supercut-Small.m4asblog.s3.amazonaws.comSBLOG.S3.AMAZONAWS.COMLike · Reply · Remove Preview · Commented on by Valerie Jones · 3 mins
The American Law Journal Entire argument http://www.abajournal.com/…/supreme_court_arguments...
Supreme Court arguments, delivered in three-minute increments and a…ABAJOURNAL.COM|BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS
In the case of gay marriage, the 'human rights' component is directly related to the legal benefit of being married. I think that having a separate legal union for same sex couples is a generous compromise that cannot be construed as a violation of human rights, even by the most sensitive of standards. Atleast not rationally. Same sexes want a marriage synonymous to that of a traditional marriage, but that (legally) adopts the definition of sodomy for grounds of marriage consummation in heterosexual couples, which is not sanctimonious. They are gaining perceived value of marriage at our expense. Mankind can LABEL gay marriage as sanctified, but that does not make it so. The nature of their union is different, so why is it so offensive to be labeled differently? It is a simple concept really. Offering gay's the same legal rights under a different title, and their dissatisfaction with that compromise is a testament to their vigor for entitlement for none other than the sake of devaluation of marriage. The appeal for them in having the same terminology as we do in traditional marriage is only appealing for the enmity it carries, and attention seeking behaviour, and for the sake of being controversial. Any other underlying reason would not make sense because how then is a separate legal arrangement a violation of human rights? By rejecting a unique legal arrangement that offers the same social benefits on the basis of inequality is a insecure stance by the same sex community, because the inequality of such an agreement is based on their own perception of their union being inferior. What other reason would they not take pride and have contentment in their own legal union tailored to them? Since they are adverse to Christianity, why would they want traditional marriage founded in a belief in God, for reason's other than de-valuing it? Classic case of a dog wanting the bone just because the other one is chewing on it. Because a sizeable percentage of straight couples still care about Biblical doctrine, there remains a supply of moral property which is available to toy with as something of a play thing. To me their arguments are transparent. A picture I paint is the heterosexual community demanding that the 'pride' parade be called 'shame' parade. The compromise would be having our own 'straight' parade. But that's not good enough, we will accept nothing less than they term theirs shame parade. In actuality, we just let the parade be. We don't have this burning desire to be contrary, and force our definition of their parade on them, and kick up a big fuss. So don't rain on our parade. We just want to keep what is ours. Gay marriage is not being attacked. That is manipulative wording. The established party being encroached upon by an interfering party is the definition of the attackee. The interfering party want's someone else's (moral) property, so rather than settling somewhere uninhibited, (separate legal arrangement) they attack. They do not want uncharted territory, they want the spoils previously cherished by the long standing and rightful owners. It is more dramatic that way. Of course the interfering party can spin this around and cry intolerance because they are to highly emotional to be reasoned with, which therefore somehow makes them the ones being attacked. After the marriage bill is passed it is laughable that they will be satisfied. Next, Obamacare will be covering 'trans gender' surgery. If tax payers/ premium payers don't cover that, of course that will be the most grave of human right violations. I wonder if they're laughing to themselves when they're “consummating their marriage“ via sodomy, for the sake of pleasure alone, that we take the 'sanctity of their union' so seriously and we delicately tippy toe around the eggshells of our precise un offensive wording. (as I find myself doing on this post in order to avoid the most vile of personal attacks I receive only on the topic of gay marriage from men who desire oppositional words be handled with velvet gloves, whilst the double standard of tolerance does not permit me the same luxury.) Meanwhile they get off on the sheer ecstasy of their inequity and the demonic energy produced by what they engage in. They simply cannot change what the Word of God say's, no matter how much they victimize their own social position. Society may stand for it, but He does not.
Civilized countries have abolished slavery, granted civil rights to blacks and given women the right to vote. All of these were achieved, despite so much opposition at that time. History has shown that these landmark decisions were the right ones. Most conservative Catholic countries in Europe and South America have long since approved of same-sex marriages, and the world did not implode. We are now living in the 21st Century and still can’t decide if all citizens are equal before the law. How shameful and embarrassing.
What law? What law will prosecute the Christian for adultery and protect the polygamous Mormon for his acts. Now that homosexual marriages are "legal" nothing can stop the expression of Mormon polygamy as encoded in D&C132, the "revelation". It nullifies all non Mormon marriages and contracts, defines innocent blood (not you) and threatens women with death for non compliance. It's deadly serious. It led directly to this nations first 911, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, with all the subterfuge and high degree low cunning of the 2001 event… Soon homosexual polygamy and polyandry and host of other "marriages" too obscene to contemplate.
Comments are closed.