This post was last updated on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 to reflect continued events and challenges in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision.
The conservative Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of marriage equality, bringing it to all 50 states! This was an important ruling in upholding the values on which our nation was founded, such as the rejection of subjugation to a specific set of religious beliefs, and the embrace of equality under the law.
The ruling concerned the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, wherein a gay couple that was legally married in one state was denied spousal recognition in another state. It asked firstly if states are allowed to discriminate by the genders that make up the couple when handing out marriage licenses. It secondly considered if any state, regardless of its own laws, must recognize marriages performed legally in other states, even if they are in direct conflict with one another.
The decision was 5-4, splitting the court. The decision mandates that all states allow same-sex marriages and acknowledge same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Similar questions have all been answered before in the case of Loving v. Virginia, though that case considered these same questions based on the race of the partners involved, rather than their genders. Because of this and other rulings, such as the striking down of provisions of the Defense Of Marriage Act (or DOMA for short), many legal experts predicted this favorable outcome.
Of course not everyone thinks this is indeed a favorable outcome. If you are one such person, we are glad that you are still reading and haven't done as some will and jumped straight down to the comments to express your hate for gays in the name of your loving god. Here is why we all have reason to celebrate this decision, even if you are totally against marriage equality:
Americans of all races, genders, orientations, and beliefs can now pursue their own lives and conceptions of happiness without worry that one group that disagrees will legally strong-arm you out of your constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. We don't have to agree on anything - that's our right, but no amount of disagreement justifies creating second-class citizens.
While this ruling undoes generations of institutional discrimination against gays and lesbians, it could very well affect issues that are merely related, but are still important. Many religious schools are worried that their bans on same-sex relationships or their policies on housing for married students would jeopardize their tax-exempt statuses.
"I am concerned, and I think I'd be remiss, if not naïve, to be otherwise This is not alarmist thinking. This is rational listening," said the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and she is right. There is legal precedence to back this up. A 1983 Supreme Court decision held that colleges were not entitled to tax-exempt status if they barred interracial marriage or even dating among members of different races.
While it is reasonable to apply that same logic to a ruling on same-gender marriage and dating, you would first have to concede that views barring same-sex relationships share a very relevant similarity with racism. You would essentially be making a point against the merits of your own views.
Conservatives Brace for Impact
A number of states who would be affected directly by the Court's ruling who had bans on same-sex marriage in place have already begun attempting to circumvent the ruling. We've seen an interesting phenomenon in some of these areas... State Attorney Generals, upset by what they feel is an "Activist" ruling on behalf of the court, have become "Activists" themselves ... seeking to create systems that would allow them to circumvent a Federal decision.
Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has proposed legislation that would, among other things, prohibit the federal government from denying or revoking the tax-exempt status of any institution based on its policies on same-sex relationships that are informed by religious beliefs.
Leaders of more than 70 religious schools have signed a letter asking Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House John Boehner to support Senator Lee's bill. This letter was drawn up by the Family Research Council, an organization that stands up for traditional family values, such as those held by their former executive director of political action and known child molester, Josh Duggar.
Others with political power are already preparing to defy the law of the land. Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama State Supreme Court plans to continue to hold marriage hostage for all citizens, gay or straight whatever it takes to ensure that same-sex couples remain disenfranchised.
Bill Schuette, the Republican Attorney General of Michigan, has already convinced many clerks that they cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, regardless of the Supreme Court ruling. The Governor of that state has expressed a desire that his state's agencies comply fully and immediately.
In Kentucky, we've been made aware of several county clerks refusing personally to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In an effort to avoid charges of discrimination, some of these county clerks have decided to stop offering marriage licenses altogether. However, both the state's Attorney General and its Governor have issued instructions to these clerks to perform their duties, and warned them that refusing to do so could open them up to legal action.
In Louisiana, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell made a statement in which, while he acknowledges the ruling of the Supreme Court, he expressed that he did not feel as though it including any language that would compel his state to begin offering these marriages anytime soon. He reportedly advised county clerks to wait as long as 25 days before issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
In Texas, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has suggested that officials, like judges and clerks, need not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they feel that it violates their personal religious beliefs. Mr. Paxton went so far as to promise that he had a cadre of lawyers ready to represent any official, pro bono, who was charged with a crime for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Additionally, we've heard reports that the Attorney General for Tennessee (Herbert Slatery III) has recently ordered county clerks in the area, at the request of Republican State Senator Todd Gardenhire, to stop accepting weddings performed by Universal Life Church ministers as valid this based on an opinion he updated earlier this year. Herbert Slatery III and Gov. Bill Haslam each publicly expressed anger at the court's ruling. Many have suggested, knowing that ULC ministers perform a large proportion of gay marriages, that the timing of this opinion's enforcement seems suspicious given the SCOTUS ruling.
Presidential Hopeful Ted Cruz is turning his focus on restructuring the predominately Conservative Supreme Court itself. He now calls for periodic judicial retention elections doing away with the Constitutionally-provided lifelong terms for Justices.
What All of This Means for You as a Minister
So how does this ruling affect you as a ULC minister? It doesn't unless you want it to! Aren't comfortable performing same-sex ceremonies? That's okay, you can say no to any wedding for any reason and the law does not penalize you for doing so, and we are happy to maintain your ordination. Don't want to preach that every couple that can legally marry is morally up to your standards? Then don't.
If you, however, are a minister that supports marriage equality, and have lived in a state that barred you from free exercise of your religious practices in what weddings you were allowed to perform, that burden has now, theoretically, been lifted. We are proud as a church that now all our ministers can speak their truth to power. No matter your stance on the issue of marriage, you are free set your own course.
Even legal experts are still unsure exactly what the consequences of the actions of various activist attorney generals are going to be in Conservative states who are still attempting to bar gay marriages from happening - like Ken Paxton in Texas. What is fairly clear is that the Supreme Court and the Constitution do ultimately have authority over Ken Paxton and any county clerk in Texas.
If you are located in one of the 'problem' states mentioned above and a marriage, same-sex or otherwise, that you are attempting to perform is denied, please contact our office immediately.
New York Times
Very well thought out and succinct analysis. thank you
I am one of many who still believe in marriage is for man to woman. Since life started out with man and woman to reproduce life in the human race, then why have any pride in this kind of marriage that is not considered holy in the eyes of God and many people here both men and women. What can two men produce? Not life. Neither can women. It is true that God is love, but He does not love the sin of this pleasure or the reasons why these people marry. I read that there are still places right here in the U.S. that will still refuse the license to those who want this same sex marriage. I agree with that. My faith would trouble me deeply if I were to marry a man to a man or woman to woman. Say what you will about me, at least my slate concerning this will be clean.
It's ok, God blesses you anyway and so do I
Not about slate being clean. About freedom. About equality. About individuality. About evolution. Heterosexuals created and birthed those who are and are not. Allowing one to express oneself is an unalienable right. There are places in the world where it is a crime. Gratitude for freedom in every word, thought and action is a human right -- free from judgement by any other. Remember it is the heterosexuals birthing homosexual babies as per your definition - homosexuals cannot create Life. Want to point finger and blame the who what where and whys- Hetero birthed them that was the will of the Divine. And would the Divine desire to subjugate any of their creations. I think not. A tulip has the right to bloom as a rose. Bloom on and blossom and teach others the gift of diversity created by birthing new individuals to add greatness to the conversation of Life.
So then am I to assume you wouldn't perform marriage of a post menopausal woman to a man? What about individuals who have been legally divorced? God doesn't recognize divorce, so the in His eyes they would be comiting adultery. Love thy neighbor, there is NO COMMAND HIGHER THAN THIS.
thou shalt not kill tops yours
As the article stated so well, then don't perform a same-sex union! It is as simple as that. No same sex couple who wants to get married will want you to perform their wedding anyway.
BRAVO, Jay Kleine! It really is that simple. Don't believe it's right? Don't participate. No-one wanting to begin a lifetime of live will want that union "blessed" by hate.
So, in your opinion, should a man and woman who are infertile be denied marriage because they cannot produce a life?
The bible is just for filling itself men is destroy the earth so the bible have to for fill itself but people going to go with sin than good but as a minister we need to get them straight men and men an women and women is wrong they will be at hell's gate but people know that it's wrong but they are going what fill good to the flesh
Learn to spell before you start consigning people to hell.
Jay Kleine, there was no need of that foolish attempt to embarrass someone who doesn't agree with you. Totally juvenile.
Love is love, arbert. The heart does as the heart does. "And now abides faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
it's interesting that you insist that same sex couples can't get married due to being unable to produce life. would you say the same of heterosexual couples who were infertile? if that is really your concern than men and women who are unable to produce children for whatever reason should not be allowed to marry. perhaps you should take a step back and re-examine your opinions to see if they stem from hate and bigotry that's been ingrained into you or "faith".
I have the same sentiments
Quite Simply this: Either we are all free or no one is free!
Might God bless all of you!!! Can you all read in the Quran Surah 7 all.
Gallet, You refer specifically in this instance to 7.81 but I will remind you and all that in the U.S. the majority of the people practice our religion under Judeo-Christian laws. We intend to keep it that way. Some Quranic verses are eerily similar to the Bible. However, this changes with Hadith and you are a practicing Medina Muslim. To wit: Jesus did not encourage violence. He did not advocate death to those who did not follow him; he was pure peace. We pray for those who have traveled off the path not kill them.
Carol, I beg to differ with you that "we intend to keep it that way." The number of non Christians in the U.S. is growing, and WE intend to keep it that way. For a country that was founded on the premise of separation of church and state, the state has gone too long under the thumb of the church.
Well, friend, I'll give this another try.
I probably chose the wrong word - we - given the members of this group; thank you for pointing that out.
Perhaps you're right that Christianity is not growing in this country but it IS growing in the world - increasing by 1.3% worldwide. By contrast, the growth of Muslims worldwide is at - I believe - 1.8%. There is an insidious drive in this country to stamp out Christianity. Given the Muslim rate of growth, the U.S. will experience that growth rate as well along with the push to include Sharia Law in this land (it has in some places in this country already). I'm afraid homosexuality is not well-accepted in that community. So we all must be careful of what we wish for. Remember, Christianity will not wield a sword and take of your head.
we all as ministers do as we see fit we to sets of laws to follow god and mans law the bible ask us to follow mans all as will as gods law and i plan to do so
Great News! However if your state, municipality or county does not and will not issue marriage licenses, you can't marry them legally without it. The fight is not over yet and probably will never end. But the future is looking good.
I appreciate both sides, be it religious freedom, or sexual orientation. It's the persons right to chose their direction. The only thing I don't agree with is the fed's overreach in state business. Our constitution was set up for the states to decide their own fates to avoid tyranny, when the fed steps in, it gets closer and closer to tyranny these days.
I often feel that the tyranny of the State I live in is worse than the tyranny of the Feds. For whatever reason, it seems easier now to corrupt a State than the Nation.
Tony, the problem I see with states handling this issue is that people could get married in a state that recognizes their marriage, then travel/move to a state that doesn't.
Actually, I believe the U.S. constitution requires that a marriage that's legally performed in one state must be recognized by all other states. (Of course, this point is now moot.)
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Your remarks are balanced, i.e., every person chooses their own path. But I must say that because of a few loud and pushy Americans, some of the justices were swayed by their own emotions. The ruling of the court is overreach and is not Constitution-like.
From Clarence Thomas' dissent opinion. “The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”
“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”
“Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.”
I refer you to a very thought-provoking article entitled THE MARXIST AGENDA BEHIND THE RAINBOW here: www.canadafreepress.com. (Do not mis-judge this website as being Canadian. It is very pro-American.)
Since the decision, some of the gays' behavior has been despicable and completely contrary to what they sought; exactly what they lament and abhor.
Did you really just quote Clarence Thomas of all people? And as a gay officiant, happily performing gay weddings, I'm happy to say, our gay agenda has been fulfilled by an American democratic legal process. So rest your paranoia, the marxist overthrow isn't on the horizon. The federal court decided that it could over step states abilities to segregate schools and ban interracial marriage are you suggesting that if the south still wanted to, it theoretically should be allowed to deny those rights as well? At what point is the supreme court allowed to step in and designate that the states laws are oppressing the basic human rights of Americans? Enjoy your moral and ethical advice from Clarence Thomas with an ice cold coke.
Cute, but you didn't persuade me that you are on the right side of this argument. You are simply a creature of feelings, doing what feels good. And stating what you did, you couldn't help yourself but to get nasty; you couldn't have an opposing debate without it.
Your need to have sex with a female means that I or anyone opposing that view is oppressing your basic human right? I don't invade your bedroom or tell you not to love another woman - love on. Just don't shove sexual intercourse by men on men and women on women down my throat trying to convince me it is normal; it is not normal. It's not even anatomically normal.
Let me quote about what you think is my paranoia: "Marxism is a worldview and a method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and societal conflict, that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation..." Be an ostrich if you like, but it is underway.
Yes, I was proud to quote Justice thomas. But because of one woefully mistaken and short sighted justice, the majority of people in this country have been thrown into chaos - a chaos that was orchestrated long before you were born, I'm sure. Read Alinsky. "The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day." Joseph Story (1779-1845) US Supreme Court Justice
Got any dirt on him???
Really, Carol? You accuse Maggie of being "nasty" when you yourself are judgmental. Besides Marxism, why don't you look up the definition of irony or hypocrisy? At least I admit the gloves come off when it comes to holier than thou individuals like you.
Joe, Mind your own business.
Carol, my name is Jay, not Joe, and this is my business. How about this? I will mind my business if you tend to yours.
My mistake JAY. But you act more like a Joe (Palooka, that is) with your bullish attitude. It seems all you want is a fight; are you not capable of an honest debate?
My mistake, JAY. But it seems all you want is a fight; are you capable of honest debate?
Neither one of us is going to change each other's minds, so, the Christian thing to do here is to cease and desist. You too are spoiling for a fight. Is this the only male attention you can garner, even if it is negative?
Carol, you are in fact aware, that heterosexual sex is shown on TV and in ads in day to day life, but somehow the slight implication of people of the same gender possibly having sex behind closed doors is what bothers you?
Daisy, You are right, they show heterosexual sex on TV and in ads. Let me clarify what I think is the opinion of many, if not most, dissenters. They object to sodomy.
And let the hateful comments begin...oh boy! Carol, Justice Thomas is married to a white woman. If not for the Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia, this would not have been possible for him. For him to write such a dissent is hypocrisy at its finest.
"Government did not define marriage and so it can not redefine it" - Franklin Graham
Well quoted, HSmith.
i agree this is a great quote, the only issue is that it's completely wrong. marriage has been around since ancient greek and roman societies, and it was a legal commitment between two people long before a religious one. so, as it turns out, government did define marriage. nice try though!
Neither did the Bible, really. Not everyone in America is a Christian, not everyone needs to abide to whatever laws you pull out from thin air when you get uncomfortable. You're not required to marry a person of the same gender, so what should it really matter to you?
This ruling will not stop the bigotry and hatred that has been so prevalent in society since the inception of this great country. Each generation is more tolerant than the previous, so progress comes slow, but rest assured, it comes. What this ruling does, today, is to prevent the legal bigotry and discrimination under the guise of "defense of marriage" laws. And that is huge. It removes a plank from the political platform of those individuals and groups that perpetuate discrimination.
It will be a fools errand for anyone to run for election on this platform going forward as the constitution would need to be amended to reverse the Supreme Court decision. No one group or individual has that kind of political capitol.
I beleave that god was very Clear about marriage and about same sex relation ships . As far as the government goes it ant about right or wrong or even moral it is about revenue. Our government officials are in office for one of two reasons money and power and they could care less whether we spend eturnity in hell or not. It still amasses me that we live by all these man made laws and we can't live by the ten laws god give us what is with that.
Sorry Daron, but God did not define anything or was clear about anything. GOD is a personal thing and no book has GOD'S true words. all bibles which there are about 50 different versions are all written by men about GOD, who went into the desert and fasted had visions of GOD and wrote them down as GOD's word. if you folks would go for you own vision to seek GOD you might have a different understanding about GOD. GOD is a personal thing not something that should be preached about on Sunday there are some universal truth's like love your brother as you would love yourself but the problem with that is very few people believe they are worthy of love and commit unlovable acts toward themselves and mankind. If folks would care about their own souls and not what their neighbors are doing they might be better off, but that's the problem hugh?
I've heard it said that the Bible is a lot like sausage: good in the mouth, but you really don't want to know how it was made. :-)
So many conflicting sources, so many decisions to be made by fallible humans about what to include and what to exclude. Did you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews was at one point intentionally mis-attributed to Paul as a way to get it into the Canon?
The Bible may be divinely inspired scripture and well worth reading, but it is certainly not the inerrant Word of God that some Christians make it out to be.
My understanding is that as a government employee, you are representing the government and not yourself. When hired as a county or city clerk, you took an oath of office to uphold the law. Laws change. If your personal and deeply held religious beliefs are in conflict with those laws, you have four choices. 1. Apply for a transfer to another department wherein your religious sensibilities will not in any way be compromised. 2. Remain in the current position and do your job, per your oath. 3. Refuse to do the job per your oath and face contempt of court charges and possible imprisonment. 4. Resign your position and seek employment elsewhere. Let us not have the tail wag the dog on this issue.
Thank you, Tom. Well reasoned, and well said.
God created Adam. God created women from the rib of a man (Adam). God presented Eve to Adam and He blessed them (married) and then they became one flesh. God mandated them to be fruitful and multiply. It is so unGodly for 2 women or 2 men to become one. God designed the mans body and the women's body in such a way they can delight in one another and become one. It is impossible for 2 men or 2 women to become one. Marriage in my eyes is according to God's standards. One man and one women. However we still must love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, bisexuality is a spirit that is running rampant in the earth going to and fro seeking whom it may devour (the enemy). We as ministers, Christians living under the shadow of the almighty must take a stand and teach our children, the youth, the future church, god's way is the right way. I leave you with Romans 12:2 be not conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove that good, acceptable and perfect will of God.
In His grace, Minister Pamela J Manyfield
I am in no way good with words, but, I just want to take a second to point out we are not all Christians.
It is your constitutional right for "Freedom of Religion" while it is also my constitutional right for "Freedom from Religion", others will also have freedom for there religion.
PLEASE read my comment to Daron.
PLEASE read my comment to Daron
Pamela, I understand that you have your beliefs as put forth in your holy book of the Bible. But there are others of us who are not Christian. I do not wish to push my beliefs on anyone, but I would REALLY like it if others would stop trying to push their beliefs on me. You left us with a quote from your Book; I leave you with a quote from Minnesota Representative Steve Simon. "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?" And my own comment--as God has created them, in my opinion it must mean He feels it's okay for them to love each other, too.
I'm sorry, Warjna, but do you really believe that quote?
“How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?” Do you think it was a joke that God was trying to play on us? You have an early Christian knowledge, enough to know that God also created Satan. Our sole purpose on this earth - as I understand and you may not agree with it - is to serve God. He put temptations and TREMENDOUSLY DIFFICULT challenges in our path. Love is certainly one of the greatest of them all and not to be denied. But, it's the physical expression of that love that is also the GREATEST of the temptations.
"Marriage in my eyes is according to God’s standards. One man and one women."
Or one man and two women (as with Abraham)? Or one man and four women (as with Jacob)? Or one man and a thousand women (as with Solomon)?
And you might notice that the commandment says "Do not covet your neighbor's wife", not "Do not covet your neighbor's husband." Polygamy was acceptable to God in the Old Testament; polyandry, it appears, was not.
You might want to rethink your "Biblical" view of marriage.
2 Timothy 3:1-3New International Version (NIV)
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
I have an idea. If you don't want to be married to someone of the same sex, simply don't! Why the need to control others? Also, this church is a place of tolerance, why so many intolerant people in here? I'm sure there are tons and tons of places where your types would be more comfortable.
Who are we to judge ? Jesus loved all. Yes it is true that some of these people have acted disgusting but no more then those who have oppressed them. Crimes against them have lead to a hatred towards the church and those who disapprove of their " lifestyle ". It is the times we live in. We lose followers by the droves and we wonder why. We don't have to agree with everything, God knows I don't but in this country its citizens have the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God will judge all of us as ministers it's out job to minister. I for one will never turn away couples who wish to join their lives and become one. As long as they are consulting adults why would I. Love is a wonderful , God given emotion. The biological aspect is really not important. God bless all of you.
But people know that the same sex marriage is not right at all and people say that they believe in God but you can tell ware there belief are and am a minister to and they have some more things that people are doing as well and they will be upset with me if I said it but am sticking with God said and God said if his word shall fell Heaven and earth shall pass away but we are still here what that means God word haven't changed people do
In the state of Texas this has opened doors for other groups. Couples wishing to be married as 2 men and one women and vise versa. Also, who is to say brother and sister, brother and brother and any combination can't be married. This is a major Pandora's box .Marriage wasn't in the constitution for the government to decide.Who are nine men we call the supreme court to make there own laws. This country is done for. This was an attack on religious freedom. I can see priests being put in jail for not preforming ceremonies just like the cake issue. There are others who would bake a cake but they will use there agenda to destroy Christianity in this country. So do we have to get our marriage licenses from the government now. Pay them for it or is it the state still collecting the money. People can be with who they want to don't think I'm just a hateful person. This goes a lot deeper than what most even begin to realize. God bless all of us and america. only God can keep us free.
Well if you "can see priests being put in jail for not preforming ceremonies just like the cake issue" then you are uninformed about just how strong the tradition and rulings are on the freedom we ordained folk have in how we conduct our ministry.
"The cake issue" is not, was not, and never will be, about 'religious freedom' but rather the obligation of commercial enterprises to treat all customers, or potential customers, fairly and in compliance with government non-discrimination legislation. In addition, I refer you to the widely-distributed internet meme that asks if selling a gun that is used to commit murder is endorsing murder- because the parallel to providing commercial services/products to a marriage ceremony is crystal clear.
I wonder at the faith of those who think that Christianity, or any of the major organi- well institutionalized religious traditions could so easily be "destroyed". Really.
A men what is next
Reposting something I put up under another topic:
I’ve been doing some thinking on the subject of plural marriages, and it seems to me that there are all kinds of difficult questions that get raised here.
One big one, legally speaking, is “Who is next-of-kin?” If Man A marries both Woman B and Woman C, and then Man A is injured and enters a persistent vegetative state, who gets to decide on his care? By default, it would be the wife, but there are two wives here, presumably of equal standing, and they might not agree.
Another question is “Who is married to whom?” If Man A marries Woman B and Woman C, are B and C married to each other? What is their status, exactly? “Sister-wife” doesn’t carry any kind of legal weight, so far as I know.
And if Woman C then marries Man D, who happens to be B’s brother, then is B now married to her own brother? Or what if A, B, C, and D are all married, and A wants to divorce B but not D, while C prefers to continue to be married to both B and D? Or what if A, B, and C are married and D, E, and F are married, and C and E fall in love and want to get married, but not all of the other four agree?
I imagine this would all be workable in a society where everyone really does love his/her neighbor and each sincerely strives to do what’s best for all concerned. Until then, it seems to me that there’s a huge can of worms here that probably ought not be opened.
What a sad, sad day for this formerly great Nation when a political activist court legislates morality and condones perversion. This country is truly on its last legs. RIP America 1776-2015.
Perversion in what way, Nagash? There aren't gay people having sex in the streets, unless I've been missing that somehow. Nothing has changed, if you have a Christian and holy marriage, your marriage isn't any less holy or Christian.
Jay, hateful comments..... Really? Why is it always that a differing opinion these days is hateful? If the court had ruled differently would you say that the Constitution had been served? No, you would have said that the court was swayed by public opinion. If this were just about gays wanting to marry many Christians would (even though they disagreed with gay marriage) be indifferent. But the gay community expects all others to embrace and celebrate their lifestyle. I don't expect you to embrace my lifestyle as a person on faith but if you want respect you must also show respect. We have all read some very hateful comments written by the gay community and others towards persons of faith. I think in order for us all to move on from this those comments need to stop also.
Kim gee, you need to practice what you preach, Sister. In addition to the ignorant (I'll use that word instead of “hateful”) comments littered throughout this thread, I also find your post to me to be disrespectful. For instance, to state, “But the gay community expects all others to embrace and celebrate their lifestyle.” Huh, who made you the expert on the gay community? And, ah, here is a shocker for you, but, no, that simply is not case. In addition, I too am a person of faith, so judge not lest you be judged. Have a blessed day!
A person of faith? That's rich.
Excuse me, Carol. I would like to point out that every single one of us on this list are MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH. We all have differing beliefs here, as you might note from these comments. But as you are not physically near Jay Kleine and do not personally know him, you have neither basis nor right to judge his faith.
I've left this reply once, but it never got posted. In fact, I've keyed in 3 other comments and they are nowhere to be found.
I made that comment to Jay because of his distasteful and disgusting remarks. What person of faith; what minister of the church would make comments such as those. I will remind you that you scolded him for one such comment!
And this isn't insulting? As Warjna stated, practice what you preach.
There is something very wrong with both sides of any debate. Compassion for others should be the bridge to our mutual agreements. That seems to be the core of what Jesus was trying to teach. He felt it so much that he willfully surrendered his personal freedom to emphasize the point of extremisim. His message was radical. What would have happened had Jesus not surrendered ? We won't know. What we do know is he is our savior and God. I believe right is right and ultimately God's will be done.
Lol,I think gays and lesbians should have the right to be just as miserable as heterosexual couples.Give it 6 months and I can see the same sex divorce lawyers advertising on tv.Personally,I can not in good faith marry any same sex couple.To each their own.Just because it is now a law does not make it a good law.What is next?Shall we now allow marriage (again) between 13 year olds?How about a man and his goat? Or perhaps multiple wives? A slippery slope indeed.
for one thing, marriage is certainly not a miserable thing. is it hard? yes, definitely. and if it is miserable you have every right to leave that marriage, it's not a prison sentence. i've been married for 3 years now and i'm very happy with my partner. if you think marriage is so miserable i hope to god no woman (or man) has the misfortune of marrying you. the last few sentences of your comment are pretty ridiculous and i can hardly bear to respond seriously to such insane claims. the youtube video i linked too should address that well enough though
As a Minster for the WHOLE GOSPEL I will not and cannot support the Court of jesters ruling. If all who say they are called by God to preach His word would follow His Gospel would stand up and fight this farce, we might see some changes. You other phonies who shame the title of "Minister" continue on and someday hear these words; "Sorry, I never knew you. Depart from me ye workers of iniquity."
PLEASE read my comment to Daron
Yes the Bible was written by mans hand dose it make it any more in correct than someone else writing down your wishes .I agree that we all need to tend to our on salvation but we have a morale obligations to the people around us to our selves to do what is right as what is right is not always popular.
Rev. Nick Pierce, Like you, I am a minister of the Universal Life Church. However, I am not a Christian, and neither are many other ULC ministers. I respect your beliefs, just as I respect your God. But I do not follow Him, and so I do not find it necessary to abide by rules interpreted by centuries of His followers. Believe as you will, but do not tell me I cannot believe as I choose. Do NOT presume to call me a phony simply because I do not believe as you do.
I don't think the government should Force ministers to give same sex marriages and be sued everyone has the right to their belief.and I believe in the Christian version of marriage a man and a woman not Steve and Adam. It's not a racial thing it's a sexual preference thing.
Wayde, I believe you are laboring under a misunderstanding. The Government is not forcing ministers to perform same sex marriages. The Government is stating that same sex marriage is legal, and that now same sex couples are free to marry. As Jay Kleine said above, if you don't believe it's right, don't perform one. Certainly no couple, same sex or otherwise, is going to want their union “blessed” by a minister's hate. It may be possible, however, that civil clerks of the court who refuse to issue licenses to same sex couples may be liable to prosecution. That is very different from forcing ministers to perform the marriage itself.
I have said before, and will say again, that marriage is a social contract between to people. The constitution never states anything about marriage, just as it never said anything about race. It is for enlightened people to decide that All People Were Created Equal! Three thousand years ago in most of the world a couple were just that...two. Two thousand years ago someone decided that to marry outside your religion was punishable by death. One thousand years ago to marry outside your sect was punishable by death or banishment. Two hundred years ago to marry outside your race was punishable by banishment, death, or prison. Many enlightened Christians see no evil in two people joining together in love. As in the story "Future Shock" anyone who can't keep up with the pace of change that is taking place in the world as a whole are doomed to madness and extinction. The number of true civilized nations that still deny same sex marriage are dwindling by the day, and most of the third world countries are following suit. This is pure fact, not opinion. Those who deny or condemn are the doomed ones with no where to flee to and becoming fewer all the time. This is NOT an attack on Christianity, or any other faith. It is just so.
As a gay woman I am very excited to hear this. I want the right to marry a woman. I have the same desires as any heterosexual woman wanting to grow old with some one I love. Thank you for letting me share
Really people ? We all are created equal so why shouldn't we be treated that way. The rights of people to love or hate are equal just as it is to be smart or stupid and it is very obvious to us in the middle as to which we want to live our life being. Better is always the planned choice isn't it? So why can't we put aside our want to be ignorant, put down instruments of potential violence whether it be guns or pens and instead use our hands to reach out to help each other ? I believe to believe.
Thank you, Rev. Francis. There are way too many people pointing out the splinter in someone else's eye while ignoring the beam in their own. If the Christians who are complaining were to start actually doing what Christ said instead of hunting in the prequel to His actual words, the world would be a whole lot better. As Gandhi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." I was raised Catholic, but I left the church and the religion because of what was happening. Too much hate and 'holier than thou.' I still believe in Christ and His message of peace and love, but my beliefs have expanded to encompass so much more. We need to be reaching out our hands to the poor of this country instead of calling them sinners and lazy. We need to help those who need help. Did you know that there are STILL people living in FEMA trailers in New Orleans? That there are children starving every day in America? Rather than complaining about people who love each other wanting to share their lives, we should be reaching out and helping those who need it. I believe you have the right idea.
God Almighty calls homosexual and lesbian acts SIN and is an abomination in his sight. Sin is Sin and no court ruling or man or woman's arguments can change that.
Eric, that is what you believe, and what your religion tells you to believe. Outside your religion you have no right to dictate what other people believe or how they behave.
Sin is sin?! Have you ever been divorced? Have any tattoos? Mix fabrics? Eat bacon or shrimp? These too are all equal sins in the Old Testament.
Here here. The truth remains the truth no matter how badly the mental deviants known as "progressives" try to snake their vile perversions onto God's people. They are truly disgusting and the lake of fire awaits them all, each and every one.
Hi, re this issue, we should be better educated as to what is actually happening here. Recently in Australia a speaker at the Sydney Writers Club said that "it is a no-brainer that gay marriage should be legal, however its my opinion that marriage should be illegal anyway." and the largely socialist audience spontaneously applauded. The speaker then went on to say that it embarrassed her to lie about her reasons for wanting gay marriage rights when her real reasons are to destroy the religious institution of marriage....plenty more rapturous applause. Is this what you really want? In Australia the gays can have a civil ceremony and all legal rights are the same as an actual married couple. So there is no real 'rights' discrimination, only Government interference with the rights of the religion to practice as they see fit. I am not actually a religious person per se, I joined this Org. because I wanted to marry some friends of mine and generally for a laugh. But I must say, since I joined I have felt a certain compulsion to behave in a fitting manner, because I do not want to desecrate or belittle in any way others beliefs and I feel a bit protective towards my new family.
So I would end by warning you to be wary of what you wish for, or at least you should always examine those who portray themselves as righteous and claim the moral high ground, and what their actual motives might be. In this case it is very far from being straight forward! Thanks, Rev. Bill.
First of Jesus Christ is the only one that be called Rev you should read and learn the bible more and ask God for understanding but Jesus is more than a man he have earn the right to be called Rev
Sorry, arbert, but you're wrong again. The word Reverend is used as a title of respect applied or prefixed to the name of a member of the clergy or a religious order. Nowhere is it said that the clergy or religious order must be Christian. Just to make it clearer, the word clergy means the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity. And the word laity means the body of religious worshippers -- the members of a church -- who are not clergy. My title is Reverend Mother. I am a member of the clergy -- I am a minister of the Universal Life Church, just as you are. I am NOT a Christian.
To be politically correct it's Christianity that they want to destroy. Why no one says anything about the way Islam treats homosexuals. Why is The LGBT community not standing up for the gay blacks that get thrown from towers to there death. There should be out rage but instead it's about who won't bake a cake or preform a ceremony . It's all a political agenda yes there are some who honestly believe it's about who they love and marry. But there are those who won't stop at this.
James Grimes, why do you say that it is CHRISTIANITY that the LGBTs and their supporters want to destroy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't homosexuality in violation of Islam, Judaism, and probably several other doctrines of non-Abrahamic organized religions? By your reasoning, they would also be trying to destroy Islam, Judaism, and any other religion that prohibited LGBT relationships. The ancient Spartans seem to have not had an issue with homosexuality though, if my history education was true and correct. Many clergy in organized Abrahamic religions these days seem to have little problem with it either, and it's sometimes not even between 2 consenting adults...from what I see in the media.
Are LGBT relationships wrong/sinful? I don't know. I'm not God. I'm not The Creator. I'm a lifelong student.
Why do you say that it's Christianity that they want to destroy? Aren't Islam, Judaism, and several organized non-Abrahamic religions against LGBT relationships too?
In the United States of America, we have this thing that's known as "separation of Church and State". A lot of people seem to have a really hard time understanding what that actually means.
Religious beliefs and law are seperate. This ruling has nothing to do with religion regardless of what people think; it was all about the law of the land--requiring states to do what they are supposed to do, and uphold rights granted to their members. Same sex marriage was accepted as a legal right, conferring with it various legal rights and responsibilities with regards to things like inheritance, taxes, next-of-kin, and so forth. The problem was people were not given universal access to these rights across state lines if they were in a same-sex marriage, while people in an opposite-sex marriage had no problem. And that is the problem. It's unequal treatment under the law. That is what the Supreme Court ruled on. Not religion.
Now, I know a lot of people have a really hard time seperating their religious beliefs from secular law, but in this case, you need to do just that. I am not a Christian, but I seem to recall there being something about "give unto Caeser?" However, the Supreme Court is not telling you that, as a minister, you are required to marry a gay couple even if it goes against your religious beliefs.
As ministers, we are the officiants, that's it. And while yes, we can buy marriage certificates here, they are not legally binding documents unless and until submitted to, and accepted at the state at the county office. This goes for all marriages, not just same sex ones, and as members of ULC, we already know that there are two states that give us a hard time about our ordination, to the point that, even if it's an opposite sex marriage, our paperwork filing isn't necessarily going to be accepted, regardless of wether our religious beliefs state we've married the couple or not.
Corv, This declaration has taken on a more ambiguous definition in these contemporary times. The fact of the matter is that in its simplest form it prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion. To repeat a off-quoted phrase, "That's why they got in boats and came to our shores."
But today there is secular movement that wants to remove all religious components that have been a bulwark to our protections in this country while at the same time a sinister movement has appeared to honor Islam and adopt Sharia Law. The current law is that you can't have religious (Christian primarily) prayers in school, but the Muslim community has been lobbying for its prayer time.
Frankly, the whole Sharia Law issue is FAR more sinister and compelling than SSM or your difficulties in having your credentials accepted nationwide, pardon me for saying so. Homosexuals will not be welcomed in their society EVER! So whatever your "faith" is you should hope and pray that those protections will be available when challenged by the Muslim community.
Actually Carol, you CAN have Christian prayer (as well as any other prayer) in schools, but there are certain, very specific conditions that must be met to ensure that it does not constitute an endorsement of a specific religion by the state. But because that can be such a tricky thing to navigate, a lot of school districts find it much easier to simply ban religion outright (even though that's not really legal either), leading to this widespread myth that "religion is illegal in schools".
And honestly, when it comes to things like Sharia law, it's not just Muslims who have such things. There are plenty of Christians who want to see their own variation of Sharia Law put in place in this country, and they have been making efforts to have their beliefs put into law.
Thank you, Corv, for the clarification on school prayer. You are right, doing research online is a daunting task. And I hope THIS reply gets to you. I've tried a couple of times.
My concern is that apart from the school prayer issue there is a push to rid America of ALL religion but in particular Christianity. Millions of people are guided by Christianity. It is growing worldwide. I've seen bloggers here that claim they are not Christians and yet propose certain scriptures to make a point. Christianity - while infuriating some in their past and perhaps their present - has always been a guiding doctrine. Yes there are some Christians who want to shove their version down your throat. But making a parallel comparison with Sharia Law and what you term as Christian Sharia Law is unfortunate and misguided.
As a woman, be aware: Husbands are above their wives. Qur'an 2:228 ... Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . It takes two women to equal one man as a witness. Qur’an 2:282 And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. Men are in charge of women. Qur'an 4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them." Men get a double share of the inheritance over women. Qur'an 4:11 Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. Women are required to cover their entire body and head. Qur'an 24:31 "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands. ... And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment."
Men can marry up to 4 women but women only one man. Qur'an 4:3 "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four."
You may point to some verse in the Hebrew Bible about women's second class status to men but Islamic Sharia Law is wholly different.
Carol, you are a woman who has no tolerance for anybody different than yourself, particularly homosexuals, Communists (Marxists as you put it), or Muslims. All roads lead to God, but some are more palatable than your holier than thou attitude. Don't ask me to mind my business. You have MADE it my business.
I think my reply was eaten by internet gremlins; I'm summarizing in case it decides to reappear, but in short:
Prayer in schools is not illegal, that's a common misconception. There are a lot of requirements and rules and such that exist in order to ensure prayer in school is not mistaken for an endorsement of a particular religion by the state, so a lot of districts decide to outright ban prayer (rven though that's not actually legal), becaus navigating the ins and outs of the law in addition to dealing with the misconceptions of the public is a really insanely difficult task. The ACLU has a few articles on the subject, and I turned to them myself in helping a student of a different religious faith than my own (he was Christian, I am not) in his efforts at trying to establish a bible study group in our high school back in the day. He was being told it wasn't allowed, I was helping him with proving it actually was.
As to Sharia Law, all that is, is law based on a holy text, which lots of Christians want to see implemented in this country; the only real difference I see between Christian Sharia Law and Islamic Sharia Law is which text they are choosing. I don't want to see either happen.
Christianity is DEAD!!!! The morals in the United States, and other countries in the world have declined below Sodom and Gomorrah.
Churches that ordain ministers and accept gay life styles should not have religious affiliations with the bible which reads that marriage is between a man and a woman and NOTHING else.
Noah was told to build an arc to save his family. If Noah returned today, he would never have built the original arc. His family was the beginning of a new downfall for humanity which should never have happened.
What events in current history have lead to the current level of immoral lifestyle we are witnessing today?
The FAMILY structure in the USA has been destroyed by our government dictating to parents how to raise their children. The schools now teach our children gay life is beautiful!
Thanks, but no thanks to the NEW WORLD ORDER!
I suggest you find another world then. Good luck with that!
Church and state shouldn't even be integrated the way they are, really. There are not solely Christians in America, but somehow here we are being forced to adhere to laws that only suit Christian views. America wasn't made to be a Christian country anyhow, Europeans weren't the first people here, yet somehow everyone is supposed to force themselves to be something they aren't because you're uncomfortable about the homosexuals having better relationships than your own or whatever.
PLEASE read my comment to Daron
Sorry, Gustav, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Christianity isn't dead. It's alive and unwell and BIG BUSINESS. And trying to run the show for everyone else.
Sorry Warjna, you are wrong. The morals of America has decayed to its lowest level. I am glad I am not growing up today in this decadent society. Hopefully, the next life will be better.
Have you never heard of the Wild West or The Roaring Twenties?
How about slavery, and the near-genocide of Native Americans?
I find it hard to understand how you can point to the wild west, the roaring 20's or EVEN what you classify as the near-genocide of Native Americans as a time in our history when things looked bleaker than now. Okay, I'll give you slavery - that was very bad. But, do you think our society of today parallels those of "yesteryear"
WHEN the butchering of unborn babies means nothing (35 million since it became legal); WHEN placing their body parts on the open market means nothing; WHEN a quarter million veterans' lives, lives that were put at risk for us, means nothing; WHEN this President can by his pen reduce vets benefits by $6 billion in order to help illegal immigrants fit in means nothing; WHEN this President cares more for the world view than the American view and thinks we are not exceptional means nothing; WHEN he has brought the status of race relations in this country to pre-1950 levels means nothing; WHEN a President can cut away millions from our military greatly weakening our security means nothing; WHEN the idea that what you have worked for, planned for means nothing because of government overreach; WHEN the future of your children means nothing; WHEN some Americans believe YOU owe them a living means nothing?
If those things mean nothing, then we all must put ourselves into human rehab.
I heard a phrase: We are being numbed and dumbed. We need to wake up. We've become a weak, slovenly, debauched, apologetic society. We are the New Rome - except the barbarians are no longer outside the gates; they are inside the gates. They are running the Senate; they are running the House (there are exceptions to both); they are in the judiciary - exceptions there too. They exist from the pulpit to the Pope. They are inside the Christian TV programming asking for your dollars - telepickpockets - while you sit back and do nothing else living in the status quo. Or worse, are consumed with whom you can marry?
You will no doubt say, "she is really angry!" Yes, I am angry. But I am also sad. I see Americans who have become indifferent to what is happening around them; in a willful state of denial. They are apathetic to the manipulative, political games being played. They are ignorant of the facts and of history repeating itself. Where are the morals? What happened to accountability and responsibility for your own actions.?
I am Very Upset with the Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage !!! As a Reverend of God, I Stand for Jesus & God's Holy Word (Bible)
Marriage is between a Man & a Woman as instituted By God with Adam & Eve (NOT Adam & Stevie)-Genesis 2:24. God Reaffirms this in Matthew 19:4-5 "Have You not Read that "He"-"God" who made Them from the Beginning made Them Male & Female" - "For this Reason: A Man shall Leave his Father & Mother (ONLY Females can have Babies) & be Joined to his Wife & the Two shall become One" - God also gives Instructions on Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 & Ephesians 5:23-33 which clearly Identifies Marriage as a Lifetime Union being between a LMan & a Woman.
God's Holy Word (Bible) also Clearly Condemns Homosexuality as an Immoral, Unnatural, Abomination, Detestable Sin - Leviticus 18:22 & Romans 1:26-27. 1 Corinthians 6:9 States that Homosexuals are Unrighteous & Will Not Inherit the Kingdom of God.
Do you wear gold? Eat shellfish or pork? Have you been married more than once? Go preach this dribble somewhere else other than the ULCM that embraces all world religions.
I'm following your lead, JAY. The word is "drivel" not "dribble" ROTFLMAO
Carol, I am glad you find that so funny. Glad I could make your day. And since you are rolling on the floor laughing your butt off, be sure not to dribble on yourself. You think you are a loving Christian, but all you rant on about is homosexual sex, which makes me think you have struggled with unfulfilled homosexual desires. When I was in PCUSA, I met many ordained ministers like you who spewed hate, but were really wannabe lesbians. I think you doth protest too much. It is people like you that give Christians a bad name.
Carol, you don't even choose to use a last name. That is also telling about you.
Jay, sorry, I have to step in here and disagree with you. What it says about Carol is that women in America have to be concerned at all times about people stalking them. It is quite possible that Carol leaves her name off, just as I use a pseudonym, because we do not want people who are full of hate hacking our accounts of finding out where we live. We live with that fear every day. Men do not.
Warjna, men get stalked too.
I feel sorry for the kind of heterosexuals that have such narrow, and fearful, minds, but I am very thankful to not be one of them. I am as well very happy about loving the LGBT community, while embracing and admiring their courage to be who they are. It's a super beautiful day for America, that finally…people can now start exercising their freedoms. This issue has nothing to do with God. It has to do with Love. For those of you who have forgotten, there is a purposeful separation of church and state in America. The purpose is to prevent the people's rights from being mandated by religion. So all your scriptures mean nothing with respect to the law. The law of the land is not set by the Bible. That's how it is in places like Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. Would you like the United States to look like that? The people who are idiotically discussing scripture here, are very poor excuses for understanding. You do not have to like gay people, or even that they now have the same rights that you do, but you should try to comprehend the Supreme Courts' ruling: THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND ILLEGAL, TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE. All people are equal under the law. Remember that? We are talking about law here, not the Bible!!! Which part of that is difficult for you people to get? If you want to practice religious beliefs and scripture, go to your churches. That's the place for you. And it's fine. But do not think, or act like the Supreme Court is going to dance to your music. The Supreme Court has spoken, and their ruling has struck down with thunderous power, and force…saying "So it is ordered!" So get a grip on yourselves, and get over it. Gay people, and the divine privilege of their human rights and dignity, are here to stay!!!
U speak of the law? People's rights? Love? It's all about SEX! Having sex woman on woman; man on man.
Carol is obsesses with homosexual sex. Hmm. Telling
Carol, we ARE speaking about the law, and about people's rights, and that's what this discussion is about. It is not about whether one religion considers it to be wrong for same sex people to marry, it's about the government making the decision that they have the same rights as everybody else. You are focusing only on one aspect of the relationship, and that also has nothing to do with the law. Consensual sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman has been legal in the United States for a very long time now.
Men and women as heterosexual couples (that's your "traditional" couples, if you're not sure about that word) have been having SEX without love for more years than Christianity has existed, and that's not going to change any time in the near or far future. Homosexual (that's "same sex" couples) love each other with real love in exactly the same proportions as heterosexuals, whether you want to believe that or not. Your belief won't change the facts.
As to your religion believing it is wrong and my religion believing it is not, that is something we are never going to agree on.
The point is, the government has said that it is legal. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to perform a marriage ceremony for one of them.
I'll be happy to step in and take your place any time.
Words mean something and the Supreme Court forgot this. Marriage is a religious institution for which they made a legal judgement. The focus should not have been marriage, but instead on the government's legal basis for the rights and privilages that the act conveys. It is true that a marriage licenses used to be issued by the church back in the middle ages. When government realized that a tax could be levied on the permission to marry, well they have been issuing licenses ever since. So the real discussion is not about marriage, but rather on the permission to marry. The license can result in a religious ceremony or a non-religious civil union. All persons by law should be allowed the legal rights conveyed by the rider that government has placed upon the religious institution of marriage. The act of marriage itself should be left to the beliefs of the denomination. Those that marry by a minister, a justice of the peace, a ship's captain, or any other means should all be treated the same under the law. The law on the other hand should not dictate how religion is to be practiced. The govenment conveys rights and privillages to a couple in exchange for paying for the permission to be recognized legally as a couple. This is a cash for services exchange which legally cannot be refused. Requiring religion to follow the law of man over steps many boundries - the least of which is The First Amendment. Words mean something is also gemain to the fact that legal precidence was used poorly by Justice Kennedy and main reasoning fell upon references to feelings and love. While important they do not have a legal basis and leave this topic open to future rulings. Also, poor wording allows for a strong arguement for the legalization of polygamy using this case as the legal support. Bestowing equal legal rights to all couples was the right thing to do, but not in exchange for religious freedom. It should not have come to this for something as basic as, "equal treatment under the law."
"ONE NATION UNDER GOD".. seems we have many interpretations of WHO GOD IS.... WE HAVE SATAN DECEIVING WHOMEVER HE CAN....... PEOPLE CHOOSING TO BELIEVE IN GOD...BUT NOT IN HIS WORD OR IN JESUS... MAYHEM/ CONFUSION/SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE... PROBLEMS BEGIN AND END THERE.....GOD IS NOT A CHURCH HE IS OUR CREATOR AND AS SUCH IS THERE REALLY ANYTHING WE CAN LEAVE HIM OUT OF.......UNLESS YOU ARE SATAN.. THE BIBLE HELPS US AND JESUS SAVED US AND GAVE US ETERNAL LIFE......THE END.Christians must have the upmost compassion for the lifestyles that are not in agreement with the word of our creator......BECAUSE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD...THERE GOES I....BE HUMBLE....WE GET TO CELEBRATE FOR ETERNITY......PRAISE GOD....IN HIM DO WE TRUST AND RELY.... " IT IS WRITTEN" ...................THE END IS AT HAND THE 2ND COMING OF CHRIST.... DID YOU SEE THE "STAR OF BETHLEHEM" JUNE 30TH......W0W ....GIVE GOD THE GLORY!!
PLEASE read my comment to Daron
Well, friends, this has been fun, but I leave for vacation tomorrow, so have fun with the likes of Carol and all the naysayers and prophets of doom, predicting the rise of the Antichrist and the beginning of Armageddon. Jesus help us all.
Well all humans have opinions.. do humans seek to live by higher laws be it concerning marriage or any other existing function of life.......Or.....do they follow lower laws created by courts and justify that as being the truth to live by.....There are consequences for both choices...As an Individual......What do you Choose...To live by the inner knowing of your eternal divine being.......Or...to live by the dictates of your temporary sense modalities and gradifications...... justifying it all by enforced laws by popular demands which also have a temporary nature...Choose wisely because your choices effect everyone on the planet......not just the tiny space of life that you occupy for the short time here on planet earth...
For people to not know where these so called bibles come from is the abomination to GOD. if you were to seek the truth you will not find it in a book, to know God you must go inside and deal with your demons. there is nothing external its all internal. when you choose not to deal with your past and present your future will not be clear. we are an unhappy species that refuse to deal with our own personal problems and the current issues lets you become even further from GOD. There are so many good people here that are plain ignorant about the very thing they say that they love but know very little about GOD.
Brother Tim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'you will not find it in a book..." The whole bible provides a guidebook for Christians and Jews, as opposed to some who think the "new" testament has been done away. Unfortunately, many have become very legalistic in their interpretations and follow the LETTER OF THE LAW but not the SPIRIT OF THE LAW as Jesus pointed out. (which may be where you're going with your comments.) They like to quote obscure laws in Leviticus as if to draw some conclusion that because of those laws the rest of the bible must be nonsense. Or because one thing is mentioned in the Hebrew bible and not so in the canonical gospels that it must not be applicable. Malachi 3:6, gives us a hint. "For I am the Lord, I change not..".
There are others here who say they are not Christians. Most making that statement do not say what religion they are guided by; even Atheism has been given "religion" status. What doctrine is their guide? Please do not read that I am confronting; I am simply inquiring?
In re-reading my comment of July 7, I meant to say the "old" testament regarding the two parts of the bible we have today.
Hi Carol, the Universe is their guide. when you fast like the the profits of the Bible's did, you get in touch with the God that's spoke about in the Bible's. the one their talking about. The one that all cultures that fast get in touch with. When you put your body under that kind of stress it evokes visions of God. That's why the Christian Bible tells you not to fast any longer and men want you to go through a church instead of getting in direct contact with God. For one it can be very dangerous to put your body under that type of condition and you need a spiritual guide to interpret the visions. ' why, the God / Gods of the books in question can be fearful or very loving. Your experience with God can be totally awesome or a total nightmare. most people are not capable of dealing with such a task so they go to church and live by some other person's experience that was wrote down and changed many times into the books you have today. when we can accept that we are all related and quit killing our fellow brothers and sisters, stop having the haves vs the have not's and have a true civilized society, will be the greatest day for God.
sorry that's the short explaination
Brother Tim Thank you for that definition; I understand what you're getting at now. I am leery of so broad an area as the Universe. :-D In any case, I believe that most people need some guidepost. I suppose we all can live with the Golden Rule as our guidepost. Or, it can be the 10 Commandments. Let's call it the Law of Right Action. Personally, I have a high opinion of what the bible teaches. I have done some study of the bible - both from an historical and theological perspective - and BY NO MEANS am I an expert. But, this I have learned. Studying the bible is quite different from just reading it; in particular, the "new" testament . The Jewish followers of Jesus were learned men who could both read and write in Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew. Their words were not from mystifying visions. They were experiences spoken of by the apostles and transcribed; taken from letters and various writings. I can find no reference to fasting being the means to their ends. The synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke only differ slightly from one another. How could their parallel stories come from visions resulting from fasting? And the translations you speak of through the centuries are primarily a result of word changes. It's my understanding that the Greek they used varied with the knowledge of the writer. The King James Bible (in particular) was put together by consensus of 54 scholars (70% or so belonging to Tyndale (born in early 1500's) who translated the bible from Latin to English); and through the years certain words in various iterations of the bible were changed to give them meaning in the contemporary world. All the same, it's a daunting study to which scholars have dedicated their whole lives. There are many individuals who can become very LEGALISTIC in their interpretations - word for word for word. But I repeat myself, they are ones more apt to follow the LETTER of the law in lieu of the SPIRIT of the law. If you read and "listen" to the Word it comes alive; it will have value. They are words of example, admonition, encouragement, hope, a guiding light to God who is always and ever within, if we have the courage to speak to Him.
Hi Carol, try reading Luke 22:35-36 , Matthew 6:17-18 9:15 Isaiah 58:6-7 and many more. this might help you, I'm sorry you feel a need to be punished,people that need strict rules have issues. When a person has a lack of personal experience with God they tend to be more fixated on the rules. People that are under the direction of God do not need rules they do not kill, they do no harm they don't do anything that produces violence especially in God's name. Folks get the idea some how that God needs to be feared but I only fear the followers that misinterpret their holy books. as far as I can see Christians are no different than the Muslim's in their misunderstanding's of their holy books.
Carol, if you check Luke 22:35-36 Matthew 6:17-18 9:15 Isaiah 58:6-7 might give you some info . I understand that in the time of someone's need the word can be comforting, Its you yourself that must understand where this comforting comes from. and how off the path it can also take you like it has many others. There are universal truths like some of the ten commandments. If you know the story of how the Elks lodge came about, you might understand more about religion. If you remember Jesus chastised the apostle's because they had his teaching's all wrong and they did, most folks are still following the wrong path under Christianity. The King James version is the worst translation of the old text's hence King James VERSION. the Bible is written in a type of code, that's why they praise Constantine ( who had and helped the first bible be assembled 312-325 ad) for conquering the poor under the sign of the cross and his foe. You must seek the truth about books you put your faith into. I prefer to do it the old fashion way, I fasted for several days found MY truth. This is what is lacking in our culture today. Have you heard of Dr. Joseph Campbell ? Try reading some of his books. The power of Myth is a good one. By all means we are children of God's universe we are all connected in some way and we are all afraid of unconditional love toward our fellow human being's. not saying fasting will solve all your ill's cause it won't some people get visions,while others do not. Tha'ts the mystery
Brother Tim, I don't know which posting to answer. I saw your posting from July 18 but only now when I was preparing to respond did I see your posting from July 16. Different in their impact, for sure, and certainly requires two different responses.
So I will answer your July 18 posting first. It's amazing that you are able to determine my purpose in reading the bible from only 1 or maybe a few postings. Other than your own interpretation of certain behaviors, you have no real basis for your conclusion. (It's also interesting that you chose to use scripture to make your point when you claim there is nothing to be gained from reading it.) Your presumption - simply put - is that people who read the bible NEED strict rules. That is nonsense. It's a narrow and counterproductive message to all who find love and comfort in the Word.
Fear of God can be defined as reverential fear, awe or wonderment. It is not the kind of fear that would make one cower in a corner. We fear God because He is God. We are constantly learning and growing in God and will never know Him completely until we are with Him. Everyone is on their own path to the Kingdom of God and "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
I recognize your zeal in promoting a oneness with God. On its face, it's a good thing. Perhaps you think you have reached the ultimate state of enlightenment in that you need no further instruction. Others are still learning.
But I gasped when I read your ending comment: "as far as I can see Christians are no different than the Muslim’s in their misunderstanding’s of their holy books." I had to stop right there. It requires a great deal of time to put into words what I think about that.
Jay, shame on you. You have been on the money most of the time prior to this, but you just stepped over the line into personal insult. If you can't rebut with reason, it's time to stop, because you're letting your emotions and your ego drive your keyboard.
Thank you, friend. I did lodge a complaint against Jay but have not gotten a response from the "blogmaster". I was very disappointed in the ULC that would allow such comments to be posted - even though they issue a disclaimer saying that comments are moderated prior to being posted - and have deleted posts of a much more benign nature.
In any case, my angry response to Doug here was to point out what I believe to be the sticking point of this issue. I think what most of the dissenters on this blog are against is sodomy; (and for a lack of proper physical terminology for Lesbianism) the sexual behavior of Lesbians. When proponents speak of SSM they always speak of "love". No one here denies anyone's right to love. We love all people; we despise the acts of homosexuality. True, there are some Christians who - like Gays - try to shove Christianity down their throats. I'm sure it is frustrating. But let me say to change the law of the land and to legislate acceptance is not going to work in the long term. And, for those who believe this is all about the legal aspects of SSM, frankly, I think that is a weak argument. (I've said it in posts prior to the SCOTUS ruling.) Why didn't the NLGJA lobby for a national referendum? The people would have spoken.
In fact, I think there is a backlash coming that will not be pleasant for anyone. The NLGJA lobbied very loudly (along with a very in-your-face community) and for all intents and purposes got their wish. The dissenters (particularly those of the church) were incredulously silent. Justice Kennedy, a good man, ruled with his emotions and was short-signted in the long terms effects along with two other Justices - when in point of ethics- they should have recused themselves since they had performed gay marriage ceremonies in their past. I believe the joy and celebration will be shortlived.
The backlash I see coming is that those dissenters in the church who will refuse to perform SSM will be confronted. These are only small examples that have already occurred. There are those who will sue to have church's tax exemption status removed, simply on a point of principle or more likely revenge. I don't think that will engender love and compassion. And regarding those services that refuse to "bake a cake" for one gay couple will likely go out of business rather than be forced to do something that is against their nature. Will that be a rewarding result? The hateful, more aggressive dissenters will now be emboldened.
In a final comment, there is an insidious drive in this country to stifle Christianity. I say to those that pump their fists at that notion, "be careful what you wish for." Christianity won't take up a sword and cut off your head.
My soulmate said Carol deserved it, but I should not have written it. I still see that Carol is trolling this page. I am not convinced she is a ULCM minister. If she is, so be it. It takes all kinds to make a world. I like your comments, Warjna. Carol has belittled everyone on this page who doesn't agree with her. Although distasteful, I found the statement was probably right on the money.
When I was younger, I went to an all-girl Catholic High School. My best friends were boarding students, while I was a "day tripper." In our sophomore year, three of my friends were expelled on suspicion of homosexual activity. I say suspicion, because my friends told me that no such thing had happened, and I have absolutely no reason to believe they were lying. Yes, they were gay, but they had done absolutely nothing wrong -- unless you believe that merely existing as God had created them is "wrong."
Because I associated with them, I was watched every second of every day that I was there, even after one of my friends was reinstated as a student because her parents were able to put legal pressure to bear on the school. I knew these girls very well, and each one of the three were good people. Caring individuals who would reach out and help someone who needed it, people who spoke and stood up for the truth, people who actually lived what Christ had preached about.
But I saw, and felt in my own self, the pressure, and the intolerance, and the hate that "Christians" put on us. People who were not only of the religion, but members of a religious order, who certainly ought to have been practicing what He preached.
As it happens, two of my friends moved in together after graduating high school. They are still together, 44 years later, in a true, loving, faithful monogamous relationship. And because the State of New York has some intelligent and tolerant people, they were able to celebrate that loving relationship by marrying. And when I heard, over a thousand miles away, I cried for happy.
It is because of them, and because of that experience, that I am a member of this church -- so that WHEN the State of Florida made its decision I would be able to unite other loving same sex couples in marriage. It is because of them that I am an activist for equality. And it is because of them that I celebrate the Supreme Court's decision. Whether you feel the Supreme Court acted for the right reasons or the wrong ones, the fact is that equality is now the law of the land.
And just so you know -- I didn't do it because I'm gay. I'm not. I did it because it was RIGHT.
And I'm damned proud of it, too!
Just based on reading the comments on this subject, it is clear that this is a hot topic and will remain a hot topic for a long time to come. Inasmuch as religious marriage and civil marriage are never going to see eye to eye, perhaps it is time for the church (regardless of denomination) to get out of the civil marriage business. Perhaps we would all be better pastors if we spoke to the subject of religious marriage, regardless of civil law. The U.S. Is one of only a handful of countries in the world in which clergy can certify marriages for the state. As long as that condition exists, the church is always going to have an issue with what the state considers to be marriage. What would be wrong with clergy telling their congregants that they will only perform religious marriage ceremonies going forward? That these ceremonies will in no way have legality in the eyes of the state. If couples wish that legality to avail themselves of tax privileges, etc., they will need to get married civilly as well. Yes, it is an extra step for the couple, but this is one of the most important events in their lives. Is one more step that much of an inconvenience? I think not. This way, clergy can fully retain their religious autonomy and choose to perform biblical marriages according to the tenets of their faith and let the state do what they will. Truth be told, the county clerks throughout America perform more marriages in a month than most clergy perform in a lifetime! No one has told the church what to do, so let's stop telling the government what to do as well!
Tom Your suggestion is an interesting one. It certainly would put some true meaning behind the concept of separation of church and state. But, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me that Civil Unions were designed to do just that. The chaos that the country has been thrown into as a result of the SCOTUS ruling was predicted by many. Religious liberties, unlike sexual liberties, or even marriage, were specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, the States have been forced to propose legislation (and at this point in time 20 states have legislation underway, I will add) to prevent the federal government from revoking tax exempt status for religious institutions. I don't have access to which of the county clerks you speak of as performing more marriages in a month utilize the services of clergy, but some of them have already declined to perform SSM. This was predictable.
Thank you. As I understand civil union legislation in states that had it, the benefits didn't equal those given under "marriage". Additionally, many companies only recognize benefits for married persons and not those in civil unions. It would require a lot of legislative and corporate changes to equalize this difference. I see nothin wrong with the term marriage for either kind of union. As for clerks utilizing clergy, this does not happen due to the First Amendment. And if it does, it is highly unconstitutional. I believe that the First Amendment protects churches and gurantees their autonomy. The real problem is for those doing business in the public sector. I do not consider universities, hospitals and such, even if owned by a church, to be churches. They are in the public sector and should be governed by laws that forbid discrimination of any kind. Overall, I believe tax exemptions have been very abused in the name of religious belief. Thanks for the dialogue, Carol.
Thank you for responding, Carol. My understanding is that civil unions do not carry with them the full weight of law for benefits...particularly federal benefits such as taxation. I personally do not get hung up on the word marriage and see no problem with it. As of June 26 there is no more straight marriage nor gay marriage. It is just marriage. As far as clerks utilizing clergy to perform marriages...that is illegal according to the First Amendment. I also believe that tax exemption for religious bodies has been widely abused. A church is one thing, and if they perform an important community service they should remain tax exempt even if their dogma forbids SSM. But churches have gone into the public sector and claim exemptions because they own universities, hospitals, etc. and while these can be considered community services they are not churches and are available to the public at large and often receive public funds for their operation. That disqualifies them for tax exemptions in my view. So far, no church has been told what to do. If they do not wish to perform marriages for certain people, they are still free do decline. Whether the couple is gay or previously married and divorced, interracial should make no difference to the government. If it fits within the theology and teachings of a particular church, they are free to do as they please. The problem starts when churches move into the public sector and start telling the government who they should or should not marry. The government does not run the church and the church should not run the government. That is why I advocate removing churches from the civil marriage business. Churches will have their religious autonomy then and the government will have autonomy as well. It all goes back to that "rendering" idea of Jesus. Carol, the churches of this nation have a lot of soiled linen, enough so that getting involved in government is most inappropriate. Churches will not change the world until they make the concerted effort to change themselves. If they clean their own soiled linen and hang it out on the line to dry, all white and bright, people will be knocking on their door asking how they did that. Silent evangelization is the most powerful kind. I have enjoyed our dialog, Carol, and wish you well.
I am a born-again Christian and I do not support gay marriage. God's word says it's wrong and that is that. I think that those of you who do support it have no idea what you are doing. If this heinous sin is not repented of and if this country does not turn back to God, He is going to destroy this country like He did Sodom and Gomorrah.
Do you support polygamy -- a man having more than one wife?
Not that I'm proposing to you or anything. :-) I'm just interested to know how close to the Bible your personal definition of marriage is.
It is about time people come to their senses & treat everyone as equals. God sees all people as his/her, precious children. We are all created from the same Source & return back to it at our last breath on this planet.
Thank God I'm Wiccan. All this talk about the bible and it's ridiculousness is making me puke. God does NOT care if you are a straight married couple or a gay married couple. He loves you regardless.
Wow, that's a little strong. Wicca is called a very peaceful and harmonious way of life which promotes oneness with the divine (a God AND a Goddess) and all which exists. It is also true that Wicca might best be described as a modern religion, based on ancient Witchcraft traditions, what is called the Old Religion. But you call the talk of the Bible ridiculousness and makes you want to puke? You certainly don't follow the tenets of Wicca.
You thank God that you're a Wiccan. Have you got some special insight into what God likes or doesn't like? I wouldn't presume to know what God knows. In any case, please educate me. What or who is the "divine?" Does Wicca support abortion? Because there is consensual sodomy within a male homosexual relationship, does Wicca defend sodomy? Does Wicca speak of an afterlife? Are there foundational "tenets"; a written doctrine perhaps that one can search for guidance? Do you love all people including those that read the Bible?
I'll probably regret wading into this, but here goes . . .
I assumed the "Thank God I’m Wiccan" comment was meant tongue-in-cheek, sort of like "Thank God I'm an atheist." Maybe it wasn't, but I thought it was funny.
I,too, find a good deal of the Bible talk on this thread to be pretty ridiculous. I wouldn't say it makes me want to puke, but then again, I'm fairly soft-spoken. Over the years I've gotten pretty tired of hearing folks use Bible verses as clubs to beat one group or another over the head. That's not what Scripture is for.
I would never presume to declare that someone doesn't follow the tenets of their own religion, based on one sentence of one post. Especially if I had just a Wikipedia-summary amount of knowledge about that religion, as Carol appears to have. Carol, maybe you have some special insight into Wicca that I don't? Are Wiccans never supposed to get angry or disgusted or something?
Well if you thought it was funny, then you and she see with one eye. I simply didn't think her outburst was representative of Wicca - if being a Wiccan is supposed to be a peaceful and harmonious way of life. I don't profess to be an expert on Wicca but a remark like yours must mean that you think it a requirement to be fully informed about Wicca before having an opinion about a Wiccan's behavior.
Isn't it the fundamental task of the ULC to promote freedom of religion? Well, the largest religious group in the world is Christianity so it's logical to assume that there are many Christians posting on this blog. In my opinion, some Christians in their interpretation of the bible, follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. That makes them very legalistic and in your face. But I respect their right to say what they believe.
But, our Wiccan sister finds it tiresome (you do also) that on this blog someone uses scripture to point out behaviors that in their interpretation are wrong? It isn't enough to live and let live; we must also set an example whether a Christian, a Jew or a Wiccan. That is why I found her outburst a counterpoint and out of place here.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Stop! There is only one group of people in this entire nation who are affected by the Supreme Court decision on SSM. That group is gay people. And even then, only those gay people who might decide to entertain the idea of marriage. No one else, I repeat, no one else is affected by this decision. Straight people are not being told that their marrange is invalid, churches are not being told what to do, what to worship or how to worship. Churches are not being told whom to marry, Catholic Churches do not have to start marrying previously divorced couples. Even businesses are not bing told what to do unless their city or state have laws on the books forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which many do. News flash! The sky is not falling! I find the uproar fro. Religious bodies on this matter to be very disingenuous. Where was the uproar from the churches when state legislatures enacted no fault divorce? There was none. I remember those years very well. I believe that did more to ruin the sanctity of marriage than any other event. In fact, many clergy silently liked the idea because they no longer felt compelled to give sermons on adultery. When was the last time you heard a pastor preach on that subject? It has been a long time, if ever. St. Paul reminds the church in First Corinthians, "Who am I to judge those who are not within the church? Do we not judge those that are within the church? God will judge those outside the church. In the meantime, get rid of the evil doers among yourselves." Mind your own business! Let us focus on cleaning our own soiled linen. Let us not forget that churches are hospitals for sinners, not a social club for the righteous who seem to enjoy being offended by those who are not even members of their body. Render unto Caesar and render unto God. The government is not telling the church what to do, and the church has no business telling the government what to do.
James Grimes, why do you suggest that it is CHRISTIANITY that "they" want to destroy? Islam, Judaism, and many other non-Abrahamic religions are also not known for being open to homosexuality. Why do you not suggest that "they" want to destroy Islam, Judaism, and other alleged anti-homosexual religious doctrines?
Why is your "holy writings" any more true or correct than anybody else's? Every version of The Bible that I have ever read is full of contradictions and vagaries that can be interpreted multiple ways. People from Jewish and Islamic backgrounds have mentioned similar things about the "holy writings and teachings" from their backgrounds. I can only surmise that all of this contradiction and vagary, as well as the "busywork" often employed by some congregations, is merely serving the purpose of "crazy-making". It is to occupy or shatter people psychologically and make it easier to control them. Many organized religions seem to be a sham, or at least a misinterpretation, used to control the masses while powerful people exploit them. Read about psychological bullying.
How do you know that your "holiness" is more valid than somebody else's? You only "know" what you have been told or manipulated to believe. Try taking a World Religion class that is not affiliated with your religious background in any way. Be curious. Ask questions. Ask questions from multiple unrelated sources. Why would The Creator of All be afraid of questions? Why would The Creator of All be afraid of ANYTHING? We will never have The Creator's power...and many of us don't want it.
Wow. God is love, God is peace. I love everyone and I don't judge.
For all of you who are followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ, please provide the scriptural evidence that Jesus preached that homosexuality is a sin and an “abomination.” Do not refer to the O/T unless you’re prepared to defend slavery, the killing of disobedient children, “non-believers” and other barbaric practices. You are CHRISTians. What did your Saviour teach?
Really? You also know that there is no outright scriptural condemnation of homosexuality by Jesus. You also know that that is the mainstay of so-called Christian, pro-gay rhetoric for many years.
But I point to Matthew 5:17-18 regarding the Law and the Prophets: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Which law stipulates homosexuality to be an abomination. Leviticus 18:22. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
But, are you saying, only Jesus words will do?
He says nothing explicitly about homosexuality, but he does so about marriage and what he says completely precludes same sex marriage.
Matthew 19:3-6. Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”