polygamy, bigamy, biblical marriage

Is same-sex marriage part of a redefinition of an age old institution?

That's an easy one: yes.

Gays and their allies should just give up trying to combat that charge. Marriage has been around since well before the United States. The Supreme Court should remember that fact this summer as they consider whether gay couples have a right to wed.

Marriage has a rich history, dating back even to Biblical times when men like King David were blessed by God with a collection of wives and even a harem to boot. Gay marriages don't conform to that Biblical notion of "traditional marriage".

Leaders of nations betrothed their daughters not as equal brides, but as property to men of neighboring nations as a means of attaining peace. Same-sex couples fail to resemble that model.

As Justice Ginsburg pointed out during the April 28th Supreme Court proceedings, the reason gay and lesbian couples seek to join the ranks of married couples is because as recently as the 1970's, heterosexuals have fundamentally upended the notion of marriage as being Biblical (straight heathens marry every day), or a tradition of chattel trading, or a means of preserving the races. They decided to redefine it as two adults consenting to join in love and commitment. This union of equals casts out roles defined by gender, thereby opening the door for same-sex couples.

Religion vs. Religion

gay marriage, same sex marriage, christian, church
- Gay Christian marriage

Like it or not, this isn't a religious nation. That isn't to say that there are not religious people here, both liberal and conservative. We could even say that a large majority of American citizens are religious or spiritual, but we have no official religion and we were founded on the idea that we simply cannot, lest we become the new Church of England from which our forefathers escaped.

If we ignore this and pretend that even one religion amongst the many practiced here, let's say Christianity, has legal weight, we don't end up with a clear position on same-sex marriage.

The Bible says man should not be with man, but it also praises polygamous unions and incestuous procreation things we outlaw today. Christians themselves are not in agreement on the issue with many denominations ordaining same-sex unions. Why does one side of the debate have the right to speak for the whole flock?

What faces the court is a reality question. Should big government micromanage our private lives to tell us who we can marry, or as Republicans often advocate for on other issues, should the government keep its nose out of it?

What do you think?


penguins, gay animals
- a couple of gayguins

Being gay goes against nature so the claim goes. Let's look to the animals that exhibit this behavior like bison, lions, octopus, goats, owls, sunfish, giraffes, lizards, dogs, orcas, elephants, emus, crabs, snakes, salmon, foxes, caribou, jewel fish, raccoons, seagulls, turtles, ravens, graylings the list goes on and on. You even see animals of the same gender couple up and stay together for years, most famously, penguins.

If a deity or the universe itself created the natural world, clearly there is a role in it for the many homosexual animals, including humans. Homosexuality isn't an animalistic desire humans must rise above. If one claims that it is, and animals exhibit both homosexual and heterosexual traits, why isn't heterosexuality prey to the same complaint?

Procreation! That's the difference, right? Let's set aside issues of overpopulation. Gay sex doesn't make babies - granted. If that was so damning a fact, all of the animals listed above would be in danger of being wiped out, yet they are not. It is a naïve notion to think that the survival of humanity depends on each union being able to reproduce. We don't restrict marriage to only those that can and will have children.

The Case May Be

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules this summer. At one point during the oral arguments, the justices almost seemed surprised to learn that the religious nature of a church wedding is not what makes it legally binding. It is only legal by virtue of submitting civil paperwork through the government.

Universal Life Church ministers, and in particular our wedding officiants, know darn well that while those who are ordained compose one of the few groups of people that can perform a wedding, it is a procedure that only works insofar asmarriage cert and rings legal steps are taken.

Arguments against marriage equality are internally inconsistent as we have shown above. Sexuality is an invention of either a deity or nature. Humans don't make choices as to sexual orientation any more than other animals do.

Same-sex love is natural, has persisted throughout the centuries, doesn't cause harm, and is consistent with the way straight people have defined marriage. Husbands no longer dominate their wives (in most cases, unless you are a religious fundamentalist). Gender roles have been muted over time.

Put crudely, if marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, and men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, then marriage is also the legal union of a man and a man, as well as a woman and a woman.

Next time you visit a Las Vegas wedding chapel, ask the officiant how many "sanctified" straight marriages last the test of time or how many fail in divorce - even just months later. Marriage is a matter that belongs to those who chose to participate in it, and it is the religious right of gays to enjoy their unions as nature and God intended.

Let us know what you think.


  1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

    No one faith nor culture may lay authoritative claim to either the concept nor term marriage. There is no one "traditional" form of marriage. Even within the Abrahamic faiths, (think "Bible"), there are several forms of marriage. If your faith opposes same-gender marriage, take that up with your faith leaders. In the U.S., the rest of us are under no obligation to follow any of the tenants of your faith. Simple solution: if you are opposed to same-gender marriage for whatever reason, don't have one.

    1. Dan's Avatar Dan

      And we are under no obligation to follow yours either Joe. Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan must recuse themselves from the upcoming decision on homosexual marriage.

      The reason is simple: their impartiality on the matter has been hopelessly compromised.

      Here’s how Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States MUST and SHALL disqualify himself/themselve(s) in any proceeding in which his/their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

      Thus any justice who has tipped his hand on how they would vote on gay marriage, any justice who has taken sides, any justice whose ability to be objective on the matter in question, has a legal, moral, ethical and professional duty to withdraw. In fact, they would be violating federal law if they didn’t. Their sacred, sworn duty as a justice is to uphold the law, not break it.

      Both Kagan and Ginsburg have performed same-sex wedding ceremonies. Ginsburg has at least three and maybe five such ceremonies under her belt, and she even performed one of them in the chambers of the Supreme Court itself.

      Kagan likewise performed a highly publicized same-sex ceremony for a former law clerk in Maryland just last September. As Federal law demands, they MUST recuse themselves so there are two of the SSM supporters that cant vote. And if they do vote, it invalidates the decision if its for SSM and makes no difference if its against it, which it has to be. The Supreme Court has already ruled in two cases that marriage is between a man and a woman Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888) and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). And the ONLY way they can rule for SSM is by overturning or invalidating these two decisions. Otherwise if they rule for SSM then they have a conflict and the decision is void as the two previous decisions were not overturned BEFORE this SSM marriage might be approved.

      And even IF they rule for SSM, they cant enforce it as they have the Employment decision out of Oregon and the Santeria decision out of Florida that bans all local-county-state and federal governments from making or enacting any law or regulation that would violate a citizen or a business owner or property owner from the full practice of their religion or religious tenants. Meaning that people and business owners can still refuse to hire-refuse to serve-refuse to rent to any SS couple and there is not one legal thing that can be done. Heck even the US Constitution clearly states that in the 1st Amendment. So the ONLY way to change this is by a constitutional amendment opening up the 1st Amendment to change, and the media is NOT going to allow that.

      Like it or not, the law is the law and it isnt going to change anytime soon.


      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Your baseless rants again, gray? More wasted electrons.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          No baseless rant here joe, its fact! And its clearly documented if you would bother to look before spewing insults. But then again thats all you can do.

          So spew all you want Joe, the facts prove that you yet again dont have any idea what you are talking about

          1. Chris's Avatar Chris

            So the two most likely to vote against what you want, Daniel, simply must recuse themselves while those who are most likely to vote in favor of what you want, namely the priest and other very "Christian" justices, are perfectly acceptable? Of course, stack the deck. Makes sense. That's the only way discrimination and bigotry stands a chance. None of the justices are above bias on this. You just want the odds better in your favor.

          2. bmeltoniii's Avatar bmeltoniii

            AMEN TO THAT MR GRAY,,,

          3. Walter Green's Avatar Walter Green

            I have to ask - are you an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court? I am not, but I have studied the law and clerked in a law office of an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, and in my understanding the Supreme Court does not work the way you say it does. The Court has overturned any number of prior decisions - it does not go back and retry those cases, overturn them, and then issue a new ruling. The ruling on the current case is what modifies or overturns the prior ruling.

            Rulings of the Court are part of a long and continually changing body of case law that interprets the Constitution and the other laws of the nation and the states. It has been that way for 200 years, and it is the way the system is designed to operate.

            If Justices who have opinions on issues were prohibited from voting, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia would also all have to recuse themselves. When a Justice writes an opinion for or against a case, or subscribes to a majority opinion, they are pretty clearly indicating where their partiality lies on the issue. The decision in the Defense of Marriage case would therefore disqualify all of the Justices from voting on the current case. Impartiality is not interpreted in that way, as both Justices Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly demonstrated.

          4. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            You mean like Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves in the Hobby Lobby case or Citizens United or Bush Vs Gore? I shall wait for you reply but I am guessing you weren't up in arms back then now were you Mr Gray?

          5. Dan's Avatar Dan

            So how about you PROVING they had to recuse themselves Kevin? Just saying so does not make it fact. I on the other had DID prove why these two justices MUST under federal law recuse themselves or the decision if it goes for SSM is now moot.

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            No walter, I am not and attorney and never claimed to be one. BUT I know what the law says as I looked it up in Blacks, something you would be very familiar with if you actually did clerk where you claimed to have done.

            So sorry, you cannot make false implications or impune my post when I used the EXACT same law books that every attorney in the US and ever law school and judge in the US uses.

          7. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Chris, the law is clear, and as judges both kagen and Ginsburg MUST follow the law or any decision they make is invalidated. So if they vote for the SSM then they have violated the law and as such the decision if it is for the SSM, is unable to be enforced.

            And please show us exactly WHERE in the US Constitution it says that you have a right to get married. Dont bother looking as it does not exist. As such if they rule FOR SSM, then they are violating Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution which clearly says that only CONGRESS has the right to make a law or give the weight of law to anything, thus making the decision for SSM unconstitutional and illegal and unenforceable.

            This is not rocket science and its all clearly spelled out if you would bother to look.

          8. preta4's Avatar preta4

            In the end, when man's mixed and messed up laws try to usurp the God of Heaven and Earth, guess Who Is the Final Authority? NO matter what we think, on Judgement Day, those who've made "they're own choices", will be in for a very rude and mindblowing awakening. God/Jesus help them before it's too late?

      2. Michael Ulshafer's Avatar Michael Ulshafer

        Question: have any of the other justices performed any kind of weddings? If so does that mean they have to recuse as well. I guess Im confused on how gay marriage will delude this sacred institution. Our divorce rate has done that already hasn't it? By all means I understand the puritan values this country is based on and I find comfort in our conservative values, but marriage is a civil matter not a religious matter. If it were a religious matter the church would have the final say it does not and thus it is a civil matter. So let same sex couple protect themselves legally and save your ranting for the pulpit. We are all sinners here and I have strong views on issues as well, but this has become a hate topic and its simple "give to Cesar what is Cesar" taxes are a civil matter just like marriage is. Leave it to the politicians.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Again, this has nothing to do with traditional marriage,as if it did then YES they WOULD be required to recuse themselves under federal law. Just like Ginsburg and Kagen MUST recuse themselves because they preformed SSM under the same Title 18 United States Code.

          If they refuse to recuse themselves, then no matter if it goes For SSM, the law/decision is moot as it was passed in violation of existing federal law and cannot be enforced nor recognized.

          I am sorry if that offends you but as a judge they are required to follow the law and not ignore the laws they dont like.

          1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel , so anyone who disagrees with a case must recuse themselves in your limited education of the law? Think about that. All of the right wing judges must also recuse themselves because they have NOT preformed the Same Sex marriages.. what works for one side MUST by reason work for the other.
            You also have yet to show one place where Christ said anything against gays or gay marriage. He did condemn divorce, bigotry and judging others. He did not support hate nor discrimination but many so called christians seem to revel in it.. even to the extent of cherry-picking the very book they claim to base their religious beliefs on.

        2. Steve Koreis-MacLeod's Avatar Steve Koreis-MacLeod

          Finally, a rational argument! I'm going to assume that you meant to type "dilute" rather than 'delude' but other than that, you are spot on.

          1. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry, not a rational argument in any case as this has nothing to do with straight marriage, its all about homosexual marriage.

            Thanks for playing but you lost yet again

          2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel.. give it up .... you apparently have refused to follow the agreement you made with the ULC when you joined.
            " The Universal Life Church Monastery, also known as the "ULC", has been serving our online church community for over 35 years.

            Our fundamental task is to promote freedom of religion and to "do that which is right." We appeal to a worldwide audience through our online church services and a belief that "we are all children of the same universe."

            Over 20 million ministers worldwide have become ordained with the Universal Life Church. The ULC is open to people of all faiths, offering everyone the religious freedom to become an ordained minister and practice your beliefs."

            BTW that is from the very front page of this site.

          3. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Beliefs is one thing, but the law still is the law and you follow the law or expect results from not doing so.

            Its not rocket science.

          4. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Yes, follow the law. Don't bear false witness. Don't treat others badly. Don't be a Daniel Gray.

      3. Carra Earl's Avatar Carra Earl

        So the justices that support traditional marriage must also step down??? That leaves no one on the Supreme Court who can vote. They are only human and always have their own opinion on EVERY issue. That does not mean they cannot make a fair ruling.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Nice try at smoke and mirrors but it wont work. This is not about traditional marriage, this is about SSM. Now if this was about traditional marriage and ANY of these judges had preformed a traditional marriage as Ginsburg and Kagen have done with the SSM, then my answer would be yes they should recuse themselves.

          And it makes no difference what you or I think. The law clearly demands that Ginsburg AND Kagen recuse themselves. They have no choice. And if they refuse then the decision is moot as it was passed illegally.

          1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            I never saw either of their names mentioned in that law Daniel. If they must recuse themselves then the other side must as well. The others have NOT preformed same sex marriages so they have no basis for judging then.
            You have a personal agenda do deny rights to others ... it is not based on law nor on the bible .. only on your feelings and your interpretations of both. You are not a lawyer nor a judge please dont try to decide the law for others.

        2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Carra, this IS about SSM. So those performing SSM should recuse themselves. You, Kenny, or any one else can dispute what Daniel says, but not what he cites as laws and ordinances. Its there for all to check out and rebut. Good luck with that one. I think it should be a State's Rights Issue but that's my opinion.

          1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            Kevin and Daniel you are so wrong it is mind boggling. The Supreme court does and will have the right to rule and in fact take that so called right of the state away. So based on your thinking interracial marriage is in fact illegal because it was the state's right to have laws regulating against it based on bible passages which were relied on as the reason against it. Wait, that was a ruling of the supreme court that ruled on marriage. Yes, welcome to the 1960's boys. Take off the blinders and try reading case law before spouting what you haven't been able to bully and insult people into believing,


            So tell us all again how the supreme court can not change the definition of marriage. I will be happy along with people study law and the rest of the of the world how you can tell this forum how things work. I'm sure everyone here is dying to learn from your infinite wisdom.

          2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Bible passages denying interracial marriage. You're stretching things a little too far, Kenny. I'm not denying that there are loons out there who come up with some ridiculous things in the name of Christianity to put their thumbs on people, Westboro Baptist Church is a fine ex. of that, but show us where in the Bible God said no interracial marriage. The only reason that the Jews and the house of Israel stayed with their own was to preserve a pure blood line from Adam's genealogy, through King David's genealogy to Jesus Christ. And that was because the fallen angels impregnated the daughters of men to destroy the seed line. Besides, you injected interracial marriage into the conversation not us. My wife won't agree with that. I'm Caucasian and she's Chinese, and we're Christian. besides it will never happen again. And stop whining, nobody is bullying you about anything. They just don't agree with you, grow up. Its my opinion that its a state's rights issue I can't speak for Daniel. And its "my" opinion, you don't have to agree or even acknowledge it. Do you think I care? I'm not trying to impose my will on you, I'm stating my opinion relative to "me" based on my belief in the Bible. Believe whatever you want, just stop the name calling, its unacceptable.

          3. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Kenny, I am dead on accurate, but I see that you are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to try and prove me wrong and failing each time.

            Oh and BTW, if you were in college and you tried to use wikipedia as a source, you would not only receive a failing grade on the assignment, but you would quite probably receive a failing grade on the whole class. You cannot use a source that can be altered or changed depending on the whim of the person reading it.. A source is something that is finite and does not change, unlike wikipedia. So how about you try and use a better source?

          4. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            Daniel, you are one of the most bitter, hateful, deceptive, dishonest, disingenuous people I have had the displeasure to encounter. Not because we disagree. Because if you can't get your point across and everyone tells you how brilliant you are you insult and lie. The case I cited was relevant to the point and the fact that it came up on wikipedia has no bearing on the validity of the case. Nice try. You are wrong again. Kevin, try backing out of Daniels backside because you are so far up there every time you sneeze Daniel has to wipe his nose.

          5. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Have not lied Kenny, everfything I have said I have backed up with valid proof and links. My apologies if this busts your bubble but you dont have to make up falsehoods to try and get your point across. Since you cant refute what I have said, why not just admit same instead of going on this little childish falsehood tirade of yours

          6. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            More derpidity from Gray. No surprise there. He is a false witness, and he worships a false god.

        3. Robert's Avatar Robert

          Carra you are right on with your statement.

        4. preta4's Avatar preta4

          Carra, your comments here are right on the money, but look at who you're 'preaching' to sadly? The Universal church of doing what-ever-you-feel-like-as-long-as-it-pleases-you, in other words just another cult. Listen to the mantra:"do what's right in your own eyes, we are children of the same universe", just waiting for the chants to start.

          P.S. Might I ask once again what part of "man not lying (sexually) with man, as a woman lying with a man ( Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27)" are you NOT getting? As for, "we are all children of the same universe", from your perspective I just might agree, as at least you didn't say we're all God's children, which is so far from the truth (1 John 3:10, and **Galatians 3:26***. Thank God for His Word.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Perhaps you're confusing this church with whatever church you belong to. Your doctrine and dogma aren't really relevant here, except perhaps to those folks who subscribe to them. I trust you don't eat bacon, don't wear cotton-poly blends, don't let sassy children live, and don't wear jewelry. I'll pray for you.

          2. Len DeSecottier's Avatar Len DeSecottier

            Whoops, I saw you in a seafood restaurant the other day and what was on your plate did not have fins::::: Leviticus 11:9-12King James Version (KJV)

            9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

            10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

            11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

            12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. King James Version (KJV)

            Let's not pick and choose which verse we carry a big stick with...........I love Jesus, I listen to Jesus, but the Jesus I know did not give us instructions to judge others, I think He said love one another..........or did I get that wrong too.

      4. Taylor Winkler's Avatar Taylor Winkler

        Ask Scalia if he has ever refused to recuse himself when he should have. He has quite a few conflicts of interest under his belt.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Yet again you do the same thing. You make a claim yet you provide NO proof to back you up. This is why no one believes you

      5. Len DeSecottier's Avatar Len DeSecottier

        WOW, now that would make it easy, eliminate anyone who might vote in favor of what you are against and the law is upheld. Great job here, I had not considered that as an option. I wonder if we can do that in life in general?

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          I didnt write the law child, but if you are a judge you are REQUIRED to uphold the laws. This is not rocket science or brain surgery. A Judge CANNOT just ignore a legally valid and passed law just because they may not like it.

      6. Brian Kneeland's Avatar Brian Kneeland

        If you really read the bible you must wonder about David and Jonathon! Or Jesus and John the beloved disciple. Were these not marriages of a sort? My answer is yes!

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Nice try. Leave it to a SSM supporter to try and pervert friendships into something that fits their agenda. Tell us oh sage, how many historical figures have you SSM supporters tried to convince were homosexual? Heck you even have a US Congress member who is trying so very hard to get people to believe that the founding fathers were all homosexuals.

          Nice try at scraping the bottom of the bathroom stool, but it wont work.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, please do try to remember the basics of the ULC:The Universal Life Church was founded on the basic belief that we are all children of the same universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by which it expects its ministers to conduct themselves:

            1. Do only that which is right.
            2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws. We have made it our mission to actualize these

            Please try to conduct yourself accordingly.

        2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Kneeland don't even go there. I love my sons and have hugged them and kissed them but I'm not in a homosexual affair with them. King David was one of the most prolific heterosexuals of biblical history. homosexuals are not. Jonathan gave David his clothes and shield to disguise him to help him flee from the assassins commissioned by Saul to kill him. And if you attempt to say Jesus had a homosexual marriage with Saint John the Apostle, woe to you. Stop trying to validate abhorrent, perversion, that God considers an abomination, by twisting scripture to aid your agenda. It doesn't hold water.

        3. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          Brian Kneeland if is your perception of God's word that is distorted. The relationship was one of spiritual guidance not a sexual fling or sleeping together. Are you trying to insinuate that God himself who took on the flesh of a man and lived among us, was performing homosexual acts??? For you do realize that Jesus Christ was God himself and has since been restored to his throne? You must also realize that your reprobate mind is full of the lasciviousness of the carnal mind. And you will be held accountable for this callous attack on God and his kingdom. You need to pray for the truth to be revealed to you before you end up in damnation.

        4. Doug Barron's Avatar Doug Barron

          Mr. Kneeland, I couldn't help but to reply to your attempt to drag the bible into a basically spurious argument. first of all, I am student of the bible, having been so for over 40 years, so I am quite familiar with the passages you reference. I must ask this; do you have a male friend? A close male friend? One who you are so close to that he knows pretty much all of your secrets, strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes? Shares your victories and disappointments, loves you like, no, more than a brother? I have such a friend. He knows more about me than my own wife does. I know more about him than his wife does. Does that mean that we must be homosexual? We are not. We are brothers in our Lord Jesus and friends just as close as I just described. Just as David and Jonathan were. As Jesus and John were. Willing to literally die for each other. Do you have a brother/friend that you would give your life for? I do. I don't want to go to bed with him or even kiss him, but I love him enough to give my life for him if needed so he could live. Jesus did that for John! I do not compare myself with Jesus, but Jesus did say; "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his brother." That is the proper context of the passages, not homosexual relations or marriage. Jonathan loved his friend, as his own soul and equipped David with his own outer garment, (robe), gave David his shield and sword, and David went out and was successful in battle. Doesn't say a word about them having sex! To assume otherwise is pure speculation and is thus an attempt to twist scripture to suit ones own agenda. To suggest that Jesus and John, or David and Jonathan were lovers in any sort of a sexual way is unscriptural, and again, a gross misrepresentation of the deep friendship between them. Have a blessed day!

      7. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

        Daniel. I guess the straight republican members of the SCOTUS must also recuse themselves since they are on the opposite side. What fits one way also fits the other.
        Never in the history of this country have the rights of a minority been put to public opinion nor vote. Also there has never been precedent for a religious decision to granting rights to anyone. The only argument against granting rights to Same sex couples is based on a few religious beliefs that are mis-understood from a version of the bible.
        The bible, more specifically Christ's words, condemns Divorce and hatred and religious bigotry. But Christians today practice those 'virtues' consistently. And there are NO laws against them. Christ never condemned gays nor gay marriage. In fact in one instance he told a centurion to return to his male lover and care for him. If Christ loved and cared for a gay person.. why cant his followers do the same? Or are you simply following preachings of man (Paul) and worshiping a man from partial readings of his writings?

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          yet again, this is not about traditional marriage, this is about SSM. As such only the ones that have preformed a SSM must recuse themselves. Its all laid out in federal law Title 18 and title 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Now it does not matter if you dont like the law, but as a judge both kagen and Ginsburg must FOLLOW the law..

          maybe you should read it

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Actually, it's about marriage, and what constitutes marriage in the United States. "Traditional Marriage" is a peacock term, as there are numerous traditions of marriage. We get it...you fancy yourself a champion of what Carrie Prejean so famously called "Opposite Marriage". That's fine. Still, neither your faith nor you have any say in what others do in their lives. I don't mind you being wrong (and you are, on so very many things), but here in my church I'd appreciate you not being so rude about it. Please Remember and Respect Our tenants in Our place.

          2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            That exact same law can be used for the other side as well..since several of them have expressed feelings against the topic. That disqualifies them automatically ... but you only want the law to work your way.. it works for both sides. it is not 'smoke and mirrors' it is about what is fair for one is fair for the other. If you are so opposed to people having rights that you go against the law or against what Christ taught.. you need to examine your beliefs. The bible that you use as your weapon was NEVER meant to be used that way. it is a guide to live by, nothing more. The NT is supposed to be the guide for life at the time it was written. Many things have changed since. We no longer allow slavery nor use women as chattel or have to purchase a spouse, nor do we follow the OT laws. If you did... football would be banned as well as shrimp and ham and bacon, not to mention modern methods of farming all of which are 'abominations' in the OT.

        2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Basen, God himself issued a decree of divorce to Israel, look it up. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, for whatever reason two people split it is hoped they can reconcile, but if they can't God does not want us to be unhappy or abused. If both or either repent their part of the split God forgives them and they are free to marry. This is not to be confused with the "traditions of men" as is the case in many Christian factions. Christ taught not to hate, He also stated " no one gets to the Father but through Me". Are you calling Him a religious bigot? He was the Word made flesh, and every time he was confronted He referred to the Old Testament. I don't believe He would do that if mere mortals wrote the Bible. And He certainly wouldn't send any one back to a homosexual relationship without saying "go and sin no more". If you have an opinion, fine. Just don't misrepresent Bible scripture to validate that which the God of the Bible finds perverted. St. Paul was not just a man. He was physically struck down and blinded by God to get his attention. He was personally engaged by Jesus Christ who commissioned him vis-a-vis as the one to preach to the world of Jesus and His ministry. If you don't believe the Bible that's your right, just stop calling us names and belittling us for believing it.

          1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            De Franco.. as you like to call people... that is OT which is outdated .. Christ himself taught that Divorce is condemned. I never called Christ a Bigot.. but you seem to be a pro at putting words into someone else's mouth. Please show us when and where God took a pen and papyrus and wrote that book.. if you look at the version you are using.. it will state who authored it. Either a Catholic Pope in around 600 AD or a British king several hundred years later(King James Version). Today there are hundreds of 'Versions" of the book.. including the Book of Mormon.
            The stories in the bible were written as stories for people of the time. Each epistle begins as a 'letter to" written by a man to a group of people with guidelines for a problem they had. They were not God speaking, they were a preacher speaking to a flock. Many of the letters of the time were rejected when assembling various versions of the bible ..stories of Christ being married, or having children or Mary having other children ... those stories surface every so often and some embrace them others dismiss them for any number of reasons.
            Paul's change happened years after Christ's ascension It would help if you actually studied scripture and not just memorized verses.

        3. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Basen, who outdated the OT, you? Wow. Isaiah 7:14 tells of Jesus, that He was to be called Immanuel, which means God with us. John tells us: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Gee Basen, who do you think that was? Jesus, maybe. Old Testament Basen. When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus about divorce, He asked them had they read Moses. If they had read Moses, they would know of Him because Moses spoke of Jesus. Jesus being the Word of God. The OT is speckled with denouncements of homosexuality Basen. Jesus said He did not come to change the law but to fulfill it, and as He was the Word made flesh I guess it was Him that was speaking about homosexuals. He also speaks repeatedly in Matthew, Mark, Luke, about the evils of Sodom and its destruction given to strange flesh and vile affections. In the Book of Jude 1: 7,8 tells us Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. John 5 46,47 Jesus speaks , He that made them in the beginning made them male, and female and for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and become one flesh. And in Matthew 19, verse nine He gave the exception of fornication as the only reason for divorce. And God in Jeremiah3:8 states, And I saw for all the causes thereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce. Last but not least, Romans 18, 32 which addresses you. Those who work diligently to denounce the Word because they hate it. Given up to a reprobate mind doing that which is unseemly; men with men and women with women going against their natural usage. OOPS. But then again, you don't believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God so none of this pertains to you. For now. I use the King James standard which he did not write by the way. If he had nothing, about homosexuality or fornication would have been allowed, obviously they weren't afraid to enter it in the texts. So he either didn't read it or was thrilled to have his name on it as an image booster. I also use the Companion Bible which has about 146 extended appendices,scholarly explanations of the books of the Bible along with side margin references for study. I also use the Greens Interlinear Bible that breaks down Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldean. I also use the Goodspeed Apocrypha. , and other bible dictionaries. Obviously the authors of all those "other Bible versions never read Revelations because it admonishes all not to change, add or subtract anything from it. By the way, you really lost it and exposed your absolute disdain, and hatred of the Bible and as it is sacred to me, our conversations are over. P.S. I can't put words in your mouth Basen, your foot is in there.

          1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Christ, When asked what commandments were the most important, stated simply there are but two laws: to love God above all and to love your fellow man as yourself. He further stated that he was the new law, his coming was the fulfillment of the old law.
            Which documents are approved by revelations? Since there have been hundreds of documents written that could have been included ... some were eliminated by the Catholics, some by the Protestants, Some were included. All of those decisions were made by MAN.
            Your being upset because I brought some actual historical facts to the discussion shows your lack of education on the entire history of the bible.

      8. CJ's Avatar CJ

        Supreme Court justices never have to recuse themselves, as was seen when Thomas refused to recuse himself on hearing campaign finance issues, despite the fact that his wife makes her living in campaign finance. So your view is not remotely correct, Daniel.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          And you are not only telling a falsehood, but your are completely ignorant on this subject.

          Seems that https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455 and 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge say you are lying. The very FIRST sentence in this federal law clearly says "ANY Judge or Justice" meaning the Supreme Court is included.

          My post is based on fact and law. YOUR post on the other hand is based on supposition and myth.

          1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            Daniel, All you have provided was a tax code and name calling whenever someone asks for where you get your facts from. He asked you to show where you have proof this was a 501 c and you responded it's there for you to see. He simply asked you for help to see what you were talking about and you berate people.

            Further the fact is Thomas did refuse to recuse himself repeatedly.





            Stop lying to fit your opinion and the name calling is just a sign you know your argument is unfounded. You answer every person with the falsehood "My post is based on fact and law. YOUR post on the other hand is based on supposition and myth.".

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Kenny, I am stating fact. My apologies if stating fact is what you consider not telling the truth when it completely destroys your post.

          3. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            David, Where did you even come close to destroying anyones post here. You dismissed facts presented with your ignorant comments without ever addressing what was presented on many occasions backed with article after article. You sir are nothing more than a parrot who regurgitates things without the slightest bit of knowledge. You have repeatedly posted that code about recusing one self but ignored cases the right as failed to do so. Posting that again does not in any way diminish the facts. Sorry you are too shallow and slow in your ability to think, maybe someday you will understand hate is not anywhere in the teachings of Christ. Hopefully before you do any damage to others from your ignorance.

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            First off its Daniel, and second off Kenny, I gave you chapter and verse and sited my sources, so like it or not, your post WAS destroyed.

            You can huff and puff all you want but it wont change the facts.

          5. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            First off, my apology. I meant Daniel, but David came out. Second you gave nothing of the sort and you never address anyones point you simply dismiss them with the I have facts you have opinion. To be honest, you are not a lawyer and you are certainly not someone with a thelogy degree. So everything you have stated has been opinion like most people. Try outlining your argument with something other than "I destroyed you".

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Kenny, I DID give links to my information and sources as anyone can see by reading the thread. Just because I did not repost them to you doe not mean I didnt post them. And why repost the same thing over and over and over again when people such as yourself refuse to listen or read the links to start with? Nothing more then a waste of time and effort and space here to do that

          7. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            And there you have it folks, nothing. I said you posted that,I acknowledged that before. I asked you to respond to Thomas and Scalia failing repeatedly to do so under your own rules. Which would make the court empty by all accounts. You again failed to address anyone by simply claiming "I said that". The simple truth is you never did, and posting the rules is not advancing your position because you say so. Thank you for proving what more then just myself has stated. You have nothing to back up your claims. Here shall I copy and paste your rebuttal to all the questions asking for something to back up what you have stated. Here it is:

            " "

            That about all I could find. Hope this helps. I appreciate the fun convoluted conversation with you. Good luck in all you do. And may God grace you with his love.

          8. Dan's Avatar Dan

            and there you have it folks. I posted links documenting what I said and as usual, when they cant refute the links they run away. Typical.

          9. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, I'm sure there are sites who welcome your doctrine, dogma, and manner of sharing your opinion. Why not go to them instead of trolling here and violating the tenants of my church?

          10. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Joe, I state fact. And notice its only people like you that get destroyed by the facts that are complaining about "THEIR" church when this isnt a church, its a webpage.

            And as for trolling, care to put up YOU post count against mine? I will make bet that mine is by far quite a bit lower then yours by a very large margine.

            And sorry again Joe if the truth violates your tenants, but I am NOT going to stop telling the truth just to make you happy.

          11. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            So, Daniel, I take it you're a sociopath. Got it.

          12. Dan's Avatar Dan

            So this is how you debate? You make personal attacks because you cant understand that this is a website and not a church, and you cant or wont understand that the links I provided clearly show you to be ignorant of the subject that you are trying to posture on?

            You have my sympathy, and so do your parents.

          13. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            It is the website of my church. But you knew that already. Blessings to you and your parents.

          14. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry again Joe, but you seem majorly confused. A church is brick and mortar, it is not a website no m,atter what you claim.

            And I see that because you cant refute the things I have shown you were false that you believed in, thats why you are ending this conversation as you have nothing more to give that would be relevant.

            Have a nice day.

        2. Dan's Avatar Dan

          And you are not being truthful

          Seems that 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge say you are not telling the truth. The very FIRST sentence in this federal law clearly says “ANY Judge or Justice” meaning the Supreme Court is included.

          My post is based on fact and law. YOUR post on the other hand is based on supposition and myth.

          1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel once again please take your hate filled blinders off and look at the reality of what you are saying and denying. You are not the supreme truth giver. You are one very opinionated man who wants to deny rights to a minority based on your misconceptions.

        3. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

          OK Daniel, then just respond to the judges recusing themselves based on the 4 or 5 articles I posted, you have not. Then provide where you specifically found proof the company you sighted was in fact a 501c corp. Please, there, I asked nicely for you. Also how about the fact that the bible has only 7 references to homosexual behavior and over 300 on hetrosexual behavior, why you are not obessed with the one the bible dictates more passages too.

          1. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Ok kenny, I have already posted part of the Constitution-federal law-the code of conduct for judges both state local and federal and even an article from the USA Today from last year where Chief Justice Roberts clearly says the same thing I have been saying, that Kagen and Ginsberg MUST recuse themselves.

            Its not rocket science to find these.

          2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel, once again you are "talking out of your hat" so to say. You want the two left leaning judges to recuse themselves but yet you refuse to acknowledge that the right leaning ones should also do the same since they are on the opposite side and have stated that they are leaning that way. That alone would require them to recuse themselves.. in which case the issue could be settled by executive order. Justice Roberts is known as extremely right wing and therefore should recuse himself since he will use non- constitutional rational to decide.

          3. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Ric. I am stating fact and backing it up with links and legal opinions and laws. If that is "talking out of my hat" then my apologies to you as I refuse to spout myths to be PC or to sooth hurt feelings. The laws are the laws and neither you nor I are going to change anything so you might as well get use to it.

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Cmon Joe, stop your Pharisees type of proselytizing and show us WHERE in the 1st Amendment the phrase or words say "Separation of Church and State."

            If its there then you should be able to produce it instead of trying to use the usual Joe Stutler smoke screen in trying to change the subject. Or is it the reason that you are not producing the proof you claim is because yet again you are making things up and then getting mad when nobody believes you.

            Here I will help you. directly from the Cornell Law School library https: // www. law. cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment (remove the spaces)

            "Amendment I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

            So show us Joe, WHERE are the words or the phrase Separation of Church and State. Stop with all the bologna you are posting and come and show us.

          5. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, do remember that SCOTUS, not you, is the authority on what the Constitution says. Do remember that case law trumps "Daniel's Opinion". Your continuing down the path you've chosen shows you to be less cogent than a Midianite male after the Israelites got through doing the Lord's bidding.

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Joe, and you DO know they can have their decisions overturned, so seemingly they are not the final say on the Constitution as you are falsely trying to claim. That is basic history 101 taught to every third grader, so the question is...how come you dont know this? Did you sleep though American history or are you just ignoring the parts you dont like?

      9. lee's Avatar lee

        You are very wrong. The Law of the Land is Separation of Church and State....and Equality under the law for ALL. Whatever Laws are in place were not written by the founding fathers.....but by Religious zealots, which under U.S. Law should not have allowed to exist in the first place. Lee Pike

        1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          The Law of the Land is that "government" shall not establish or control religion. They did acknowledge a "creator" a higher power other than themselves. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written by our Founding Fathers so try and be a bit more rational and less emotional. Lee Pike. Legally, I believe it is a State's Rights Issue, and the Federal Govt. should be out all together. If that was the case; 28 of the 36 states would not allow SSM. But that's relative to me, no one has to subscribe to what I believe.

          1. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Source on what? That you were personally attacking Mary, a poster here? All you have to do is ask her. Or ask the moderators of the board and it will be confirmed.

            Or do you mean the separation of church and state? Ok here it is https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment and it says: "Amendment I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

            So show us WHERE the words or phrase "separation of church and state" are in there anywhere.

            Or do you mean Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii which says:

            "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

            And in case you missed it, here it is again:

            "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

            Under such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make, seems pretty specific and clear to anyone with any brain cells

            Pretty much answers your non generalization post Joe.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Source on what? That you were personally attacking Mary, a poster here? All you have to do is ask her. Or ask the moderators of the board and it will be confirmed.

            Or do you mean the separation of church and state? Ok here it is https:// www. law. cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment and it says: “Amendment I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

            So show us WHERE the words or phrase “separation of church and state” are in there anywhere.

            Or do you mean Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence? https: //www. law. cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii which says:

            “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

            And in case you missed it, here it is again:

            “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”

            Under such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make, seems pretty specific and clear to anyone with any brain cells

            Pretty much answers your non generalization post Joe.

            Remove the spaces for the links

          3. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Hey Daniel, I think you've got the wrong guy, I believe everything you're saying. I must need psychiatric help too, according to some here.

          4. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            You and Daniel make quite the couple, Kevin. I hope you two are blessed with many happy years together.

          5. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Joe, that's so not you. Rather unbecoming for an intellectual, don't you think? trying to be serious here Joe.

        2. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Please show us ANYWHERE in the US constitution that the words or phrase "Separation of Church and state" exist. You cant because they dont.

          The US Constitution was ratified in 1787. The very FIRST mention of the Separation of Church and state was to a group of Baptists by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. Now according to Article 5 of the US Constitution, the ONLY way the Constitution can be modified is by a Constitutional Amendment, not by a simple letter. And at no time or place in the US Supreme Court Archives or in the Congressional Archives OR in the Library of Congress was there ever any form of an constitutional amendment to put this mythical Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

          And the decision by the Supreme Court making this claim is also invalid. Article 1 (powers of the legislature) clearly states that only the CONGRESS has the authority to make a law or give weight of law to anything. As such by making a new law where none existed before, the Supreme Court violated not only the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, but Article 1 Section 1 of the same constitution.

          As such you are historically incorrect, constitutionally incorrect and rationally incorrect. All of what I have just said can be easily documented. So as I asked, show us WHERE in the US Constitution this mythical "separation of church and state" phrase or words exist.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Perhaps you should that that up with SCOTUS. Their contact info is on the interwebz. Blessings to you and your parents.

          2. Gary's Avatar Gary

            Keep reading your constitution where there are three branches of government. You would have two. The entire purpose of the Judiciary is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Yet you would discard that (until it turned against you). When the Supreme Court expanded the second amendment to let any nut have an assault weapon, I bet you were fine with that. It has been well established in the courts that there is a separation of church and state. Second, even if we took your argument as correct, you are violating the Constitution by trying to establish you version of Judeo-Christian customs and laws into the national law and fabric. Yet, when Muslims do that, you scream jihadist. I am sorry but I see very little difference between you and them except you don't have the power to do all you would like, at least not yet. I do not doubt for a minute that if you could gain that power, you would ram your brand of Christian zealotry down everyone's throat.

          3. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Is this the best you can do Joe? an attempted insult and a pretty poor one at that?

            Ok for your education and edification here is the 1st Amendment

            Amendment I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

            So please now show ANYONE on this thread where the term or phrase or even any of the words of "Separation of Church and State" appear? As you can plainly see, they do not appear here anywhere.

            And as for the Supremes, try this Article 1 (powers of the legislature) section 1, which clearly says:

            Section 1.

            All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

            Now a simple search of any dictionary and the dictionary will tell you the meaning of legislation which is "to make law". So what Article 1 section 1 of the US Constitution is clearly saying is that only CONGRESS has the authority to make a law or give weight of law to anything, not the President nor the Supremes. As such ANY decision the Supremes make that makes law is null and void and unconstitutional according to the US Constitution. As such I dont have to go to the Supremes as the Constitution, which they are REQUIRED to follow and abide by; clearly says that this decision is illegal and unconstitutional. Heck even Justice Marshall clearly stated this, and he is the darling of the left.

            you have just been schooled. You are welcome.

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Gary Please go back to school and get an education on how our government works as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

            Article 3 (powers of the judiciary) does NOT even begin to come close to what you are claiming. And in fact shows a completely different side then what you are saying.

            Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2, last sentence

            In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

            You didnt miss it did you? Just in case you did, here it is again

            "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

            Now tell us please exactly HOW the Judiciary is suppose to be putting on the brakes for the other two branches of Government when Congress can come along and overturn a Supreme Court Decision and then tell the Supreme Court that they can never hear another case like that ever again. Say it cant happen? Oh yes it did, TWICE in less then 30 years! They are called the "Newdow" cases One case where Newdow (from California) tried to force the schools to remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. The 9th US Distric Court ruled for him, but the US Supreme Court stepped in and overturned the decision thus nullifying the 9ths decision. The Congress then stepped in and passed a resolution that NO lower court or the Supreme Court shall ever try or hear a case like this again. Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated that this was well within their constitutional right to do so, and was backed up by all eight of the justices on the court, both liberal and conservative.

            Newdow did not appreciate having his rear stomped this badly so he sued yet again to get the 10 Commandments off the Supreme Court wall-"In God we trust" off our money, and "so help me God" out of the Presidential Oath of Office. The end result came swiftly and harshly! The 9th ruled against him and so did the US Supreme Court, which slapped him down so hard he is STILL bouncing! And Congress then stepped in and shut this down as they again told the Supreme Court and all lower courts that they could NEVER hear another case like that again. And again all 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed this was well within the powers of Congress.

            So tell all of us reading this...exactly HOW can you have three branches of Government that are suppose to be equal, when ONE branch can tell the other two what they can and cant do, but the other two have no constitutional authority to tell Congress what it can and cant do?

          5. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Yes, Daniel, I have been schooled. You're completely, totally, fully, thoroughly, utterly, wholly, consummately schooled. You have said everything perfectly, Your opinion trumps POTUS, Congress, SCOTUS. You win. I bow to Your superior intellect and ego. You are a rock star, a hero, a genius, savior of the universe, beautiful, amazing, and such a treat to be around. I bask in the glory of Your mere presence here. Jesus looks up and smiles at your wonderfulness, as does his father. Yes, even God himself bows down to the greatness that is You. Your Blessings upon You and Your parents and all of us.

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            My opinion does not matter Joe and its pathetic that you would say that as All I have done is show links to prove you wrong in your claims. And you have degraded-called names-and worse when you could not prove my links wrong.

            Nice try Joe, but we all know you for what you really are. A vindictive little shrew who attacks when someone dares to challenge your point of view.

          7. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I agree, Daniel, your opinion doesn't matter. You've already slandered God, so I'm sure He will deal with the likes of you. As for your demonstrated incompetence in secular law, you've proven yourself to be irrelevant.
            I'll continue to pray for your soul, and I'll ask all my brethren to do so as well. You're going to need all the help you can get. Have a lovely weekend!

          8. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            The jurisdiction stripping bill based on Newdow was never passed into Law. Stripping can only be applied to SCOTUS appellate areas, not to ones where it has original jurisdiction. It has been used for such things as limiting the number of appeals a death row inmate may pursue.

            The answer to a case where the Fed Legislature tries to use it to improperly gag the SCOTUS is for any state to bring it as a suit against another state or the Federal government. Then SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction and be unaffected by the Stripping law.

            Of course, Separation of Church and State is a fiction propagated by the Left. "No Law concerning the Establishment of Religion" basically says that the Government can't pass a law that defines what is and isn't a religion. It keeps them from deciding on a list of acceptable religions.

            The Newdow striping bill was not needed, because gov can use the word "God." The Left mostly uses the threat of a lawsuit to get what it wants. What the government can't do is to discriminate against people based solely on their religion. Having Christian holidays and not Islamic ones is OK, because it doesn't harm Muslims to have Christian holidays off.

            The earlier 501(c)(3) discussion is pertinent: IRS has US Code that gives a list of things that defines a church. However, you can get one accepted that doesn't meet all of the items on their list, because of the Establishment clause.

            The current administration is illegally discriminating against Christians in the Military by using threats and punishments that are disguised. Having a Bible on one's desk , esp. in the Air Force, can be used to "show" that the airman discriminates against homosexuals. Clearly, that action violates the heart and letter of the Constitution. The nature of the military makes it take time to get such things addressed. Military people basically give up the Rights we hold so dear for the period they are in service in order to protect those same Rights for others.

            While I'm on this topic, I'd like to explain something about many Evangelical Christians' beliefs. Marriage is probably the most sacred institutions outside of the church itself. Two becoming one flesh is a Religious item, not a secular one.

            Many churches will not allow a wedding in their church by any others than their members, possibly then only if the minister believes they are in good standing with Gd. Others will allow those in good standing in their denomination. Most won't allow divorced people to marry.

            Homosexuals are not being singled out for hate or discrimination. They just don't meet what the church sees as meeting the Biblical standards for marriage. Some denominations will not accept divorced people as members unless they remarry their former spouse, unless it was the other partner who left and filed for the divorce. (Yes, this often has the effect of discriminating against the husband since, in general, the wife can kick him out, but it will still be seen as him leaving.)

            Yes, marriage is still seen as being for life by Evangelical Christians. Most children have a Father and a Mother who live with them, and probably siblings and a dog.

            Most churches, while they may be part of a larger denomination, are independent. The members, possibly with elected Deacons, own the property and make the decisions about the church. They clean it, repair it, cut the grass, and raise money if it needs a new roof or air conditioner.

            The minister may be placed there by the denomination, but their control of finances and other things may be strictly limited. A church isn't just somewhere you go on Sundays, it is the major spiritual and social structure outside of the family.

            In discussions like this. the typical Evangelical Christian may state that marriage is between a man and a woman, may quote the Bible, then will drop out of the conversation. The loud gay bashing and such is unlikely to be them. That isn't how they act. (I can generally tell by the choice of verses who they are. Not many will be on this site because they have their denominations to ordain them.)

            (I'm speaking in the third person, but you've probably guessed that I am one, just one who has enough doctrinal differences from independent study that I don't fit in with the denominations here. I wish I did, but the Word of Gd is the will of Gd.)

            BTW, I drop the "o" in "Gd" because some people in other religions take offense at having His name spelled out.

          9. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            That is quite the pile of silliness there, Randy. I'm not sure why you bash on the "left", as those of us not indoctrinated by organizations like the misnamed "Family Leader" and their ilk know that there are folks on all areas of the political spectrum who understand the concept of "separation of church and state" as established by the Constitution and a few hundred years of case law. Only those radical regressive conservative Christian types push for ridiculous entanglement of church and state to promote their own faith over all others. Their narrow and stunted world view does not allow them to understand that we are not a Christian nation and they reject our Founders' vision of religious freedom for all. The hooey about Christian persecution anywhere in the U.S. is pure fabrication. It doesn't happen in the military; if anything it is Christians who persecute others. People are not punished for having beliefs, they are punished for antisocial and illegal behaviors. This is true both in the military and in society. As for the rest of your rant, it's naught but word salad, and a very wilted salad at that. I don't know why folks who don't believe in the tenants of this church bother to come here, except perhaps to proselytize and troll. You certainly don't convince us that your faith is reasonable, rational, attractive, or even worthy of attention. Millions of good and decent Christians know you are wrong, twisting God's message into an unholy mess, and this church is about more than one narrow view of one faith tradition. Perhaps some day a cure will be found for your particular mental illness, and you'll no longer pose a threat to yourselves and polite society. Until then, go play with your Westboro Baptist Church brethren...you'll be in good company there.

          10. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            First, I have no idea to whom you are referring as "Family Leader." I'm not much into pop culture.

            I have not argued for, and I would fight against, the govt trying to impose any religious doctrine. I've lived where Christianity is not the dominate religion. The problem with the Left's definition of separation of church and state is the view that religion of all sorts, but mostly Christian, must be "purged" from all aspects of government. For instance, they often think that all organizations other than Christian ones should be prohibited from using class rooms for club meetings. Another example is the destruction of historical important and meaningful monuments because it contains a cross. The Establishment Clause prevents the govt from favoring any religion.

            "Separation" is not a Constitutionally correct concept. There is nothing wrong with a city auditorium being used for religious activities as long as the city doesn't favor particular religions. And yes, atheism counts as a religion: it is religious belief that their is no gd. Therefore, Buddhism may not consider itself a religion, but the government must treat it with the same respect it does others.

            When I was in the Navy, I never saw discrimination against any religion. The Wiccans were just coming out, but I never saw my Wiccan friend discriminated against other than the same type of kidding from peers that the Christians received. However, over the last several years there has been a complete change in that.

            You state "People are not punished for having beliefs, they are punished for antisocial and illegal behaviors." Yet you appear to believe that non-Christians are improperly punished.

            If you read my other posts here, I think you will see that I do believe in the tenants of ULC. (For instance, my May 6, 2015 at 1:18 pm post starting with "Here’s my Biblical reason for being willing to perform same-sex marriages.")

            While I don't seek people for which to perform weddings, I am open to performing them for people of any beliefs if asked. Specifically, if you read above, I have also laid out an argument that I think could make it through SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriages.

            I have no idea why you think that I care if you think my faith is reasonable, etc. In fact, I laid out truths about churches with which I do not agree, because so many people hide the truth about who they are behind lies that they hate gays. I tried to show enough of their culture so those who care to understand can see that many of them make similar decisions about marriage among their own members.

            I can assure you that there are not hundreds, much less millions, who know what my beliefs are, and that you know way too little about them to know if they are an "unholy mess." I also have never heard anyone who considered them self to be be a Christian who supported anything about Westboro other than their Rights to Free Speech and Religion.

            I hope this clears some misunderstanding up. It does illustrate how the people I was trying to give some understanding about are painted as something very different than they really are by people with knee-jerk reactions based on having been flooded with misinformation. It's hard for a person to treat them with the same respect for their beliefs that the person wants for them self after having been sold on how they are full of hate for that type of person. (I hope that last sentence parses: too many pronouns.) The fact that ignorant loudmouths rant out hate in forums like this makes it even harder.

          11. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Sorry, Randy, I seem to have conflated a few things in my post that I shouldn't have, didn't intend to. This site isnt particularly mobile-friendly, so commenting here when not at a computer is problematic. Apologies proffered for some of my comment. I saw Christians persecuting others not of their faith quite a bit in my almost 2 decades of service. Following news reports from many different sources I know that it still happens far too frequently. Christians in this country aren't persecuted, neither in the military nor in the civilian world. They are the ones doing the persecuting. Many on the left, as well as many on the right, don't like to see the entanglement of church and state. If there is going to be Christian prayer and symbols and such in government, any and all other faiths must be granted equal access. Sure, that pisses off some Christians, but that's their problem. They just want their special privilege to continue, and want others to be denied the same privilege. That's not how it works under law, as they are starting to learn. The rest wasn't intended to be directed at you so much. Yours was a lengthy post with some stuff I agreed with and some I dont. When you lump all folks of a particular political leaning together so broadly (" the left" for example) you damage your message. The latter part of my comment was more about the Daniels and Brians that show up here and trash the threads. They're the WBC types who have no respect for the ULC and our tenants. They're the ones who should leave and not come back until their mental illness is properly treated. Rational people can disagree and do so civilly. You appear to be one of those. Sorry for the confusion.

          12. Dan's Avatar Dan

            still up to your old tricks huh joe? When you cant refute anything said you outright lie and make up slimy innuendos and so on. You do remember that you were warned about this before by the mods right? Dont try and deny it because the mods can confirm this.

            I would be very careful in your posts about making up lies about people as the mods wont be tolerating this for very long.

            As long as someone agrees with you, they are happy happy joy joy in your book, but the second they disagree or show that you dont know what your talking about, then you go on the attack.

            As I said, be very careful about this Joe as the mods are not going to tolerate your actions for very long before they take action.

          13. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Randy it IS law. Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence of the US Constitution clearly DOES give Congress the right to tell the US Supreme Court what cases they can and cannot hear. And that Randy is NATIONAL LAW as the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. Meaning Congress does not have to pass any bills for the President to sign as the Constitution already grants them this right, meaning this is already law and has been since 1787 when the Constitution was finally ratified as the supreme law of the land.

            SO I am historically correct, constitutionally correct and factually correct. But since you dispute that, tell ya what. Go to ANY law school or local attorney and ask them a simple question. "Is the US Constitution the supreme law of the land" and see what they say. And be ready for a major smackdown as they will tell you flat out without hesitation that it IS the supreme law of the land. Now ask any politician if they must follow the Constitution, and they (weather they do it or not) will tell you that they DO have to follow it and even the US President in his oath of office says that he will follow the Constitution and obey it.

            Now if all of these people have to obey it, that means that it is the final word. And if it is the final word then that means when it says that Congress can make regulations and rules on what the Supreme Court can hear, then that is law and does not need them to pass anything.

            Sorry Randy, it clearly is YOU that is not being truthful nor historically or constitutionally accurate.

            Or are you saying that Justice Kennedy-Marshall-Roberts are all not telling the truth when they clearly said that that Congress CAN do what I showed you they can do as per the US Constitution?

          14. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Randy, I did not refer to you as a "family leader' that was completely Joe's snarky insult. When responding please make sure you have the right person.

          15. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, who are these "mods" you're ranting about? Modulators? Models? Modernists? Modifiers? I've not been warned about anything by anyone here, except for the usual lunatic fringe railing against some alleged sins or some such nonsense. Still haven't gotten your meds adjusted properly, I see. Talk to your psychiatrist.

          16. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Family Leader is a radical regressive far right wing religious group fronted by Grifter Bob Vander Plaatz. They fleece their flocks of funds to try to infest government with their own special brand of hatred and bigotry. Daniel would fit right in with them if Westboro Baptist ever kicks him out for being too extreme even for them.

          17. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Dont play dumb Joe, you know darn well who they are as they have dealt with you in the past. Remember when you were calling mary a name that rhymes with witch and begins with a B? They shut you down REAL quick.

            So keep up your actions and see what happens for a second time.

          18. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Cite source please.

          19. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Please cite specific source of "mods" saying anything aimed at me and only me specifically.

          20. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            It's hard to follow the 300 posts here even on a computer monitor. I know how hard it is to use a cell phone for such things. Some of the post are very long, too. Wait a minute, are those all mine? Uh, never mind.

            I too am bothered by the immature behavior, especially on a site for those who supposedly are focusing on ministering to the needs of others. However, I guess it's no worse than in the rest of the world in which we live.

          21. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Whats wrong Joe, scared to ask the mods or have someone ask them and learn the truth? Or ask mary?

            All anyone would have to do is look at the closed threads and see your abhorrent actions ad name calling and personal attacks, and then right after you started the personal attacks on mary (and I see you didnt deny it because you cant) all of a sudden now you start with the snarky attacks being very careful not to cross the line as you used to do. Since you wouldnt do this on your own it is entirely reasonable that the mods spoke to you about your actions.

            You can deny it all you want, but the fact remains, if this was a court of law and all this evidence was brought before a judge and jury; you would have lost your case.

          22. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            You've made assertions regarding "mods". The onus is on you to prove those assertions. You've been challenged to prove your claim. You refuse, instead choosing to rant. You've failed. Your streak remains unbroken.

          23. Dan's Avatar Dan

            No assertions have been made in any way. It can easily be proved with just asking.

          24. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            Daniel, See my May 8, 2015 at 10:35 pm post concerning Jurisdiction Stripping. The paragraph you quoted only applies to the court's appellate functions, not to cases where it has primary jurisdiction. Therefore it can't be used to remove a Justice from the court. Also see my above mentioned post for an easy workaround if the court sees that type of law as being harmful.

          25. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Randy, see the US Constitution. It makes no difference if it is an appellate court or a local court or the Supreme Court, the Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 give Congress the constitutional authority to tell them what they can and cannot hear.

            Sorry you cannot refute the US Constitution no matter how hard you try.

          26. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            [May 9, 2015 at 9:42 am] "No assertions have been made in any way. It can easily be proved with just asking."

            Daniel, you made numerous assertions regarding "mods".

            [May 9, 2015 at 8:26 am] "You do remember that you were warned about this before by the mods right? Dont try and deny it because the mods can confirm this."

            [May 9, 2015 at 8:54 am] "Dont play dumb Joe, you know darn well who they are as they have dealt with you in the past."

            [May 9, 2015 at 9:29 am] "Whats wrong Joe, scared to ask the mods or have someone ask them and learn the truth?"

            [May 9, 2015 at 9:29 am] "Since you wouldnt do this on your own it is entirely reasonable that the mods spoke to you about your actions."

            [May 9, 2015 at 8:54 am] "They shut you down REAL quick."

            As I said, you've made numerous assertions. You've been asked to provide sources to prove your assertions. The onus is on you. You've failed to provide any source at all. Having once again failed to prove your assertions, everyone here - including yourself - know you to be full of male bovine excrement. Once again you've shown yourself to be a liar. Once again you've shown yourself to be a troll. Westboro is calling you home. Scamper off now, little dimwitted troll.

          27. Dan's Avatar Dan

            all they have to do is ask the moderators or check with Mary to see I am telling the truth and show that you are trying so desperately to hide your past actions as it reflects badly on you.

            And if I wasnt telling the truth, then why are you trying so hard to say otherwise?

            Guess you need to check your own membership in westboro.

            And back to the name calling again are we Joe? That seems to be your fall back position when things dont go your way. But I will put my post count up against your post count any day of the week and I will bet almost anything you want that my post count will be far and away quite a bit smaller then yours by a factor of over 50 to 1 with you being the 50 and me being the one. In fact Joe in the last email I got from here there were 50 posts, and you took up 38 of them. So tell us Joe, who is the, as you said "troll" here?

          28. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel knows naught of the Constitution nor of case law. He can quote bits of text but he has no understanding of what the words mean. His opinion is just that: opinion. He's virtually always wrong due to the combination of arrogance and ignorance which he gleefully embraces. I imagine his home life is terrible, and his past filled with dark secrets. It's no wonder he's such a bitter, twisted troll. Why he doesn't seek comfort from his own kind is beyond my ken. Why he doesn't seek professional help for his psychiatric issues is beyond my understanding.

          29. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Nice try joe, but yet again you are telling falsehoods. How can I be wrong on the Constitution when I am copying and pasting DIRECTLY from it? In short I am using the words that the Constitution has printed in it, so if I am wrong on that, then you Joe are claiming the Constitution is wrong since that is where I am obtaining the info from.

            You really do get it twisted when you cant prove anything wrong. It seemingly infuriates you to no end that you cant disprove something that blows your beliefs out of the water.

            You are just a sad person Joe.

          30. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            "all they have to do is ask the moderators..."

            That's not how it works, Daniel. You've made assertions. You fail to prove them. You've once again failed. You're batting 1000.

            See: dictionary.reference.com/browse/onus

          31. Dan's Avatar Dan

            yea that IS how it works Joe. You asked me to site my source and I did. You cant now whine about the answer.

          32. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            The only "sources" you've "cited" are your own statements (not credible), unknown "mods" (who appear to not exist), and someone you refer to as "Mary" (again, no evidence of her existence. Poor troll, failed again. I'll continue to pray for you, even as you seek to prey upon others.

      10. Dr. Griffith's Avatar Dr. Griffith

        I think you watch too much Fox News. Should not Scalia have to recuse himself for the things he said against equal marriage for all? No one said that you had to follow my religious beliefs just as I do not have to follow yours. If you do not believe in equality then don't go to that kind of wedding ceremony and don't officiate at one. There is not a law that says you have to officiate. Why do you hate people that are different than you? Is it wrong for people of different races to marry? Is it wrong that women have the right to vote? Is it wrong that African Americans cannot be slaves. These are laws that used to exist, the Christian Church even supported slavery, that is truly oppression, hate, and ignoring the teaching of Jesu for personal gain.

        1. Dr. Griffith's Avatar Dr. Griffith

          Sorry, I forgot To add Mr. Gray at the end of the first sentence.

      11. Michael's Avatar Michael

        By your logic, then, all of the SCOTUS justices must recuse themselves by the fact that they have all performed heterosexual marriages. Your logic is faulty.

        It is clear to everyone by now that Justice Scalia is firmly against same-sex marriage from a religious and personal basis, It is clear that Justice Kagan is probably in favor or same-sex marriage on those same bases. But to suggest that they must recuse themselves because of their biases seems to fly in the face of logic.

        Mr. Gray, you are biased toward heterosexual marriage. Not a judgement, just a fact. I may be biased toward the inclusion of same-sex couples in the marriage institution. Again, not a judgement, just a fact.

        We all anxiously await the Court's decision and will abide by their opinion which ever way it goes.

      12. warjna's Avatar warjna

        Daniel Gray: Then by your own logic, the other Supreme Court Justices must also recuse themselves, because they have participated in and supported marriages between a man and a woman, very likely also in the same chambers of the Supreme Court. You said:

        "The reason is simple: their impartiality on the matter has been hopelessly compromised."

        "Here’s how Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States MUST and SHALL disqualify himself/themselve(s) in any proceeding in which his/their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

        "Thus any justice who has tipped his hand on how they would vote on gay marriage, any justice who has taken sides, any justice whose ability to be objective on the matter in question, has a legal, moral, ethical and professional duty to withdraw. In fact, they would be violating federal law if they didn’t. Their sacred, sworn duty as a justice is to uphold the law, not break it."

        My response: If Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and Elena Kagan's impartiality have been compromised because they have publicly stated that they support same-sex marriage, then so have Samuel A. Alito, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas, if they have spoken in support of marriage between a man and a woman. They have also performed marriages between a man and a woman.

        If one, then the other; you can't have it both ways.

        And if they follow Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code on that basis, then there is no-one left to make a decision, and we are back at square one. How is this helpful?

      13. Brent Rees's Avatar Brent Rees

        It always amazes me at the work and toil that some people go to in order to be a Bible Bigot.....We here on this site are all Ministers, Ordained by ULC, and sworn to uphold the tenets of the ULC Church....Yet some of us still hold to the idea, that there is only ONE RELIGION, and EVERYONE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO IT or we are SINNERS, and ABOMINATIONS to God.....How absurd can one get??? How narrow minded and Hate driven do you need to go?
        Has anyone thought of the fact that Straight relationships are just as repugnant to me, as my Gay relationship is to you?....I don't care if you are in a straight marriage, or a Gay Marriage, We are all Children of the Same Creator, and as such should ALL respect each others Beliefs, but more than that we should ALL RESPECT each other as HUMANS...Leave the Bible teachings to your Congregation that believes the way you do, and respect those whom do not believe the way you do, as fellow humans, and get along with the world....The Bible is a good book, but it is NOT the ONLY Book..... Fellow Ministers, We must respect those who are different from us, and help them along their particular pathway....Because we ll have FAITH in Our Creator, and Our Creator made each and every one of us individually, and then broke the mold....We are ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE CREATOR....We need to stop fussing about something that comes from a book, and start helping our Fellow Man out.....

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          You wish to consider yourself a bigot, that sir is your problem. I state facts and back them up. And until you can get the laws changed to fit you and do it as required by the Constitution, then they will stay laws and you will follow them or face the results of you ignoring law or breaking law.

          You dont like it, not my problem

        2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Excuse me, Rees. We may acknowledge that you and others have different beliefs. We do not have to "respect" that which we believe is abhorrent behavior or adhere to it. We do have the right to express our beliefs and opinions just as you. You say that the Bible is a good book but not the only book. That is relative to you and those that think like you. Not to us, we believe it is the inspired Word of God as stated by St. Paul, in Ephesians. And in as much as you claim that we are bigots and judge us as so, you are judging God as a bigot, for we are merely quoting His Word not ours. If you have a problem with Him, tell Him when you meet Him. We believe that life does not end when this flesh body dies. We believe that the Bible is the letter God wrote to "us and all that believe in Him "as a guide to get back to Him in the spiritual dimension. If you choose otherwise that is your right. But stop calling us bigots and "hate" driven because we don't believe what you believe. We don't accept it and never will. Our salvation is not incumbent with your beliefs, so it doesn't matter to "us". God gave us all free will, you are responsible for your own soul as we are ours. If you don't like or agree with us, O.K.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Kevin, here in the ULC you do indeed have to respect other perspectives. If you come here attacking others, using your faith as a cudgel to bash others of a different perspective, you will deservedly be labeled a bigot and hate-driven. If you don't want to play nice with others, this is not the church for you.


        3. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          Brent Rees do you realize what you are asking your fellow ministers to do? You are asking us to put aside our amour and fight without a weapon. What is the basis of your ministry to promote what? To teach what? and to teach with what? About what? This is not what ministers of the cloth do. How can we help our fellow man without a basis to do so from? Help what promote homosexuality? Help him feel good about sleeping with his gender and giving him assurance that it is okay? Do we just completely ignore God? What is you truly implying my fellow minister?

      14. River Spirit's Avatar River Spirit

        Just how traditional would like marriage to be? Does that mean that we go back to multiple wives? How about arranged marriages, that is traditional? We could marry siblings, that was once traditional, also. The simple fact is that thee is no such thing as traditional marriage. The argument is simply that evangelicals want to force their ideas on the rest of us.

      15. Galen M. Ross's Avatar Galen M. Ross

        Under U.S. and State laws NO ONE may marry without a marriage license which comes from the governing authority, not the church. By the same token, NO ONE has to get married in a church, synagogue, or, mosque, they can get married at a courthouse by a judge in this country, no religious organization is being forced to marry anyone, if you feel that you don't want to perform a same-sex wedding then don't. As for me, if a couple, same-sex or, not wants to get married and has the licenses from the state to do it I will perform that wedding for them. My reason for performing that ceremony are two fold, one, I am transgender, two, I feel that anyone couple that loves each other enough to marry then, they should be married. Many people think that tradition is the reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman, they also think that procreation is the reason to keep it this way, the fact is, if it was just tradition then polygamy would be legal in the U.S. because it would be unconstitutional to prevent it but, it isn't. Those who think that procreation is the reason should consider all the couples who are married that can't have children and, are married, how about a couple that is in their 60's that wish to get married, would you deny them the right to marry? No, of course not, yet you would deny a same sex couple that right. Really?

        1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          Galen, I agree with your comments totally. It's too bad that some feel they are above the law or better than Christ.

          1. Galen M. Ross's Avatar Galen M. Ross

            Thank you Ric, I do know that there are lots of people who have a differing of opinion from mine on here but, the thing that we all need to remember as ministers is that it is not our doctrine it is Gods and Jesus's doctrine that we must support, Jesus inspite of what some may think never stated that we should turn people away in fact he stated that He was sent for the sinners, in fact, he lived among sinners and talked with them and, of them as they were his friends. I can see Jesus performing weddings for Gays, why can't people today be more Christ like and less "Christian".

      16. Unka Jerl's Avatar Unka Jerl

        Under your logic, no bible believing christian should be allowed to be on the SCOTUS. Laws do change, of course. Get on board, or get left behind.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          And exactly WHERE did you get that myth or come up with it. And yes laws DO change, but ONLY when done by the law and done legally.

          And considering that the Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is between a man and a woman, not one but TWICE

          Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)

          The ONLY way that the Supreme Court can rule for SSM is by invalidating these tow previous decisions. If they dont then it leaves the whole thing still in conflict and the decisions by the lower court (6th US District Court) stands.

          And if Kagen and Ginsburg do not recuse themselves as federal law demands they do since they officiated at SSM marriages and thus their judgement on this issue is compromised, then even IF they rule for SSM, then the decision is void because it was passed in violation of existing and legally passed federal law thus meaning it was passed under duress and as such cannot be enforced in any way.

          Guess its clearly YOU that needs to become educated on how the law works or you will continue to sound as foolish as you do now.

          1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            Minnesota's Baker v. Nelson 1971 set precedent that definition of marriage excluding same-sex ones doesn't violate the following by SCOTUS stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." The review was a mandatory appellate review, so the rejection set it as a precedent.

            First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association),

            Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment),

            Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and

            Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).

            The DOMA case opinion goes to exhausting lengths to state that marriage is defined by the states, and it's not a Federal question. The 2012 case is called UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

            I suggest that people read the actual majority opinion in important cases. They lay out the full argument and reference precedents. Much of the time, like in the Hobby Lobby case, almost everything published in the press is incorrect. In it, for instance, no new precedents were set. SCOTUS didn't do anything but apply existing decisions.

            The pertinent parts are stated from other ruling referenced, so you don't have to search all over to understand what the court says. It isn't in contract legalese. They are mostly written to be as easy to understand as the U.S. Constitution.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry, but the first two decisions have what is referred to in law as "supremacy" meaning they are the decisions that must be followed as any attorney-law school or judge will tell you if you would just ask. The only exception to this is if the first two decisions are overturned or over ruled. And that isnt going to happen.

            Nice try but it still proves that YOU are in error. Want to try again?

      17. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

        Congress doesn't have power to pass laws affecting the Supreme Court:

        US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

        It is up to each Justice to decide if their conflicts require them to recuse themselves.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Sorry, Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 clearly says you are totally wrong. Or else WHY would they word it like this "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." unless they meant it? The founding fathers were not stupid or ignorant, they put it that way for a specific reason.

          1. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Nothing was said about any "judicial stripping" that was all you. Federal law clearly says that in this case since Guinsberg and Kagen preformed SSM's, that their judgement in this case can be called into question.

            Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

            28 U.S.C. Section 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that when a party to a case in a United States District Court or the US Supreme Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge. But since there are no other judges higher then the Supreme Court, then this clearly means that the right to make a decision on this shall be removed from that judge, else why would they print it that it would be taken from that judge and moved to another judge?

            The 14th Amendment states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But what you SSM supporters dont seem to understand, that same argument can be used by people AGAINST SSM to continue to ignore SSM No matter what the court decides and there is nothing you can do to stop it or change it. Not to mention the 1st Amendment bans making any laws that would violate the right of a citizen or a business owner to practice their religion or follow their religious teachings or tenants.

            Sorry, but you lose all the way round.

            1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

              Ha! You're so silly, Daniel.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            yes Joe, you are. And your posts prove it more and more with every word you place here. Your parents must be so proud as you have a bright future in politics where the truth does not matter.

            1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

              Good luck tomorrow Daniel, I hope you succeed. This guy is really out of control. Have a nice day.

              1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                Yes, you are out of control, Kevin. Coming to a loving, welcoming, pro-same-gender-marriage church and spewing hate speech and bigotry has not endeared you and Daniel to many here. Play nice, or play elsewhere. That's all any ULC asks. If you don't respect our church, you have no business coming here.

              2. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

                Kevin and Daniel I support my CHRISTIAN BROTHERS TO THE FULLEST. Joey we will not run away from this debate.

              3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                You've not "debated" anything, Bernie. You've just come here spewing garbage and hate speech. But do keep supporting Christian Brothers - I"m sure you're a big fan of their brandy - your writings are a big hint.

              4. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

                Joey, the love of the True Gospel is never hatred. To denounce the demonic behavior of disobedient, lost and confused souls is tantamount to the total existence of the order of the church and following the commandments of the Divine Creator. Since you seem to ignore and follow in this category, I beseech you to cease and RESIST YOUR TEMPTATIONS OF THE FLESH. REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!

              5. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                Barney, I beseech you to take your silly derpidity somewhere it will be appreciated...try godhatesfags.com Those sick, delusional folks will welcome you with open arms.

              6. Dan's Avatar Dan

                Just spoke with the Office in California Joe, and they are NOT happy with your childish actions. They stated that they are referring this to the moderators with the very strong suggestion that you be banned for your childish name calling and actions as you have been warned about these before.

                If I were you joe, I would not make any long range plans concerning this site.

              7. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                Oh noes!

                Who did you speak with? I'm wondering if it's the same person I spoke with at the Office in California, Daniel....because that person just laughed and laughed at you. The pulled up this thread and thought it was absolutely hilarious that someone who doesn't even recognize my church would come and talk smack then get all butthurtz when they were figuratively stomped into a mudhole.

                The California moderators are quite upset that you would seek to quash a ULC Minister's First Amendment Rights In Their Own Church. They're considering passing your IP address and such on to Anonymous for them to deal with. Perhaps you should consider changing ISP's ASAP, and wiping your hard drive.

                If you were me, Danny Boy, you'd be one hell of a lot smarter, and much, much less of a douchenozzle. Love you!

              8. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

                Good luck Daniel, I hope they nail him to the cross he doesn't believe in. This guy is the most acidic entity I have ever encountered, he is the paragon of arrogance, and condescendence. Good luck. There really isn't room for the rest of us and his ego.

              9. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                "I hope they nail him to the cross he doesn’t believe in." [May 11, 2015 at 1:00 pm] What a very "Christian" statement, Kevin. You make your faith look so very attractive.

              10. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

                Keep calling names Joe

              11. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

                Brian congratulations, you have been officially baptized by the demon spirits of Joe, and Basen. Most here are sheep and follow lock step with our linguist extraordinaire. What these two don't understand is that we are standing on the solid rock of the Word and not the bandini mountain they are standing on. Our baptism in the name of the Father and Jesus Christ though it may not be relevant to SCOTUS; is the key of David that opens the gates of paradise for us. The problem now is: that with all the scriptures that we have put in print in front of them about homosexuality and how God feels about it, they can no longer claim that they never heard the Word of God when their souls are delivered up to Him. Their unrepentant hearts will be their downfall. The Master of linguistics doesn't really believe in "our" fairy tale God, but continually quotes the same Bible he doesn't believe in. The other has so twisted the Bible to suit his abhorrent carnal desires, he can't see what plainly is an abomination to God. The other thing they don't understand is: WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY! Our job is to witness for God and Jesus and that's exactly what we will do. If any one here doesn't believe it, or accept it that's fine, and they are perfectly within their right as they have free will given to them by God.. We can witness to Pagans, Wiccans, Atheists, Muslims, Satanists, Jews, Christians, Catholics, and yes even humanists who don't recognize religion at all as a positive force in spiritual growth, but insist on coming to a religious site and causing mayhem. WE can take it. Let them call us bigots, haters, racists, whatever moniker they can think of. NONE of it CHANGES the Word of God. Look at the posts presented by our learned professor and then look how he claims this is a "loving", welcoming site that apparently is wrapped in tolerance. For every one that isn't Christian, or doesn't accept homosexuality. According to him. They are of their father and his lusts they will do. Its foretold this would happen and it is right before our very eyes. Don't get mad, this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel. All will be made right in spite of Satan's plan. Have a nice day in Christ.

          3. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Oh really Joe? And I suppose you can try and claim this as a fake as well?

            3:21PM EST ULC Monastery Universal Life Church Monastery Headquarters 2730 1st Ave S Seattle, WA 98134 USA

            Please reply above this line --

            Daniel Gray,

            A request for support has been created and assigned ticket #46XXXX. A representative will follow-up with you as soon as possible. Our office hours are Monday-Friday, 9am to 4pm, Pacific Time.

            If you wish to send additional comments or information regarding this issue, simply reply to this e-mail.

            As I said Joe, I wouldnt make any long term plans for this site. You have angered some people in California. And since I just spoke with them about 4 minutes before I made the first post to you, there is NO way that you could have spoken to them, so making up a falsehood is not helping you in any way.

            The Moderators will be taking care of you Joe as your actions cannot be allowed to continue and degrade this site nor allow you to act like you own it and people need to do what you say or else.

            Enjoy the bed you made Joe, as I am very sure that you wont be liking the end results.

            1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

              You do realize California and Washington are two different states, Right?

              Also, that's not even a legitimate e-mail header from ULC. I've had support tickets opened from them before, when discussing certain technical aspects of the commenting system. Perhaps before trying to bullshit someone, you should have the technical details correct.

              You've angered some people in various locations...others of us are just laughing at your derpidity. Perhaps some day someone will find a cure for your coproencephaly.

              You're a funny little angry git, Danny. Hopefully your niece is no longer with you and is safe in the care of a responsible adult now.

              1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

                And with further eloquence.....

              2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                .....you might not sound like such a derp, Kibble. {but it would take much further eloquence ;-) }

            2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

              Be thankful you are who you are Daniel. Some people are too smart for their own good, I wouldn't be gloating just yet Joey.

              1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                Gloating, Kermit? Not at all. Simply pointing out the continuing inaccuracies (lies) in Danny Boy's rants. But then, someone with an IQ above room temperature would have known the difference.

          4. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Gray, once again you succeed in letting us all know that coproencephaly is a terrible scourge that affects far too many in our nation and around the world. I hope you get the treatment and care you so deserately need before you completely succomb to it, and before you infect young Madison and others you come into intimate contact with. Gesundheit!

          5. Dan's Avatar Dan

            If you insist on telling people what your medical condition is Joe, then feel free.

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Yes I know and the phone number goes to Washington and the email goes to California. Seems you are trying yet again to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And as for the headers?Ok Joe here ya go

            “from: ULC Monastery Orders / Questions date: Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:21 PM subject: Support Ticket Opened [#46xxxx] mailed-by: themonastery.org

            Sorry Joe, you cant refute this. You are in so much trouble you cant even BEGIN to understand how much trouble you are in. But then again you walked into this with eyes wide open and mouth flapping in calling names that are a direct violation of the Terms of Service you agreed to when you started posting.

            As I said, the moderators will be dealing with you very soon, and if I were you I would not be making any long term plans concerning this site.

          7. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Still not able to comprehend simple English, Danny? I hope you don't infect young Madison. (remember, just because your god might tell you pedophelia is okay doesn't mean it actually is)

          8. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Keep it up Joe, you are just digging your hole deeper and deeper with each word that comes out of your mouth

          9. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            46xxxx is not a valid ticket number.

            All your email shows is that you lost faith in what passes for a god in your coproencephalic state and decided to try to appeal to a real authority - the leaders of a church (my church) you don't even acknowledge as legit. My, but how low you've plunged.

          10. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Getting nervous Joe? You will find out what the ticket number is soon enough when the moderators talk to you about your actions and your continues vile insults and acting like you are the big bear on this thread.

            As I said before, I wouldnt be making any long term plans for this site or concerning it.

        2. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Sorry, Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 clearly says you are totally wrong. Or else WHY would they word it like this “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” unless they meant it? The founding fathers were not known for pulling jokes, they put it that way for a specific reason. And if they didnt mean for the Congress to be able to tell the Supreme Court what they can and cant do, they why did they put it that way in the supreme law of the land, unless they MEANT for this to be done that way.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            You've never demonstrated any prowess as a constitutional scholar before. Suffice it to say your streak remains unbroken.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Only because you cant refute what I have said or shown to be factual.

            Nice try but you have failed yet again Joe.

          3. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            Danial, read the whole paragraph, not just the part you want to believe. This is a well established part of Constitutional Law that has been used at least five times.

            Yes, they meant to do it; it was not a mistake. Alexander Hamilton wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, #80 I believe. I didn't refer to it in the first posting because it doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices recusing themselves.

            "2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

            "***" added to indicate area of interest."

          4. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            Sorry, I walked away and realized I misstated something. Judicial Stripping doesn't apply to removing a SCOTUS Justice from office for failing to recuse them self. I incorrectly just wrote wrote "recusing." I guess I rushed the post because I was just repeating myself.

          5. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Randy, you can claim whatever you want but you cannot refute what the paragraph says. Nor can you refute what Justices Kennedy-Marshall and Roberts have said and they are ON the US Supreme Court (Marshall is dead now but his words and writings still abide)

            So for you to insist I am wrong, you are also insisting the three US Supreme Court Justices are wrong and the Article 3 of the US constitution is wrong all because you say so.

          6. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Funny how you reference SCOTUS when it suites you and deny them when you don't like their decisions, Daniel. You're more full of contradictions than the Bible.

          7. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Deny the Supreme Court? Since when. I am the one quoting from them, YOU on the other hand are saying what they said is not factual.

            SO now I guess we know who is the one denying the court, and it clearly isnt me. yet more of your falsehoods Joe as anyone can see by simply reading the posts.

          8. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, see: Engel v. Vitale Lemon v. Kurtzman Wallace v. Jaffree Lee v. Weisman Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union The wall of separation of church and state is at least as old as our nation.

          9. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            Daniel, you don't seem to understand that most people aren't here to "Win" by having another "lose." We are sharing our understanding of things in case it helps others, and seeing what others share to see if it can help us.

            I don't care if you choose to ignore the conditional aspect of the phrase "In all other cases" any more than I care if you choose to take verses, or parts of them, out of their context. Be ignorant of what you choose; believe what you will.

            I do suggest that you research what it means in judicial language to have a conflict of interest. Just like when reading sacred or medical texts, one must understand the meaning of the words and phases used in that context. Hint: having performed a same-sex marriage where it was legal at the time does not cause a conflict on rulings if prohibitions of such marriages violate Constitutional Rights. However, giving a speech to convince people that a definition does or does not violate the Constitution would cause such a conflict. A quick google search to find arguments that agree with you generally will not lead to a greater understanding of anything.

          10. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Randy, well-said, good Sir.

          11. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Joe, See the Article 1 of the US Constitution. It clearly says that only CONGRESS has the authority to make a law or give weight of law, NOT the supreme Court. As such every decision you posted is in clear violation of Article 1 Section 1 and as such is not worth the paper its printed on.

            Secondly your lack of knowledge of the US History is breathtaking. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The very FIRST mention of this mythical separation of church and state was in 1802. That means Joe that it was mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to his Baptist detractors a good FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER the Constitution was ratified as the law of the land.

            Now the ONLY way to change the Constitution is by a Constitutional Amendment, PERIOD! And at NO time or place according to the Congressional Library OR the Congressional Voting record was ANY FORM of a Constitutional Amendment ever passed in the Congress and sent out to the states for the 1st Amendment to have this mythical Separation of Church and State. As such it does NOT exist in the Constitution.

            Now as for the Supreme Court deciding it does, again NO. Article 1 Section 1 bans the President AND the Supreme Court from making a law. Not to mention the Supreme Court is very STRICTLY LIMITED by the Constitution in what it can and cannot do.The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it. and they are: Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

            1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction]; and in this case they can only hear or decide the Constitutionality of same, they are NOT allowed to claim something is there when it is not nor are they allowed to suddenly find "new" rights that have never been rights in the first place.
            2. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and
            3. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

            Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

            “…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” 

            If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

            In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

            Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

            “…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para)

            “Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

            Do you see?

            So! Where are provisions addressing this mythical Separation of Church and State located in the Constitution?

            The answer any competent 3rd grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”

            Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

            So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: When they have fabricated individual “constitutional rights” outside of their Constitutional Authority so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”! But they did not and could not change Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution. And lest we forget Joe, the 10th Amendment clearly says that if the authority is not expressly given or authorized to the federal Government or any of the three branches therein, THEY DO NOT HAVE IT AND NEVER DID HAVE IT! And sorry Joe, I dont see anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the Supreme Court the right to "interpret" it. And if they dont have that right then any decision they made interpreting the Constitution is null and void.

            A 3rd grader understands this, so the question is why dont you?

          12. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I'm sorry, Daniel, but you are not authoritative on Constitutional nor case law issues. While the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was coined in 1802, it was used to describe the concept as ratified in our 1st Amendment. I give more credence to the Founders who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights than I do to someone with no legal training (nor demonstrable understanding) over 200 years removed. I, and the vast majority of U.S. Citizens, will continue to proceed with the knowledge that elementary school children are taught in our schools: SCOTUS is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. Continue to rant away. Perhaps a small but vocal minority will agree with you. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to operate our country within the law.

          13. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Nice try Joe. Never said I was the final word on the Constitution now did I? That was all you as you are upset that I am able to show that you have no idea what your talking about.

            Facts are facts and anyone can check with the links and items I posted to see I am quoting directly from them so they cant be faked in any way.

            So you go on believing what you wish Joe, and the rest of us will go on believing what is written in the Constitution and the founding fathers papers as it can clearly be seen that reality does not intrude on your ivory tower.

          14. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Comment has been removed.

          15. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            "Good luck getting this miscreant, despicable trash off the blog." Your mom's here, Kubli? Which one is she? (I'm guessing Brian)

      18. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

        I truly understand why many disagree with same-sex marriages, and have tried in other posts here to help others understand why good people, without any hate, can believe that way. However, I fail to see how one with personal integrity can accept an ordination from an organization with whom they disagree with its basic tenets, especially since they have to state their agreement with them to accept the ordination.

        Thanks to all who have shared their knowledge and understanding on this article. I'm dropping off because most recent posts have been childish argumentative noise--little serious content in a large number of superlative words whose intended value appears to be based on the emotion they are meant to convey.

        1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

          An apology:

          I reviewed the Tenets. I didn't remember them as well as I thought. I looked at a lot of places before I chose ULC.

          1. Do only that which is right.

          2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws.

          • Right is based on what the individual minister sees a right.
          • Practice: *** "So long as that expression [of religion]" ******"Does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others" Speech doesn't generally impinge on others rights, even if it disagrees with the other person having the Rights. ******"is in accordance with the government’s laws." Almost all speech is acceptable under US law.

          I apologize about the paragraph in my post dated May 10, 2015 at 6:16 am. I should have review the tenets before posting, instead of just after posting. My memory of them was incorrect. I don't see that any post on this article has in any way violated them. I am sorry.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I don't feel you need to apologize for your post, Randy. While perhaps none of the posts here have violated the letter of our tenants, many (including some of mine) certainly violate the spirit of them. I wish this commenting system had some of the features of Disqus, where comments can be Up- and Down-voted. I wish this commenting system had some of the features of Facebook, where someone can both Report and Block those harassing and trolling. Both of those systems also allow for editing of comments to fix spelling problems and such. Both of those systems allow for deleting - sometimes things are posted in anger, and it would be nice to have the ability to remove them. Both of those systems don't horizontally compress nested replies to the point of unreadability. One thing that some here don't seem to understand (or perhaps do very well understand but choose to ignore) is that the ULC is pro same gender marriage. Read both the Our History and Moving Forward sections of the About the Universal Life Church page. It's pretty clear. (see: themonastery.org/aboutUs ) Why folks who have no intention of following our tenants, who have no interest in basic civility, who don't even recognize our church as a church ("...this is a website and not a church...", "A church is brick and mortar, it is not a website ...") even bother to come here is a real head-scratcher. As the Our Mission section of the About page says, "The communication and fellowship of our scattered millions of ministers, we believe, is just as valid a form of worship as the weekly services held in some of the world’s more segregated and elitist religious institutions." You've done fine, Randy. No need to apologize for wanting decorum, for desiring all to follow the Golden Rule. Reasonable men and women can disagree on issues, but not all who come here are reasonable.

      19. shelly watkins's Avatar shelly watkins

        Daniel Gray's logic:Since Kagan and Ginsburg have thought about an issue and go into the hearings having formed an opinion, that is WRONG. Please everyone ignore the fact that ALL the justices have formed opinions on the issues they hear and I'm letting them off the hook, unless said justices disagree with me, then I'll scream bloody murder. The 1st Amendment protects religion but when anyone brings up the fact that it also means we can't make my Christian beliefs into some sort of American Jesus Sharia Law, then I don't want to hear it.

      20. jen's Avatar jen

        with that argument, any justice that has performed a heterosexual ceremony and no same sex ceremonies must also disqualify themselves because same sex marriage is lawful in some states and they most certanley are showing their bias. At least Kagan and Ginsburg have shown they have no bias since they are the only two justices that have performed both.

      21. Elijah Kelley's Avatar Elijah Kelley

        Since you know the law so damn well, I have a question, have you ever been pulled over before? If you have then you have no points here. You can't act like you know the law if you've broken the law.

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Brilliant Poe, good Sir! You almost had me believing you were serious. Well played indeed!

    2. Malcolm Davis's Avatar Malcolm Davis

      God created male and female, and I oppose same sex marriage, it is an abomination in the eyes of God.

      1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

        Please Quote the exact scripture where Christ says anything like that. Not once did he ever say even one word against being gay nor gay marriage... which btw was common at that time, even to the extent that the Catholic Church eventually had a rite of marriage for same sex couples.
        According to scriptures, the abomination is divorce not being gay. Please read all of a chapter before making your own judgments. Most if not all of the verses used against gays are not directed towards them but to ministers who are also advised to never get married to anyone.

        1. Brian Kneeland's Avatar Brian Kneeland

          If you quote Old Testament then you have to live by all the laws of the Old Testament - including washing correctly, no pork (including ham and ribs) no shell fish (there goes the shrimp cocktail!) So - tell us what Jesus said - I mean besides love God and love your neighbor!

      2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Simple, Malcolm... Don't marry someone of your own gender. ;-)

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Klavern, I'd highly recommend you knock first. We have a form of Castle Doctrine here in Iowa, you know....I'm a war Veteran, hyperalert as a baseline, one hell of a shot, and have no problem introducing you to your god or the worms. Not a threat, just a guarantee that you'll leave in a bag, in pieces and absorbant pads. Knock first, or update your will.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            The above post is no longer relevant as Mr. DeFranco's threatening post has been deleted.

            1. Jay Kleine's Avatar Jay Kleine

              Wow, Joe, has it really come to this in that a gay marriage opponent/fundamentalist/radical right (or should I say "radical wrong") henchman is threatening you with bodily harm?! I am very sorry to hear this. Moreover, he had the nerve to say that you had "low class?" Unbelievable. I am glad Mr. DeFranco's totally inappropriate and uncalled for post was deleted. High five to the moderators for doing their job.

              1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

                Yes, Jay, it really has come to this. Not only did Mr. DeFranco threaten me with bodily harm, but his cohort Mr. Gray doxed me earlier today. Fortunately, all it took was one phone call to the headquarters of my church, the ULC, and the threatening posts were immediately removed. Insults are one thing, but threats and doxing (and inviting others to come 'visit' me) is beyond the pale. There's that good Christian love we hear so much about...

              2. Jay Kleine's Avatar Jay Kleine

                I am sorry, Joe. Totally outrageous. I think they doth protest too much...

      3. Nagash's Avatar Nagash

        Yes Sir, that is indeed, and no amount of marginalizing or suberting the truth the pro-SSM crowd attempts (and fails) to do, will ever change that simple truth. It really is just that simple.

        1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          So denying rights based on mis-information is ok because you want it to be? The US is founded on the principle of ALL having the same rights ... not rights for a few or those who believe one way or another... but rights for all.

    3. Fred Deis's Avatar Fred Deis

      Right pn Joe. Who says what is "traditional". Traditional may be what the majority determined is appropriate. Slavery was traditional and we know what happened to it. Come on through the days of our country and modern society traditions and practices and laws change. This discussion is about equal rights to all couples straight and gay to be able to practice the love you have and be able to have the same legal benefits as all. Change is so hard for all of us I know but we all have to be willing to accept others for who they are. They may not understand or accept gay marriage but allowing it does not take away from you any rights and privileges as a straight person just don't deny others those same rights and the acceptance and recognition of their love that you have. I don't expect that any religious institution will be forced to require that they perform a same sex marriage if they don't accept the concept. Give the gay couples a civil marriage if they desire.

    4. JamesPaul Newlin's Avatar JamesPaul Newlin

      If the religious/political right are for less government then get out of the bedrooms.How much money is really being spent for the war on drugs and sexual conduct? Prohibitions have never worked - even laws against murder - people are always going to kill other people regardless of the law or the punishment. Let's move on to actually making a positive contribution. Looks to me like all the rantings and ravings are perpetrations and perpetuate victim consciousness.The public in general believes that the bible is the revealed word of god without know exactly knowing who wrote what and when it was written and with what intention.

      1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        James Paul Newlin the intentions of the Holy Divine Bible are clear. These are the laws, tenets and instructions on how you should live life and conduct yourself and recognize the Creator of life and everything in this world and the universe for that matter. You make it seems as if it was some doctrine that was planted to prevent what you perceive to be correct. All this garbage mentality thinking to substantiate homosexuality. No James, homosexuality is wrong and it has no place in society. It is wrong morally and it is a disease to help stop the natural order of life between a man and his wife!!!!

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Brian, do realize that yours is not the only interpretation of Christianity (by some estimates there are over 41,000 various sects and such), and that Christianity isn't the only faith tradition welcome here at ULC. You're not authoritative on the matter. Weighing in with your opinion is one thing, being a dick about it is quite another. Your opinion is fine for you, and sharing it is fine, too. But know that others will - and do - disagree with you, and their opinion is just as valid.

          1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

            Validity is is in the eye of the beholder. But the concentrated truth is in the eyes of God and his mighty kingdom. You are a mere man, mortal and disobedient to his will. I pray for you Joey. You have so much potential and yet you let if fail you. I pray that in time you will realize your true potential and adhere to the power of the Holy Ghost.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Once again, I feel compelled to explain to you that my name is “Joe”, not “Joey”. I’m beginning to think you’re a dimwitted critter as well as a rude one. I’ll pray for you.

    5. Teddy DeSalvo's Avatar Teddy DeSalvo

      You can not compare humans to animals. Animals engage as an act of who rules the pack. We are not animals so why act like them. If it was the same for man they would not been no Eve. Read the story of Lot. This should show us same sex marriage is wrong in God's Eye. I will not support same sex marriage ever.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Certainly we are animals. Not everyone agrees with your biblical interpretations. Not everyone believes in your god. Supernatural beings are not authoritative in the U.S., the Constitution is. You don't have to support same gender marriage.

        1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Others have a responsibility to "play nice" also. This isn't just "your" church. We all know that you and others don't subscribe to what we believe. O.K. However, when you and others stop the labeling, and name calling, we will not find it necessary to defend "our" faith and will be able to express our opinions as is our constitutional right. I don't care if you believe, agree, or follow anything I believe in, that's not my goal. I and other Christians are equal to you and the myriad of faiths represented here, and have just as much right to express our "opinions". I give "due" respect not tacet respect. If you don't agree with what I say, fine, post it or don't reply. Either way I don't care. Remember, not every one believes what you believe but they have the right to say it. You are not the black board monitor so stop acting like it. I am not bashing others, I'm just tired of humanists, pagans, atheists, wiccans, and Satanists bashing Christians. I'm telling them if they have an opinion to express it as is their right. Fine, no foul. I do not however have to accept being belittled, or called names because of "my" religious beliefs. I am not a second class citizen here or anywhere else. If you personally can't live with that; tough. For you to tell someone they have to "respect" being called bigot, racist, homophobe, or any other name because of their faith is unacceptable. I didn't attack, or call any one names here, I did tell them to stop using the Bible as a reference point to validate perversion.. Once again, if you don't agree; fine, express yourself, or don't reply but I don't care. I don't care if you believe in my God or not. I don't care if you believe my belief in the Bible. The Constitution is fine here, but this is not "my" final destination so I prepare for whats after, .And you're right I don't have to support SSM, and I don't but what does that have to do with my freedom of religion or expression? But I don't care Joe, so believe what you believe because I intend to.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Kevin, some of your faith perspective do come here and wield the Bible like a cudgel. Others come and respectfully share their perspective. If you're of the latter group, you are in keeping with our two tenants. If you're of the former, you deserve whatever blowback you call upon yourself. You get to decide.

          2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Joe, this dialogue you're engaging in with Daniel is unacceptable in my church. Please stick to the two tenants required by the ULC to continue posting. If you are one of those who can't adhere to this maybe you should find another church. Just saying. Calling names and questioning someone's sanity because they disagree with you. Come on Joe, you're better than that.

          3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Take it up with Daniel, Kevin. Considering what I just read from you in another post (date stamp [May 9, 2015 at 3:29 pm]), you are a double amputee - you don't have a leg to stand on. BTW, the ULC - MY Church - supports same gender marriage (themonastery.org/aboutUs) . If you don't like it, tough. Take your delusional bigoted hate speech back to your Westboro cult.

        2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          That applies to everyone, this is getting tedious. I determine that which is to be received or rejected in my belief system. No one has the power over that, and as I'm not name calling here or labeling anyone I will not accept it either. My opinion is mine. I own it, and I am comfortable with it. If you or someone else doesn't agree with me, so be it, but that's where it ends. I hope this ends this conversation Joe. Let's get back to our "opinions"

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Yes, Kevin, it is getting tedious. Sharing one's opinion here in this church is one thing (which I support, as long as one abides by the tenants of this church ). Trolling is another thing entirely. If one is sharing and following the tenants, welcome. If one is trolling, one simply shames whatever faith that one purports to embrace.

          2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            relative to you.

      2. lee's Avatar lee

        Question for Ted. In the Beginning, God created Adam (in his own image?) and then he took a rib and made Eve. They created the great sin of eating an apple of knowledge, even though warned by a snake that could talk, and produced two sons...Cain and Able. However, Cain slew Able............so from whence did all these people commeth?........from the land of Nod?...........really?.....and, how did Nod happen?

        1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          I can help you with that Lee if you wish to learn.

    6. lee's Avatar lee

      and, don't go to one. Who Cares?

    7. steve's Avatar steve

      Hate the sin not the sinner.

    8. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

      Joey let's face it. You are a demonic soul fighting against the power of the Holy Spirit. You are the new authority of Gay Rights fighting to ensure your power over what is right and what is wrong. You want all of Christians to just be silent and let you have your way. You are sadly mistaken my friend. We will fight you tooth and nail to the end. Your concept of marriage is not our concept and our way of believing has been in existence longer than you and your family bloodline. Historically, I challenge you to travel around the world and state your beliefs to the masses. I challenge you to dare venture from your keyboard to the podium. You know you will not, but I will!!!!! Just because you equate yourself with a penguin is your business. But I am a man.Whom God gave dominion to over the animals and creatures. So I guess I have dominion over you too. As I was chosen to preach and teach his word in the correct manner. Who gave you the authority to challenge the word of God??? Who gave you the correct and true meanings of law. Where did you study to receive your ability to debate the principles of the Holy Divine Word? What planet did you come from, because truly you can not claim America to be the land of the homosexual agenda!!!! This is the land the Lord has blessed to be free and not held down to sinful standards. It is so, he will destroy it and give it to another country. This can only be prevented by keeping his loving children from the great sin you are promoting and escalating throughout every town and city. Your disgusting homosexual behaviors.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Brian, again I must stress that my name is "Joe", not "Joey". You keep using the term "friend", yet you do not demonstrate friendship. You keep using the word "love", yet you do not show love. Penguin? What? You have no dominion over me. Trust me, you have no power over me whatsoever. Who gave you the power to claim your word is God's word? You do not speak for God. You blaspheme. You speak falsely of God and His word. My disgusting homosexual behaviors? What does that even mean? Repent, before it is too late.

    9. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Over the past 3 days I have seen responses to this topic ranging from acceptance to full on hate and bigotry and blame. Not to mention persons who have come in claiming to know all about the constitution because they read a small chapter to persons who claim to speak for God. Neither of which have a basis in reality or fact. I have challenged several people who have claimed to know more than they do and the result were insults but no facts. I was under the impression that we were all here for the same purpose ... to share in the love of our God. Apparently a few arent.
      There are many opinions on this topic but we have to look at two things. Christ instructed us to Love ALL and the US government says ALL are created Equal. There are NO exceptions to either. Remember a closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood

    10. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Romans 8:31-39 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) God’s Love in Christ Jesus 31 What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? 33 Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

      It's too bad that a few who come in here refuse to follow the teachings of Christ's love by spreading hate and half-truths and mis-informantion. If you so hate the ULC, please leave and find a right wing home like Westboro to haunt. Today is Sunday.. remember the Lords day? Honor your mothers and cut the hateful comments and be the ministers you claim to be .. Preach the love of Christ not the hate of Satan! None of you have constitutional Law degrees, nor do you have the understanding of the law. Cutting and pasting from a document does NOT show the meanings of the laws. Almost every part of the constitution has been explained by those who wrote it. You may not agree with them but, their reasoning still stands. Things like separation of church and state, while not specifically addressed in the document was explained, as the second amendment allowing anyone to own a gun when it states a 'well regulated militia'. Things change and have been redefined for years and will be in years to come. If you don't like it.. too bad..take it up with your congress person.. not here!

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        You are separating yourself by engaging a perverted lifestyle that you are comfortable with. It is an abomination before God and you made the choice. If you live it you are responsible for the consequences. Period. I'm glad that your world and mine is 180* apart. Its difficult enough with all the temptations out there to deal your particular deviance, and expect salvation. You should have read Romans 1: 28 to the end. But your arguments then would be void.

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Using the words "perverted lifestyle" is more douchebaggery on your part, Kevin. Don't like being labeled, stop labeling people.

          1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            It is what it is Stutler, last reply.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            You are what you are. Stop being a bigot (or take your hate speech someplace that haters like you are welcome: godhatesfags.com), or expect to continue to be labeled just as you're labeling others. Galatians 6:7, Kevin. It is what it is. Let's hope that's your last reply. Your hate speech is getting tedious.

        2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          Kevin .. the perverted lifestyle and abomination is the hate that you bigots profess. Christ NEVER condemned being gay but he did condemn hate and bigotry. If you claim to be a Christian you might be following him.. Remember Christ NEVER wrote the 'letter to the Romans" it is just that, a letter from a man to some Roman ministers. .. not Christ's teachings. I am sorry to hear that you choose to be an abomination to God. Maybe someday you'll see the errors of your thinking and learn to follow the love and teachings of Christ.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Good on ya, Ric. Kevin and his fellow trolls have no respect for themselves, no respect for God, no respect for the ULC. It's sad to see them shame themselves so terribly and consistently. Perhaps someday they'll find the loving God, the loving Christ, and repent and atone. Until then, I hope they find another bridge to live under. They're certainly welcome over at godhatesfags.com

          2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            You got nothing for me Basen, crawl back under your rock, but that won't protect you when Jesus arrives. no more replies to you either. The truth is irrefutable and dialoguing with you is an exercise in futility be content in your deviance I don't want anything to do with you.

          3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            See, there ya go, Kevin, spewing more of your douchebaggery. Fred Phelps called, he'd like his shtick back.

          4. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            De.. you are showing the typical right wing hate group made up phony christian attitude. When you are wrong and backed into a corner you start calling names and acting childish. You apparently have never actually studied scripture or you would not have that attitude. Christ was of love and understanding ... he condemned hate and bigotry. You and your buddies are serving the other 'master' and not the one from above. Joe has been trying to reason with both you and Daniel but the underworld has a strong grip on your hearts to the point that all you can see is hate. Apparently the Scriptures above really upset you as they pertain to the Love of Christ, Those of us who do, understand them ... the rest get mad and act as you have.

    11. W. Johnson's Avatar W. Johnson

      No religion or government has the right to tell anyone who or what they can marry. If there is no law restricting marriage of any kind, I would marry a man to his goat is that was what he wanted. No one has the right to judge anyone, that is to be done in the afterlife by someone more qualified than us.

    12. bob gabriele's Avatar bob gabriele

      I am disappointed and disheartened by the vitriolic remarks and misplaced opposition to and condemnation of same sex marriage. No intelligent no enlightened no factually knowledgeable person con reasonably contend that same sex marriage undermines or threatens the sanctity of opposite sex marriage. Indeed, it is the misconduct of those heterosexual marrieds, divorces and irresponsible parentless child baring that under mines the sanctity of marriage. I dare say that statistically those who oppose same sex marriage oppose abortion clinics access to all, oppose birth control education and assistance for child bearing school students yet support divorce. Oh did I mention that the same prejudice against same sex marriage is similar to the arguments against mixed marriages? And support of 'separate but equal" schools for blacks? And, "let Blacks live with 'their own' and Whites with 'their own'!!!" I just became a wedding officiant so that I can officiate over my youngest daughter's impending marriage to her betrothed in a same sex marriage based on love, support and respect. Peace Bob

    13. Chandler's Avatar Chandler

      Joe, as a gay man and minister, I appreciate your view and post here. Thank you.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        You're welcome, Chandler. We are all children of the same universe.

    14. preta4's Avatar preta4

      "You" have NO idea what you're talking about here, so I'll keep following God/Jesus who've NEVER EVER lead me astray, while you keep 'mistakenly' thinking what you're doing is right in your own eyes, and following those who don't have any idea what they're doing (believe, etc.) either. Thank you so very much for proving the validity and existence, of God/Jesus and Their Word. Staying in prayer for you (I know, you didn't ask for it, don't want it, etc.) just the same.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        I do know what I'm talking about...here in my church. Perhaps you've confused us with some other church, one with quite different doctrine and dogma. Bless you, child...I'll pray for you.

  1. david leisure's Avatar david leisure

    we as ministers have the say so if we do same sex weddings or not it is up to us if we do weddings our not

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      Exactly, David. What happens within our faiths is our business (within the very liberal provisions of the law). What happens in State is the the pervue of the State. Some folks confuse the two, assuming their faith trumps reality. It doesn't. Not here and now, at least.

    2. Dan's Avatar Dan

      Yes david you DO have the right to refuse. Sadly some people here and their supporters of SSM will most likely demand that you do the service even if your faith tells you that you cant, and would support you being sued if your dont. Completely ignoring the simple fact that you are protected by federal law as well as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that gives you the right to refuse.

      Some here just cannot see to grasp that simple concept.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        That may well indeed be possible, Daniel Gray. I've yet to see anyone on the threads here which I've read make a demand that they marry LGBT folk in a church where that faith/sub was otherwise opposed. I've never even heard of a credible case where force of law was used to require any minister to officiate any event with which they were otherwise disinclined to do so. Again, I suppose it could happen...but "suppose it could happen" doesn't really convey standing under U.S. jurisprudence. I can't prove a negative, and it's quite clear where onus resides. I've seen no supportive evidence. Or, as my now-17-year-old teen used to say, "Cool story, bro."

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          So either you missed this by accident or intentionally, which is it Joe?

          City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings Todd Starnes

          By Todd StarnesPublished October 20, 2014

          Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

          Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

          “Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

          Or this?


          Or this?


          Now if these SS couples are so willing to sue at a drop opf a hat, are you REALLY suggesting that they wont sue a minister for refusing to do the marriage thing? Now remember I already provided a link showing that pastors HAVE been sued and threatened for refusing.

          1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel, the difference is, if you own a commercial establishment that provides a service to the public.. IE a wedding chapel who preforms weddings...you must conform to all laws concerning the running of that business. If you are in an established recognized church, you are not required to. You would not be required to marry someone not of your faith as an example. There is a difference.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Rick, but there is NO law that can be made to force me to violate my religious beliefs or tenants, I dont care who tries to do it as that would be in violation of at least two US Supreme Court decisions (employment and santeria) as well as the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

            You really should do your homework BEFORE posting what is clearly your opinion

          3. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel you apparently do not have a business license nor have ever had one. Every State in the US and most localities require you to register a business and you must also register it with the IRS. When you do that you become a business that must follow ALL of the laws that are in effect or come into effect. You can not cherry pick the laws like you do the bible.

            Your attempts to claim that everything comes from your interpretation of the constitution are not based in facts. If your religion believes in attacking or harming another..you break the law. Religion does not go above the law. Even Christ instructed you to obey the law of the land. But you think you are above even his teachings. Sorry.

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Ric but your assumption is incorrect. I have had a business license for well over 40 years so I do in fact have just a wee amount of knowledge as to what a business can and cannot do.

            But that is very kind of you to make false claims just to try and prove your point and failing to do so

          5. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Daniel, you are really quick to judge others and call others out ... if you really do have that license, you should know better than to make the comments you have. Unless that is, that you've never bothered to find out what the laws are that you are supposed to be following. If you are doing business with the public then you must follow the laws of the state and government. If you are a private religious church and licensed as such, then you are exempt from some of them. IE: Catholic Priests do not have to marry non-Catholics or divorced people, since both are condemned by Christ. BTW being gay never was.

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Not quick to judge anyone Ric. But if I see a response to me that is both stupid and wrong, I am going to answer.

            If that bothers you then you have my apologies.

            And nope sorry, Hobby Lobby clearly shows that you dont know what your talking about. Not to mention the Religious Freedom Act signed into law by no less then Bill Clinton, which says that I can REFUSE service to anyone, no matter what state or local law says; if they violate my religious beliefs or teachings. meaning I can refuse to serve homosexuals no matter if my business is open to the public or not. And the 1st Amendment clearly says that NO ONE can make a law or enact a law that would force me to violate my religion or its teachings in any form or in any way.

            Maybe you should read the 1st Amendment and the Santeria decision by the US Supreme Court out of Florida, just to name two. They will be very enlightening to you and force you to change your statements as they are not only wrong, but legally unenforceable as well as a violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

            Game set and match. You lose

          7. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Not quick to judge anyone Ric. my apologies if the truth is upsetting to you.

            And nope sorry, Hobby Lobby clearly shows that you are wrong. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected" meaning that no local-state or federal government or agency can make a law that will force me to violate my religion or religious beliefs. The 1st Amendment and the Santeria decision by the US Supreme Court out of Florida, say the exact same thing. You should read them.

        2. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Miss these then Joe?

          City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings Todd Starnes

          By Todd StarnesPublished October 20, 2014

          Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

          Or this?


          Or this?


          Now if these SS couples are so willing to sue at a drop opf a hat, are you REALLY suggesting that they wont sue a minister for refusing to do the marriage thing? Now remember I already provided a link showing that pastors HAVE been sued and threatened for refusing.

          1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            That is a for profit company and not a church. Huge difference. But I happen to agree that no one should be forced into marrying someone if they do not support the couple. I also am amazed anyone would ask someone to bless their wedding by someone who would condemn the act of SSM itself . The only problem is the bible also says something that the religious zealots once used to condemn interracial marriage. So where and who decides what the bible says and when you can use it to say no.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Those are businesses, not bona fide religious institutions, Daniel. But of course you knew that already.

          3. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            There is a problem here, but it's not really with same-sex marriages being allowed, but with the laws that require any non-government contracted business from rejecting a potential client.

            Any sole proprietor could have religious or other objections to some potential customer or request. Would you make flowers for somebody convicted of murdering one of your loved ones?

            The market will, over time, take care of people who discriminate. Gov't shouldn't be involved in how a business chooses its customers. If you perform weddings for a living, will you take customers who you know will not pay? What if you doubt that it is truly without compulsion?

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Kenny, your claim is not factual. According to their tax records they are a 501(c) meaning they are NOT a for profit. And that also lends the rest of your claim to suspicion that you got it wrong as well.

          5. Dan's Avatar Dan

            These are 501(c)'s Joe, meaning they are NOT for profit.

            Yet again you try and mislead. Or are you now going to say the IRS is not telling the truth as it does not fit your agenda?

          6. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, I see no evidence that the Idaho business is a 501(c)(3). If it is (provide sources, please), the question then becomes are they registered as a bona fide religious institution or a regular 501(c)(3).


          7. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Then you are not looking hard enough Joe. They provided their tax returns that clearly show they are a 501(c) to the judge, and as it stands they are now public documents.

          8. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            The faithinourfamilies link is in regards to Canada. Not applicable nor relevant to the U.S.

          9. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            The religionnews link is in regards to a business (a farm), not a bona fide religious institution. Again, non sequitur... Not relevant nor applicable.

          10. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I still see no evidence the Idaho business is registered as a bona fide religious institution 501(c)(3). Not one bit. Not my job to cite your sources for you. Look up arguments and onus.

          11. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            The whole 501(c)(3) discussion is useless. It doesn't matter how they choose to deal with the IRS. The IRS code is not a law concerning the establishment of religion. All individuals or association of individuals have the right of freedom of religion, regardless of the tax structure they choose. This has always been true, but you can read the SCOTUS majority opinion on the Hobby Lobby case to easily confirm it.

          12. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Randy, the high and mighty Joe swore that no person of the cloth had ever been sued for refusing to preform a SSM. I showed him that was not the truth. Then he whined that one of the links I gave was in Canada, but if you read his post he never mentioned that they all had to be in the US or any other specific country; he just said that NO pastor had ever been sued.

            Once I showed he was wrong yet AGAIN, then he goes on the offense of implied insults and so on thus showing his true colors. He has already been told to calm it down by the moderators because he used to be very vicious, but he is still up to his old tricks.

            Thats why I responded to him and thats why I am responding to you. Since you were civil I will be civil right back.

            Now you know, as Paul Harvey used to say; "the rest of the story"

          13. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Poor Daniel, you reject His blessings, you reject His teachings, you reject His love. I will continue to pray for your soul.

          14. Dan's Avatar Dan

            the only thing I reject here Joe is YOU and your inane posturings. Even when you are proved wrong and are show the who-what-when and where that you are wrong you refuse to accept it and then start with the snarky and slimy innuendos and personal attacks.

            Keep doing this and soon the mods will have to step in and AGAIN remind you that you cannot be doing this, or since they already warned you once, they might just take action themselves, the decision is theirs. Either way I am betting that you wont like the results.

      2. Len DeSecottier's Avatar Len DeSecottier

        Someone please tell me which gay person would want someone to marry them that did not want to? This is a mute issue....If you don't want to marry them, just say you don't want to marry them. Don't hide behind it. I have yet to hear of a single case of a minister saying no to marrying a gay couple who then the gay couple forced them to do so. This is picking straws up after the bales of hay are gone. Can we think of anything else to add to the pile?

        1. warjna's Avatar warjna

          Len - mute = incapable of speech. Moot is the word you want, meaning doubtful or open to debate.

          Just sayin'. ;-)

        2. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Then maybe you should go ask the two ministers in Iowa why they were sued when they refused to do a SSM? I think you will find your answers there instead of posting hyperbole and insinuations.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            What two ministers in Iowa were allegedly sued? I know for a fact that Iowa law has a specific exemption for bona fide religious institutions. Here is the text of Iowa Code 216.7.2.a: 2. This section shall not apply to: a. Any bona fide religious institution with respect to any qualifications the institution may impose based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose.


      3. lee's Avatar lee


  1. Ruth Veale's Avatar Ruth Veale

    I have rather an old fashioned view. The way I see it is like this. I see the 'church' as an institution for marriage between men and women only. I have no objection to gays having a relationship, it's a sign of the times and even though some people don't like it, it's part of modern day society. That said, same sex marriages should not be allowed to take place in church as it undermines the belief of ordinary hetrasexual couples.

    1. Shane G. Lowrey's Avatar Shane G. Lowrey

      I have no problem with your beliefs. Nor do I have any with those Churches who agree. I have no problems with churches that do espouse gay marriage, either. They can and do have every right to their beliefs.

      Churches (and synagogues, temples, covens, and any other religious organisations) should, can, and, do have the right to their rights of matrimony.

      That is not the issue. The issue is civil marriage. The state, by virtue of the Constitution, does not have the right to promote one church's definition and degrade another's.

  1. Paul Anderson's Avatar Paul Anderson

    I think you all need to get a grip of yourselves... we are living in the year 2015 not the 1800's! Gay, Straight Bi or whatever, if two people love each other and want to have a legal commitment then the USA aught to come in line with the rest of the world and allow it to happen. Denying same sex marriage is breading hate, discrimination and violence towards anything that doesn’t fit into the “white and straight” box! Any religion believes in “live and let live” and it’s about high time the rest of the USA realise that and let it be! Gay people have as much right to live in a happy loving relationship as anyone else and if we choose to marry it should be entirely up to those individuals and whoever wishes to carry out the ceremony not up to some religious leader or courtroom!

    1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

      Paul Anderson you also have the right to keep your personal beliefs to yourself. And not flaunt them at the church or those who care not to indulge in your lifestyle. Homosexuality is a sin and that is the truth.

  1. Chris's Avatar Chris

    There has not been one single valid, justifiable argument to show why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. It wasn't so very long ago interracial marriage was considered illegal. Once it was legalized it was still scandalous, and even today many refuse to accept it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be, does it?

    The biggest opponent to same-sex marriage is the religious front. They seem to forget that this is not, nor has it ever been, a "Christian Nation." In fact, this nation was founded on the concept of freedom of religion, which by definition means all are free to worship or not as they see fit. This means no one religion is allowed to make laws enforcing their beliefs above any other.

    Oh, but it's what the people want! Well, "the people" also wanted Jim Crow laws and slavery once upon a time too, and they were supported by religion. Most of us have moved past such notions as segregation and discrimination based on skin color. Most, but definitely not all. Still, so many seem to be stuck on the idea of legalized discrimination based on sexual orientation, and this makes no more sense than discrimination based on skin color. If two men or two women, or three men or five women, decide to marry it doesn't affect my marriage in any way. If it affects yours, then perhaps your marriage has more difficulties than you think.

    But "Traditional Marriage" blah blah blah. The concept of marriage has no tradition other than to be changed based on era. Again, not so long ago "traditional marriage" didn't even permit interracial marriage. In other times, "traditional marriage" held that it was arranged by the parents and the actual bride and groom had no say in the matter. Traditions change. And "Biblical Marriage"? Yeah, that sanctified union that held the man could have a harem and multiple wives, and had to take his brother's widow as a wife, and.... Right, like that would fly today.

    Now, I do support the rights of individual small business owners to refuse service to any customer. Granted, this is usually reserved for belligerent customers. Still, if a small business owner wants to refuse service to someone because they don't like the way that potential customer lives his or her life that's their right. It's idiotic and not good for business, but it's their right. Likewise, I agree that any officiant who does not want to perform same-sex marriages because of their "deeply held" religious beliefs should not be forced to do so. It makes no sense to me since we are all supposed to be brothers and sisters, and the book so many opponents like to wave around says "Whatsoever ye do to the least of these my brethren, you do also unto me." To me, this suggests that we should all treat each other the way we would want to be treated, the way we would treat our chosen deity. Personally, I would choose not to be hateful or discriminatory toward my deity, but to accept him or her with open arms in perfect love and perfect trust. But then, that's my spiritual path.

    I repeat, there has not been one single valid, justifiable argument to show why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. To ban it is discriminatory, particularly if done for religious reasons. You don't like it, don't have one, don't participate in one. But what gives anyone the right to tell another legal consenting adult they don't have the right to marry another legal consenting adult?

  1. Steven J Frey's Avatar Steven J Frey

    I believe marriage is intended to be a union between a man and a woman, period. There are two compelling reasons for why men and women are destined to be together. First is a matter of faith, in that God created Adam, but then also Eve, to be his companion and partner. Second is a matter of biology. Men and women are made to join together. We have DIFFERENT parts, and actually fit together.

    Marriage is a way for two components that are made to join together, stay together.So far,

    I have only officiated at one wedding, and it was for a heterosexual couple. I will never perform a same sex marriage, regardless if it is legal in my state or not.

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      According to scientific fact, if a rib was taken from "Adam" then the DNA would preclude that person to be another male. Also as far as 'fitting' there are many ways for that to happen. If you are referring to procreating...do you also mean that those who can not have children should never marry? Do we need to continue to overpopulate the planet to the point that the only way for life to exist is to eliminate others? The planet can only sustain so many before some phenomena occurs to limit it. Marriage is for two adult persons to show their love and caring for each other. To Deny that is anti-Christian.

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        women have just as many ribs as men. Do you presume to think that God couldn't take some of Adam's DNA and enhance it or engineer it to be woman? In Hebrew it refers to a "curve" not a rib. Amazing since no one thought of or knew about the Helix Curve. And would you really support the premise of cultivating homosexuality to curb population growth? Ouch! To propagate perversion is anti Christian by the way. All of your conniving to twist the Word of God won't mean spit when Christ comes back at the 7th trump. Think about it. The entire cycle is laid out in the Bible from the 1st world age, to the 3rd world age yet you refuse to see it. But that is your right. I have to accept your right of free will that God gave you, but not your false doctrine. If I did I would be complicit in God's eyes and I won't do that.

      2. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        Again I come to join my fellow Christians to support them in the battlefield to thwart the unrighteous who dare to twist the truth. My brother Kevin Defranco has been defending the correct honor of the Holy Bible against deceptive and manipulative innuendo.

      3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Kevin, your perception/interpretation of Christianity isn't the same nly one (by some estimates there upwards of 41,000 globally), nor is it the one true path for anyone besides you. Then, too, there are numerous faiths. None of them are the one true path except perhaps to their followers. Coming to this church, a church which embraces all, and sharing your faith respective is fine. Declaring that your faith perspective is the only relevant and true one is hubris and arrogance and not in keeping with the spirit of this church. Perhaps yours is the one true faith and one true path, but your approach is so off-putting that I can't help but wonder how many might have otherwise been saved were it not for you. Something to ponder.

        1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          That is relative to YOU. I have stated I don't care if you agree, believe, or accept what I have to say. I reserve the right to do the same with yours. Just stop the name calling, its unacceptable. I am not a missionary I am stating what "I" believe if you disagree that's fine with me. And there are a lot of "me's" out there Joe. I haven't cornered the market on what you consider frivolous or futile. And we believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, not some perverted version of it. You don't agree; that's fine with us. Just stop the name calling, its unacceptable.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Name-calling? Sure, you keep engaging in that. Calling homosexuality a "perverted lifestyle" is simply douchbaggery on your part. You're an ignorant, arrogant bigot. That's just me stating what I believe. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I believe in a far grander universe than you and your tiny, hateful worldview. if you don't agree, that's fine. Just stop the name calling. It's unacceptable in my church. Don't want to? GTFO. You know where the exit is.

  1. Garry's Avatar Garry

    This article makes some good pints, but the question before the Supremes is not whether or not gay marriage is legal, it's whether or not the States can decide if the want to rant SSM's. As the article points out, this seems to be a government decision and I believe that decision should be left up to the individual states since our constitution does not mention marriage.

    1. warjna's Avatar warjna

      Garry -- I think you meant "grant" SSMs? Just checking. Because everything else has already been a "rant"! ;-)

    2. Shane G. Lowrey's Avatar Shane G. Lowrey

      There's still a problem. the Constitution says, "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." Article 4, section 1. Should a Massachusett marriage be legal in all states? Should we pick and chose which ones? Congress has the right to say how such a marriage is proven, not another states ability to reject any such marriage.

      My state recognises any number of legal marriages preformed elsewhere it would not allow. How can it chose to not recognise SSM? (It does but I find that disapproving only one type of marriage unrecognised illegal under the Constitution.)

  1. Dean Stoner's Avatar Dean Stoner

    Believe as you will, I will follow God and what God's word says. By following God's word and staying steadfast in his word, I cant go wrong. I will not preach that sin is ok no matter how you want to twist and turn God's word to justify what your doing. If im wrong and gay marriage is not wrong to God then I'm still ok, but if your wrong and this is truly an abomination to God as his word says, then hell is where you will spend eternal life. Is that a chance you really want to chance. As ministers we should teach, and preach God's word,God tells us we will be judged more severely as teachers.

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Dean. please quote the exact verse where Christ says that gay marriage or gays for that matter are an 'abomination.' Paul states that No minister is to be married nor to have sex. The Catholics have followed this for centuries. The verse that many try to use against gays is actually from Paul not Christ where he instructs ministers to avoid sex and marriage. It is not an instruction for all people, only ministers.

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        Jesus addresses God making male and female in John 5: 45,46. Deuteronomy 22:5 tells that a man shall not wear women's clothes and vice versa. This actually means they shall not take each others place concerning intercourse, it is an abomination before God. But you actually have to believe in the Bible to accept its truths. Leviticus 18:22 also tells about men lying with men and women lying with women.

        1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          If you remember De.. Women were considered property or chattel then. SO for a man to lay with another man as with a woman was to insult the other man. it had nothing to do with sex or love but treating another man as property. You must read the entire context of the scripture .. not just the part you like.

          1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

            Much of the time the people in the Bible didn't follow Gd, but I haven't seen indications that Gd wanted women to be chattel. First indication is Gen 2:24: the man leaves his family to be one with his wife. If the woman was chattel, it would be her leaving.

            The man's family taking care of a widow is another example of hew being honored, not just property. Punishment for "spilling seed" on ground because the man didn't want to treat his deceased brother's wife properly is another one. Read Pro 31 to see how women were seen.

            Gd required accurate knowledge of parents, partially because the Messiah's linage had to be precisely known. It was a legal requirement that had to be met.

            Gd gave the Law because people weren't happy to follow the one with His spirit upon him. Therefore, he had to include much that may only have been true for a limit time. Some of the food requirements, for instance, may not have been an issue all of the time. Male homosexual acts could have defiled the land: diseases. Also, Gd gave commandments to keep a separation between his people and the others around them. I, as a Christian, am not under the Law.

            Has anybody found anything that would have prohibited two wives from having sex together? In the parts of the Bible written to the Christians, Heb 13:4 says essentially that there is no sin in the marriage bed. A man with multiple wives is less desirable for leadership, but I don't recall it being prohibited. I don't see that a man with two wives who became saved could divorce either of them.

            The argument against two men being in a marriage is that there must be one head.

            Anyway, I don't see that the Word gives me the right to say how you work your marriage. I'll share whatever wisdom and knowledge I have with anyone who seeks it.

          2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Cut it out Basen. I have given you scripture, after scripture, after scripture where God states He hates homosexuality and it is an abomination to Him. Doesn't matter what I think, you think or anyone else on this planet thinks. He is the true Master and He does not approve of homosexuals. . Jesus Christ is going to slam dunk you and your perverted, deviant, degenerate lifestyle. Deuteronomy 23:17 states, There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the price of a whore or the price of a dog(homosexual sex) into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God. Case closed. Stop pretending to be a Christian. Remember, God will not be mocked. I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ, and am done with you.

          3. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Kevin .. calling names is your strength? You refuse to follow the teachings of Christ and you claim to be the judge over me. Interesting how your mind works. Christ NEVER said that he hated gays nor did he ever condemn them. Only man has. A few here seem to be above Christ and know all there is to know. Your cherry picked verses do not include the entire story. I can cherry pick verses to say Christ says to go hang yourself. We all know he never said those words in that order but those words were used and could be cherry picked as you do to totally change the meanings. I suggest you do some real soul searching and prayer that your eyes may be opened to the love of Christ.. instead of the hate of Satan that you are swelling in.

          4. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            I didn't call you names Basen. There is no name I could call you that would hurt you more than you have done to yourself already. I also didn't mention that you put another mans penis in your mouth, or let another man put his penis in your anus and vice/versa. If you can't handle the expose, tough stuff. You are dead wrong trying to twist scripture to fit your depravity. God hates your lifestyle. It is unequivocally put in print and you can't handle it. I guess we'll all see whose right and whose wrong in the end, but I won't be gloating over it, because you and yours will be just more souls yet again rebelling against God but using up all their chances at God's forgiveness. Sad, very sad. I don't really care, you have made your own choice and I'm not responsible for your actions. Repent while you have the chance. Remember Deut 23:17,18. God does not even want your tithe, let alone your unrepentant presence in His house. Your soul is at stake, so put your carnal unseemly lusts aside, and do what God requires to get to heaven. Your choice. If the Word of God didn't have any scripture concerning Homosexuals, or lesbians, or heterosexual fornication and deviances. I wouldn't be discussing it. It just doesn't fit your agenda and lifestyle. I have many resources at my disposal to make informed conclusions, not judgments about what God expects from me. All I can do is witness the Word, that's my job. I plant the seed, God cultivates the seed. If it becomes a tare it not my business. But neither you or anyone else will prevent me from teaching the truth about God's Word. You say I cherry pick, well here's a challenge. Show all of us, either in prior text or ensuing text after the stated verses where God gives the green light to homosexuality. If you can't, I will understand.

          5. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            I would challenge you to find a complete story where Christ condemned being gay ... he did tell the centurion to go back to his male lover and care for him after Christ healed him ... Christ never condemned him nor told him to leave him.
            All of the scriptures that people love to cherry pick actually are part of larger comments or stories to a specific group IE: ministers. Paul said that a minister should not take a wife nor should he lay with another man.. But you take it out of context to say all should not lay with another man. Which is incorrect! The OT story of Sodom is a story of greed and slovenly living and not caring for guests to your land... it has nothing to do with gay sex. But it is twisted to have a very different meaning. if you bother to actually read ALL of the story .. you find it's real meanings.

            Also the laws of this land clearly state that ALL persons are equal and should enjoy equal rights. There are no exceptions.

          6. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Stop hiding behind your feeble defense and answer the question Basen. Show us where God endorses homosexuality.

  1. Lindsey Willis's Avatar Lindsey Willis

    i really don't see what the harm is , they aren't hurting anyone and just cause it is writing in some book doesn't mean that its right. i see so many protest for people who are against gay marriage WHY there is so much hurt and cruelty in the world so someone showing love to someone else should be a blessing and a celebration.

  1. Michael James's Avatar Michael James

    I perform same sex weddings. I am not a christian minister I am a Pagan. I think that change has been needed for a long time in this country. Actually it is a shame that there even has to be a vote on same sex marriage. Human rights are NOT up for a vote. These ministers who are "wigging" out should be ashamed of themselves. I do not know of any self respecting gay people who would even want to attend a "church" that is so hateful. I don't think these certain institutions will have anything to worry about. What we need is for people to stop with this hate and start focusing on peace and love for each other. We are all in the same boat and we are all going to die. Why not be happy while we have the chance. The days of this hell fire and damnation are coming to an end. This type of religion is currently in it's death throes. Hatred begets hatred. I'm all for Love. Amen.

    1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

      I've stated that I will perform weddings regardless of the peoples believe system. Here's a brief explanation of how I can do that since I do believe in one particular gd: I will perform whatever ceremonies the people want, but I will not invoke any gd other than my own. That includes prayers, blessings, prophecies, and the like that specifically invoke another gd. Hopefully, someone else from their religion/philosophy can do those particular invocations.

  1. reaper's Avatar reaper

    I believe it is my right to marry who I want and don't, Right to refuse service.......

  1. Arthur's Avatar Arthur

    Good morning church, we as heirs to the grace of God knows that our fight is not with Satan not the vessels that he work through. . The devil is in the attack of society as a whole and he will make up numerous false claims using Gods word to even supposedly make his claim stand. Knowing full well that his claim has no foundation against the truth. Boldly pushing his agenda to offend the church because he had been given that right. . Your God says that evil rules/operate in high places, we know that these high places are in positions of authority of men, not God.

    remember Satan is still the prince of this world, God never took his title, he changed his position and put him here on earth earth before us to maintain his position here on earth.

    We have to remember that we can't fight the same fight that they fight, if we do they will win, our fight is in the spirit. We are spiritually driven believers in Christ Jesus. Remember the judge is a for of a priest who was originally placed in his position to keep order by the word of God. . Satan work through man so we must we must work through God to defeat Satan in and through man,

    Be encouraged and be at peace in God and watch him stop the enemy as you give this situation to him and see who He is using to destroy the enemy moving in wicked man.

  1. Nagash's Avatar Nagash

    Sorry to say but the Monastery's position on this perversion is 100% wrong. Let us hope and pray that the Supreme Court sees past the liberal fallacy of "tolerance but only what we want you to tolerate" and keeps the rule of law as it is. So, to "put it crudely" if you want to "marry" someone of your own sex, go to some other "progressive" country that accepts your sickness.

    1. Paul Anderson's Avatar Paul Anderson

      Get a grip you biggot!

    2. Michael James's Avatar Michael James


    3. warjna's Avatar warjna

      Nagash, the Universal Life Church has only two tenets:

      1. Do only that which is right.
      2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws.

      If you are here on this site, you agreed to abide by those two tenets. It sounds like you are rejecting the second of those two tenets and adhering only to your interpretation of the first. If that isn't the epitome of “tolerance but only what we want you to tolerate” then I don't know what is.

      This whole discussion is about the mandate of the First Amendment, about not impinging upon the rights or freedoms of others, and the whole debate is about settling the issue by amending (or not) the government's laws.

      The marriage of a same sex couple does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of heterosexuals to marry. It does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of the institution of marriage. It merely sets out the constitutional legality of a civil license--which is what is required by the government to marry, along with payment of a licensing fee, just like for a fishing license--and thus to establish the rights of that couple to the civil benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The ceremony of marriage in a religious context is just that--a ceremony, nothing else. It holds meaning within that religious context, but it is not legally binding under the laws of the United States without the government issuance of a marriage license. You can hold a wedding ceremony for same sex or heterosexual couples a hundred times and they are still not married in the eyes of the laws of the nation without that civil license.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Beautifully and clearly said! Thank you!

  1. Gary's Avatar Gary

    I think the article as written is spot on. If your religious beliefs prohibit you from performing a SSM ceremony, then don't do one. However, your religious beliefs should not be imposed on others. That is a dangerous and slippery slope to go down. As for Kegan and Ginsburg "tipping their hand", please, Justices Scalia and Thomas have been very vocal about their religious beliefs on the subject and that is just a prejudicial.

  1. dorn3's Avatar dorn3

    the legal or religious ceremony that formalises the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: .. Note the word TWO People, so those who have multiple wives at the same time are breaking the law but no one kicks off at them. Why should you care who marries whom, does it impinge on your life, no, does it affect you, no. So why does it bother you ? Live and let live !

  1. carol's Avatar carol

    People have a right to chose their mates, no one has the right to tell them who they can or cannot marry. Simple and true. We have entered into a new spiritual awakening, people acknowledge difference and accept people for who they are, everyone else "get on board" this is the new way of our being...

  1. ed knisley's Avatar ed knisley

    My dear Mr. Gray: The same arguments you make for the "liberal" justices can be made for the "conservative" justices. Don't tel me that Scalia, Aliota, and Thomas are NOT anti-gay extremists. It is such a shame that our nation's highest court has become the laughing-stock that it is. Fair and impartial be damned. Politics rule!

  1. Micah's Avatar Micah

    If you don't feel comfortable marrying same sex couples I doubt that they would want to be married by you. I personally am not against same sex marriages as I am in divorce. Taking a stand on your beliefs is a right we all have and should be confident and comfortable doing. I feel you should be able to refuse to marry any couple that goes against your beliefs. But remember not to judge anyone for their beliefs or lifestyles. We can share our beliefs not force them on anyone as we can not be forced to change ours.

  1. joe's Avatar joe

    Everyone has their own beleifs and thoughts on SSM. That being said, it doesn't matter to me about the animal kingdom or what animals do or what certain "human animals" think or beleive. In MY opinion (which will coincide with some peoples beliefs and go against others.....I mean that is how the world goes round afterall) if you as an animal with desires and feelings decide to spend your years with someone of the same sex, then by all means more power to you. If you decide that phil next door looks nice in his shorts and you want to explore certain feelings ir desires to try something new or just want t ok know what it's like then by all means have at it. If your interests and curiosity leads you to explore both sexes and it turns out that you love to be with women but as it turns out you also enjoy being with men sometimes then enjoy. Find out what turns you on or find out what makes you happy and enjoy yourself. It doesn't bother anyone other then those who are either hiding their own desires or someone who is scared to explore their feeling due to what oyhers might think or what goes against how they were raised. There are a million other reasons but I can't mention them all lol. And if during that you find someone that you want to be with more then others or more with the opposite sex then by all means make urself happy. It doesn't hurt me and I beleive in doing what you feel is right. Unfortunately in my case, even believing all of what I just wrote, I also beleive that if you make those decisions based on whatever you are attracted too I still beleive that marriage is for a man and a woman. I hold no bad feelings or anger for anyone who chooses to either explore or towards those who do end up in a SSM, I just personally beleive that marriage is for a man and a woman and not two men or two women. If you want to be together thats great. But if you choose to be in that situation then you forfeit the right to get married. Some people will find all kinds of fault with what I am saying and thats fine. Obviously I can't write EVERY response to every scenario so I wont try. This is just my personal opinion and im sure it will be full of holes and opinions from others. And thats fine too. I just feel like if you decide to put yourself in a position that your relationship is with someone of the same sex then you also give up the rigjt to be married. Marriage is between a man and woman and only a man and woman. Their should not be two husbands or two wives in a marriage. (Beyond your personal explorations). Sure spend your life together but sorry, you give up the rigjt to marriage if you give up being with someone of the opposite sex. Thats how I feel. There will be those who agree and those who don't. But thats my opinion. Sorry there shouldn't be two husbands or two wives in a marriage. And beleive me I am very open minded. So those are myv thoughts and my beleifs on that. I could explain more or bring up more scenarios but you cant address them all so ..... enjoy your day and know this was not meant to offend or amv ush anyone. This is just how I feel. Enjoy your day everyone.

    1. Nagash's Avatar Nagash

      Well said, Sir. Well said.

  1. david, bickel's Avatar david, bickel

    I believe that marriage is a contract between to people who love each other. I todays time everyone deserves to be happy even same sex couples ....

  1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

    I support same-sex marriage, but I don't believe that the SCOTUS can, by the Constitution and judicial rules and history, redefine marriage. Seven pages of the majority DOMA opinion was restating that marriage is defined by the States, and the Court has no basis for taking that right away from the States. Let me state that another way: DOMA was overturned primarily because the Federal Gov't doesn't have any right the redefine marriage. A minority opinion questioned why it was addressed at all, much less with seven pages, because nobody questions that.

    The parts of the Constitution and Amendments questioned, at least in the Alabama case, have all been rejected as precedents. The main argument in the Alabama case was that other courts thought that the SCOTUS would ignore the precedents

    The question that does need to be addressed is what are the responsibility of a state to honor a marriage performed in another state that violates its definition. An option would be to have methods to obtain similar results. The Alabama ruling was flawed because the argument was about having the "spouse" have rights to make medical decisions for the other, and a simple Power of Attorney printed off of the internet could have sufficed.

    Keeping our Freedom of Religion, as well as our other Rights, depends on protecting the Constitution. The actions of Activist Judges, like the Federal one who ruled in the Alabama case, as well as Rev. Roy Moore, the Chief Justice in the Alabama Supreme Court, are harmful. We have a Constitutional Republic because it is the best way to protect our Individual Rights.

    I believe that marriage is primarily religious, as broadly defined constitutionally, with legal implications. Most people, in order to make the union more important than the individual, invoke some higher authority or philosophy outside of the individuals. That is, I believe, the strong argument for same-sex marriages, as well as polygamy: "No laws concerning the establishment of religion." I therefore see the different-sex rule as a religious test, which is illegal, as are tests requiring church membership, virginity, no divorces, and tithing. Removing the same-sex restriction on religious grounds may be more acceptable if separated from the broader alternate-sex rights issues, especially since religious rights are explicitly constitutionally protected.

    I think I've laid out a comment with which everyone can disagree .

    1. Ed's Avatar Ed

      Yes, I think just about everyone can find something to disagree with in all that. Have a great evening!

    2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

      Twisty, twisty! Saul gave David his "daughter" Merab; for David and Merab were in love. Tell the truth. First Samuel verses 20, 26.

  1. Minister Nancy Ianniello's Avatar Minister Nancy Ianniello

    My son told me If it is not biblical than I do not have to listen to it.

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Biblical versions of marriage... Multiple spouses...a. Lamech had two wives - Genesis 4:19. b. Esau had three wives - Genesis 26:34 & 28:9.

      c. Jacob had four wives - Genesis 29:28 & 30:4-9.

      d. Gideon had many wives - Judges 8:30.

      e. Abijah had 14 wives - II Chronicles 13:21.

      if a man died without having children, his brother was expected to marry his widow and produce children to continue the lineage of the deceased brother, Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Marriage in the Bible. Prisoner of war marriage, between Israelite warriors and Midianite virgins - Numbers 31:1-18. At God’s instruction, the Israelite Army killed all the men and boys of Midian and all the Midianite women who were not virgins. The Israelite warriors then married the surviving virgins, Numbers 31:18.

      Slave marriage. This is different from a normal marriage in that a male slave had no right to keep his wife and children, if his master sold him or them, Exodus 21:1-6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21

  1. Ed's Avatar Ed

    Ministers are not generally (or, perhaps ever) asked to, or expected to, perform even civil ceremonies to which they have a religious objection. The religious weddings they perform are both religious AND civil ceremonies, rolled into one, unless the minister has not been licensed to perform civil ceremonies, in which case the couple in question would still have to have a civil wedding to make their marriage legal under the law, in most states.

    Making same gender marriage legal nationwide would not change this in any way. It would simply mean that any same gender couple who receives and utilizes a civil marriage license, and is married in a civil ceremony, will be legally married. No one is insisting that any church recognize this marriage as valid according to their religion. In fact, any church right now can, if they wish, recognize, religiously, a same gender marriage that is NOT legal in the civil sense, if they wish to. That won't change either.

    It will only meant that in civil law, and in civil matters, separated from religious matters and/or religious law, the civil marriage must be allowed and recognized.

    Most religions will accept marriages as valid if they are between a man and a woman, regardless of whether that man and woman are of their faith, and regardless of whether that man and woman even had a religious ceremony. That's their choice, but really if they WANT to claim that a Buddhist or Jewish or Hindu wedding is not valid, they are free to believe that. It won't make it legally binding on any non-religious, civil matter though.

    This is all about granting the same, equal (not SPECIAL) civil rights to all people. Religion really should have no part or say in this, one way or another.

  1. Larry's Avatar Larry

    So is marriage a civil created by man or is it more spiritual in nature deem and ordain by a higher authority? As I see it Marriage from the time of creation WAS and IS ordain from God himself. Plain and simple. Yet some of the gays I have talked to state otherwise and that it is mans law and that God would not be so indifferent to kill people for such acts. Hmm! I said really, then I suggested they re-read the old testament as well as the new testament. Reason is both go hand in hand and Jesus the son of God was here to elaborate, explain, and to show what can happen when one turns towards God. Yet, to gain such riches one must and has to go through Jesus Christ and repent his or her sins. The argument they or some of them stated is that the Bible is outdated and Jesus only promoted love. I said not that kind of love as they would have it. To me marriage should be between a man and woman as God intended from the start to procreate period. Granted, as some have stated Solomon had 700 wives including maidservants and concubines. Mainly Solomon was ascertaining land treaties and wealth during his realm. Daniel had several wives as did other kings of the day. The point is marriage has been spiritual since time of Adam and Eve by God ordain by God not man. Man only made a marriage law to collect taxes , fees and keep track of couples and people. I see no other reason why one would even indulge in gaining a license so government can collect fees and taxes. But that's another story in its self. The thing is this country has gone down the tubes and will continue in a downward moral slothful way, with greed and control over people and force people to do unnatural acts, services, and even partake in such actions. Its a shame that we as nation that say we are God fearing and righteous in laws really now has no respect for any such laws ordain by God according to his commandments, and statues given to Moses

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      That certainly is one perspective. Many of the Abrahamic faith traditions disagree on those specifics. Many other faith traditions also have their own perspectives on marriage. In the U.S., we're not restricted to one specific perception of one particular faith tradition. As there certainly are civil and legal aspects of marriage, and as the state's responsibility/purpose is to focus on civil & legal aspects outside of any faith perspective, marriage cannot be limited due to any particular faith perspectives. What happens in churchs is up to the churchs. What happens in the commons is not.

    2. Ed's Avatar Ed

      God's ten commandments didn't say anything for or against same gender marriage...

    3. Chris's Avatar Chris

      Your belief is just that: Your belief. Not everyone follows your belief. Members of other beliefs have been participating in marriages long before the Christian tradition came along. If, as you believe, marriage is something created by your god and as such not something that homosexuals can participate in, then it follows you also believe none other than those of your faith may be able to participate in marriage. Having become wed in a handfasting ceremony rather than in a Christian church, you must consider my marriage to be null as well.

      I must disagree with this. Certainly you are entitled to your beliefs and your opinion, but you do not have the right to force your beliefs into law simply because you believe them to be right. Marriage is not and never has been the sole domain of the Jewish or Christian church. It was monopolized by them to maintain control over the herds but was never their sole domain.

      As with regard to your comment of "we as nation that say we are God fearing and righteous in laws"... well, not all of us fear our gods. Not all of us believe in deities that demand obedience or face eternal damnation. But that's a different argument for a different post. Suffice it to say in regards to this issue that we are not all followers of your belief and forcing your beliefs into law is disrespectful and arrogant. It's why this country was founded with a concept of freedom of religion. No one set of beliefs should be in power; indeed, no religion should be involved in government because they cannot speak for all those they are supposed to represent.

    4. Gary's Avatar Gary


      I appreciate your message. However, it seems on one hand you are saying it is spiritual but then add that it was used by Solomon and others as a means to get peace treaties or land treaties and wealth. That would be temporal and not spiritual. Daniel gained one wife through the murder or a friend. Post bible, marriage was used in the Roman Empire and in Medieval times as a contract and woman were considered property. They were not even worth much in and of themselves as a dowry was also usually needed. The point is we have evolved past these societal needs. If you wish to hold true to your take on the Bible, that is certainly your right. I only question it when you try to take that interpretation and apply it to others. I think marriage's spirituality is in the eyes of the beholder. I, for one, do not want to put myself as judge of what is in others hearts. Finally, there are many people who do not adhere to the Bible as it is written, are they to be held to its standard as certain of its believers interpret? Not even all Jews, Christians and Muslims agree on all its passages.

    5. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF's Avatar Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF

      Thanks, for a great article, willing to discuss one of the great social issues of our generation. Thanks to Larry for being willing to share his opinion, too. Perhaps this is the one issue which emphasizes the importance separation of Church and State, and the value of keeping religion in the church and homes, and out of a multicultural society's government.

      God's law was to be hospitable to others - especially foreigners and aliens, and to take care of the sick/poor. (The "sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah.)

      From one humble perspective, the problem with the authoritarian and "legalistic" view of the Mosaic Law is the misinterpretation of the Aramaic word, "to-evah" ("abomination") ... "socially unacceptable" or even "taboo", but definitely not "abomination". One might also argue that homoerotic love DID exist in the Old Testament, David and Jonathon ... Ruth and Naomi ... One might easily understand the traditional story as a genuine love ("eros") story, and see nothing wrong. Daniel also had a relationship with Asphenaz, master of the eunuchs, who might just have been his lover. Jesus even had naked men loving him, and that's just in the approved canons. There are some texts with more explicit tales which weren't included.

      Personally, I enjoy a Christ image I can personally relate to, or who understands me. We weren't there, so none of us know anything for sure. Your opinion is just an opinion, but only a fool would declare to know the mind and will of God. You might know what is God's will and right for you, but you cannot be certain what God's will is for anyone else.

      Ironically, many these days seem to (self)profess to know God's will, as long as God's will coincides with their own, or when their interpretation of ancient texts makes them look/feel better than someone else by making someone else look/feel bad - (e.g., "the abomination" or "the sinner"). Personally, I volunteer and do enough for others that I don't need to make anyone look bad so I feel better about myself.

      Additionally, I believe you are wrong, in that marriage has changed and evolved with society. Marriage was about property, and had nothing to do with love. So, why not continue to evolve for more stable emotional relationships, with the added legal securities?

      According to the ancient oral tradition accounts of Genesis into the Victorian era, the man carried the "seed" and the woman was nothing but a walking/talking receptacle. You could also buy a woman for 50 silver shekels from her father, if you defiled her by raping her. Not only could you marry more than one first cousins, the patriarchs were marrying brothers and sisters, if you consider Genesis scientific fact and historically accurate. Anyway, the "traditional marriage" happened when the father gave the bride to the groom, they went into a tent, and if the groom was satisfied that no other man had "taken" her, he then accepted her as "worthy" to be the mother (Latin - "mater"/sacramentum matrimonii) of his heirs/descendants. Matrimony was about guaranteeing and continuing bloodlines, at least when the Church decided to capitalize on the sacrament. However, if the groom was not satisfied that she was still a virgin, (she was taken by another/already another's wife) he could have her stoned to death. Anyway, the next morning when they emerged from the tent, they were married. There was no religious ritual, much less organized religious divine authority or sanctioning involved whatsoever.

      Personally, someone else's sexual expressions and activity is not my concern, provided they are mutually consensual and not harming anyone else. If you must use scriptures to define "traditional marriage", perhaps adulterers and adulteresses is an issue and probably more responsible for the "moral decline" of any "traditional family values" than anything. Perhaps the radicalized religious should consider addressing the logs in their own eyes, before pointing out the speak in any of their neighbors'/brothers'/sisters'. If you want a literal translation for anything, you must address it all literally, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you like to enforce on others, and which parts you get to ignore. If you focus on any one Levitical Law, you need to remember there are 631 more to abide by before you worry about anyone else's righteousness or holiness codes.

      One might argue that since God is Spirit, and God is Love, then Love is a Spiritual sacrifice - free from the confines of physical gender. I believe, there's too much hate in this world already; so, if it's love, the Lord won't mind. You might want to argue that marriage is about procreating, then there are a myriad of heterosexual marriages that need to be dissolved since they will never have children. But since "traditional marriage" has nothing to do with love, we shouldn't concern ourselves with anyone else's possessions

      Jesus also said, "if you want to go to Heaven, sell everything you have and give it to the poor". I don't need to talk about what radicalized American Christianity (the "Corporate Religious Machine") looks like, today.

      With all the sick and suffering in the world, preventing the celebration of love between two people should be the last concern for the organized "professional" religious crowds. Perhaps just celebrating the joy of building a life with someone you love, and sharing in equal legal protections under the law for others is too much "equality" for some to consider.

      If you're against Marriage Equality, don't marry someone gay.

  1. Charles B.'s Avatar Charles B.

    I agree, if you as a minister feel strongly about not proforming same sex marriages you have the right to refuse. That is something I feel strongly about. Just say, No. They will find someone to proform the service our if it passes they can don't what many others do, go to the courthouse and have a judicial wedding.

    1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

      Under Alabama law, judges "may" perform weddings. There may be federal laws that can complicate that. Currently in our Congress, if it hasn't passed, there is a law to ensure they are not forced to perform any ones against their beliefs. At least my county has a list of ministers that perform weddings upon request, so I'm not sure if the Probate Judge does under normal conditions. Many of our Judges are also ministers. The two shouldn't conflict.

  1. Kenneth Littley's Avatar Kenneth Littley

    We don’t restrict marriage to only those that can and will have children. (IT'S GOOD TO SEE THE WORD "ONLY" BEING USED IN ITS PROPER WAY) Read more at http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2015/05/undermining-traditional-marriage/#cb5qV7E1I1ELIPqc.99 from the full practice of their religion or religious tenants (TENETS) tenants are renters (for example) Read more at http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2015/05/undermining-traditional-marriage/#cb5qV7E1I1ELIPqc.99

  1. Karen Luerssen's Avatar Karen Luerssen

    No one other than Gray have said anything about his premise that Kagan and Ginsberg recuse themselves because they have supported themselves. Doesn't that then apply to Scalia since his views are well known?

  1. Daniel Strickland's Avatar Daniel Strickland

    I obtained, though purchased, my ordainment so that I might do the work of GOD and that includes marriages. I cannot, WILL NOT, ask GOD to bless a union that He deemed unworthy and an atrocity long before even Sodom and Gomorrah.

    To suggest that we are nothing more than animals is to make EVERYTHING that we as humans have accomplished, nothing.

    1. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF's Avatar Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF

      "Sodomy" is such a misnomer.

      Ezekiel 16:49-50 King James Version (KJV)

      49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

      There's nothing about gay ... "to-evah" (English translated "abomination") is also used to describe adulterers/adulteresses, false prophets, eating shellfish/pork/catfish/etc., wearing mixed fibers, touching menstruating women, tattoos, shaving/cutting your hair, walking too far or working on the 7th day, etc.

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        Yeah, well Sodom got destroyed didn't it genius God must have really endorsed homosexuality, huh.

        1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          Kevin.. once more your playing dense or you are a very slow learner... Sodom was NOT destroyed because of gays... but because of lazy fat slobs... please learn how to read before you comment again. You are an embarrassment to those of us who actually help others.

        2. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF's Avatar Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF

          Kevin, in the traditional tale, if Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, why did Lot even bother to offer his daughters in order to satisfy the raging mob? Keep playing the role of the useful idiot, someone needs you.

    2. adam k.'s Avatar adam k.

      i have read the bible 3 times in english and twice in hebrew trust the english is badly translated but where does it say that being homosexual is an atrocity. I hope you actually read the bible and not just try and teach what you have been taught. by paople that try and use only certain passage that support them if taken out of context.

      1. adam k.'s Avatar adam k.

        sorry about the spelling above see even educated people make mistakes

      2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

        Exactly where in the bible does Christ say that?

  1. tommy's Avatar tommy

    marriage is for the faithful and has no place for being gay let them live there life but do not take are faith and steal the word of God.

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Marriage is for 2 adults who love each other. There is NO place in the work of God where there is any exception to that rule. Only Man has created rules like that. If you want to mis-inturpurate the word that is your business. But dont deny others their rights based on that bad information. Christ NEVER said one word against gays marrying nor gays lives. There are several references to same sex couples in the bible. ... all are positive. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21 is only one,

    2. Nagash's Avatar Nagash


  1. REV . Eugene Moore.'s Avatar REV . Eugene Moore.

    GOD put man and woman here For one and outher not man to man or woman to woman

  1. Dave's Avatar Dave

    77% of America clams to have Christian values. The answer here is not compromised in the old or new testimate . I encourage every one who strugels with this issue to get back in the divine word of God.He speaks to each one of you on a personal level.

    Leviticus 18:22 Romans 1:26 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:10 May God bless us all

    1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

      The bible makes reference 7 times in relation to homosexual behavior and over 300 on hetersexual behavior. Don't you think maybe the bigger mess in the house should be cleaned up before worrying about the empty glass sitting in the sink instead.

      1. Brian Kneeland's Avatar Brian Kneeland

        You must mean David and Jonathon and Jesus and John the beloved disciple! I guess that mean they were all going to hell? Even Jesus? WOW!

        1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

          Brian, could you elaborate a little more of what you are saying before I respond. My point is there is more concern to other behaviors than that of homosexuality in both the old and new testaments so maybe the concern should be focused greater on those issues.

          1. Brian Kneeland's Avatar Brian Kneeland

            I totally agree! The behaviors that put people down are the major regard - homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament about temple prostitutes (mostly non Jewish). So - I think we both agree on these issues!

    2. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF's Avatar Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF

      Some people's god is just way too small.

      If there is no goodness inside coming out in acts of kindness and peace, some religious people have a tendency to make themselves feel/look better ("self-righteous"/ego defense mechanisms) by making someone else look/feel bad (demonize/dehumanize/target abomination/sinners). It's like a psychopathic form of character assassination by a narcissist.

      The problem with your argument is that your opinion hangs completely on a mistranslation of a bad translation from a poor translation. It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam ("argument from/to ignorance"). In your Leviticus reference, the problem is the poor translation of the Aramaic word, toevah ("to-ebah"/translated into KJV as "abomination"). Most Hebrew scholars would consider "toevah", in context, to be more "socially unaccepted", or even close to "taboo", but definitely not "abomination". The exact same word is used to describe false prophets, eating shellfish/pork/catfish/cheese on a ground beef patty/wearing mixed fibers/touching a menstruating woman/shaving the side of your beard/cutting your hair at the temples/tattoos/etc.

      I thought this was quite a thoughtful and relevant article on how the bible is so misunderstood and skillfully used to divide and cause harm against others:


      I won't even go into the problems with the Koine Greek NT translations and/or the cultural context.

      Religion helps me in MY path toward God. My faith and personal relationship with the God-of-my-understanding has nothing to do with how anyone else lives their lives - that is between them and their god. In my God-concept, there is room for ALL and ALL are welcome - unconditionally.

      Now, there is absolutely nothing recorded that Jesus ever said condemning homosexuals. However, he did address things like praying in public, and the hyper-religious and self-righteous religious authorities who had no compassion and imposed unreasonable demands from the "letter of the law", while completely oblivious of the intent.

      Ultimately, when we use God/Scriptures to injure or oppress anyone, I believe we are misguided and sinning against the Divine in another person. When we hurt someone else in the name of religion, we miss a real blessing and the opportunity to journey together, share our unique/individual God experiences, and learn from each other.

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        What exactly is it that you don't understand. "Thou shalt not lie with a man as you do a woman". Should I repeat it? I don't care what homosexuals do in their lives. I'm not a "missionary" I'm not trying to convert any one. I do however, take issue with someone making scripture into a pretzel and using it to fit their agenda. Jesus made many references to Sodom. The fact that He was the Word made flesh has bearing on Lev. Deut., Romans. He didn't come to change the law. Just because He made a new covenant didn't mean He trashed the law. Try murdering someone and see if you get a pass. Try stealing and see what happens. Blood ordinances were no longer acceptable animal sacrifice, and circumcision as a religious rite. But the law in most part are intact. You cannot lump pork, shrimp or those laws in with things that concern salvation. These are health laws. God made our bodies and He knows what to do to have maximum health. Just like all other laws, you can take it or leave it. That's your choice. Jesus came to defeat death which is the Devil. He did His0 job. Now we are doing ours. That is to witness the Word, and again you can take it or leave it. It has nothing to do with our right to practice "our" religious beliefs. This is not a place EXCLUSIVE TO "LIKE MINDED" INDIVIDUALS. the trouble with your argument is : Its relative to you and not to me.

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Which is it, Kleghorn? Did Jesus say that the law still exists or did he say he was here to wipe it all away? Think carefully, because either eating that pork chop while wearing that cotton-poly blend is an abomination unto God or gays are fine (and your homophobia is raging). Cafeteria Christians willing be the first to be swimming in sulfur.

          1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Comment has been removed.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            So, not really a Christian, eh Kermit? That post surely didn't meet the standard Christ Jesus set forth in Matthew 5:38–5:42. Asking for His forgiveness while continuing to sin isn't how it works, Kubby.

            (and where the hell do you and Daniderp come up with "Kahn" as a pejorative? I've had friends whose last name is Kahn...good people. Unless...no, couldn't be....right? Oh crap, Kevin and Daniel are cuddle-buddies and sitting side-by-side as they rant! Shucks, I didn't mean to out you two...sorry)

        2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          D.....I've explained this before but apparently you are a bit slow learning .... The Leviticus reference you quote is another cherry picked verse you've taken out of context. In the time that was written and translated several thousand times... the fact that laying as with a woman meant that you were treating the man as just a woman who at that time was nothing more than property.. like a camel or horse. So if you laid "as with a woman" .. you disgraced the other man by treating him as property. It had nothing to do with sex.. only a pervert would come to a conclusion like that. If you want to follow any of Leviticus then you must follow all of his tenants. No Shaving, no shellfish, no football, no pork, no mixed fabrics, and on and on.. It's very clearly stated that if you break any of his laws .. you've broken all of them.

          Also you are not following in the tenants of this organization which you have asked to belong to and agreed at the time to follow. ... or was that also a lie?

        3. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF's Avatar Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF

          Kevin, thanks for your genuine and heartfelt response. I'm sure you believe all of it, and I don't criticize you for your beliefs. However, if you are of the persuasion (verbal plenarist) to accept all scripture as an historical document (factual/inerrant/and literal translations), if you believe in a Devil whose sole purpose is to tempt you and trip you up ... your problems with other people's sexuality/sexual orientations begin with poor translations of "toevah"/"toevot" and "gadesh"/"gadosh"/"godeshim", and in the Koine Greek "arsenokoites" and "malakoi" ... Pauline apologetics might emphasize Paul's own ascetic struggle with pleasures, including sex. Also, his uber-concern for Timothy's circumcision might be significant, contextually speaking of course. Such disdain and discomfort about another's being/life is your (emotional/psychological) problem, not theirs. "... the trouble with your argument is : Its relative to you and not to me." Ditto.

  1. Cody's Avatar Cody

    Regardless of any religious teachings we are all given free will. Regardless if someone agrees with it or not, no person has the right to take away another’s right to do what he wants. I believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry, but no one should be forced to marry them. With all the people that are for same-sex marriage I know there will always be some one willing to perform it. What I don't agree with is forcing some one to perform it if they don't believe in it. It all comes down to free will, we all have the same inalienable rights to live free, fall in love, and live how we want, which should not be infringed upon by any one.

  1. Brother Tim's Avatar Brother Tim

    If EVERYONE would just remember that God made all of us. straight, gay , whatever. It is only our brothers and sisters that cannot get a grip on gay folks. People try to take those Bibles as God's word when in FACT it is not. God does not create then rebuke. only people do. Stop trying to say what god says, God IS LOVE if you believe anything other than that you are trekking down the wrong road. Just come out and say your EVIL because you don't understand what GOD has done and you want your god only for you and your kind. GOD MADE ALL quit trying to get rid of the real GOD.

  1. Pastor Tommy-Joe Stiner Sr's Avatar Pastor Tommy-Joe Stiner Sr

    Here is a greater question to all, and ponder on this for what you say you will stand before the LORD one day! Passing judgment, if you have never sinned or questioned what God has made that all is perfect let that person stand now, For the Lord has stated that evil has existed in all but through the LORD we are cleaned by the blood on the cross that when we look into a mirror who do we see that God made so very perfect? If you don't know the answer it is the LORD looking back at you. The Lord's blood! is your blood, his flesh! is indeed your very flesh, It also states in the bible that I have known you and to whom you shall be even before birth.
    Let not one man nor person pass judgement on another for I am the judge of all, respect the laws of the land, if you so pass judgement on a gay person then you shall be judged as you have so judged that person. Every person in or on this planet called earth, that was made by the hand of God will be judged by the LORD!

    But know this every single person was made in the likeliness of the LORD and all was made perfect in form, in his very image. Like a parable in the bible when the women was being stoned the Lord spoke and said let one man come before me that has no sin? hum and what happened? I do not judge i do not agree with having jurors even for we ask them to pass a judgement that could and in many cases be very wrong and I would not want to stand before the LORD and be shown how many lives this may have hurt when it was the Lords decision to judge that person, now it is on the heart and the mind of the person that judged them sis I judge it correctly if not God please forgive me. All people have the right to be equally happy and not be judged by others. I love the LORD I seek his counsel and I am a sinner one of the worst there may be, for each day when i look at the world I do judge with a mind that I am not even aware of my false judgements and I ask daily for the Lord to rebuke the evil in the mind that judges when it is not my right. Now you decide on the truth of the words of God but judge yourself not others , for if you do you will stand before the LORD and be judged as you have so judged them Many Blessing's

    1. adam k.'s Avatar adam k.

      i really do hope god judges me the way i judge the way i think or even how i judge my fellow human for it will be fun and a blessed day to be judged in the same manner. the manner in what i have said done and act. this is what i judge people on nothing more nothing less

    2. REV . Eugene Moore.'s Avatar REV . Eugene Moore.

      pastor Moore you are right May God Blass you In His Name A man

  1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

    Here's my Biblical reason for being willing to perform same-sex marriages. First, I am not under the Law. If I try to do part of the Law, I am a debter to do the whole Law. Jesus ushered in the Law of Love. When his spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost, we came under the Law of the Spirit. When Christ returns in the sky, the dead in Christ are risen, the living are changed in the twinkling of an eye, those who remain will be back under the Law.

    Romans lays out the legal explanation of the Law of the Spirit; it was The Mystery in the old testament. The doctrinal part starts in verse 1:15 or 1:16, depending on your view. 1:18-25 tells of the wrath of Gd to those who "hold the truth in unrighteousness."

    1:26 - 3:23 shows, concluded in 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of Gd." The first "transgression" addresses violates the first commandment given Gen 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply." It the transgression is "leaving the natural use" of the opposite sex. (Laying with same sex shows drive is still there.) Note that "unseemly" means the same as it does today--most may rather not see it. The reward (recompense) is that, if one gives up relations with the other sex, they don't have kids: not fruitful. (We may not always see kids as a blessing, but Gd does.)

    This is at the same level as the sins of backbiting, proud, boasters, and disobedient to parents. Do you refuse to marry those people? If so, remember 3:23: you can't perform any weddings. Many people stop reading at the end of Chapter 1, but those chapters weren't in the original word; they were placed there by men for our convenience. Keep reading to get full context. It's a good book to study anyway. It lays out the foundational doctrine for the Christian. Rom 10:9-10 tells requirement to be saved, made whole.

    When saved, we receive the Spirit of Christ in us. Telling if someone is saved requires the Discerning of Spirits, which may happen only if Gd decides to make it available. Other than that, I have no way of knowing if somebody is saved. I will not rely on Gd giving me revelation to decide to marry somebody.

    God doesn't give me the right to decide for somebody else what they need to do for salvation: Phil 2:12 "work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling." Also, Acts 17:11, "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

    As I said previously, I believe that marriage is essentially religious/philosophical with legal repercussions. I cannot, in good conscious, refuse to marry people unless I believe that one doesn't or can't consent. I also accept the legal requirements of the State to help ensure proper consent. Currently, Alabama doesn't allow same-sex marriage, but that doesn't prevent other ceremonies, if they otherwise meet my requirements. I don't seek people to wed. I did make sure that a minister who would perform same-sex weddings was on my county's list in case they become legal.

  1. Bernie Busse's Avatar Bernie Busse

    God made a man and a woman to become one NOT a man and man or woman and woman that is just wrong in so many ways

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Marriage is for 2 adults who love each other. There is NO place in the work of God where there is any exception to that rule. Only Man has created rules like that. If you want to mis-inturpurate the word that is your business. But dont deny others their rights based on that bad information. Christ NEVER said one word against gays marrying nor gays lives. There are several references to same sex couples in the bible. ... all are positive. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21 is only one,

    2. Pastor Tommy-Joe Stiner Sr's Avatar Pastor Tommy-Joe Stiner Sr

      So you become GOD? Only one person can judge and that Is the LORD, To love the LORD means in every way, You just don't throw away others rights because you judge them. If you fallow the LORD you fallow it in a whole not just leave out pieces so you can justify your reason or belief. I would not want to stand before the LORD and explain the Buts to be judgmental and prej remarks to the LORD! after all he does state practice what you sow and praise the Father in every way, yet if one may rep only when he elects then he too must be a bigot.

  1. Thomas Keach's Avatar Thomas Keach

    Wow, some very well reasoned arguments here from both sides of this coin. I am not gay, nor do I fear becoming gay if we allow same sex marriages. Nor do I fear my children or grandchildren will become gay. I believe clergy have the right, if it conflicts with their beliefs, to refuse to marry same sex couples. However, that does not mean same sex couples don't have the right to marry and enjoy the same benefits as man/woman couples.

    How does it hurt me (or you) if we allow and recognize same sex marriages? It's not like these couples will demand you take them into your circle of friends. If your FEAR OF SAME SEX COUPLES is so strong then just walk away when you see them. Fear is really the issue here and is the opposite of love. What we fear we want to ban or even destroy even when it doesn't actually attack us. A big issue now in the US is fear of Muslims when it's not all Muslims we should fear but rather the radical groups like ISIS that want to destroy every one that doesn't follow their doctrine. It seems to me that we act like gays are attacking us like ISIS wants to do. And that is just plain nonsense folks, get over yourselves and allow ALL PEOPLE the same rights you enjoy. Trust me, same sex marriage issues aren't going away...

    1. Brian Cook (@cook_brian)'s Avatar Brian Cook (@cook_brian)

      To be silent is to be guilty. A real child of the most high is going to speak boldly on God's law and the gospel of CORRECT AND NATURAL ORDER OF NATURE. NOT SOME ABNORMAL REASONING. HOMOSEXUALITY HAS PENETRATED EVERY FACTOR OF THE CHURCH.. And will be preying on people that are not homosexuals. Children will be groomed into believing this is behavior is acceptable. The Great Lie.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Which "The Church"? Remember, this is the ULC, and we have 2 basic tenants. Please follow them in Our church. Thank you in advance.

  1. Kimberly Hobbs's Avatar Kimberly Hobbs

    Bravo, Joe! Nicely to the point and aptly put. And thank you for this window to boast a notion of mine. For those who need reasons, here's something to ponder: Even in the Bible, there is a passage that closely goes: "the flesh is just a covering for the spirit". I know this because I read it, though I cannot give a chapter and verse, it is there. And of course said much more fancy! And now, reading my interpretation, maybe the word "just" wasn't used. . . With that said, I feel that spirits/souls can get mixed up during these hectic, kinda crazy times. Maybe a female spirit is born in a male flesh covering? and vice versa. . . maybe?, I'm just sayin'. : ) Love to all!

  1. Brother Tim's Avatar Brother Tim

    I just wished folks got this and more upset over the wealthy crashing the economy and making over a million homeless brothers and sisters. That's the real evil , not some gay person. So called Christians always have an excuse as to why they do not fight real evil. I guess you can tell God the reason you helped the wealthy hurt people is because you were busy fighting off gay people. We have so much evil to be fighting, like the corporations that sell bad processed foods that causes health problems and then charge you for health care insurance or keeping up the con about how solar energy will not help. They wealthy are complete pro's when it comes to keeping you busy with mundane things so you do not look at the real evil and the business of being gay is very mundane. And be sure to quote some scripture as to why your under evolved.

    1. Randy Ford's Avatar Randy Ford

      I don't see that this in on topic, but the ones that are were in power, the ones that "crashed" the economy, the same ones promoting solar power and that tore down our health care system, are not generally supported by evangelical Christians. Many believe the heads to be controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Look to see how many individuals gave millions to each party; you'll probably be surprised. Who has had control of Maryland and Baltimore for the last thirty years, overseeing the decline in employment, education, families, police force, and, for the last six years, federal entitlements.

  1. J R Erickson's Avatar J R Erickson

    I think that the first push for SSM was the fact that so many were being denied the rights of a married spouse of the opposite sex. I have a problem with same sex marriage BUT I also have a problem with all the marriages in Churches these days that seem to last only a year or so "until something better comes along" I believe in the sanctity of marriage.I believe in the preservation of marriage. I believe that a marriage blessed in the Church is that union between a man and woman. I do not deny that same sex couples exist that have lived together for decades and do deserve the legal status or a "partnership in a union" but the words "we have gathered here to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony" still ring loudly and clearly to me that marriage blessed in the Church should be one man and one woman. If a same sex couple in states where it is legal want a civil ceremony that is not in the Church and merely is a statement of their commitment to each other for life, there may be a very fine line of acceptance there but there is great conflict in my heart about this matter. The laws of man do not supersede the laws of God which even makes more conflict because you violate man's law you can be subject to jail and fines for your Christian belief. This indeed, is and will be an ongoing issue about the individual's Christian beliefs and what their interpretation of God's word addresses this issue and i'm sure there will be many varied opinions. As for me, I still will follow my Christian belief that marriage is between a man and woman because that is not only the way I was raised but what I was taught in Church.

    1. Brian Cook (@cook_brian)'s Avatar Brian Cook (@cook_brian)

      Amen and Hallelujah. God has some troops on the battlefield shooting the gospel in all directions. The Great Lie will not interpret the truth into a falsehood.

      1. Nagash's Avatar Nagash


  1. Joseph Blasing's Avatar Joseph Blasing

    all i can say is that if two people love each other and want to seal the deal by getting married who the hell are we to stand in the way it is a civil matter not a religious matter and I personally have no problem as a minister marrying any couple that is truly in love weather they are straight or gay or lesbian, and as long as these hateful tones are everywhere with this topic I will just say hating a person for the way they are is just foolish you might as well hate me because I have blue eyes its just as foolish. so why do you not try and find another topic to argue and fight about because as long as there are people like myself who are not bothered by ssm and are not afraid to perform them we will keep fighting for the laws to allow ssm and not discriminate against the gay and lesbian community

  1. Brian Cook (@cook_brian)'s Avatar Brian Cook (@cook_brian)

    I am a lowly servant of the Most High and Heavenly Divine God of the Universe. He has designed and set the correct order of life and how we should live it. On the day of judgement many shall be condemned to the lake of fire. As the LORD HAS SAID ABOMINATION IS A SIN. So shall it be that those who take the truth and twist it to conform with a lie shall face this damnation. The wise children of the Lord will not be fooled. The Devil has succeeded in attacking the church and his army battle the Lord's natural laws of order. The ultimate goal is the complete annihilation of mankind. With no reproductive order in place this would be in trouble.

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      Brian...if you are the true 'servant' that you claim ... you would follow the teachings of Christ. Not those of man. The Abomination is people who hate and deny rights of others. Christ taught us to love ALL and this country was founded on giving EUQAL rights for all. There are no exceptions to that. If you feel you are above the teachings of Christ or above the law....maybe the US is not the place for you. Check Iraq or Iran or Syria ... they put their God above the law. I guess you are against handicapped straight couples marrying as well as senior citizens or anyone who is unable to conceive. You claim the devil is attacking but you are supporting his hate and bigotry.

      1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        No Ric Basen I am against homoseuality!!!

        1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          If someone wants to be plugged in their butt, that is their business. If a woman wants to be a carpet muncher, that is her business. Me I just believe in the natural order of life.

          1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            Brian, don't let Basen get under your skin. He does not believe the Bible is divinely inspired. So whatever you believe, he will say the opposite. He doesn't study himself to be approved, a workman rightly dividing the Word of truth. He is of his father and his father's deeds he shall do, twisting and contorting the word of God Don't say anything that will get you censured on this site, calm down, stay in the Word and remember who wins in the end. You don't have to apologize to anyone here for your beliefs. They are as valid for you as their's are to them. God is not the author of confusion and that's all he's trying to accomplish by planting doubt in your beliefs. move on.

          2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            De.. how do you know what I do and do not believe in? You claiming to be God now? You have absolutely no idea where I'm coming from nor do you care.. you have a hate filled agenda to push and like a few others here will do nothing but make offensive comments and continue to be extremely Anti-Christian. Too bad.
            The Bible while inspired .. was in fact written by man, edited by man and re-written by other men. There are hundreds of books out all claiming to be the 'one true' book. No one is better than another. All have the basic premise that God is love. it doesnt matter what they call God as long as they follow the teachings of God. Which are to love God and your fellow man.. if you dont do that ... you are not following his teachings.

      2. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        It almost seems like you are telling me that homosexuality is something I should embrace! Are you mad??? I am totally against it!!! Leave the little boys and girls alone SATAN!!!

        1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Brian don't bother with the guy, calm down he means nothing to you. Go to sleep and relax brother.

        2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          So Brian you are hiding behind blaming Satan for your bigotry and hatred. Be a man and admit that you hate a minority that you dont understand. I am not implying that you embrace gays.. just learn that they are human just as you are and were created by the same God ... unless you think God makes mistakes. Satan only guides those who deny rights of others and encourages hate and bigotry. He will do anything to avoid the spread of the Love of God.

          1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

            Ric Basen you are the one who is showing that you are hiding behind sheep's clothing while demanding that real lovers of the Holy Word lay down their belief and embrace your way of life. Give the little boys and girls a chance. Not all of us want to see the continued sexual abuse and mental distortion of our youth by the sexual predators of homosexuality. Give our kids a chance to grow up naturally before you attempt to alter their way of thinking. Can you refrain from desiring to sleep with our sons???

          2. Brian Kneeland's Avatar Brian Kneeland

            Also - he ignores statistics that child abuse is usually from heterosexual people and not homosexual people! Knowing the facts helps!

          3. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

            Brian Cook.. you apparently have never actually seen any facts on child abuse nor on homosexuality. As Brian Kneeland said... the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of abuse comes from straight parents.

            Marriage is being destroyed by abusive spouses and divorce.. not gays. Blaming gays for the failure of straight marriages and straight people is a cop-out.

            BTW Gay people dont want to sleep with your kids. It's Straight parents who do that.

            If a gay marriage has an effect on your marriage.. one of you is gay.

    2. Nagash's Avatar Nagash


      1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

        I said this before and I think it needs to be repeated. The bible makes reference 7 times in relation to homosexual behavior and over 300 on hetersexual behavior. Don’t you think maybe the bigger mess in the house should be cleaned up before worrying about the empty glass sitting in the sink instead.

  1. pops's Avatar pops

    The court deals with constitutional issues, which are objective. Marriage has no mention in that document but equal rights under the law does. There is too much subjectivity in the present court.

    1. revbarbarajadams's Avatar revbarbarajadams


  1. louis's Avatar louis

    My 2 cents... Regardless of what your PERSONAL views are... A people are SUPPOSED to be equal under the law, and we all have the freedom of religion, under our constitution.., if you would like your religion to be the law of the land, please move to a theocratic nation (nation ruled by religion, and only one religion) I understand people don't WANT to accept it... And no one is asking you to do so against your will, but you don't get to choose who loves who... And as we are all equal citizens, supposedly, then the law should apply equally to ALL... I honestly don't even know why this is a RELIGIOUS debate, as religion has no place on US law... According to our own constitution....

    1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

      I agree totally!

    2. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

      You are on a RELIGIOUS WEBSITE DUH????

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Yes, Brian. But remember that this particular religious website, this particular church, has a far more open and diverse and welcoming perspective than many others. Here’s an excerpt from the About Us section of our website that should help to explain it in more detail (not that certain folks pay any attention nor give respect to them):

        The Universal Life Church was founded on the basic belief that we are all children of the same universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by which it expects its ministers to conduct themselves:

        1. Do only that which is right.
        2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws. We have made it our mission to actualize these tenets in the world by empowering millions of ministers, whether they come to us from a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Shinto, Agnostic, Atheist, Pagan, Wiccan, or Druid tradition, to speak their own truth to power.


        Read more at http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2015/05/undermining-traditional-marriage/#TwL0WxVD7Tkkdsli.99

      2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Yes, Brian. But remember that this particular religious website, this particular church, has a far more open and diverse and welcoming perspective than many others. Here’s an excerpt from the About Us section of our website that should help to explain it in more detail (not that certain folks pay any attention nor give respect to them):

        The Universal Life Church was founded on the basic belief that we are all children of the same universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by which it expects its ministers to conduct themselves:

        1. Do only that which is right.
        2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws. We have made it our mission to actualize these tenets in the world by empowering millions of ministers, whether they come to us from a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Shinto, Agnostic, Atheist, Pagan, Wiccan, or Druid tradition, to speak their own truth to power.


        1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          This is quite true about what the Universal Church is about, however Louis made a comment about why are we having a mundane debate on this site about religion. Again I say DUH? Whatever the case may be a practicing Satanist can promote his beliefs for all that matter. I will enforce my belief in the unconditional love of the Holy Spirit. The FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM!!!!!

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Do understand that the ULC is supportive of same-gender marriage, without opposing "opposite marriage". See the Our History section of the About Us page: "While proud of the work we’ve done and the victories we’ve won in areas like religious freedom and the legalization of same-sex marriage...

            While it's fine to disagree, a respectful conversation is likely to garner more support for your perspective than rudeness. Just something to think about as you represent your particular faith tradition.


  1. Tom's Avatar Tom

    Often, people do not see the forest for the trees, and in the matter of religious marriage vs civil marriage, this is clearly the case. As it stands right now, androbably will stand for the foreseeable future, no court ruling or legislative approval of same sex marriage has included any language requiring churches to marry anyone that is in contradiction to their religious beliefs.

    In the U.S., clergy have been "authorized" to perform weddings for the state...not required. Religious autonomy has always trumped the civil nature of marriage. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has never been challenged about their refusal to marry couples who have a divorce in their history. No church is required to marry anyone that is not in communion with at that church's beliefs.

    "The sky is falling" mentality that we are hearing is so unnecessary. Threats of civil disobedience? What are you disobeying? No one, legislature or courts have told you to do anything!

    There is a simple answer. Why not remove the authority of clergy to certify marriages for the state? The U.S. Is one of only five or six countries in the world where this authorization even exists. Remove the clerical authority in civil law matters and you have separated church and state per the constitution, you have reinforced religious autonomy for the churches, and everyone can go about their business calmly and coolly. Religious marriage and civil marriage are already at odds with the advent of no-fault divorce, strictly forbidden by Jesus himself. Why not just break the ties that do not bind?

    As a clergyman, I have no problem with this. I can truly minister to the flock within my church according to the beliefs of my church. To me, that is ultimate religious freedom and liberty.

  1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

    Kevin and Daniel, Thank you for proving the church is truly blind to its tenants and fortunately the dogma you throw up in here is a dying breed. Daniel, you never addressed the many questions to what you were asked and instead just stomped your feet and repeated the same stupid code which everyone but you acknowledged. Then you were asked about the conservative judges recusing themselves based on the law you presented and your answer again was to post the same code,We got it the first 15 times you posted it. We asked where the people stated they were a 501c and of course you said you didn't have to show it, your word was good enough. Kevin, it is called debating, just because I think you are wrong that is not whining. As for interracial marriage, I proved that the court does have the right to impose the rule of law when it comes to the rights of individuals vs the rights of the states. I appreciate a good debate and everyone has a right to their opinion and I will stand by your right to that. But demeaning others is not debate nor is it very Christ like.

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      God has judged Daniel, Kevin, and Brian, and found them wanting. While I'd like to feel sorry for them, they're far too evil to feel much sympathy in their cases...except I know they already suffer such a terrible curse with having to live within their own skin.

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        Comment has been removed.

    2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

      Comment has been removed.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Speaking of tick farts, how is your mother these days?

        1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

          Tick fart, well I guess the maturity level just dropped to first grade, impressive Kevin! Maybe later we can finger paint and make Thanksgiving turkeys outlining our hands. You truly have remained above it all by not giving in to name calling and insults. Oh wait, my mistake, that was another name tossed out there wasn't it. I love that you claim others are name calling while in the same response you cast aspersions on others. Way to keep above it all. Rolling my eyes for special effects.

      2. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

        Wow. I am amazed how you never leave without tossing out some sort of an insult, call someone a name or accuse and point your finger while beating your chest crying, stomping your foot someone is hurting your precious religious beliefs. You have no place telling others to stop with the name calling while playing the holier than thou.You don't agree, fine. But grow up and stop expecting the world to do what you say until you hold your breath. It is childish and never works. Just curious, if you could care less what others are thinking then why are you arguing. That is kind of like bragging about being the popular kid at the table for the criminally insane in the state mental hospital.

  1. revbarbarajadams's Avatar revbarbarajadams

    An omnipotent God would not condemn his children for loving one another and wanting to sanctify it through marriage. Humans make things complicated that should stay simple. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter. Only love matters. We get our religious freedoms because we live in a country that allows it, but we get our grace from God. If a clergy's religious beliefs do not allow same-sex couples to marry, then the law should permit ordained ministers to perform the ceremonies.

    I am an ordained minister, straight, and married to a wonderful man, but it would be my honor and pleasure to perform a same-sex marriage with the same dignity and reverence that I perform any other wedding ceremony. Love is the one truth that binds us all together.

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      Roughly 25% of the weddings I have had the honor and privilege of officiating have been same-gender marriages. They are no different than any other marriage, blessed and sacred. Some here simply cannot get past their own hate and bigotry and recognize the beauty that fills our universe. I pray for their broken, bitter hearts.

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        What did they offer as stipend Khan, forget it that's too much info.

  1. Gary's Avatar Gary


    I stand by my comments and I am done reading and commenting. You are abusive and condescending to anyone with a different view. That is why everyone is stopping to respond to you, not because they have nothing else to say. You apparently have way to much time on your hands. I need to get back to work.

    1. Dan's Avatar Dan

      So telling the truth is somehow an anemia to you I take it?

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Telling the truth? Please do let us know when you intend to start. Also, point of information, either you don't understand the definition of "anemia" (a condition marked by a deficiency of red blood cells or of hemoglobin in the blood, resulting in pallor and weariness.) or you picked the wrong word. Perhaps you meant "anathema".

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          Always have joe. And its a lot better then your posts when someone disagrees with you; you start with name calling and personal attacks.

          But thats ok. that will be stopping here.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            You're stopping here? Good to know. Have a great rest of your day.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            I am not stopping anything. I am saying that YOUR childish actions will be stopping soon. SO I assume that you cant read, as my 6 year old great niece Madison who is standing here beside me asked "Uncle Dan, why cant this person understand English?" And I had no answer for her.

          3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Oh, so you don't intend to stop your boorish behaviors. I see. You're predicting my actions will be stopping soon? Remember what is written in Leviticus 19:26 - "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes." Perhaps you can explain to young Madison how you're defying the Lord, and how she should have nothing to do with you: Leviticus 19:31 - "Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God."

            My 17-year-old read some of your rants and said "WTF is wrong with that guy? Is he mental?" Of course I did have an answer for him.

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Typical, you always have to seemingly one up someone just to justify your posts.

            As I said, keep up the name calling and the personal attacks as it is just making it worse for you

          5. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Poor Uncle Dan. Ignoring the Lord's commandments, making young Madison unclean. Don't blame me for your failings before the Lord.

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Ok thats the last straw., I will be contacting the mods by phone. You have just stepped over the final line.

          7. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Please do. Please explain to them how you brought your niece into the mix to insult me. Please explain to them how you blame me for the Bible's teachings. Please explain to them how you don't even acknowledge my church as a legitimate church, yet you want them to police me when you defile my church. Oh to be a fly on the wall, or an NSA telecom monitor...

          8. Dan's Avatar Dan

            I didnt insult anyone, I stated fact. If you can understand that then her statement was correct. And Come tomorrow I will be making a nice little trip to the Law Office.As I said Joe,this time you crossed the line.

            May I suggest you hire an attorney.

          9. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I stated what I believe to be fact, expressed my opinion. You know what they say about goose sauce... I have a good feeling I know what a competent lawyer will tell you. Hope you get an honest lawyer, else you might just be in for a lightening of your wallet and a hard lesson learned.

          10. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Joe,but what you did was illegal. You slandered me and I will not allow that. I will be talking to the Monastery's main office tomorrow morning and I will be talking to my attorneys tomorrow afternoon and I will be giving them a copy of your post. We will be filing a complaint demanding your real name and address which this site is legally required to provide, and then I will let the law take it from there.

            You have tried to run roughshod over people in this site like you owned it. You have stepped over the line. I suggest you hire an attorney.

          11. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Please explain exactly how I have slandered you, for if that is indeed the case then I will certainly apologize.

          12. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry but way too late. Your apology is not accepted. You have called a female here "a *itch" and stated that if she talked and acted like one then she was one.

            You have constantly called names and attacked persons that proved you wrong even after the mods warned you. And you can continue to deny it all you want but simply asking them will confirm this.

            You have called me a bigot and a racist. And now you make improper and slanderous remarks about me and my great niece? Oh you have not only stepped over the line, you sir have JUMPED over it with both feet!

            As I said. I will be taking to the head office tomorrow and demanding that either they deal with you, or my attorneys and myself will. And I can assure you we wont be as gentle as the mods would.

            I would strongly suggest you hire an attorney as you are going to need one.

          13. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Daniel, you misunderstand. I have not apologized to you for anything. I said "I will" apologize if I have slandered you. I do not see where I could possibly have slandered you, so no reason to do so at this point.

            I have not called anyone on this thread a "*itch". Not once. Scroll up. Scroll down. Cite specific post with link and datestamp and we'll take it from there. Until you can produce evidence, you're just talking smack.

            I have not attacked any person who has proved me wrong. I have not called anyone who has proved me wrong any names. I have NEVER been warned by any "mods" or gods or broads. Clods, on the other hand....sure, you and a few of your ilk have warned me, but you don't even recognize my church, so your rants here are naught but howling at the moon.

            You have said things that I find to be rather bigoted. The only two instances of the word "racist" (aside from this one) in this entire thread come from you and your apparent sockpuppet (or fellow traveler) Kevin. How sad that you feel you must lie in a feeble attempt to make me look bad. Epic fail, as usual.

            I have in no way slandered your niece. I have in no way slandered you. That you felt you must bring an alleged 6-year-old into the discussion to fight your battles for you shows how tenuous your position is.

            Go and take your rant to your attorney. Likely they will tell you that "butt hurtz" isn't an actionable issue. Perhaps they will explain to you just how wrong you are. At this point, I hope your attorney sees you for the foolish git you are, and cleans out your wallet.

            I won't be bothering my attorney on a weekend over your baseless and meaningless rants. Indeed, I won't be bothering my attorney at all over this. Until I receive communications from your attorney, I won't even be considering your empty threats. I will be praying for you.

          14. Dan's Avatar Dan

            No trying to weasel out of it now Joe, you cooked your own goose. I read what you posted to my attorney and he claimed that it WAS slanderous and it WAS chargeable.

            As I said tomorrow I will be calling the sites home office and tell them either they deal with you or I will.

            You cooked your own goose child because you let your mouth write a check that your body cant cash.

            Well come tomorrow you will be paying for that check with interest! Hope you like the rates that you are going to live by

          15. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            "Weasel out of it"? Quite the opposite.

            I have no evidence that you even have an attorney, much less that you've talked to one.

            Go and waste your time and money.

          16. Dan's Avatar Dan

            keep up with the attacks and remarks Joe, you are proving my case for me.

            Your best option is to shut up now, but you wont do that as your ego wont let you. And I am not the only one that you are doing this to Joe, you are also doing this to Kevin DeFranco.

            As the old saying goes, when you are digging a hole and the hole is over your head, STOP DIGGING! Sadly for you you have used a backhoe and have dug the hole so deep that you couldnt get out without a rope and a ladder even standing on the tip top of the scoop at full extension, both of which you didnt bring.

            You put yourself into this position and now you are going to pay the price.

            And as anyone can see when you thought you could talk your way out of this you were all nice and goodness, and when you found I was not having it; then you reverted back to your old ways of personal attacks and name calling.

          17. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Your continued empty threats don't really have an impact. Perhaps try them on someone who is afraid of bullies...that someone isn't me.

  1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

    Daniel.. you are stating your opinion and backing it with something that has no bearing on the topic and hiding your hatred and bigotry behind that argument. You refuse to see where that same argument can be used both ways ... Too bad you dont follow Christ's teaching to love and care for all.

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      (It's because he's not really Christian)

      1. Dan's Avatar Dan

        Says the person that insults and calls names every chance he gets.

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          I'll continue to pray for your soul. Perhaps someday you will find Him, and find peace.

          1. Dan's Avatar Dan

            they have a word for people like you Joe, its called "Pharisees" as you are doing the same thing that they did, proselytising. maybe you should read Matthew 23:15 and take it to heart.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I can think of several words for you. I shan't share them here. Get those meds adjusted.

          3. Dan's Avatar Dan

            I didnt need to know you were on medication Joe.

    2. Dan's Avatar Dan

      I stand by my posts Ric. If you dont want to follow the law, then thats all on you. But dont come back her complaining if you get busted for not following the law.

      1. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

        Excuse me.. but you are the one who is twisting and not understanding the law, Daniel. Your posts are only your slanted opinion of what you want the law to be. There have been several posts here that have shown you where you are incorrect but you refuse to believe anything but your closed minded ideas. Remember, a closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          No Rick, I am not twisting anything. I am QUOTING from the law. If you have a problem with the way the law is written, then take it up with the people who wrote it or try and get it changed to suit you. Until then you WILL follow the law and so will the Supreme Court or they can be impeached and removed and you can be arrested by your local authorities for breaking the law.

          I have nothing in it. I am just copying and pasting the law. If you think you can break it then please go ahead and try. Just let us know what federal prison you are in so we can send you gifts.

        2. Ric Basen's Avatar Ric Basen

          Daniel. you are twisting how you want the law to be. The part you repeatedly quote has been shown to NOT mean what you think it does. Go back and re-read the comments after your first post. I have nothing to worry about. There is NO law that states I nor anyone else will be arrested. The Supreme court would have to be totally vacated if your premise is followed .. BTW there is a law being introduced to require them to follow a code of ethics which could impeach two of your right wing justices.

          1. Dan's Avatar Dan

            No, it just does not show what YOU want it to be. Nice try but facts are facts and you cant change them

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I'm sure He has a reason for denying you the Gift of Understanding language, Daniel. Perhaps someday He will show us the reason for doing so. Until then, I will do as He tells us and Pray for you to find Salvation. I trust He has a Purpose for even those such as you.

    3. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

      Basen, you call Daniel a bigot and a hater because he won't cave in to your perversion of the Word. Thats it. Jesus loved the money changers in the temple, and He showed them tough love by kicking their butts out of the house of God. Was He a hater and a bigot too? I'm sure there must have been some of you people around then. The SCOTUS may say gay marriage is O.K. but that doesn't change the Word of God. And by the way, I think the "heaviest" term Daniel has used on this blog has been "child" oh yeah "Pharisee" was another .Can you imagine that in this day and age? It doesn't matter to some here whether Daniel cites civil or biblical truths, they refuse to see it or accept it. Understandable, because some do not have eyes to see or ears to hear.

      1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        Perhaps, Kevin....but the word of any god(s) is irrelevant to the laws of the United States. Within your church you can do what you want with marriage. Within the laws of our nation your church has no relevance. Daniel has yet to cite actual civil truths accurately and in context. And yes, Daniel continually shows he's a bigot and hater...perhaps not within the context of his particular perspective on his particular faith, but certainly in the context of the civil society in which we all live. While you're welcome to your perspective on your preferred version of the Bible, you're not welcome to shove it down the throats of the rest of us. That's clearly not in keeping with the tenants of the ULC.

        1. Dan's Avatar Dan

          So according to you Joe, the 1st Amendment banning the making of any law that violates a person right to practice their religion or religious teachings is a non issue because YOU say so? Or the US Supreme Courts Employment decision or the Supreme Courts Santeria decision are both non issues because you say so and they dont fit into you view of the world? ALL THREE of these are civil truths and they are LAW. NOTHING you or the Supreme court can do will change this. To change this in the 1st Amendment you would need a Constitutional Amendment and that isnt going to happen. And to change the two Supreme Court decisions, they would have to overturn BOTH of them BEFORE they ruled for SSM IF the ruled for SSM otherwise it would create a major conflict and they would have to do this all over again, and that isnt going to happen.

          And under Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2, the US Congress can overturn any Supreme Court decision with a simple 51-49% vote. And there is nothing the court or any president can do to stop this as it does not need the presidents signature to become law nor can the Supreme Court stop them either, so what stopping the Congress from just invalidating this decision? Not a darned thing. And so what if they get tossed out of power, with the Republicans in charge of the Senate you wont get this past the senate for another 5 or more years.

          SO believe what you want and say what you want but you will use truth and not the hyperbole balogna you have been posting.

          And continue to call me a bigot and I will state here and now I will turn you over to the mods and let them deal with you for your actions yet AGAIN

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            As there have never been any "mods" taking any action against me, you continue to slander me. And you continue to show your bigotry and hatred of people who are in my state a protected class and elsewhere still enjoy the same equal protection under law that we all enjoy. Call your "mods". Call your mages. Call your mother for all I care. In fact, how about you do call your mother...share with her your behaviors towards others, how you shame her on this Mother's Day Eve.

          2. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Sorry Joe, you are making up stories yet again and it clearly can be proven just by asking the persons that take care of this webpage and Mary, you remember her dont you Joe? The same woman that you repeatedly called a name that rhymes with which and begins with the letter B.

            And right after the moderators saw this that thread was closed and you had to become a nicer person, something that you are falling back into your old habits yet again. SO dont try your stunts in claiming this didnt happen as it is very easy to prove it DID happen by just asking two people, the Moderators and Mary.. Protest all you want Joe but the fact remains you are not telling the truth.

          3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            You've asked, and no answer has been forthcoming. No "mods" intervened on your behalf, no "mods" suggested nor demanded anything of me, no "mods" communicated with me at all. Your continued claims that your "mods" did any such thing is pure fabrication. Had you even the slightest of evidence, I'm sure you would have posted. Had you even some unrelated piece that you could attempt to spin to fit your agenda you would have long since posted quotes and links. You have nothing. You're still batting 1000, still a 100% failure rate.

            I'm curious, who pays you to troll here?

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Again Joe, I will put my post count up against yours any day of the week and mine will be LARGELY less then yours. IN this thread alone you have over 100 posts, I have a grand total with this one of 27.

            So tell us again Joe exactly who the troll is here? I know you see that person in your morning mirror.

          5. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Q: What does post count have anything to do with the definition of "Troll"? A: Nothing. Troll: noun. 1. a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting. Troll: verb 1. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

            So, in answer to your question, "So tell us again Joe exactly who the troll is here?", you are the trolling troll, Daniel. Who pays you? Are you naught but a sockpuppet of Shirley Phelps-Roper perhaps?

          6. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Keep up the name calling and personal attacks Joe, you are only making it worse on yourself.

          7. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            I thought you said you were stopping. [May 10, 2015 at 8:46 am]

        2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

          Joe, you are welcome to "dismiss" anything you don't agree with. As for shoving anything down your throat I wouldn't think of it. Maybe Basen can be of help? Like I said SCOTUS may make it national to O.K. SSM, and will have to be adhered to. However, if I'm to be made to officiate an SSM I will give up being a minister first. And disagreeing with you or others, only makes Daniel disagreeable at best. You are the one calling names here so stop it won't you? And why do you keep addressing the Bible to chastise Daniel when you know you believe it to be a non factor. You are an avowed humanist, and don't believe in religion as an answer to anything. Stop the charade. Stop telling Daniel he's mocking God, and that you're going to pray for his soul. Who exactly are you going to pray to, the fictitious God you don't believe in? Don't ruin the conversation by being you. Like I told Basen, for now the law may very well be overturned, but in the end we'll find out who was right and who was blowing smoke. Like I said you are welcome to dismiss anything we may say. But we have the right to our opinions just as you. Try to keep it civil and stop calling names, you're better than that.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Take your rants to Daniel, Kevin. You two make such an appropriate couple. I bid you both the blessings of a beautiful life together.

          2. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

            I gave you ample space to stop your attacking and name calling Joe. This has happened on every thread, the outcome is always the same. You make statements, people reply, you tell them to document their claims; and after they do time and time again, you start the name calling, question their sanity, question their beliefs, call them transgressors, or question their heritage. What exactly is your problem Joe? Is this the only place you've ever had a perceived feeling of victory? The only thing you've accomplished for yourself is building your vocabulary by trying to intimidate others with words. You seem to be a malcontent. I'm willing to bet when you get to paradise you'll be mad at God in 5 minutes. So sad. So here and now I'm calling out all Christians to get into intercessory prayer for YOU even though you don't believe in our God, or the Bible we hold as truth. I thought you were better than that but I guess I was mistaken.

          3. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            There seem to be but a handful of folks who come here and troll, Kevin. You, Daniel, and recently Brian. I wonder if any/all of you are closeted or in denial about your sexuality...that seems to be a thing for some who rant and rail as you do. I'm not worried about your version of any gods because the three of you show yourselves to be just plain silly and rude and not at all in touch with anything divine. I'll keep praying for the three of you, and those of your ilk, to be saved, to be cured of whatever demons are twisting your minds so terribly, to come to know Him, and come to understand the Golden Rule.

          4. Dan's Avatar Dan

            Continue calling Names Joe, with every time you open your mouth you are diggin the hole deeper.

            Oh and BTW, YOUR post count is now over 120 on this thread. ALL THREE of our post counts COMBINED are not even 45.

            Care to say who the troll is not Joe?

          5. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Again, Daniel, count of posts is not a measure of trollitude.

  1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

    Gay people are the real Christians in your opinions huh??? People do not conform to your behavior is demons and hateful because they don't accept the concept of men who want to be plugged and women who want to munch on carpets. So you get on a religious site and just like your father you use the Bible to dispute with the love of Christ as it is written. Well fire and brimstone awaits thee!!!!. REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB. TURN FROM YOUR EVIL WAYS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      Obvious Troll Is Obvious

      1. Krvin DeFranco's Avatar Krvin DeFranco

        No wondering or questions about my sexuality Joe, never been a problem. You have tried working this dance on me before Joe, but its not happening.You are right I have an infection. I'm infected with God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and His Word. You got nothing else for me Joe, no more replies from me. Stop the name calling.

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          I really don't care about your sexuality, nor of Daniels, nor of anyone else's besides my wife's. Not my business...I'm not one of those sick perverts that wants to insert myself into someone else's sexuality. If you want the name calling to stop, it's very simple. Stop name calling. Stop labeling others. Stop your douchbaggery. If you're not willing to stop harassing others, perhaps you should take your bigotry elsewhere. Here's a place where your ilk is welcome: godhatesfags.com

    2. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

      Brian, You're comments are vulgar and this site has no place for that. You know it wasn't so long ago African Americans were considered lower than animals in this country but society evolved. Maybe you should try that yourself and realize your comments are neither constructive or Christ like.

        1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          If the truth hurts Kenny, I can only apologize for I can perceive that you can only be offended if you are a participant in the fleshly acts I mentioned. If I touched a sensitive nerve, please let me apologize for for being so direct in my description of the sinful acts of which homosexuality is conducted. The commingling of the flesh between people of the same gender is vulgar and distasteful. Yet it is a utter reality that would still be behind closed doors if people had not yielded to give it power. Now that same thing is rising and attacking the traditional values of the church. In reference to your statement about the Black Race, I am proud to be who I am, because if you study your history, ORIGINALLY, Christianity was first developed in a land in which people of color was the prominent populace!!!! So stop trying to twist my statements into something they are not. I speak boldly in my faith for what is right. The two commandments that Jesus stated hold true (Lord the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind; And love your neighbor). He did not say sleep with your neighbor, but love him for if he was your own brother!!!!

          1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

            And as your brother Kenny I appeal to you to Repent and be Baptized in the Blood of the Lamb. Stop sinning and stop sleeping with men. You are a man and I love you like a brother. So please restrain from the urges of your flesh and let the Holy Spirit direct you.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Brian, as your fellow traveler I appeal to you to repent and cease being such a boor. Stop pushing your faith as the one and only relevant one in this open and welcoming place. You may be a man (no way of knowing for sure in this virtual place), and I love you as a fellow traveler. So please restrain from the urges of your hubris and let the Tenants of the Universal Life Church direct you.

      1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

        Brian, Your are the epitome of what Christ never taught. You are a depraved person who I am guessing is truly repulsed by his own sexuality based on how you have accused anyone who differs from your disgusting thoughts of being gay. You are the devil's work and satan's child. You speak of the bible with disdain for others and twist the words of the bible. I would suggest getting counseling before you hurt someone or yourself for the self loathing and hatred you possess for your desire and love of a man's body. God loves everyone and

        1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          Kenny once again you attempt to impose your beliefs upon another. I am not nor do I desire a man's body. I am happy with the shape and form of my own. I am proud of this fleshly shell, God has given me. I am physically attractive and my muscles and cuts are correct. My form is sleek and wonderful. My height is naturally tall 6-4 195 lbs and a 36 inch waist. I'm happy with all of that. However, that is not what I am focused on. I am focused on what is right versus what is wrong. If a man chooses to be united with someone of his same gender then he has the right to commit that sin. He has right to choose the devil. He has the right to be inflicted with damnation. Yet, it is my responsibility as a servant of the most high Lord to tell him the truth and to teach and preach the love of God to him, who will listen. I have no authority to force my belief upon him and just because I love God's word correctly, that make me some kind of bad guy. Wow!!!! And even reading between the lines I can see your veil attempt to insult me as being gay or wanting to put me in your genre. Of which I am not. I don't suck on the flesh and do the things you do. I do not lay down and open my cavity to allow another man to enter in. These are your desires and you shall reap the benefits of your actions. God will be waiting on your soul.

          1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

            Brian, While some people might be flattered by your hitting on them I can honestly say you would be the farthest person I would consider dating so please stop asking if I am gay. First, it has no bearing on the conversation whether or not either of us is gay. Second, you are the most unattractive person I have met in recent days. So your vanity of describing yourself does nothing for anyone here since the true beauty of a person is internal which you fail with your ugly comments. So stop wanting everyone else to be gay, which I must say is odd since you claim to be so against it. Best wishes with your dating situation since even you describe it on facebook as complicated. I understand but stop wishing everyone was gay so it would be easier for you to accept your confusion. May peace be with you. Oh, good luck on those reparations petition for whatever that is worth to you!

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            He does seem to have a thing for you, Kenny. He's even describing himself for you...sounds like a personal ad. Eh, whatever floats his boat. Who am I to judge?

  1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

    The sins of the flesh err against the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost!!!!

  1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

    The living God is going to perform an event in your life and you will be humbled by the Lord himself. I see a stranger coming your way and you will engage in a sinful act that will bring upon you the curse of the Lord!!!!

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      You see that, eh Brian? Guess what, buddy....you're an abomination, and you're screwed! Deuteronomy 18:10-13

      1. Kenny's Avatar Kenny

        Joe, Thank you for your valiant attempt at keeping this room clean and upstanding! I have followed the conversation and you have tried to keep it a constructive conversation. Unfortunately Brian is dealing with his own sexuality which is reflective of his vile, distasteful and often self loathing comment of misdirection and transference with accusations that anyone who is in disagreement with him must be gay. Not only does he fail in one of the basic tenants of the ULC, he greatly fails in the basic tenants of the church he purports to belong, thou shalt not bear false witness. Until he can accept the lot that is his the chances are slim of having an intelligent conversation with him.

        1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

          Kenny just because you keep attempting to sling your gayness on me I will not belittle myself to stoop to your standards. I perceive your intentional cravings to pursue conversation with a man. You need fatherly guidance and if I can help please let me know. I have you in prayer confused child.

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Brian, I must remind you of what is written in John 8:7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

            Your transgressions against me are great, your sins yet unatoned for, your shame still great before God and man.

      2. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        Joey the real sinners are the people who attempt to distort the truth. Your sins is known and the acts of violence you have done are forever in the book of life. God knows all your acts good and bad.

  1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

    JoeyStutler You fail to realize the power of the Holy Spirit. I bet your parents thought you would make them proud grand parents and continue the legacy of your family. Not that you would go astray and love your neighbor more than you should. Wow!!! I bet they was surprised when you came home converted in the flesh.Who changed you? A priest, Gym Coach or Close Family Friend???

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      Brian, my name is Joe Stutler, not "Joey". Perhaps that was simply a typo. I'll await your apology.

      As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about. None of it makes any sense. Please explain.

      1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        Joe I know that Joey is the nickname you was called as a child and that you came from loving parents that had a higher respect of you than what you became. I know all about you. I also know you have a dark side to you and you need to have a cleansing of your spirit. You are highly intelligent just confused and misdirected. So please let me apologize if you are offended in me using your childhood family nickname.

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Brian, you don't know me. You don't know what I was called nor by whom. You don't know my parents nor what I became. You know nothing of me. Indeed, the only thing you managed to correctly guess about me is that I am highly intelligent. No "if" about it...I am highly offended that you continue to deliberately misstate my name. Your rudeness is surpassed only by your dimwittedness. Regarding your comment datestamped [May 8, 2015 at 10:47 am], none of that makes any sense at all, and is clearly in contradiction with your comment datestamped [May 8, 2015 at 12:19 pm]. Your logic fails. You destroy your own credibility, and shame yourself before God when you purport to do his work in the manner you are proceeding. Go from this place, make amends, and sin no more.

          1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

            Joe I admit I am guilty of trying to push your buttons. But in all true sincerity I think you can do better at life than promote sexual agendas. Go and preach my gospel throughout all the world. And know that I am with you always.

          2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Admitting your guilt is but the first step. A sincere and profound apology is in order. Surely someone whose brother was wrongly convicted based upon lies would understand what a terrible injustice it is to lie about another, and to convict a person based upon lies. You have shared many lies about me, and you have proclaimed me guilty before God and man alike. You have committed grave sins, Brian.

            The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. - Deuteronomy 19:18-19

            You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord. - Leviticus 19:16

            Do not hastily bring into court, for what will you do in the end, when your neighbor puts you to shame? - Proverbs 25:8

            This is the path you are following, Brian, and this is the end you are heading towards: All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever. - Ezekiel 28:19

            I know I am fine and well and good, for in Matthew 5:11 it is written “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account."

            Your evil lies, given in His name, have surely been noticed by Him.

            Make amends, cease your sinning, beg humbly for forgiveness from Him and from those who have born the weight of your transgressions.

  1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

    Joe I apologize for fighting against your beliefs in homosexuality. It is your right to have a relationship with Kenny, Ric Blasen or Brent Rees of any other person who supports your desires. I feel you should repent and cease the behavior of immorality/

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      And still you continue to commit the sin of lying about your brother before God and man alike. I know, and God knows, that you should repent, atone, and sin no more. Your lying tongue is taking you on the path to the pit of fire and brimstone where you shall spend eternity. Perhaps it's best if you left this place and ceased defiling this temple as you clearly unrepentant. I will pray for your soul. As for my relationships, I will continue to enjoy my relationship with my lawfully wedded wife.

      1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

        Does your wife know you support gayness?

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          Does your convicted felon brother know you are committing the same sins that got him incarcerated?

          1. Brian Cook's Avatar Brian Cook

            Now you have revealed the most unintelligent remark of your personality. If you want you can go visit my brother and make your remark to him in person. Since you don't know the circumstances of his being incarcerated. He is there because someone was killed. And you can be my guest. I invite you to come from behind your keyboard and to go and visit him. In fact I encourage you to. And while you are there you can share your views on supporting homosexuality and how you minister to the proliferation of homosexuality. And that your wife does not know you are living a double life as her husband and some else girlfriend Joey!!!