New Hampshire Bans Gay Marriage

[DPDarkPrimus]

What should happen to me when I go to work on Sunday?

Well now, let's see what the Good Book has to say about that!

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

[RedImperator]

Adultery is perfectly legal. It's grounds for divorce, but that's because it violates the terms of the legal contract of marriage.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And yet at the same time, you would vote to make it unconstitutional at the federal level. Thank you for contadictiong yourself and moving the goalposts.

Only if interpretation of Federal law prevents states from exercising such legislation, but then it is no secret that I believe the central government exercises far too much power.

Oh, and I would agree with you on most issues, but not this one. The 14th amendment makes it so that elgal protections must be the same across the board. Marriage entaisla legal protection, and therefore must be equal across the board.

Sorry.

[jegs2]

What should happen to me when I go to work on Sunday?

If you serve Christ, then you should try to stop working on Sunday. That failing, you should attempt to create another day as the Sabbath. If your job prevents taking any regular days off (as does mine at times), then you should make up those days when you get a chance.

[DPDarkPrimus]

In the above passages, the relationship between husband and wife is governed by the husband, who has the responsibility of loving his wife, even to the point of sacrificing his life for her.

Too bad you missed the main point of those verses, which is that women should treat men like they're supposed to treat god: with unquestioning obedience.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;

The above demonstrates how those we are to be servants to others.

The responsibility in the marriage runs both ways.

Let me remind you that they are referred to as the 'weaker partner' in that verse, and that this does absolutely jack shit to dissuade my point that women are supposed to serve men in all ways, according to the Bible.

Oh, and, did you know there is no law outlawing adultary? You'd better get cracking on that! The very moral fabric of society depends on it!

Is there a law protecting the right to adultery?

You're still arguing this law is about the 'right to be a homosexual'? You still haven't backed up where you pulled that steaming crock of shit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What should happen to me when I go to work on Sunday?

If you serve Christ, then you should try to stop working on Sunday. That failing, you should attempt to create another day as the Sabbath. If your job prevents taking any regular days off (as does mine at times), then you should make up those days when you get a chance.

That's not what I asked. This line of questioning was clearly phrased in terms of civil law. You gave the "fuck duh" example of murder. Now, I want to know under what circumstances should the state make "Keep Holy the Sabbath Day" law? So what's the punishment in that?

[jegs2]

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

...which was the penalty for breaking that law in the theocracy and later kingdom of Israel, but then let us keep that in context.

Exodus 31
12 Then the LORD said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD , who makes you holy. [1]
14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD . Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

The Lord was speaking to the Israelites, specifically concerning the penalities for breaking the laws. The temporal penalities do not apply to the modern US, unless of course the people vote them into law.

[jegs2]

That's not what I asked. This line of questioning was clearly phrased in terms of civil law. You gave the "fuck duh" example of murder. Now, I want to know under what circumstances should the state make "Keep Holy the Sabbath Day" law? So what's the punishment in that?

I would not vote for a law demanding any punishment for your working on Sunday.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The Lord was speaking to the Israelites, specifically concerning the penalities for breaking the laws. The temporal penalities do not apply to the modern US, unless of course the people vote them into law.

It's still a sin. It's one of the TEN FUCKING COMMANDMENTS.

Stop being a hypocritical ass.

Oh, and on that topic: You STILL haven't given any justification for your bullshit claim that the law equates to 'homosexuality is a right'.

[jegs2]

Bedtime for me -- gotta work tomorrow. I'll look what y'all posted tomorrow.

[Utsanomiko]

Can't religious fanatics ever keep their grubby paws off the government's civil contracts?

Can't just let us file anything in peace these days...

[Howedar]

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

As I would expect to be described by those who do not serve Christ.

I am religious, and you make me ill. Just for the record.

[Sharp-kun]

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

As I would expect to be described by those who do not serve Christ.

I am religious, and you make me ill. Just for the record.

You are clearly not a true believer

[His Divine Shadow]

Sounds like the people of New Hampshire have spoken via their elected legislature. That being said, I foresee the judiciary being quick to strike down the will of the people in that state -- it generally takes only one or two liberal judges. Barring that, special interest groups will label the state as "bigoted" and "intolerant" until they are pressured into repealing the decision.

The nerve, it'd be like calling the rain wet.

[His Divine Shadow]

Jegs2, what about the part in the new testament that effectively moots the old law(and what it says about gays, and everything else) and even forbids true christians from even attempting to follow it?

"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian"
-Galatians 3:23-25

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose."
-Galatians 2:21

[HemlockGrey]

If I may rant, for a moment.

If any internal, domestic threat was ever so great as to threaten the destruction of the Republic, I would have to say that it is the threat of religious domination, by any group, but, at the moment, predominantly Christianity.

These goddamn fundies, and even a host of otherwise moderate Christians, see no problem in enshrining utterly arbitary beliefs and antiquated ethical codes into law. They're perverting the state to serve their own twisted ends, in the process destroying the very qualities - freedom, justice - for which America is supposed to stand.

We can kill terrorists, outspend Communists, whatever, but we seem to be incapable of fighting off the threat of theocratic encroachments on our society. All the time people talk about moving to Canada for this and that; the only thing which could reasonably make me flee to Canada would be the enshrinement, in law, of Christian values and beliefs. That alone would represent damage more catastrophic than a dozen PATRIOT Acts.

And there's really no goddamn point to these stupid, arbitary values because their only purpose is to perpetuate themselves and oppress anyone who happens to disagree with them. Frankly, anyone voting "yes" on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is ethically equivelant to someone voting "yes" on a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. They're ethically equivelant to the Islamic terrorists we're spending so much time, money and effort trying to destroy, the only difference between that they have a less physically destructive MO and hold a belief in a different invisible magical Santa Claus figure.

I disagree with defining the act of homosexuality as a right. Therefore, I take every opportunity to vote against any legislation or action attempting to condone it as such, much the same as I would oppose legislation attempting to legalize prostitution, theft, adultery, purgery, or any other form of sin.

You cast prostitution and homosexuality in the same mold as theft or adultery? Ah, yes, more of that "all sins are equal" bullshit.

There are no words to express my disgust with these sorts of worthless excuses for American citizens.

[Xenophobe3691]

What should happen to me when I go to work on Sunday?

Nothing, the Sabbath day is Saturday. Look it up, the reason everyone goes to church on Sunday has nothing to do with that, and more to do with when every Christian was a meek slave.

[jegs2]

Ok, have had time to read some of your thoughts and see a need for clarification. These United States are a representative republic wherein folks vote for who will represent them. The representatives (in theory) vote in a manner those who elected them would want them to vote. Some areas in these United States contain more folks who believe in the Bible and espouse faith in God than others, while some simply espouse belief in "old-fashioned values," whatever those are. It is my belief that a lot of common law should rest on the authority of individual states, vice the central government. Only when the judicial system (read: SCOTUS) decides to interpret a piece of the Constitution unfavorably, robbing states of their rightful authority, would I support an amendment to the Constitution. That isn't to be taken lightly, for there should be a separation of powers between state and Federal government. One individual asked me what punishment we should levy against those who break the Sabbath (i.e. work on Sunday), to which I replied that I would recommend no punishment, as neither would I recommend punishment for those who refuse to honor their parents. It is a case-by-case basis for how I and others would vote (should such an opportunity arise) regarding common law (which is generally in the form of our voting for elected representatives). I brought up the example of murder, which even most outside the Faith agree is wrong and should be punished. Nowhere have I condoned punishment for homosexual acts, although the Bible describes such as a sin. Nor will I vote to legitimize what I believe to be a sin by voting in favor of homosexual marriage -- I simply could not support it in good conscience. For those of you who would support homosexual marriage (which is the majority of this board), more power to you -- and you should exercise your voting priviledges (if you're not an American, sorry). While I know many will continue to hurl insults and express outrage, I hope that clarifies my opinion.

[sketerpot]

A couple more choice bits from the US constitution:

Article IV, Section 1. 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.

This is why marriage licences issued in one state are valid in another. Marriage licences are a textbook example of the Full Faith and Credit clause (this one), but apparently this somehow doesn't apply to gay marriages---without a constitutional amendment! How do they do that?

Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

One of the reasons the bill of rights was not included in the original constitution was because the founders of the US were afraid some dumbass years later would think "that's all the rights people have". It isn't a statement of all rights, it's just a formal declaration of some rights, with the explicit note that people have so many rights that they couldn't list all of them. So anybody who is bullshitting about how gay people want a "new right", and how this is against the American Way, can stop now.

[fgalkin]

Heh, I've never thought there were hardcore Christians on this board. You learn something new every day.

anyways, jegs, if we got to the bottom of it, didn't Jesus invalidate the laws of the Old Testament?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyrium Denryle]

[jegs2]

anyways, jegs, if we got to the bottom of it, didn't Jesus invalidate the laws of the Old Testament?

Matthew 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
(NIV)

Sin remains sin, but the temporal penalty for those sins that were ascribed to the kingdom of Israel do not apply in the modern world, unless of course a people choose to enforce them as such.

[HemlockGrey]

So jegs I take it you would support a constitutional amendment banning shellfish?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I'm glad the United States has taken another bold step into the 19th century.

[jegs2]

So jegs I take it you would support a constitutional amendment banning shellfish?

No thanks! I like crabs from time to time, although I don't particularly care for lobster.