(reaction to the SCOTUS rejection of a challenge to the D.C. marriage law)
[W]hat the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the gay community. And let me just state for the record, we don't want that fight. We love our gay brothers and sisters. But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society, then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue.
62 comments
not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society
Umm... I'm pretty sure that you don't have that right. Not to the extent of influencing legal decisions, anyway.
> We love our gay brothers and sisters.
And we know what the next word is going to be, don't we?
> But
Yes! There we go! Fundies are predictable.
You're really forcing our hand, we don't want to be despicable bigots at every given opportunity, but we will anyway, lolz.
"We love or gay brothers and sisters so much that we will deny them civil rights and harass and brainwash them whenever we have the slightest opportunity to do so."
I don't think gays need your kid of "love".
"We love our gay brothers and sisters"
WARNING!! Lie for Jesus alert!
Get into your protective equipment, and proceed to the liar shelter immediately.
I am now imagining an actual civil war between the church and the gay community. Hang on...hang on...I got nothing. Imagination fail.
Hey, and about that whole framework of religious ethics deal: you do realize you've enjoyed that for centuries now, right? Maybe someone else could get a word or two in edgewise?
[W]hat the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the race-mixing community. And let me just state for the record, we don't want that fight. We love our race-mixing brothers and sisters. But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society, then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue.
Same shit, different decade.
By the way, Christians are supposed to obey secular law. Your own Bible says so repeatedly.
Antonhony Evans, you are not worthy to be dignified by the title Reverend. also you do not know the constitution of your country. Even I, a foreigner by your lights, seem to have a better handle on it.
so I can only conlude that your reference to your 'gay brothers and sisters' is nothing more than window-dressing. In a word, hypocrisy. Religion, per se, has no rights under your constitution except that the of non interference in its practice by the State. Nor have you the right to reject the Supreme Court. For even the Supreme Court, whilst interpreting, is bound by the constitution and precedent.
Now crawl back under the rock you emerged from before the Muslims take comfort from your words and persuade the Supreme Court they have the right of Jihaad against you.
As a little-known pygmy of African/Irish descent, I must concur that we all know that religious ethics are the province of slobbering, drooling, insane, subhuman filth and their mandatory stupidity. So keep them to yourself you cretinous evil creature. Hmmm! There may be a better way of framing that?
What you need to understand is that not every religion is as discriminatory towards gays as you are. Some are coming around to the fact that many gays are Christians and they are accepting them into the fold, and they are willing to bless their unions even to the point of actually marrying them.
we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society
All people, religious or otherwise, have a say-so in the framework of society. It's called "freedom of speech" and "elections". What other right is he looking for? The "right" to ignore civil law when it goes against one's particular religious beliefs? By that principle, the 9/11 bombers were entitled to exercise their "right" to blow up the Twin Towers.
You have a say-so in who you marry, perhaps also in who your daughters and sons marry, but that is all. You do NOT have a right to say "due to my religion, which you don't share, you can't get married because I think it's icky". Or rather; you have every right to say it, but you don't have a right to be obeyed.
Funnily enough, I originally misread SCOTUS as SCOUTS, as in, the Boy Scouts. Make of that what you will.
And don't non-religious people have a right not to have their rights taken away from them by religious people? Since the principle of human rights is that you can do what you want as long as it harms no one and does not interfere with the human rights of anyone else , their rights not to be persecuted trump your "right" to persecute them, because no one has the right to persecute another. When will you dumbasses understand this?
Following your logic, Christian Identity has a right to lynch black people?. Listen, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a person of the same sex. End of the tape.
Sure, if by "love" you mean "torment, bully, and drive to suicide", and by "have a say-so" you mean "force my bronze-age morality on everyone else"...
We love our gay brothers and sisters so much we're going to deny them the basic human rights that we take for granted.
Kind of reminds me of how an abusive spouse will s/he's only hitting you because s/he loves you.
@Mudak
In fact, Rev, "Bring it on"
That way we won't have to deal with your ilk anymore.
Here on FSTDT, many outrageous fundie statements are collected. But this fundie statement is extraordinarily outrageous.
Marriage as a right protected and given by the STATE has NOTHING to do with religion. This guy just dared in sheer infamy to overrule the democratic process. "OUR religion says so, therefore NOBODY is allowed to marry homosexual people."
Welcome to an only thinly veiled attempt at establishing a theocracy.
Well, that's the opposite of true. Believers, of any faith, have no special rights in shaping public policy and do not have the right to selectively reject rulings, or dismissals, by the SCOTUS.
Even as a bisexual atheist, I find it scandalous that churches are forced to consecrate unions that go against their dogma. Oh, wait...
Marriage is an institution older than your God, let alone Jesus. And it didn't wait for the evil libruls and their homosexual agenda to adapt to changing mores throughout history.
You don't ever have a right to dictate how other people get married.
It's NOT YOUR BUSINESS!
If you want to dictate the lives of those who willingly submit to your religious authority then go right ahead. For those who are, according to your religious framework, not members of your gang then you are simply not allowed to influence their decision making with your house club rules.
@ Brendan Rizzo:
"But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society"
The US Constitution (and the Treaty of Tripoli) says you don't.
"then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue."
Romans 13: 1-5 says you have to obey the Supreme Court.
Deal with it.
@Whitleylad
"Waaaah! I'm being persecuted for not being allowed to choose the members of society I want to persecute!"
'The Puritans didn't leave England to escape persecution, but to find a country in which they could freely persecute others'
-Gore Vidal
[W]hat the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the gay community.
I'm pretty sure that that's not even close to what the Supreme Court has done.
And let me just state for the record, we don't want that fight.
Of course not. You'd rather have everybody give in to your demands and live according to your rules. It's not going to happen.
We love our gay brothers and sisters.
Not enough to give them equal status to yourself, apparently. So much for "family values".
But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society...
...and gays don't?
...then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue.
You don't agree with the Supreme Court? Fine. I don't agree with all of their decisions, either.
However, don't think for one minute that your opinion carries the force of law.
Hey, Rev.
I, a civil lay person, performed the ceremony for two irreligious people to get married over the weekend. No religion at all
And yet, they're married now in the eyes of the SUPREME FUCKING COURT.
I reject you in a manner most irrespective.
I'm tired of these idiots and their "christian" agenda, trying to take over our government and demanding "special" rights, so they can stop anyone they don't like from marriage. Don't they realize that just believing in some kind of nonsense doesn't grant you rights other people don't have? Because if that were the case, I'd demand as a trekkie that we seize all capitalist ideas and convert to a resource based atheist society with its ultimate goal being the exploration and colonization of space under peaceful humanitarian ideals.
Uhm...How does allowing legal marriage for gay couples mess with churches...At all? The churches that don't want to marry gay couples can just be all "Sorry, find a different spot for the ceremony," and leave it at that. This is simple, truly, genuinely simple. Why do so many people seem to just not get it?
Tony, I'm sure it has been explained to you in civics class that the Constitution draws a line separating church (any church) and state.
The issue of gay marriage is about civil rights not some drummed-up nonsense about religion.
In a secular society any religious based argument is useless. It may impact your viewpoint, but it has no weight as a argument in the public arena.
And guess what? Thanks to Article 6 and the First Amendment we have a secular society and a secular government.
The current official oath of office is as follows:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]
Note that the "So help me God" is optional and may be omitted. Cry all you want but that's the fact jack.
Waaaa, they won't let us persecute others, WAAAAA
Listen asswipe, you can have all the religious say you want, you just can't have religious laws. Laws are what the SC deals with
As much as I hate the fight that ensued over DC's gay marriage law - we are a fair and equality-minded citizenry with these principles enshrined in our laws, and are sick of federal interference in local government - I kind of think to myself: "bring it." DC is the one place that gay marriage would likely succeed in a popular vote. Public opinion polls show 65%+ approval for gay marriage among registered voters. Our electorate is largely well-informed, active, and not easily influenced by wingnuts. It would be fun to hand the fundies a big bowl of crow to eat after a successful popular referendum.
A church does have the right to decide who they want to preform marriages for. It is their property, and I personally have no problem with that.
However, the church has no right to tell the rest of us who we can and can't marry.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
