Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

Live BlazeCast at 2 pm ET: Oklahoma Tornado the day after

Faith

Will Obama Join Republicans in Filing a Supreme Court Legal Brief Claiming Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right?

Feb. 28, 2013 6:51am Billy Hallowell

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — The next phase of President Barack Obama’s evolution on gay marriage may come with the deadline for his administration to weigh in on a landmark Supreme Court case that could determine whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed. The click is ticking and the president’s supporters are anxiously waiting — and getting vocal.

Gay rights supporters are pressing the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to overturn California’s gay marriage ban. Obama is not required to file a brief, though he raised expectations in his second inaugural address when he declared that gays and lesbians must be “treated like anyone else under the law.”

An administration brief would not be legally binding. But it could offer the clearest insight into Obama’s views on gay marriage, which he supports but has said should be governed by the states.

Will Obama Join Republicans in Filing a Supreme Court Legal Brief Claiming Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right?

President Barack Obama speaks to members of the Business Council during a dinner February 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama spoke about the possible effects of the upcoming sequester’s butget cuts on the business community before taking questions in a closed session. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Ahead of Thursday’s deadline, dozens of prominent Republicans signed a friend of the court brief asking the justices to declare California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure unconstitutional. Among them are former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

The Proposition 8 ballot initiative was approved by California voters in 2008 in response to a state Supreme Court decision that had allowed gay marriage. Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage.

Gay rights advocates are anticipating the administration filing a broad brief, one that would ask the justices to not only strike down the California measure, but also rule that the Constitution forbids any state from banning same-sex unions. But the administration could also file a narrower brief applying only to California.

Even the latter brief would appear to mark a shift away from the president’s contention that states have the right to determine whether to allow same-sex marriages.

While an administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the high court, the government’s opinion does carry weight with the justices.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli would formally file a brief, though he has been consulting with White House officials. And it’s almost certain that Obama, a former constitutional law professor, made the administration’s final decision.

In his inaugural address, the president said the nation’s journey “is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

“For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” he said.

Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn’t endorse gay marriage. As he ran for re-election last year, he announced his personal support for same-sex marriage but said marriage was an issue that should be decided by the states, not the federal government. TheBlaze has extensively analyzed his complex and ever-changing views on the issue.

Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years. In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By November 2012, 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case on March 26. One day later, the justices will hear arguments on another gay marriage case, this one involving provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The act defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

The Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law in 2011 but continues to enforce it. In a brief filed last week, the government said Section 3 of DOMA “violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection” because it denies legally married same-sex couples many federal benefits that are available only to legally married heterosexual couples.

–

More Stories About the Gay Marriage Debate:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (76)

deerjerkydave
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:09pm
Over 30 states have voted to uphold traditional marriage in their constitutions. In most of those votes the polling data showed a 5 to 10 point difference from how people actually voted. I don’t trust polling data on same sex marriage.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
azitdad
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:36am
Gay Marriage is a Civil Right? Since when? Is Heterosexual a Civil Right? No, it isn’t! You need a license to get married in every state in the country. Just like driving a car. This means that marriage is a PRIVILIDGE, not a right. I wish you boneheads could learn the difference.

The only reason the States got involved in marriage is because they discovered they could generate revenue from it. Other than that, Marriage has ALWAYS been a Religous Rite.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:19pm
  But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are. There is no need to add a constitutional amendment just for gay people. this is why every single law which attempted to ban same sex marriage has been shot down by the courts. The constitution as it stands covers everyone. The problem is our governments aren’t abiding by it as much as they should be.
  
  Report this comment
- baptist_deacon
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:55pm
  Actually, gay marriage is not about civil rights at all. Gays were always allowed to marry. They just couldn’t marry someone of the same sex. It is about changing the definition of marriage. Progressives just thought they would have more clout if they used the term Civil Right. The bad thing about this is in the end, marriage as an institution will die (like it is in Europe) and the majority of children will grow up without fathers, which will increase crime rates. Progressives are more focused on wining the argument than the end result. That is why the stupidest thing you can do is vote for them.
  
  Report this comment
- ihasa
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:40pm
  Gay marriage is not in and of itself a civil right, but equal treatment certainly IS. So heterosexual marriages should not be advantaged over same sex unions or marriages. Don’t like gay marriage? No problem – just don’t have one.
  
  Freedom of religion will permit churches to opt out of gay marriage ceremonies, but it ciuts both ways – it’s about time that those that want to do so were allowed to.
  
  As far as redefining the word marriage, no I don’t buy it. Marriage is a loving publicly made and solemnised commitment between two people and it will remain so. Extending this to same sex couples does not redefine the meaning of the word, which means literally ‘joining together’.
  
  Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:07am
I am getting sooo tired of this issue being deliberately misrepresented. There are no laws on the books ANYWHERE in the US that prevents same sex couples from marrying. The issue is about EQUAL treatment by government of all unions between consenting adults.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Remember_Benghazi
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:50am
  That is plainly false. The DoMA states that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman. It is a federal law that in all senses bans the government from acknowledging gay marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:03am
  Bullcr@p. Show me a LAW that criminalizes Gay marriage. Show me just 1 law. Your silly example is not of a law that PREVENTS same sex couples for getting married. You do know that you don’t need a marriage license to get married right? You only need one if you want the STATE to approve of your marriage and shower you with the same financial and legal benefits they do all other marriages they approve of. No state has the power to PREVENT you for marrying whomever you like. It helps when you understand the constitution and existing laws. Every single attempt to BAN same sex marriages has been struck down but the courts. EVERY SINGLE ONE. A state can define marriage any way it likes as long as it isn’t keeping anyone for marrying whomever they like.
  
  Report this comment
- deerjerkydave
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:10pm
  Then you must be in favor of polygamy, if you were a principled person.
  
  Report this comment
barber2
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:46am
This is just another issue to divide the country. And the radical Democrats are loving the division.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:23am
  Nice how you aren’t willing to blame the religious zealots here and elsewhere who make this a huge issue. This should not be an issue at all but even you, based on your comments above, want to force others who do not follow your faith to obey the dictates of your religion. Your religion should have ZERO say in my life since I am not a member of your religion. I should be free to lead my life as I see fit as long as I do not harm to others in the process. That is what the founding fathers wanted and, based on what little we know about Jesus, this is likely what Jesus would tell you as well. If you don’t support freedom for EVERYONE then you don’t support freedom for anyone.
  
  Report this comment
- Chadfelixgreene
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:54pm
  This has nothing to do with forcing any religion on anyone. Its a simple matter of definition. If marriage is defined by people’s strong feelings for each other then its pointless to define it with any limitations at all.
  
  Forcing gay marriage IS forcing a liberal perspective onto a religious insititution.
  
  Marriage is a legal recogntition made by each state and each state has its own requirements and limitations. It is a state issue if anything and should be voted on by the people.
  
  The only people who scream about “forcing your religion on my life!” are the ones more than willing to force their view – legally – onto others. *liberals*
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:18pm
  @Searcher
  
  Perhaps they just have a problem with gay unions being equated with getting married and raising a family. One of those is not like the other! Besides, this is all about tax returns and health benefits. It has nothing to do with “marriage”. They are just trying to redefine marriage to get what they want and tax returns and health benefits are not a right.
  
  Report this comment
BenInNY
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:44am
Man. Maybe it’s because I’m not religious (agnostic not atheist) but I just can’t understand such virulent opposition to it. Taking the federal government out of marriage entirely seems like the best idea to me.
There are Justices of the Peace, so it doesn’t have to be done in a church, still called a marriage when a straight couple does it through those means, so there goes that – it’s no longer a solely church-related contract. No idea how to get government out entirely, due to divorce and the like, but it would be a start.
Sure you can think it’s a sin or abomination or some such thing, but until there’s some way that same-sex marriage is hurting people outside of that marriage, why care at all? Does it hurt anyone when ANY random couple gets married?
Aren’t there much better things to agonize over?
Someone in an earlier comment said that everyone has the same right to marry, through a list of possible opposite sex pairings. OK, why not include “couples that love each other?” (including of course: age of consent, etc) Oh right, not everyone in that group is equal.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SpankDaMonkey
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:14am
  .
  BENINNY
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:44am
  Man. Maybe it’s because I’m not religious (agnostic not atheist) but I just can’t understand such virulent opposition to it.
  
  Well I bet if you bent over to tie your shoe at a Gay Pride Parade, you’d find some virulent opposition to it…….
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:43am
  @Donkey I bet you’ve been to a lot of gay pride parades, hmm? Veddy in ta resting. Bigot. A bigot with a donkey name is still a bigot. Democrats are donkeys. Hee Haw.
  
  Report this comment
- Chadfelixgreene
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:02pm
  You are missing the point. Its not about hurting anyone and Gay people have exactly the same rights as straight people. Everything Gay Rights demand are policy changes. The issue is defining marriage. Marriage is not about the strong feelings people have for each other.
  
  If you make it purely on feelings then why limit it to 2 people? Why not 3 or 10? Why limit it to humans or even objects? Its completely reasonable to say a person who “loves” *insert group or item* deserves “equal treatement under the law” with this argument. Marriage is not about “equal treatment under the law” as there is no un-equal treatment. Two men marrying is a NEW concept to marriage rather than an exclusion like preventing mixed raced man + woman.
  
  The issue is how we redefine an important institution based on liberal whims.
  
  You don’t have to be religious to recognize the absurdity of demanding your social perceptions be forced onto what is an actual religious institution even though it has been secularized. Why would you demand a specific recognition that only makes sense in a lifestyle or relationship you plan to avoid?
  
  Report this comment
barber2
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:43am
In the Catholic Church marriage is considered a religious sacrament.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:11am
  So? What does that have to do with anything? Do you actually think Catholic priests are the only ones who can marry couples? Marriage, in terms of government, is simply a legally binding contract. That is it. The religious significance only matters to the church not the state. This is why ship captains can marry people and so can judges.
  
  Report this comment
barber2
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:39am
But why do they insist upon calling these unions ” marriage ?” Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. This issue irritates me about our new radical Lefties. They ” change” the definitions of words like Redistribution… transparent… which boils down to ” twisting” the meaning of those words ! Which boils down to lying !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:13am
  Why do YOU care? How does it have any impact on YOUR life? It has none. You need to stop worrying about what others do with their own lives which have ZERO impact on yours. Live and let live.
  
  Report this comment
gary kilmer
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:30am
another attach on religious liberty

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:38am
  Same-Sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. No one is trying to make churches marry same-sex couples. Every marriage in this Country exists outside side of the church, as far as the government is concerned. The fact that your marriage may have taken place in a church and that you believe it sanctioned by God is your own personal decision, but it has no more legal baring than a marriage made outside of religion.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:14am
  @gary kilmer
  
  “another attach on religious liberty”
  
  Actually any attempt to PREVENT consenting adults from marrying whomever they like would be an attack on liberty. Government has no business telling you are anyone else who they should or shouldn’t marry. YOU are trying to impose your own brand of bigotry on those who clearly DO NOT believe as you do and/or don’t belong to your religious faith. The United States of America is NOT a theocracy. Please explain to me how some same sex couple getting married OUTSIDE of your faith is in any way infringing in YOUR religious liberty?
  
  Please explain that one to us if you can…
  
  Report this comment
joetnt
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:29am
I am ashamed of America and glad I got to live during Americas free and best times…The worst is yet to come. God Bless all who have faith in Jesus Christ…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:45am
  It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Charles Dickens. And us.
  
  Report this comment
joetnt
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:28am
Liberalism is WINNING. This disease easily swept the democrat party and now making deep impressions into the republican party. King Obama will next try to become a 3rd term President. Why Not? The constitution is already trampled.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:36am
  JOETNT, Here is that WINNING type of mindset from those very liberals.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM
  
  Report this comment
joetnt
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:25am
This should be considered fraud resulting in immediate release of voted positions. These people owe it to the Republican Voters who put them in office to stay in line with their doctrine. No TRUE REPUBLICAN / CONSERVATIVE would vote for this. They committed FRAUD against the voters to gain positions.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:34am
  That is why the Tea Party was born again. Taxation without representation.
  
  Report this comment
Southernsoul
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:25am
I must have gotten the abridged version of the pocket Constitution, because I can’t find in mine the ‘Right’ of anyone to marry.

We need one law to say that all laws apply to everyone equally and that any law that singles out any group, or groups, of people by sex, creed, color, religion, etc. above any other, for any reason, is hereby null and void. We have so many ‘special groups’ in this country and laws to protect them its nuts. How can we be equal if we are all ‘protected’. Except white males, of course.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BenInNY
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:48am
  This^^^
  Can’t find any constitutional prohibition in there either…
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:24am
.
I sure wish we could put the Queens back in the closet…….

I am about tired of the Pervert Parade………

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:31am
  I’m tired of the bigot and hate parade.
  
  Report this comment
- SpankDaMonkey
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:54am
  .
  Your right Granny I sure wish we could get rid of those Democrats…..But I’ll settle for getting rid of the LGBT crowd right now. One Demon at a time…..
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:53am
  I meant you. Am I still right?
  
  Report this comment
- SpankDaMonkey
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:31am
  .
  Well Granny I guess sarcasium is wasted on you…..
  
  But I Love You anyway…..
  
  Poor thing must be off her Meds….ObamaCare go figure……
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:21am
Looks like this is going to happen eventually. However, even if the government recognizes gay marriage, God won’t. So enjoy your gay ‘marriage’ during your short time here on Earth perverts…because eternity lasts forever.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:37am
  GONZO, Well said!
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:55am
  Morning guys,
  
  Gonzo, you are more correct than you know.
  
  Report this comment
- momrules
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:49am
  Yep Gonzo, this will happen and God will not be pleased but I doubt that He is pleased with most of what is happening in America. This once great country sinks lower into the cess pit every day.
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:06am
  Just out of curiosity? Whatcha think Jesus meant when he said to love your neighbor? Or putting other Gods before Him? Meaning you are the judge now. Bet you’re going to sit at the right hand of God though, congratulations.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:10am
  I’m not speaking FOR God, He is pretty clear on the matter.
  
  Report this comment
ferggie
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:09am
It is NOT a case of inequality:
1) Straight man can’t marry a straight man or a gay man. Can marry straight woman or gay woman
2) Gay man can’t marry a gay man or straight man. Can marry straight woman or gay woman
3) Straight woman can’t marry a straight woman or a gay woman. Can marry straight man or gay man.
4) Gay woman can’t marry a gay woman or straight woman. Can marry straight man or gay man.

As you can see both have the exact same rights. FACT

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cydog
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:09am
A right is inherent to you, and you alone and does not require the participation of anyone else. A right to speak but not make one listen, a right to practice your religion, but not to force someone into your church. Marriage (at the state level, not religious) is a contract between two people and are hence regulated by state law as to what makes a legal contract. The goal here with this case is to get the federal government as the overall authority on what is marriage. This is tyranny. Marriage is clearly a state level contract law that the feds have no say in. If the feds regulate marriage at that level, then you will be forced to accept their definition. This should scare those for and against ‘gay marriage’.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:35am
  @CYD No kidding. Don’t know why the gay individual does not understand that this is no different than registering guns. The government will then know everyone by registration and where they live, and sexual preferences. What a price to pay for those “rights”. Christians and or anyone who refuses service will be vilified and a humongous hornets nest will have again struck our country. Not to mention divorce which will involve the government as well. Lots of money to be collected by government. The “love” of money the root of all evil and bloated and greedy she stands. Odd that someone is hitting so hard at the same time as gun registration. Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot. The only way we can win is if both Libertarians and Conservatives reconcile (give up their differences), maybe. Both want limited government. Just a thought.
  
  Report this comment
- cydog
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:04pm
  @TxGranny73 – Yes, the main culprit being government benefits. I wonder how much clamoring for “gay marriage” would be occurring if there were no such thing. I get very tired of this argument because of the complete loss of perspective some people have. Changing definitions of words to fit your own political agenda is another one. Kind of like JC Roberts defining a penalty as a tax. Or those that say if it “does not pick your pocket” argument. Get the government out of the benefits business or from telling me what benefits I have to provide my employees and you can call yourself married all you want for all I care.
  
  Report this comment
john vincent
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:01am
‘the government’s opinion does carry weight with the justices.’

It should have absolutely no relevance. An impartial jury should actually look with suspicion on anybody defending a claim. Keyword ‘impartial,’ but I do not see Mr Scalia swayed in the least by the govt. opinion.

But this tale is so darn old and tiresome, and in the end, depravity will win the day, for after all this is a ‘new age’ of enlightenment. Perhaps after the ‘first man’ of the President gives the ‘first kiss,’ and after the first man Louis dances with Eugene the prez.at the ceremonial ball, and perhaps when these two go off into the sunset holding hands, maybe then with this untoward visual allow AMericans to wake up and see they fell for a false bill of goods.

Yes, you can be sure, this is the new goal of the Sodomites, to parade the debauchery as normal, and paint any protester of decency as a ‘stone age’ moron.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Welcome Black Carter
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:17am
  Only fitting that we descend to this level while a Bi-sexual is commander and chief.
  America is looking at a “Sodom and Gammorah” fate, just on a much larger scale. Read the back of the book and insert ‘America’ where every you see Babylon, Daughter of Babylon.
  
  Report this comment
- momrules
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:59am
  Morning John……….I have no faith in America anymore. We are now a lost nation, without God’s protection. Every aberration, every perversion is promoted while God is boo’ed and mocked. I wonder how long His great patience will last.
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:31am
  -mom
  back acha
  
  judgement is God’s strange work,’ He prefers grace, but you mentioned the key word:
  
  p a t i e n c e –the worse things get, the more we can appreciate his restraint–but we know time will run out, and…..
  
  Report this comment
4xeverything
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:46am
Marriage itself is a religious RITE not a Constitutional RIGHT. If they try to make marriage b/t a man and a man or woman and a woman defined by government then they are infringing upon the church. Government can define civil union all they want.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Cavallo
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:45am
Where is that listed? This is all about using the police power of the State to force association at gun point.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ares338
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:38am
Sometimes I believe this country is too far gone to save. Democrats , Republicans, Librtarians are all the same…blah…blah…blah. Toss them all in a hat stir them up…dump them out and you can’t tell them apart. The government is a stage and all the politicians actors playing out the same self destructive scenario decade after decade until the inevitable conclusion. The fall of his country. It started a long time go.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ALL4FREEDOM
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:27am
Problem is, there shouldn’t be any special federal benefits for married people, because that creates discrimination based on marital status. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. It’s purpose is to create a socially recognized unit (so males won’t fight over females; biology trumps sociology) that establishes social responsibilities as well as property rights for purpose of inheritance. This practice has existed for thousands of years and works well enough. If gays wish to establish an equivalent legal contract, equally subject to contract law, fine, but it is not marriage.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:43am
  that would be the best solution
  
  Report this comment
- mtsnj
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:41am
  Exactly, Marriage is already defined. They can do what they want, just don’t call it marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:19am
  @All4Freedom
  
  I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, though I think most of the opposition to “gay marriage” we see is from folks who are arguing on theological grounds, not legal ones.
  
  I don’t care what they call it. Marriage works fine; it’s obvious that the legal term of “marriage” is not the same as the biblical term of “marriage.”
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:12am
  -lock
  
  u said: ‘though I think most of the opposition to “gay marriage” we see is from folks who are arguing on theological grounds, not legal ones.’
  
  This may be true of some, but not all. ‘Theology’ is not only the study of God, but the law of God, ie, ‘thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness.’ There is ceremonial law, moral law, and the law of liberty, all laying perimeters for societies across the globe. Theology and legality are so entwined like a braided rope. It is wrong today to stone a homosexual person, (legal) and it is equally wrong before the bar of God.(theology)
  
  you said ‘I don’t care what they call it. Marriage works fine; it’s obvious that the legal term of “marriage” is not the same as the biblical term of “marriage.” ‘
  
  Since theology and legality are very close twins, why change a word to suit each? This is the argument many have, and rightly so. If folks want to hook up with a turtle go ahead, but do not call it ‘marriage.’ Many would argue the bible has no relevance in an advanced world…..but honesty suggests the world would crumble without the structures laid out by God, theologically, and legally.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:50am
  GOd’s law has no place in the US outside of a church. We have a secular government, our laws are the creation of men. Move to a theocracy if you seek to impose your book of myths on free people. Laws agaisnt stealing and murder pre-date Moses’ stone tablets. The Code of Hammurabi had similar rules.
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:05am
  -enci
  
  I really doubt these words can reach you, but u said : ‘GOd’s law has no place in the US outside of a church.’
  
  What ‘church’ was established when the first murder was committed, (Cain killed his brother) how pray tell did Cain know he did wrong without having the Torah, or as you say, Hammurabi…..? Where was this written law that you speak of?? Your reference to a church is extremely myopic.
  
  A God given conscience has nothing to do with a theocracy as you suggest. You instinctively know it is wrong to steal your neighbors cow. You do not need a church, a written law, you know it. But there are the laws of men, in which ‘man’ has defined our topic at hand : marriage- it is you who wants to change the meaning of a word, not I. Your issue is not with me, nor others, it is with God alone, whom you deny, it really is that simple.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:14am
  @John Vincent
  
  True, I should have said “religious” or “theocratic,” not “theological.” My bad.
  
  “Since theology and legality are very close twins, why change a word to suit each? This is the argument many have, and rightly so.”
  
  We’re not changing a word, but a legal definition. If we changed words, we’d separate civil unions and marriage :-) But the point remains the same: marriage has a different meaning in US law than it does in the Bible. Why force the US government to change words (and waste time rewriting laws) when it’s easier to just accept that marriage has different meanings depending on context?
  
  To say it another way, the argument often seems to come down to “I call dibs on this definition due to my religious beliefs, and I demand you conform to my definition.” I think our religious views can (and do) influence our laws, but legal marriage has never aligned with the Bible’s definition. It seems dishonest to start complaining now when we’ve accepted marriage all along despite it not aligning with the religious definition.
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:50am
  -lock
  
  u said: ‘ I think our religious views can (and do) influence our laws, but legal marriage has never aligned with the Bible’s definition.’
  
  And I agree………..partly. Religious views influence our laws, yep-
  
  ‘legal marriage has never aligned with the bible’s definition.’ not sure- There are 77+ references to marriage, married, marrying,marry, marrieth, in the scriptures of truth, none of which define the word.
  
  In these contexts, it is assumed male/ female relations, ‘her son should not take a daughter of this or that clan,’ ‘groom,’ friend of the bridegroom,’ ‘they married wives,’ etc. Point being lock, it is natural for laws to recognize that which doesn’t need explained. The men in Sodom and the cities of the plains were yoked unequally, but they were not ‘married,’ and this relationship was so unnatural, that Lot said to them ‘take my daughters,’ knowing I believe, they would refuse.
  
  But this is where I part company: Men and women will be decadent, but I do not have to participate by recognizing that which is unrecognizable, ie, same sex ‘marriage.’ Unions yes, flims, flams, bings, bends, whims, whams, take your pick, but ‘marriage’ no. It is simply wrong to change the meaning of a word to suit an agenda. If history proved men with men were ‘married,’ I would be onboard, but it has never been to my knowledge, I think one reason, it was just so downright embarrassing.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:51am
  I am sorry John, it appears that you can not debate law, history and facts without resorting to myths and legends.
  
  The point is cultures not tainted or corrupted by your book of myths have similar laws. You can not point to the bible as the source. Laws are created by men to regulate behavior. Whether or not you are intelligent enough to understand that simple point is not at issue. At issue is why is a land of freedom should we permit clerics to dictate the law and rights of others is. We have never been a theocracy, God’s law does not govern. Its your choice to follow it or not,you do not have the right to force others to believe in or be compell to live by the fairytales you have faith in.
  
  Report this comment
DZ-015
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:17am
I bet Obama will be going for the whole burrito this time.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
HOOT_OWL
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:15am
So… Did you here about the guy, the prosecutors wanted to testify in court against another guy.
And the first guy say’s ‘I don’t have to he’s my wife‘.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:07am
Given that we have five justices who gave us Obama-care for good, then we know Obama will have his way. The Republicans do not matter in the end, just weather the threats and intimidation of Obama.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CatB
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:00am
  Yes .. his buddy Roberts will see to it …
  
  Report this comment
IrritableGimp
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:01am
Men attempting to give “rights” is men trying to play God. I know that they must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it’s a bit steep to think of themselves as God

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:17am
  Its only so called men of “god” that are using their bibles to deny basic civil rights to their fellow citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:33am
  ENCINOM, You have a basic civil right to redefine a religious institution? Furthermore, you want to do that in an effort to receive a perceived hand out?
  Shortly after I was married, my federal taxes actually increased. Shortly after my son was born, my taxes increased. A few years later the first bill that President Clinton signed into law not only increased my taxes but also made the tax increase retroactive to 1 Oct 92.
  From your many past posts, I cannot really believe your statement that you desire what you consider to be your civil right. Rather, you would prefer to redefine or destroy what has always been a religious institution.
  How many times have you screamed here that ‘we’ cannot regulate morality? Quite often as I recall. On the other hand, I have counted numerous times that want to regulate your version of morality. Or, it may be to regulate your version of immorality.
  
  Report this comment
- TheEndIsComing
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:45am
  Encinom, all behaviors are not permissible just because someone feels it is right. For the whole history of the earth citizens have stopped others from behaving in certain ways because society drew the line on what was moral and what was immoral. Homosexuality has generally been considered immoral for many reasons. It’s only recently that people are trying to redefine what is moral. That says a lot about “modern” society. Pretty depraved to me. Evil is the new norm.
  
  What is interesting about you is your arrogance. You assume that your opinion about gay marriage is enlightened and that’s the end of the discussion. How disgusting you are, but so like modern “eightened” progressives. Your arrogance is going to cause you to kill others. That’s what it did in the past in other times. I’d be scared to death if I were you for having such an attitude. I’ll stick with what God created and what has been shown to work best.
  
  I’ll stick with the Bible and our creator who says that homosexuality is wrong because He created us to be a man and a woman, in a family. All of history has shown that this is the best societal relationship. Certainly severe judgement is coming. Ichabod, the glory of The Lord has departed. Get prepared, the end is coming.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:17am
  End of Intelligence, Stick with your book of myths, that’s fine, just don’t have the government enforce its outdated teachings on the nation as a whole.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.