Speaking of civil disobedience

One problem. The RCC insists that all who go to heaven must do so "body and soul" as they say. If the incorrupt bodies are down here, why are folks praying to the saints, who are supposed to be up there?
Look up. I mean, look it up: 1 Cor 15:35 ff.

civil disobedience would be to refuse to marry gay couples if their religion doesn't accept that behavior. If SCOTUS decides that the Federal Government has the right to legislate a mandate to all across the nation who have licenses to officiate over weddings, it would be the same mandate that is already being fought in the courts over Obamacare and birth control/abortion pills insurance coverage.

All magistrates in courthouses across the country will also be mandated to perform the ceremonies because they are public employees....and anyone else who gets a license to perform legal weddings. Many magistrates have already resigned over this issue in states where the voters have had the option on the ballot and voted it down, just to have a liberal Federal judge overrule that people's wishes. Out of the 37 states that have legalized gay marriage, only 12 actually approved it....the rest all had the voters wishes ignored by a Federal judge that has jurisdiction over many states, such as the 5th District out of San Francisco.

A whole new can of worms, as I've said.........now we wait to see........

odd that only civil weddings were recognized as legal. Anyone married in a church had to also marry in a civil ceremony. Being a highly Catholic country made this a puzzle for me. I believe that some states require licenses by all who perform marriages regardless of whether civil or religious. In other states, a church wedding is automatically recognized by civil authority. If the feds step in and try to standardize everything and require licenses for all priests, rabbis and ministers, this could become a can of worms. Frankly, I don't see that happening in the near future. I doubt many elected officials want to risk this right now.

There it's a result of anti-Catholic feeling; maybe in Italy also. (We're the second-largest religious group in Italy.) Remember also that Italy and Vatican City are two separate sovereign states, and the Vatican's ideological hold everywhere is slipping.

but I think that's the way it is in most of Europe. It could be the same elsewhere. Recorded history is all over the map as to when "pair bonding" was replaced by the institution of marriage requiring recognition of some higher authority. Even pagans believed their gods and goddesses were husbands and wives. Christian marriages morphed from Jewish tradition when the early Roman church turned marriage into the sacramental thing which Catholics know as "holy matrimony" ...and holy matrimony has its own definition that varies from the common term of "marriage". Interestingly, even civil ceremonies in lands inhabited by people of Christian faith have long had elements that acknowledge that a higher authority is involved than the city mayor.

which has standing with some people:
Gen 2: And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said: "This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man she was taken."
Parties are named; father gives away the bride; the proper state found in Ecclesiastes 4:12.

Give a precise and indisputable definition of marriage using language that would be valid for all ages past, present times, and times to come...or, you could defer to alternate terms that contain components of what marriage is about. Isn't it the changing of definitions that leads to confusion by people who study history and try to keep it alive?

Marriage can be a man and several women (up to 700 in the Bible), a woman and several men (the first man that sees that she's pregnant gets to be the father), between a man and woman (only the woman goes hunting and the man keeps house), between several men and women (children are communal and you sleep with whom you please in the group) (still want to see a divorce in a group marriage), between one man and one woman and the man's brother's widow (again Biblical), between a woman and her rapist (Biblical), between a man and his wives and concubines (Biblical), between a man and his wife and his lord (Middle Ages), between a man and a man and a woman and another woman.

Did you know that there is a sea bird (can't remember which one but I can look it up or you can) where about 30% are female, female pairs. They lay eggs. If they each lay an egg, they push one out. They will only take care of one egg a year. There are about 200 species of animal (that we know of) that have gay bonding and humankind is the only species that has a problem with it.

I asked JP (to which he never answered)....

"civil disobedience would be to refuse to marry gay couples if their religion doesn't accept that behavior. If SCOTUS decides that the Federal Government has the right to legislate a mandate to all across the nation who have licenses to officiate over weddings, it would be the same mandate that is already being fought in the courts over Obamacare and birth control/abortion pills insurance coverage.

All magistrates in courthouses across the country will also be mandated to perform the ceremonies because they are public employees....and anyone else who gets a license to perform legal weddings. Many magistrates have already resigned over this issue in states where the voters have had the option on the ballot and voted it down, just to have a liberal Federal judge overrule that people's wishes. Out of the 37 states that have legalized gay marriage, only 12 actually approved it....the rest all had the voters wishes ignored by a Federal judge that has jurisdiction over many states, such as the 5th District out of San Francisco.

A whole new can of worms, as I've said"

Do you believe the Federal Government should mandate all States to perform and by Federal law recognize gay marriages, even if the voters have voted it down? Should SCOTUS decide/rule that way?

home of the 9th; famously "liberal" in orientation. FWIW.

"Federal judge that has jurisdiction over many states", which is not untrue. But the nitpicking truth, relevant to many posters here, is that any District Appeals ruling of its judges (plural) is well worth considering by lower courts, and especially those of the 9th, which has a reputation for good judgment- except to conservatives. Many of its controversial rulings have been passed on by the Nine Old Men and Middle Aged Women.

You have contradicted yourself. In your reply to me where you correct my Federal Court of Appeals #, you stated "famously liberal in orientation"....then in your latest post to me, you stated "and especially those of the 9th, which has a reputation for good judgment- except to conservatives."

Same court....and it's NOT a typical District Appellate Court and quite often overrules them, which is how liberals have had their way for a large number of years no matter how VOTERS have actually voted. It's a CIRCUIT Court and rules over a number of states.

is a bonding of a man and woman with a promise of fidelity, mutual support and nourishing, taking responsibility for children produced, etc., etc., is just a lot of hooey?...and that some sea bird's behavior affects the definition? Well...if you want to use birds as and example, try this one.

Cassowary of Australia

From the article:

"The female bird lays several clutches of 3-5 eggs, by different fathers.
The male cassowary is solely responsible for incubating the eggs and raising the young. They sit on the nest for 50 days until the eggs hatch.
The father teaches the chicks how to forage and by nine months they become independent."

So the female is a tramp but the male keeps his commitment. He's got the real spirit of marriage!

There are also a lot of animals that play the field - both male and female. I'm just saying that there are a lot of definitions of marriage depending on the culture.

That's......sigh.

is dynamic and ever expanding...that anyone can add the relationship of their choice to the term and expect the rest of the world to understand, accept, and support that definition as the equivalent of their own. To me, that's like working backwards. For instance...

I can have a plant. That plant can be a tree. That tree can be an oak. That oak can be a red oak. That red oak can be mature red oak that produces fruit. I can also have another plant. That plant can be a shrub. That shrub can be an evergreen. That evergreen can be a dwarf type. That dwarf shrub can be fruit-bearing. The shrub and the old red oak have only two things in common using my description. Both are plants and both bear fruit. I can't use those common traits alone to make someone understand what I have in my yard.

Just like in taxonomy, we start with a base and build until we define the definition it can produce a clear picture in a single word or phrase. All of the backward steps are true but none is more fully descriptive than the final term we use. Two (or more) people hugging or shaking hands does not make a marriage even though they may do so along the way.

Female cassowarys are tarts and tramps.They should be responsible for alimony and made to pay up. Besides that, they can rip your guts open, so I'll leave that to you Steven.
Dafydd.

I asked JP (to which he never answered)...

"civil disobedience would be to refuse to marry gay couples if their religion doesn't accept that behavior. If SCOTUS decides that the Federal Government has the right to legislate a mandate to all across the nation who have licenses to officiate over weddings, it would be the same mandate that is already being fought in the courts over Obamacare and birth control/abortion pills insurance coverage.

All magistrates in courthouses across the country will also be mandated to perform the ceremonies because they are public employees....and anyone else who gets a license to perform legal weddings. Many magistrates have already resigned over this issue in states where the voters have had the option on the ballot and voted it down, just to have a liberal Federal judge overrule that people's wishes. Out of the 37 states that have legalized gay marriage, only 12 actually approved it....the rest all had the voters wishes ignored by a Federal judge that has jurisdiction over many states, such as the 5th District out of San Francisco.

And your "question" is?

2 paragraphs and NO question.

"A whole new can of worms, as I've said"

Do you believe the Federal Government should mandate all States to perform and by Federal law recognize gay marriages, even if the voters have voted it down? Should SCOTUS decide/rule that way?"

I asked the same of you previously....perhaps in somewhat different words in an earlier post when I told you to 'think carefully before responding'....and you chose to ignore it and ranted nonsense about something else instead. (Divert/deflect)

Do you believe the Federal Government should mandate all States to perform and by Federal law recognize gay marriages, even if the voters have voted it down? Should SCOTUS decide/rule that way?"

even if the voters have voted it down? A majority of the federal voters or by state?

in 25 out of 37 states have voted down allowing gay marriages, just to have a Federal Appellate Court overturn that vote, as if voters don't matter.

What difference does it make if they were 'federal or state' voters? Voters vote in BOTH types of ballots, JP.

Answer the previous question regarding YOUR feelings about it...........

should mandate mixed race marriages across all states?

Do you believe that the government should require business should be required to serve blacks and Hispanics as well as whites?

Do you believe that the government should require polling places to allow women to vote in all states?

Do you believe that the government should require companies to pay men and women the same when they have the same experience and are doing the same job in all states?

Do you believe that the government should outlaw slavery in all states?

But you do believe that the government should stop two people that love each other from marrying.

BTW Wisconsin tried to pass a law saying that religious leaders didn't have to marry gays because of religious freedom (I don't remember all the details). Before the bill was even voted on, over a 1000 religious leaders said they would perform marriages between gays.

Isn't it interesting that a country founded to allow freedom from religious persecution is now using religion to persecute freedoms?

So you DO believe that ALL marriages, even multiple ones such as polygamy as Diana has suggested and gays SHOULD be a Federal law, and that ALL priests and pastors who DON'T believe in those relationships for religious reasons should be mandated to perform those ceremonies?

Do you also believe then that the First Amendment given to the people to practice freedom OF religion should be repealed? Because if it isn't, then civil disobedience by pastors and priests by refusing to perform the ceremonies could be jailed repeatedly and/or fined for breaking the Federal law.

AND.....marital benefits paid by various departments will be given to multiple wives and children of polygamists, who are already breaking laws in some/most states that don't recognize that practice as being a legal marriage.

NOW.....going further........since VOTERS within those states created the law banning polygamy and THAT has been recognized for a large number of years, should their legal VOTE be overturned by a Federal Court just as has been done over the gay marriage issue?

IF you believe that an elected official in a Federal Court has the right to overturn a popular VOTE by the PEOPLE, then why have voters' rights in this country at all?

My personal opinion regarding the SCOTUS decision that will be coming down is that they will NOT change anything and will leave it up to the States, individually, to decide........and that the Federal Court decisions that overruled the VOTER decision will be overturned by SCOTUS, making 25 States' ban against gay marriage again be put into place. DOMA will stay put, I believe.

Asked but not answered

NOW you tell me

Are you a citizen of The United States of America....OR are you a citizen of Virginia (or where ever it is you're from)?

Do you think if you move from one state to another...you should have to get married again? If not, Why not?

Does THIS work for you.

IF/WHEN the Federal government gives benefits for being "married" THEY get to decide the definition of "married".

IF/WHEN the State government gives benefits for being "married" THEY get to decide the definition of "married".

Being "married" is all about the benefits isn't it?

What has your question about my citizenship have to do with a SCOTUS decision, and you're refusal to answer any of my questions to you?

IF/WHEN you decide to actually give a response, I'll come back. However, I don't expect you to do anything of the kind.