You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘marriage equality’ tag.


That is the word we hear all the time. TOLERANCE on race issues. TOLERANCE on gay issues. Isn’t it time for TOLERANCE to be a 2-way street.

In Colorado, a baker did not want to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding. He has been found guilty of discrimination. Now he has received his sentence:

An Administrative Law judge in Colorado named Robert Spencer has issued an extraordinary rule in the case of Masterpiece Cake Shop which refused to help two homosexuals make a mockery of marriage.

A Colorado baker found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple must go through sensitivity training as part of his penance and rehabilitation. In December of last year, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer found Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, guilty of discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig when he told them in July 2012 that he couldn’t bake them a wedding cake because homosexual behavior conflicted with his Christian beliefs.

Phillips appealed the verdict to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which stood by Spencer’s decision and ordered May 30 that Phillips be required to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples in conflict with his moral Christian convictions. Additionally, Phillips and his staff will have to submit to a regimen of state-sanctioned sensitivity training to make sure they are in line with Colorado’s non-discrimination statute.

Over the next two years Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission concerning his business practices, informing the commission whether he has turned any business away, most importantly homosexual customers. “So if his shop is closed or he’s out of flour, he needs to report to the commission,” explained Nicolle Martin of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that represented Phillips in the case, to Fox News on June 5.

So, would it be discrimination if the same baker refused to bake a cake with a Swastika on it, as the RedState article infers?

And let me pose the question this way. IF you sat down with a baker, and you could tel that the baker was uncomfortable with the situation as the cake specifics were discussed, do you REALLY want that baker to be baking your cake?  When we have chosen a cake decorator, for birthdays, engagements, weddings, baptisms, etc., we have wanted the baker’s very best. This baker would not have intentionally caused a problem with the cake, but would his “heart” have been in the project?

TOLERANCE…. it does go both ways!!

I have no problem with anyone loving whom they wish to love. Who am I to judge whether that relationship is wrong or right? Does this generation believe that they have the market on the questioning of why some people are attracted to the people they are? This has been dealt with since God created the world, or at least since that pivotal moment in the Garden of Eden and that apple incident!

But since the beginning of time, one thing has been clear, and basically simple… the Definition of Marriage:

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Therefore what God has joined together,
no human being must separate.”

Mark 10:1-12

So while the battle moves on to redefine marriage, my simple request to those who are in favor is that they STOP framing those who are opposed as vile and hate-filled, and homophobic. Yes, there are a handful who may fall into that category. But most who oppose same-sex marriage do NOT fall into that category.


‘I was given every s*** job in the world by Obama’: Biden makes astonishing  revelations about his relationship with the President as it’s claimed he was  ‘frozen out’ by White House over gay gaffe

  • Vice President Joe Biden reveals he  willingly took the President’s more ‘bothersome’ tasks but in turn wanted to be  included in major decisions
  • The deal was kept for the first term but  after Biden said he was ‘absolutely comfortable’ with gay marriage before Obama,  he was frozen out
  • He was allowed to attend strategy  meetings and wasn’t happy when Obama’s team didn’t refute rumors about him being  replaced by Clinton
  • Now the relationship is  beginning to thaw but he is plagued by the prospect that Obama and his advisers  want Clinton in 2016 and not him

Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Supreme Court ruled that the California Prop 8 challengers did not have standing to challenge the ruling of the lower courts, and thus the trial court ruling making Prop 8 unconstitutional stands. The Court appears to have narrowly tailored this decision to California and Prop 8, and not in making a sweeping decision that recognizes same sex marriage nationally.

With the ruling in the Prop 8 case, and the DOMA ruling, both sides of the marriage equality issue claim victories and defeat. Those on the side of marriage equality would ideally liked to have seen a sweeping decision, much like Roe v Wade, but the Court was not prepared to make that leap.

So for now, gay couples married where same sex marriage is legal are entitled to federal recognition of that marriage, and in those states where same sex marriage is not legal, their laws still stand.

Sounds like not that much of a change. The battle on both sides shall continue on!

While many pro-gay marriage advocates will sing the praises of the Supreme Court’s decision today regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, the actual ruling will only make for more of a legal quagmire for same-sex couples who get married, but do not reside in state’s that recognize their marriage as valid. With 60% of the states having laws against same-sex marriage, the federal benefits, tax return filings, state benefits, and state filings, will create a nightmare for many couples. A same sex coupe married in NY who move to Texas will be entitled to all the benefits, etc. recognized under the federal governmnet, but not to those by the State of Texas, which does not recognize gay marriage.

With Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, he said that the federal government cannot penalize a group of citizens whose marriage is legally valid and recognized by their state. It does not, however, force states that do not recognize gay marriage to recognize them and give state benefits. Where I forsee a problem in the future is in the federal government bullying states into recognizing gay marriage because many state benefits are tied to federal funds.

Some will see this as a major step for gay rights. Others will mount divisive vitriole. I think that the resolution of the marriage equality issue is still a long way from being settled, but I do believe that both sides of the issue should move away from the hate aspect of the argument….. nothing is more tiring than for someone to say you are a hater because you disagree with the concept of gay marriage.


From today’s arguments before the Court:


Kennedy said the Defense of Marriage Act appears to intrude on the power of states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. When so many federal statutes are affected, “which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens’ day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody,” Kennedy said.

If the court does strike down part of DOMA, it would represent a victory for gay rights advocates. But it would be something short of the endorsement of gay marriage nationwide that some envisioned when the justices agreed in December to hear the federal case and the challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage.–politics.html

The commentary from the Justices today is different than yesterday’s when discussing Prop 8. From my perspective, gay couples should receive the federal benefits afforded to married couples if they are in a documented committed relationship, i.e., civil unions.

from the FreeRepublic:

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) SCOTUS defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman…” 3/27/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:37:31 PM by Laissez-faire capitalist

In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as “The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.”

In Maynard v. Hill, SCOTUS spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Remember, liberals, Stari Decisis….right? Chuck E. Cheese Schumer seems to like to invoke those words whenever it suits him.

Marriage should be redefined, and those that are against redefining it are bigots? Then why are liberals bigotted against consenting ADULT Polygamists? Marriage is about love and equality? Then why don’t liberals love consenting adult polygamists/polygamy and desire equality for them, too? We’re talking about adults here.

Why do liberals act as if they only want to redefine something so far and no further — but it never seems to end up that way?????

Liberals are NEVER done when it comes to changing/redefining things…..

Hundreds of thousands of people have taken part in a final protest in Paris against a bill to legalise same-sex marriage and adoption.

There were scuffles and police fired tear gas as the protest spilled over onto the Champs Elysees, the avenue which runs past the president’s palace.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said there had been dozens of arrests.

France’s Senate is due to debate the bill next month after it was passed by the lower house of parliament.

President Francois Hollande’s Socialist Party and its allies dominate both houses.

Opinion polls suggest a majority of French people still support gay marriage but their numbers have fallen in recent weeks.

for story:

A. Let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.
Oh, don’t ya just love it when a plan comes together!
Life is Short … Drink the GOOD wine FIRST!!