@Anonymous: in the north east Protestants are one of the more liberal churches

@Anonymous: >> doesn't even say that, it just says gay sex is a sin. no mention whatsoever of gay sex though. it does, however, say it's unconstitutional in the constitutions of nearly half of the states.

lolol wut?

http://youtu.be/Bmpf5-tuDEo?t=1m5s

@Anonymous: no it was founded on christianity

The government and "church" fuck people up the ass daily... hypocrites.

@Anonymous: >Christian
>Doesn't read the Bible
Seriously LOTS of commands. Paul even said no fornicator shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. If your not gonna follow the teachings, quit calling yourself a Christian.

Now I can see where you could say God doesn't care about the non-Christians sex life. In Hebrews it says the natural man is no better then an animal born to be destroyed. Which makes sense considering he killed all those Egyptian first born despite most of them did nothing more wrong than the average human.

It seems to me the Christian view would be as follows. Christians are to do their best to abstain from sin. Heathens, It doesn't matter you are damned anyway, if you wish to join the Christians you have to repent, but if not, it's none of my business.

If this is tl;dr
A Christian's job is to judge himself, not others.

@Anonymous: 14th amendment covers gay ppl, actually.

@Anonymous: "last time i checked america was still one country"
I realize that Canada is a state the US refuses to accept as it's own, so we've convinced everyone they're their own country.
But about all the countries below Texas/Arizona?
Are they also part of the United States?
Cuz last I checked ... America meant an entire continent.
North and South.

As for the US being founded on equality ... you know, the founding fathers who hated homosexuals because some were theists. Not to mention the slave owners. Guess it was one of those lessons of do as I say, not as I do.

@AvengerOfBoredom: >Cuz last I checked ... America meant an entire continent.
>North and South.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#cite_note-dictionaryDotCom-2
Give us a break there, Che.
Last time I checked, football referred to a game played with a foot, and a ball.
And North and South America are 2 continents, guy.

>"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
>Orthodox Christianity
Somebody needs to learn history, and maybe a little more about christianity, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

@Anonymous: So, North and South continent's are two separate ones?
So, one doesn't run with their feet and one doesn't punt/kick the ball?
Interesting logic. Do go on.

@Anonymous: You miss the point. This part of the amendment specifically addresses that citizens need to be treated equally under law. If I have a wife and I get hit by a bus after this post, she gets everything I possess without having to pay any additional taxes. However, if I were a gay man, my partner would be taxed as if they were a separate person in those states that do not recognize a civil union, that's in violation of this amendment.

And there's lots of other areas where this applies beyond inheritance: the ability to make health care decisions, joint filing of taxes, so forth and so on.

"They have the same right to marry somebody of the opposite sex as everyone else." See recently passed Amendment One in North Carolina, which is just one example among many that illustrates that this statement is false. You need to spend some time understanding this issue, because you have a poor grasp of the essentials.

@Anonymous: No, you don't fully understand the situation, and you appear to not be able to understand my posts. Nowhere in my posts do I mention the word, "right". Nor, is it implied. The issue is that heterosexual couples are treated differently under the law than homosexual couples. This is in violation of the 14th amendment, not terribly hard to understand.

You also seem to be burdened by some form of "originalism". I'll clue you in. The dominate form of law in the United States is, and has always been, common law. So, the law is what judges have decided it means over time, and not merely what legislators or a common/legal understanding of the law meant at the time of its passing. The Founding Fathers understood this point, and they would have not agreed with you, and other originalists, and your attempts to refashion American jurisprudence into some form of civil code.

Further, your argument fails on its own terms. By your rationale, heterosexual relationships would have to be spelled out in detail, and the law would have to change every time society's attitudes have changes - e.g., before 1967, it was illegal for there to be inter-racial couples in the United States which is a group that is about 8% of the population and very similar in circumstance to gay marriage today. Yet, this is not how the law has ever worked, and the attitudes of the Founders on inter-racial or gay marriage is irrelevant (see again common law as a legal system). You:

1. So why now in 2012 are you so convinced that the Constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage? The Constitution doesn't talk about marriage at all.

2. When did the meaning of the law magically change? When gay people started getting legal civil unions.

3. It's very dangerous to let the government start changing the meaning of laws without amending the laws. It does this all the time under common law.

4. ...we shouldn't want a few Justices to change it when they please. Look up t…

@Anonymous: Your arguments are getting dumber. Go get your law degree and then let's talk.

@Anonymous: No, it was not founded on Christianity. Many of our founding fathers were not Christian.

@Anonymous: And later when the first Christian (Yiska) arrived.

@tahrey: but... corporations are people. Groups of people are individuals.

Why can't everyone believe what they want to believe?

@Anonymous: Someone should go watch the South Park episode about the Future without Religion. Then learn a lil bit about human nature.

@Anonymous: If we're so advanced beyond it, why are irreligious people so detrimental to society? They're lack of morals seems to hurt society as a whole.

@Anonymous: I tend to see a lot more immoral religious people than immoral atheists.

@Anonymous: In my town and city I see the complete opposite, all the criminals have no religion and thus have no one to answer to for their crimes.

@Anonymous: It's bad to have, as you call it, "no one to answer for your crimes".
It's even worse to say you committed a crime to please your god.

@Anonymous: So if you work as part of a corporation, or get married, you cease to exist as an individual either within or apart from that? Erm, no.

I have a feeling you subscribe to the same damaged mindset as those who decry evolution as false because "humans came from monkeys ... so why are there still monkeys?!".

A couple has been created, or a corporation has been created, but the individuals who together make up that whole /ARE STILL THERE/ and their individual rights have not been alienated in the cause of their contribution to those partnerships.

Please, stop trying to twist reality, and existing civil rights & freedoms law to fit your disgustingly bigoted worldview. You've slipped on this one. Give it up.