Pastor Declares "Civil War" After Supreme Court Rejects DC Gay Marriage Case

[ELF1024]

URL

"A travesty of justice." That's what the religious right is calling the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case challenging the District of Columbia's marriage equality law.Rev. Anthony Evans, a D.C. minister who has worked with Bishop Harry Jackson, who brought the suit seeking to invalidate the 10-month-old same-sex marriage law in the District, accused the Supreme Court of forcing the law "down the church

[Jaybear]

This guy is missing the point ...

What do you think is the point?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Most ridiculous statement in the article...

Usually, people who want to express love for someone do everything they can to help those people live the best life possible - not prevent them from achieving full equality.

So you can only really love someone if your accept their sinful lifestyle and try to normalize it in society?

NO... when you truly love someone you tell them the truth. The "best life possible" is in accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and obeying His commandments. Anything else falls woefully short.

[thesometimesaint]

Too much hyperbole.

[LT123]

The pastor is right, and is way too civil about it.

[BCSpace]

This guy is missing the point, and his rhetoric is not helping.

I disagree. To do the right thing is often a call to arms. Onward Christian soldiers!

[frankenstein]

Is the pastor required to administrate ssm?

The pastor, has not lost his voice, his voice as pastor is kept exactly where it should; at the pulpit in the Church building.

and talk of a fight is just goading and baiting.

The need be no "fight" two groups with opposing views can live amicably together, a fight develop when either imposes its views on the other.

A second issue, which is probably what the SCOTUS is upto, SCOTUS realizes its time is precious, SCOTUS also realizes that enterprising lawyers will say "Well SCOTUS heard a case for DC and said SCOTUS opinion only applies to DC" So, perhaps, rather than have two case on the same thing - most recent example right to bear was first heard for DC, states claimed they did not have to follow that ruling, so a second case - a State case - on the 2nd amendment made it to SCOTUS),

So my point, SCOTUS, and most everyone realizes the federal case from California will get to the Supreme Court within the Year, so to save time and resources, just hear the State Case. (though the DC case and the California are probably different controversies)

[Mordecai]

If I were that pastor, I would move away form that area. Why fight, when you can walk away and get the same benefits? Furthermore, the legal battle isn't over yet; in fact, we're winning.

[Jaybear]

Is the pastor required to administrate ssm?

The pastor, has not lost his voice, his voice as pastor is kept exactly where it should; at the pulpit in the Church building.

and talk of a fight is just goading and baiting.

The need be no "fight" two groups with opposing views can live amicably together, a fight develop when either imposes its views on the other.

What fight remains?

The battle was fought at the city counsel level. The pastor lost.

The battle went to congress with Chaffetz as his champion. The pastor lost.

The battle was fought in the courts. Again the pastor lost.

Its over. I suppose he can go back to the city counsel, but why would they want to revisit this issue. His only recourse is to convince the voters to throw out city counsel and start over. That won't happen either.

So my point, SCOTUS, and most everyone realizes the federal case from California will get to the Supreme Court within the Year, so to save time and resources, just hear the State Case. (though the DC case and the California are probably different controversies)

The issues are not the same. The DC case is a matter of statutory interpretation, the CA case involves constitutional law.

[Jason]

The pastor, has not lost his voice, his voice as pastor is kept exactly where it should; at the pulpit in the Church building.

Yes - how dare he raise his voice outside of the pulpit! Does he think the 1st Ammendment applies to his kind?

[bluebell]

What fight remains?

The battle was fought at the city counsel level. The pastor lost.

The battle went to congress with Chaffetz as his champion. The pastor lost.

The battle was fought in the courts. Again the pastor lost.

Its over. I suppose he can go back to the city counsel, but why would they want to revisit this issue. His only recourse is to convince the voters to throw out city counsel and start over. That won't happen either.

The issues are not the same. The DC case is a matter of statutory interpretation, the CA case involves constitutional law.

This issue reminds me a great deal of the issue of slavery in America in the 1850s. I don't mean that I see those wanting SSM to be legal and abolitionists in the same light, but rather that i see the contention that exists in the fight between the two sides to be similar.

In this case, i'm specifically reminded of the Dred Scott case, which went to the Supreme Court (which heavily favored southern rights to slavery to begin with) and which eventually resulted in the highest court in the country declaring that congress had no right to limit slavery and that even the previous laws which did not allow slavery in the north were unconstitutional.

Not surprisingly, this decision did NOT stop abolitionists from continuing their fight against the laws of the land (and thank goodness for that I suppose). They still saw merit in pushing the issue and in fighting, even if there wasn't much they could do legally, against the Supreme Courts backing of the rights of people to own slaves and treat them however they wanted to. Yes, the constitution at the time made slavery legal and gave the federal government little say over how it spread and even made it against the law for abolitionists to exercise their own moral beliefs and aide runaway slaves with extremely stiff penalties, including jail time. Abolitionists did not care. They felt it was morally wrong and they would work to fix it, regardless of what how the constitution was interpreted.

You essentially ask in the post above, 'why continue the fight when the decision is done?'. I would guess that this pastor and many others feels similar to how those abolitionists felt after the Dred Scot verdict.

They did not want to simply let something they felt was morally wrong continue just because the highest court in the country declared it legal-i'm guessing neither does this pastor.

Whether or not someone agrees with him, his actions make sense considering his beliefs.

[Jaybear]

Yes - how dare he raise his voice outside of the pulpit! Does he think the 1st Ammendment applies to his kind?

He can say what he wants in or out of the church. But there is no right to tax exempt status found in the Constitution.

[Jason]

He can say what he wants in or out of the church. But there is no right to tax exempt status found in the Constitution.

Oh, so it's "as long as he says what we like we won't charge him taxes, but if he steps out of line..."

[Jaybear]

You essentially ask in the post above, 'why continue the fight when the decision is done?'. I would guess that this pastor and many others feels similar to how those abolitionists felt after the Dred Scot verdict.

They did not want to simply let something they felt was morally wrong continue just because the highest court in the country declared it legal-i'm guessing neither does this pastor.

Whether or not someone agrees with him, his actions make sense considering his beliefs.

I understand why he wants to fight. I just don't see where that fight is going to take place. In DC, the fight is over. Now he is just spitting in the wind.

[Jaybear]

Oh, so it's "as long as he says what we like we won't charge him taxes, but if he steps out of line..."

There are statutory regulations in place which limit political action of tax exempt organizations. None of which are defined by whether "he says what we like." The same limits are in place for those advocating for gay rights.

Was that your point?

[bluebell]

I understand why he wants to fight. I just don't see where that fight is going to take place. In DC, the fight is over. Now he is just spitting in the wind.

I think many pro-slavery people in the 1850s thought the same of the abolitionists, yet a few years later, the fight got very real and came from a place that few expected it to.

For those who want a fight, they will find a place and a way to have one.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

He can say what he wants in or out of the church. But there is no right to tax exempt status found in the Constitution.

You might want to look into your second sentence a little closer. Everybody is so focused on 501c3 that they don't even know that churches are already tax exempt for merely being a church.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

No.

The tax exemption exclusion applies to those advocating for a particular political party.

[Jaybear]

I think many pro-slavery people in the 1850s thought the same of the abolitionists, yet a few years later, the fight got very real and came from a place that few expected it to.

For those who want a fight, they will find a place and a way to have one.

As no one is going to fight a civil war over slavery, what are his option?

As I noted, he has only two. Both of which are futile.

Sorry, but he has nothing but hot air to offer his supporters. He should be more concerned about mending fences created by his zealous anti gay bigotry, than fomenting more futile dissent.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As no one is going to fight a civil war over slavery, what are his option?

As I noted, he has only two. Both of which are futile.

Sorry, but he has nothing but hot air to offer his supporters. He should be more concerned about mending fences created by his zealous anti gay bigotry, than fomenting more futile dissent.

Hmmm. .. what exactly is involved in "mending fences" with militant, anti-commandments of God, homosexuals?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

No.

The tax exemption exclusion applies to those advocating for a particular political party.

Not sure where "no" is directed.

I said "there are statutory regulations in place which limit political action of tax exempt organizations."

Advocating for a party, advocating for a candidate, advocating agaisnt a candidate are some, but not all of the restrictions.

[bluebell]

As no one is going to fight a civil war over slavery, what are his option?

As I noted, he has only two. Both of which are futile.

Sorry, but he has nothing but hot air to offer his supporters. He should be more concerned about mending fences created by his zealous anti gay bigotry, than fomenting more futile dissent.

Like i said, the pro-slavery south thought zealous, anti-southern rights, "black"-lovers should have done the same. They also had no intention of fighting a civil war over the issue until, suddenly, they did.

[frankenstein]

The tax exemption exclusion applies to those advocating for a particular political party.

To be tax-exempt under section 501

[Jaybear]

Like i said, the pro-slavery south thought zealous, anti-southern rights, "black"-lovers should have done the same. They also had no intention of fighting a civil war over the issue until, suddenly, they did.

You realize the better analogy to the anti gay pastor is the pro segregationists who vowed to carry on the fight against civil rights post Brown v Board of Education.

George Wallace: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

[bluebell]

You realize the better analogy to the anti gay pastor is the pro segregationists who vowed to carry on the fight against civil rights post Brown v Board of Education.

George Wallace: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

As i already said, i'm not making an analogy between the pastor and abolitionists. I'm making an analogy between the contention that existed in the US due to the slavery question and the contention that is beginning to exist right now due to the SSM question.

When the majority of the US citizens begin to believe that US laws are immoral, things are likely to get serious. We would be naive not to learn from history and not to take seriously the power that people can gain in fighting against the laws of the country, if they can get enough people to agree with them.

Simply calling them names and declaring that they are 'blowing hot air' is a very short-sighted approach to the issue.