Married gay couples can file jointly, tax commission decides
Go get 'em Mr. Gene C. Schaerr! We are cheering you on and hoping your
restore States' rights on the definition of marriage.
Great news that same sex couples can file their state tax returns jointly. One
more step on the road to equality.
Good job AG Reyes for finding well qualified attorneys to work on this case. It
sounds like these attorneys are being reasonable with their fees which will help
save the state money in this endeavor. Lets hope this process moves forward in a
dignified and professional manner going forward.
Great appellate team notwithstanding disagreements with them,
Gene Schaerr is good, I'll say that.As for understanding
Utah's unique nature, I cannot see that it will be relevant. The law is
the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. A very good attorney here will
help in the quality of the argument, not who or what he is. That Utah is
somehow different and should be treated differently than other states is naive.
It seems to support the notion that Utah is really not part of America. (In a
sense, maybe Utah never was....)
@Big Budda,"Go get 'em Mr. Gene C. Schaerr! We are cheering you
on and hoping your restore States' rights on the definition of
marriage."You'd better hope he can come up with a more
persuasive, more compelling argument other than "responsible
procreation". Frankly, I haven't seen any good argument
from SSM opponent camp yet.
Very interesting how they always spread the wealth around a bit. With all the
lawyers in the AG's office, whenever they encounter anything perceived to
be particularly sticky and/or relevant, they always defer to "outside
counsel." Oh well, it's only tax money, right? Of course there's
always more where that came from. I sure wish we could have a vote on this
rabid expenditure, because I sure wouldn't be willing to cough up ANY of my
money to force people to live by my ideals and standards when it actually has
little bearing on the rest of us. If people want to "marry" someone of
their own gender (which has legal and financial implications for THEM), or if
they want to inhale/ingest something I would never want in my system--I say let
them have at it. We obviously have more than our hands full trying to get
government to properly do all the things it SHOULD be doing, and not all the
things it shouldn't--and then attempting to actually pay for it all.
Fools' errand indeed.
Somehow, the rights of states to pass laws that are advocated by the citizens of
that state comes into play. States should not be pawns of the Federal Government
and that would include any Branch. If the majority of voting citizens in the
state of Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi or wherever pass a law that they believe
benefits them and that State, should not the Federal Government respect that?
The Constitution has been and will be subject to the thinking of current
Justices and the pressures applied by groups with their own agendas. Just
another thought about a thorny problem
Although I believe same-sex marriage is wrong, the writing is obviously on the
wall. Same sex marriage, like abortion, will likely become a Constitutional
"right" in the next couple of years. Ironically, Utah's attempt to
protect traditional marriage may likely turn out to be the Supreme Court case
that makes same sex marriage a "right." Justice Kennedy will likely join
the four liberals on the Supreme Court and declare homosexuals have a
"right" to be married.
While I'm hopeful that this legal team can articulate the position of the
Utah majority, I'm also hesitant because it's obvious that as a
country, we've abandoned our morals. As John Adams said, our constitution
was made for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other. So while I hope to see the courts side with
Utah's rights as a state, it wouldn't surprise me to see it go the
It is interesting that the tax allowance for 2013 was made. My own brother
participates in a long term (20 years plus) same sex marriage. That love,
tolerance, endurance and compromise need to be a part of his life is no
question. However, tax expenditures by the government are the only question I
see. Tax should be different for them. I do not know if it is less or more but
I believe we as a society have built our tax laws around a man and a woman
(married) filing a joint return. Does anyone know if this issue has been
brought up in the current case with judge Shelby? Is it an issue? Should it
be? For example: Is the fact that a woman often has more medical expenditures
than a man not a compelling argument to have a same sex couple who file jointly
to figure their taxes differently? Two females should figure more tax and two
males should figure less?
It's another good step, inasmuch as filing tax returns is good in any
sense. As time and process move on, the arguments against same sex marriage
really aren't holding up and the whole appeal process looks more petty and
Hasn't the AG's office handled appeals to the 10th Cir. in-house
before? It's hard to believe that the AG's office is less than
competent in this task especially since all the arguments have been made before
in other courts. Since the State's petitions for a stay of the district
court decision never alleged any error of law by J. Shelby, [a mandatory
pleading on appeal], maybe Reyes just wants to put political distance between
his office and the dog of a case this appears to be. I guess it will be easier
to blame outside counsel for the loss. If only we all had the option to
outsource the tough parts of our jobs with other people's money. If this really is the AG's strategy, isn't dropping a sure loser of
an appeal now the morally right and legally correct thing to do? PS
- this has nothing to do with the church. D&C 134:9 We declare that
from principle and policy, we favor:The absolute separation of church and
state;No domination of the state by the church;No church
interference with the functions of the state"
Seems like a fairly decent team. Let's see if they can come up with
something more convincing than "will of the people,"
"tradition!," and "every child deserves..."At least
on the latter point, Utah has a bit of traction. When it comes to
out-of-wedlock births, Utah beats the astronomical national average by a wide
margin, a mere 19% to 41%. But, with a high children-per-family number and a
larger amount of divorces, which results in more children living in
single-parent families, that could seriously cut into the advantage. Still,
I'm not sure statistics form a basis for denial of individual rights.Well, 11 days, and we'll get to see the State's brief. Should
make for interesting reading. I've read a number of Court decisions lately
(glutton for punishment) and none of the filed arguments have survived scrutiny
thus far. Be interesting to see if this team can cobble together anything that
All states bring in outside counsel for cases like this. It is the norm.
Specialists with expertise are brought in to handle these kinds of cases.
I'm glad the state has brought in someone who is experienced, successful
and also understands our culture and motivations. It is obviously a good
choice.And to those who are discouraged. Don't give up hope.
The other side is trying to do everything it can to attack, shame and demoralize
those of us who are standing for right. We will not falter no matter what the
@483bzacI see what you're saying, but it's an ancillary argument
to the real "meat" of the issue. The real heart of the matter is that
religious folks morally oppose same-sex marriage.@Marco LuxeYou've misquoted D&C 134:9 and taken it out of context. All the
same, the LDS church is not the organization hiring lawyers to argue its
position in court, so yes, there is separation of church and state. The Utah AG
hired the lawyers, not the churches. Additionally, to argue that an individual
should separate his religious convicts from his civic life is to imply we should
believe one way on Sundays, and another way the rest of the week. You can have
separation of church and state, but you cannot achieve separation of religious
beliefs from within an individual. That would be a contradiction of character.
@ Blue AZ CougarYou wrote: " As John Adams said, our constitution was
made for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other."Exactly!!!! When are people going to
understand that it is immoral to discriminate against those who follow the laws
of a country, contribute to society and yet are discriminated against just
because of their sexual orientation. Shouldn't be that what happened in the
bedroom is private?You also wrote:"Additionally, to argue
that an individual should separate his religious convicts from his civic life is
to imply we should believe one way on Sundays, and another way the rest of the
week."Well, not exactly!! Catholics believe that eating meat on
Friday is a sin. Should they pass a law forbidding selling/eating meat on
Fridays? They could! But other religions would complain that no church should
impose their beliefs on others and that it should be a separation between church
and state. Even if that church is the majority in the state or country.If you are not able to differentiate between your religious beliefs and fair
civic ruling, you may have a deeper problem.
Why should gay couples get a tax break???Let's ask it a
different way. Why did traditional couples get a tax break?
@Baccus0902If it's tax breaks you're after, then why not
petition the government to change the tax law? Why change the institution of
marriage? Said another way, if civil unions and marriages had equal footing in
terms of tax breaks (or whatever other benefits you feel you are not receiving),
why is it so important to you that we call it "marriage" as opposed to
"civil union"? While most in the LGBT community won't admit it,
there's a strong push not only to legalize same-sex marriage but to create
an atmosphere where we are obligated to accept the stance as both socially AND
morally acceptable. You want society's approval."Shouldn't be that what happened in the bedroom is private?"
Yes. As a matter of fact, I have no interest in what goes on in your bedroom.
But that's different than what goes on in full view of the rest of society,
isn't it? Nobody here is pushing for a law to ban homosexual behavior.
Equating sames-sex marriage with traditional marriage is morally reprehensible.
If you are not able to differentiate between the two, you may have a deeper
I for one am so glad my hard earned tax dollars are being spent to line the
pockets of attorneys from out of state (and conveniently one who went to BYU) in
a losing battle. everyone grab a share while your ship is sinking. just let it
go Utah. let it go. Marijuana legalization next? Alta allowing snowboarders?
oh no, the sky is falling!
"Equating sames-sex marriage with traditional marriage is morally
reprehensible". Based on YOUR morals and YOUR beliefs, some people do not
see it the same way, it is what makes this country great. Other people do not
seem to have such a problem with it. Love is love in my book (and before you
judge I am a straight jewish man). If someone loves someone else who are you to
judge what they can and cannot do? Someones beliefs derived from their
religion should have no bearing on the law of this land. Separation of church
and state, yes even here in Utah.
Baccus: A homosexual relationship will never be a marriage--worlds without
end....and you know it.
@Never Summer"If someone loves someone else who are you to judge what
they can and cannot do?"Again, nobody is trying to pass a law
against same-sex behavior. What people "do" is out of my control. But
what people "do" is different than how our society is expected to
recognize their relationship as equal with traditional marriage. Nobody has yet
explained how SSM is of such equivalence with traditional marriage that it
warrants the same title/label/name/designation. It is not the same. So my
beef/hangup/bigotry/discrimination (whatever you want to label it) is that it
goes deeper than just allowing two people to make a deeper commitment to one
another. SSM proponents don't want to admit that, but it's true.
It's not just about tax breaks and benefits either, because I don't
hear anyone lobbying for changes in how state or federal benefits are afforded.
Far easier to change the institution of marriage, right? At the core of it is
social acceptance. They want to be told that what they're doing is morally
and socially acceptable. They want society's validation of their choices.
The entire issue is about states' rights. I don't care what the topic
is. When states vote for something, the federal government has no right to
overturn it, especially since the Supreme Court decided that we are allowed to
make our own decisions on certain laws. NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT
SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE BEING DISCRIMINATION. The federal
government is taking freedoms away from a significant number of the population.
The constitution says that we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, and freedom of privacy. These
freedoms are being stomped on by a huge overly staffed federal government.
We in Utah love all people. And we care for everyone. We also believe in
upholding the law. Utah, as a sovereign State, passed a valid statute with a
super majority of the people's support. The federal government does not
have the right to overturn that law based on someone's personal agenda.
Everyone should be standing up for States' rights like never before on this
issue or our nation is headed for big trouble.
@Sense Maker"The entire issue is about states' rights. I
don't care what the topic is. When states vote for something, the federal
government has no right to overturn it"in 1992, our neighbor
state Colorado passed amendment 2 to limit gay right, in 1996, SCOTUS struck
that referendum down.sure, we can make our own decisions on certain
laws, but the laws must be within the frame of US constitution. Judge Shelby
ruled that amendment 3 could not pass even the lowest level of constitutional
scrutiny. the outside defense lawyers had better bring up with more compelling
argument to appeal.
Is same-sex marriage a civil right?"According to the Supreme
Court of the United States, civil rights are based on three criteria:innateness (being born with a protected condition or distinguishing
characteristic), immutability(being unable to change the
condition/distinguishing characteristic), and, last but not least, the ability
of the bearers of the condition or distinguishing characteristic to advocate for
themselves.There are no peer-reviewed scientific studies that
demonstrate either that persons are born gay or that they cannot change. The
existence of a large ex-gay community indicates that in fact persons can change.
Thus many experts suppose that sexuality may be a preference, not an
orientation.There are many men and women who experience same-sex
attraction throughout the United States. For many who struggle with this
inclination, it constitutes a trial. Each person must be accepted with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. Any and every sign of unjust discrimination in
their regard must be avoided and denounced. However, we believe that
the activists' call to redefine marriage discards the time-tested union of
one man and one woman, which has grounded and stabilized hundreds of societies
for millennia, is unsound and must be vigorously opposed".
@MeckofahessIs there a large ex-gay community? I know there are a few
people who say they have changed completely fro. same-sex attracted to
opposite-sex attracted. I can't argue with their experience. My own
experience has been that my fundamental orientation has been constant. Of the
almost 100 videos produced by LDS Voices of Hope featuring faithful LDS people
lwith SSA, there is one person who says he now considers himself straight. Most
"ex-gay" people talk about overcoming harmful behaviors, achieving
abstinence, or satisfaction in an opposite-sex marriage but usually still say
they are fundamentally same-sex attracted. It is interesting that two
prominent ex-gay groups, LDS Evergreen and Christian Exodus, closed in the last
year and have been replaced by groups that focus on helping faithful people stay
chaste with SSA rather than overcoming it.
"By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in
the great stories....The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger,
they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how
could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so
much bad had happened?....Those were the stories that stayed with you. That
meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think...I
do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning
back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to
something.....That there’s some good in this world...and it’s worth
fighting for."This fight is one of those. A fight for
morality. A fight to not have a legal majority vote dismissed and
overturned because one man representing a small special interest group says so.
It does not matter how many highly experienced lawyers the ruling elites hire.
You are not going to get around 50 years of legal precedent in the
interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In the end your going to lose. In the
end your throwing the taxpayers money down the drain.
The article describes, and comments confirm, Utah's legal case looks like
recruiting a football coach. Looks like Utah's hosting the first legal
Superbowl on gay marriage, to be played out in Denver.The court
appeal should be broadcast with a commentator for each side. The ads for the
broadcast alone would cover the state's costs. And showing the proceeding
would be very instructive for the public - to see how democracy works -
"facts" are presented and argued in court and how judicial opinions are
rendered. It certainly would save the state money and time and serve citizens
in several other states who are next in line for the same.The
state's decision to honor joint tax filing status certainly undercuts
arguments for a defense of the ban.Will be interesting to see if
this case and the one in Oklahoma will eventually be combined and head to the
United States Supreme Court. Each judge has written a very interesting opinion
about the rights of citizens in all states, under our Federal Constitution.
They certainly make this man sound more than capable of this task. I certainly
pray that the we will be free to prevail with reason, and that the Lord will
prevent false rhetoric or emotive reasoning from ensnaring the people-and not
just the ones in Utah.
For those who disagree with the money beng spent on this issue. Sometimes the
Utah AG's office has been on the cutting edge of liberal issues, which they
have unfortunately lost.Many people disagree with the principle that
corporations are people. In the early 1980's, the Utah legislature came up
with something called the Cable Decency act: Cable companies would have to
follow the same decency standards as public TV. Well, Utah was sued by the ACLU
on the grounds the law was infringing on the cable TV companies' freedom of
speech. Utah lost. For years people moaned about the money wasted on the
issue. "Adulthood is not legal in Utah" etc.Now, when
someone talks about limiting corporations ability to fund campaigns, people are
pretty well convinced that corporations have freedom of speech. We have been
taught that by the ACLU.Be careful what you wish for, you may get
dlw7 says: "If the majority of voting citizens in the state of
Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi or wherever pass a law that they believe benefits
them and that State, should not the Federal Government respect that?"(10th Amendment) "The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."Discrimination against US
citizens by states is prohibited by the Constitution whether the residents of
the states vote on it or not.@Blue AZ Cougar;My morals
are as good as yours. We abandon our "morals" when we choose to violate
the rights of our fellow citizens. You said: "Equating sames-sex marriage
with traditional marriage is morally reprehensible." I disagree with you.
Why should your view be law when a gay couple's marriage impacts you not at
all?@483bzac;What does the word "equal" mean to
you?@Cats;You're not "standing for right".
You're standing for discrimination which is not "right". Your
religious opinions don't apply to non-members of your religion. Sorry, but
this is the USA, not "god's kingdom".@SenseMaker &
CaptainGreen;See comment to dlw7 above.
@483bzac: You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. The IRS
deduction rules are gender-neutral. A single person of either gender gets $6100
in standard deductions (for 2013), and a married couple gets exactly twice that.
When itemized, medical expenses must exceed a percentage of income. For many
married couples with high expenses, that leaves them at a disadvantage over
being single. It's completely gender-neutral. I'm guessing you
don't do your own taxes, or never filed the long form.@BlueAZCougar: You imply that homosexuals live without any morals or ethics.
As a heterosexual Quaker who a) believes in Equality, and b) actually knows
married same-sex couples personally, I take offense at that. Have a look at
Romans 14. It's not just about food and drink. It's about the very
nature of sin and judging your fellow man.@jamescmeyer: I, too,
pray for reason to prevail. Absent the emotions of conservative religious
conviction, I think we'll see equal treatment in civil law for those
The Sutherland Institute describes this new attorney Schaerr as having "the
capability to provide a deep, rich, meaningful case...." It'll be hard
to prevail in a discrimination case when the "deep, rich, meaningful"
thing they are talking about is their prejudice towards gay people.
BlueAZCougar: "Nobody has yet explained how SSM is of such equivalence with
traditional marriage that it warrants the same title/label/name/designation. It
is not the same."----------------Please explain all
the differences to me and I will try and explain it to you. Besides being
intimate (actually, heterosexuals do the same thing as gays!), please tell me
what you see as differences.Are they raising children? 25% of gay
couples in SLC are raising children. Maybe not as high of a percentage as
opposite sex couples, but still 1/4 of them are the same, with all the same
pressures, costs, responsibilites, and joys.Do they go to work?
Sure. You probably work or have worked with some. About 5% of the population
is gay.Do they pay their bills? Sure. Just like everyone else.Do they go to church? Yes. Many in Utah have been kicked out of their
own churches or do not feel accepted, but attend other accepting churches. Some
do not go at all - just like heterosexuals.What do you see as the
main differences between a married gay couple and a married opposite sex couple?
@Esquire, it would seem to me that an understanding of the State of Utah's
history would be very helpful in this case. After all, it is a unique history
with regard to the role of the federal government and the definition of
marriage. The federal government forced the dissolution of several polygamist
marriages because it deemed them to be outside the traditional sense of
Keep at it Utah. Keep trying to destroy loving, happy families because they are
different from what you like. Thank God for same sex married couples. These are
the folks that adopt and love and care for the children that the heterosexuals
don't want. So Utah, please do unto these families as you would have other
do unto you.
@Semse Maker" When states vote for something, the federal government
has no right to overturn it..."From Article 6 of the US
Constitution:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.The federal government has every right to strike down a state law that is in
contradiction to the US Constitution.
Back in the late 1980's conscientious men and women began advocating on
behalf of gay men and women to get "sexual orientation" protected from
bullying in renting, jobs, etc.Unfortunately, conspiring men and
women, some gay, some not, saw this as an opportunity to do serious damage.
Evidence?1. Gays: We want "sexual orientation protection"
- Result:laws against discrimination passed = good;2. Gays: We want
civil unions, not marriage - Result: laws begin to be passed, allowing =
good;3. Conspiring men and women: civil unions not enough, any who
disagrees is hateful, bigot, liars, needs to disappear - Result: free speech
shouted down, lawsuits run rampant, people threatened, churches violated,
freedom of religion threatened = bad for everyone except those who hate
religion.Latest steps:4. Gays: Worship how you want,
just give us marriage; conspiring men and women - your worship is bigotted,
hateful, needs to disappear; 1st gay marriage, then your bigotted, homophobic
worship is next....Result: Not fear mongering....this is happening, now....just
look at these comments and the lawsuit filed agains the LDS....Conspiring men and women are winning and have co-opted the GLBT's to do
it. Within 1-2 years more lawsuits will be filed against churches for using the
Gene Schaerr, Stewart, etc., the old BYU Law School band is getting together
again. The music is jarring though. I wish they would use their talents to
defend people's rights instead of denying them.
@Fred Vader;If your "conspiring men and women" hadn't
included civil unions and "anything that resembles marriage" in
amendment 3, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be here today.As
for your church being sued, how many active, but not worthy Mormons are suing
the church to be let in on temple marriage? Until the church is actually forced
to marry Mormons in their temples, what makes you think that LGBT could do it?
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the delicious irony that it appears
extremely likely that it will be largely Utah and Oklahoma taxpayers that
finally make same sex marriage legal in all 50 states? Oh, the
schadenfreude!It will be interesting to see if (although highly
unlikely) this appellate team can come up with any new arguments. Certainly all
the arguments in the several cases so far have failed utterly and miserably. If
I were hiring these lawyers myself, I'd sure want to hear that they had a
logical, legally sound new approach! Or maybe that's why
they're giving Utah a discount, perhaps they are already conceding that
this is almost certainly a lost cause, and the best they can do is delay the
inevitable, as no one has yet come up with a legally sustainable argument to
deny law abiding tax paying gay US citizens equal treatment under civil law. (and of course the old argument that gays could just marry someone of
the opposite gender hasn't worked either) So who has a new argument?
Whatever the outcome, even if the Scotus can't differentiate between
precedent and justice, Christians are on notice! Prepare to be persecuted for
your beliefs, which includes not being able to say that Homosexuality behavior
is sinful. However, sin is a choice, homosexuality is a sin, which makes
homosexuality a choice. I know this is a concept that even some Christians have
difficulty figuring out, until they properly consult their conscience, but it is
time to figure out where you stand! No need to quibble about basic human nature
and common sense. The states have this right, always had, and always will if
enough people read the Constitution and abide by it. Wake up Utan! This may be
our chance to lead America back toward God and all those unalienable rights,
including the right to define marriage!
Read your Bible.....Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. He did have
a lot to say about economic justice and caring for the poor. And somewhere I
read that the love of money is the ROOT of ALL evil. All of it. It would seem
that people do not really understand the priorities set forth in the very book
they claim to live by, but have interpreted the Bible to fit their own ideas,
fears and wishes. Not to mention that the citizens of this country
cannot be forced to live their lives adhering to religious writings of any one
group. Homosexual citizens are just that....citizens. It is not the task or
privilege of heterosexuals to grant rights to homosexuals since they are equals
under the constitution. That is what was addressed by the separation of church
and state. The bottom line - I see a lot of references to Utah's unique
history - the state cannot impose religion on its citizens.
Current trends indicate that this will eventually be a losing battle in the
end.I respect any state's right to waste resources in the interest of
pursuing an agenda that will ultimately prove to be futile.
@aislander: New argument? See @bandersen "Sin is a choice, homosexuality
is a sin, which makes homosexuality a choice;" concluding: "This may be
our chance to lead America back toward God."Likely this will
fail as a argument. "Sin" is not something courts use to interpret or
settle law.@Fred Vander: RE: The "conspiracy" beginning in
the 1980s.Homosexuals asked not to be fired from their jobs in the
1930's and 1940's. This was not then, nor now, being
"bullied." You were fired or dishonorably discharged, if someone (else)
said you were a homosexual. Nothing more was needed. Continues today.In 1968, at the draft board, I crossed-off "Do you have homosexual
tendencies?" and wrote in: "I am a homosexual." I moved from
Arizona with a 4F deferment to get a job.Your "conspiracy"
theory: "Conspiring men and women are winning and have co-opted the
GLBT's to do it" - laughable."Sin" was Christians
taking sectarian law and putting it into civil, secular law, and believing state
constitutional amendments qualify as "acts of faith."The
bigotry label? I've been called much worse over sixty years. Don't
be offended. Much less time needed before "bigot" is no longer heard.
Mormons, better than most, are very aware of how the first amendment religious
protections can, and were, ignored by the federal government; including by the
very Supreme Court itself. Don't tell us our religion will be protected,
when many of us are direct descendants of those who witnessed first hand how
easily the law was used to steal our religious liberties.
A number of comments here have inspired me to speak out about my own religious
background and views. While some religions take a very conservative,
sin-oriented view of same-sex relationships, others do not. Mine looks at the
hearts of individuals, sees the love, and what we call "that of God" in
them, and as Paul describes in Romans 14, concern ourselves more with the
substance of the intent in their heart, than the sound of the proscriptive words
of the Old Testament.This is not a case of Religion versus Sin.
It's a case of Interpretation vs. Interpretation, something so easy to get
wrong if you haven't met the people who are at the center of this, if you
haven't sat with them and worshiped, and broken bread. There is much in
the Bible that can be read with whatever good or ill spirit is in your heart.
Jesus tried to simplify and clarify it all for us: Love God, and Love Thy
Neighbor.Meanwhile, here in the United States of America, we have a
Constitution that restricts the power of government to withhold equal treatment
@ bandersen"However, sin is a choice, homosexuality is a sin,
which makes homosexuality a choice."Take that up against the
testimony of hundreds of thousands of homosexual people across this country who
say they were born the way they are; just as you were. Plus, it's only a
sin to you. I don't see it that way. For that reason, you can't
I'm thinking a GRAMA Request should be sent to AG Reyes to determine the
number of "qualified" attorneys are employed in the AG Office.Reyes hires "outside" attorneys by the hour because he has no one
qualified to handle this in house??? If they aren't "highly
qualified" then fire them.
Gay marriage? Careful now!Do some homework.May be a
Trojan Horse gift from corrupt politicians.