Arkansas Blog

It sounds like the New York Court decided that the state only needed one legislature and not two.

It's all over but the shouting as my father used to say. Once it gets this far its only a matter of time until one more group joins the long list enjoying freedom and personal responsibility. There is no smell so fresh and sweet as Liberty.

If there exists a sacred bond first concieved in the mind of God it is in no danger from Liberty. I believe it has held my marriage together and made it a special gift. There is nothing in this world that can attack it.

It's a moot point. This will eventually go before the Supreme Court of the United States . . . and hopefully at that time we'll have a court that will protect individual freedoms.

As Kinky Friedman would say, "Gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

perfect argument.

There is no contitutional right to peversion.

What about pornography?

I think it would be better to bar queers from society than to have God to destroy our nation whick he will do when the queers take over our nation which is exactly what their disire is. DAmn queers

history will record that it is chief
judge kaye's dissent that will be
remembered.

the good thing about the decision
is that all the judges took the
issue seriously and treated it
with respect.

Anon 11:29, you need to check your docrine for biblical authenticity. I think that you will find that God's temporal wrath is stayed until judgement day. He does not mete out temporal judgement now. THe New Covenant through the saving blood of Christ has supplanted the Old Covenent of God's present punishment of sins. There are secular punishments for disobeying the law, and personal repercussions from the effects of sin, but these are not God's punishments.

In short, God will no more destroy the United States than he will China, or Uganda,or Bolivia or Italy. Consequently, your homophobia only serves to aggrandize your own sanctimonious pride.

I have to agree with Buy a Vowel when he says, "If there exists a sacred bond first concieved in the mind of God it is in no danger from Liberty. I believe it has held my marriage together and made it a special gift. There is nothing in this world that can attack it."

In this heterosexual male's opinion, the world would be much better off if the pious would expend just half the energy to feed and clothe the poor as they spend on trying to regulate the behavior of others. Our call as Christians is NOT to enforce morality on the unbeliever, but to witness the saving grace of Christ through our own loving and merciful deeds.

Hey anon, 11:29 we queers already have taken over. It was in the 70's during the time of Disco. If everything was taken away from you that a queer had some hand in making, producing or designing, you would be living in a cave dressed in leaves.

...Our call as Christians is NOT to enforce morality on the unbeliever, but to witness the saving grace of Christ through our own loving and merciful deeds.

From your keyboard to anon's hypocritical black heart.

Anyone who uses God to justify hatred/intolerance of others has, well, lost their way.

I was about to jump on anon 11:29, but Billy, NLR pretty well covered it for me.

My comment for all the people SO FREAKED OUT by homosexuality is this: your marriage must be extremely fragile if the private (or even public, for that matter) behavior of total strangers endangers it. My wife and I are enriched by many friendships, plenty of which are provided by gay people. I'm not saying, "Hey, go out and get yourself some gay friends!;" I'm saying, Quit hating people who aren't doing anything to hurt you.

Perversion is not guaranteed by the Constitution? No, but neither is your short-sighted sanctimony. We should all be free in our persuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If you think it's perverted to be gay, then don't you be gay.

Again, I wonder if homosexuality is God's little test of people who claim to be His faithful. He didn't command, "Love thy neighbor unless he's a homo." He commanded, "Love thy neighbor." What's the test in loving a neighbor with a belief system identical to your own? That's like falling off a log. I don't think God meant for everything to be so cut and dried. If He did, He wouldn't have created (or allowed) so much diversity in the world.

If having a problem with peversion is a crime in your opinion than I am guilty. I am not perfect and not without flaw but believing that anything goes is acceptable is just not something I can buy into. Where do you stop if that is your philosophy. Is tolerance without limit?

Love thy neighbor unless he's a homo."

If 'love they neighbor' means that I should tolerate anything then why do the scriptures condem sin? Love means extending your hand to your neighbor when they are in need. It does not mean tolerate sin.

Hey nony, it's your Jesus who never married, never had children, hung around with a bunch of guys and rumor has it, his Dad never married either. Were is the sanctity in all that?

So I'd be kinda careful standing on that macho sand under your un-pierced feet. In most cases perversion is anything a person doesn't like, when they do like it, it's called a hobby or a lifestyle. Please come into the 21st century, the water's fine.

Then how can you tolerate yourself, or how should anyone else tolerate you?

Judge not that you be not judged.

From the Sermon on the Mount. Very Clear.

Concern yourself with your own sin, not your brothers.

Why do you seek to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Remove the log from your own. Then you will see clearly how to remove the speck in your brother's eye.

Have you been so successful with all of your family and friends that you are ready to take on strangers?

My 1:03 post intended for anonymous 12:57, who apparently has a lot in common with Jesus (in the sinless department, anyway).

I am always surprised with the bigoted anonypuss posters spouting this about queers and that about Jesus...all the while casting judgment and showing no tolerance.

Billy, NLR and Hugh summed things up nicely.

I might add, in my own humble opinion, that it is clear the bigoted anonypuss posters are really confused about their own sexuality, and lash out at those they want to live like. No disrespect to my gay friends, who wouldn't claim the bigots anyway...

Anon, 12:57 and others too, you have all (assuming it is more than one person) missed the point of the New Testament. This is independent of missing the point in a secular, democratic society.

To adress the docrinal first...
The real point of the New Testament is to show our love for one another. James writes, "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' [ Lev. 19:18] you are doing right." Paul writes this in Romans, "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore Love is the fulfilment of the law." If St. Paul or St. James aren't good enough for you, how about Jesus? "This is my commandment to you, that you love one another as I have loved you."
The New testament is replete with this.
We are not called to enforce Christian morality on the nonbeliever. Christ never told his followers to do this. Paul never told the churches to do this in his epistles. In fact, I know of nowhere in the New Testament that tells us to do this.
When Paul wrote in his epistles concerning sin, he wrote to a church, presumably already believers. He did not tell these churches to go out and enforce these moral precepts. He wrote about these things to help the BELIEVERS (No one else) live a godly and moral life.
To sum up, you may hate what you percieve as sin, but you are still ALWAYS to love the sinner. You are to open your arms to him/her in fellowship, love and mercy. This is our true witness to the world. The best thing to remember when you are about to condemn or judge one whom you belive to be aberant is this:
ALL SINS ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD. A little white lie brings us short of perfection, and therefore guilty in the eyes of God. We are saved, not by our own morality, nor by our relative morality to others, but rather by the inestimable GRACE of God. As a previous poster wrote, "Judge not lest you too be judged."

To address the more secualr political issues...
Some anonymous poster said earlier that there is no constitutional right to perversion. This is actually a little misleading. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says among other things, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This by itself should ensure that any two people should be able to enter into the same sort of legally binding relationship or contract as any two other people. This is really black letter law and should not be subject to the intense debate that homosexual mariage has illicited.

So, as Christians, it is not our place to judge sinners, but rather to love them. And as citizens of the United States, it is our duty to show fairness in the application of the law.

It has always been my dream to write something as eloquent as Billy, NLR's response to the unhappy bigot. Thanks, Billy, NLR. Your Christ-like words are an inspiration to us all.

Actually, after rereading my last post, I need to make a minor correction.
The point of the New Testament is to point us toward God's love, mercy and grace. I basically put the effect before the cause. I should have said the stuff about loving your neighbor is the natural result of embracing the grace, love and mercy of God.

So, as Christians, it is not our place to judge sinners, but rather to love them.

I agree. This is what scripture teaches us. The judgment is reserved for other believers who stray.

Some anonymous poster said earlier that there is no constitutional right to perversion. This is actually a little misleading. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says among other things, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection is in the application of laws. Since homosexual marriage is NOT recognized by the legislature it is not an issue relative to equal protection. The issue is the court finding an imagined intent in the constitution that grants homosexuals the right to marriage. However, since we know that the framers did not have that intention it would be up to a legislative body to grant that right.

I think it would be better to bar queers from society than to have God to destroy our nation whick he will do when the queers take over our nation which is exactly what their disire is. DAmn queers

This seems to obvious. I almost suspect it was written by a left-leaning person for the sake of trolling.

That being said, I'm always amazed how many of the people who deny global warming and call it a fairy tale are the same people who believe that hurricanes are sent by God to punish America.

Er, that should be TOO obvious. Yikes.

In the 70s they told us that we should beware of the next ice age. Now we are told that we will burn up. You guys need to get your act together. A fairy tale is more believable.

Anon 3:15, it's obvious you quit reading Billy, NLR's post at the very place you stopped quoting him. His next sentence refutes your interpretation: "This by itself should ensure that any two people should be able to enter into the same sort of legally binding relationship or contract as any two other people."

"Equal protection is in the application of laws. Since homosexual marriage is NOT recognized by the legislature it is not an issue relative to equal protection. The issue is the court finding an imagined intent in the constitution that grants homosexuals the right to marriage. However, since we know that the framers did not have that intention it would be up to a legislative body to grant that right."

--Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2006 03:15 PM

It also means that laws cannot be arbitrary or capricious. It means that laws cannot be enacted to bar one group from rights and priviledges granted another. For example, a legislature cannot enact a law that allows only asians to open manicure shops. It isn't only the application of current laws that the 14th Amendment considers. It is also a prohibition against discriminatory legislation. WHen a court strikes down a discriminatory law based on 14th Amendments rights, it isn't legislating from the bench. It is acting as the check on legislative or executive power that it was designed to be.

"In the 70s they told us that we should beware of the next ice age. Now we are told that we will burn up. You guys need to get your act together. A fairy tale is more believable."

--Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2006 04:10 PM

This is the best nonsequiter ever!

The arguments used now against homosexuals are the same as used to condone slavery, the genocide of Native Americans and the repression of women.

In any case, it is not for us to create a hierarchy of sin. Who is to say that my neighbor's homosexuality is worse than my greed? Or our occupation of Iraq? Or tying health care to income?

History always repeats itself but we ignore it anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060707/od_nm/india_prince1_dc_1

MUMBAI (Reuters) - An Indian prince has been disowned by his family after he publicly announced he was gay in a country where homosexuality is outlawed...

Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil,..., has been disowned for "activities unacceptable to the society," ...

Last month, his parents issued notices in a Gujarati language daily withdrawing his right to the family property.

"Henceforth, no one must refer to my name as mother of Manvendra," one notice signed by his mother said. "If any individual or organization dares to do so, it will invite contempt proceedings."

...
Homosexuality is banned in India and punishable by up to 10 years in jail, but gay activists are trying to lift the veil of secrecy over the community in a country where public hugging or kissing even among heterosexuals invites angry stares, lewd comments and even beatings.
...

ringtones free

http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site. ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE. From website .

Equal protection is in the application of laws. Since homosexual marriage is NOT recognized by the legislature it is not an issue relative to equal protection. The issue is the court finding an imagined intent in the constitution that grants homosexuals the right to marriage. However, since we know that the framers did not have that intention it would be up to a legislative body to grant that right.