When did s3xual orientation become a civil right?

I think....

....it is a civil right for everyone who wants to marry, to be afforded that opportunity.

Unfortunately, the terminology or definition of marriage has always been one man and o woman. Now that we have ever moralities; with sin creeping into just about every major social institution in society, that definition of one man and one woman is being challenged.

I do not think the SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8, and in turn they will redefine the terms of marriage, and that is the shame of this entire thing.

Gays just couldn't and wouldn't be happy with "civil unions!" They wanted the whole enchilada, and that meant the right to say they are married.

Personally, I think they think that if the government accepts their marriage, God will one day accept it, too! They don't understand the Bible, or the Biblical world view of marriage and Scriptures upholding and sanctioning marriage, and when they stand before God, like those who argued and said, "but we cast out demons in Jesus's name, and fed the poor in Jesus's name, and laid hands on the sick" married gays will hear those unfortunate words [from God, himself], "I know you not!"

 

When the wording of the Declaration of Indendence was changed.

From:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and ENTITLED TO Happiness.

Civil rights are now defined as I'm entitled to whatever makes me happy.

 

One could list all of the horrible decisions of the Supreme Court, but this decision will be horrible unless the Court backs away and lets the vote of the people of California stand as legal.

If the court says that marriage is a state matter, they have to logically overturn the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 denying polygamy to Mormonism. If they do that, then it seems to me that Mormons could sue for denial of "civil rights" and recovery of confiscated property and well as compensation for imprisonment. I am not sure what would happen to state laws against bigamy but wouldn't the laws be struck down also? And how could a state regulate marriage if the federal government couldn't?

This is all about money--including tax deduction money. I think that Roberts is unpredictable after his illogical decision on Obamacare and I think that Ginsburg is anti everything Christian.

It is the 9th circuit court of appeals that should be abolished.

FDR got the court to say that it was legal to put American citizens in concentration camps if they had Japanese ancestors, and Congress ended up giving the descendants of those people a pittance of compensation for their losses. The court does whatever it thinks is politically popular. Most of them think that the Constitution is a living document into which they can project powers to the government such as the right to execute the unborn child with only the consent of the mother.

 

Yes, according to the government if you are redistributing the wealth to those who are entitied to happiness with free cell phones, desire happiness with murder of the unborn, and more. You have a "civil" right to your happiness, as long as it's in accord with Uncle Sam and his nephews' definition of happiness.

No, if you believe the scriptures whether we're talking about stealing goods from others or what's an abomination to God. Regardless of how hard Uncle Sam may utter Hath God Said, "civil rights" is being used as a tempting red apple.

 

Not to belabor the point further, but how can unnatural and polygamous relationships function on minor points of the law since legally a married couple are one?

Genesis 2:24 (KJV) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.