21 - 30 of 47 Comments

1. John2

   3 years ago

   Sad little parade on this thread. It is hard to talk to people who redefine hate to mean: "you said what I don't want to hear."
   
   John 8:43-51
   

2. Steve Gundersen

   3 years ago

   If we're going to argue that the judge is biased because he is gay, can it not be said that a straight judge presiding over a "protection of marriage" trial is also biased? Perhaps we should find a eunuch judge, or an asexual unmarried hermaphrodite judge. Come on. No matter who the judge is in this case, there will be a case to be made for bias. Straight judge has bias toward the defendants. Gay judge has bias toward plaintiff. Is the sexuality of the judge really what we should be focusing on here? Perhaps the focus should be on whether or not we as a society are comfortable saying that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, or whether it should be open to any two adults who wish to share their lives.

3. JeanCatherine

   3 years ago

   Im afraid you have it wrong about the Catholic Church and Christianity and Im not here to fight with anyone:
   
   Please see Courage Apostolate
   
   and
   
   http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
   
   before you make any judgments
   
   here.
   
   Im afraid you wont find bigotry here.

4. JeanCatherine

   3 years ago

   http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
   
   Please see above website.
   
   Thanks.

5. homer

   3 years ago

   JeanCatherine, here's the question I have always wanted to ask those people who want gays to become "straight." Would you want one of these "converts" to marry your daughter? Do you know how many of these "converts" go back to being homosexual? It doesn't work. The people pushing it are making a ton of money from it, that's why they are claiming it works. So again, would you want your daughter to marry a gay man who became "straight"?

6. John

   3 years ago

   I beleive the LGBT community should have all the legal tools they need to live their lives without being hassled. I believe they should not be harasssed or persecuted in any way. Also, I have no idea where they go when they die. That's not for any human to decide. Lastly, I have never met a Catholic who would disagree these statements.
   
   Now, here comes the part proponents of same sex marriage cannot seem to grasp. Just because a person is opposed to same sex marriage does not mean they are hateful gay bashers. There are people out there that believe when you change the basic definition of marriage, you are opening a pandora's box. Because, if marriage is no longer legally defined as between one man and one woman, then the door is open to court challenges where plaintiffs argue that the definition should not be limited to two people. Why can't other permutations and combinations be eligible for marriage as well? Who said it has to be limited to two people? Polygamists can claim discrimination as well because their "civil rights" are being violated. You may not like this, but that is the way the law works.
   
   And please, do not be so naive as to think the above scenario will not happen. In 1973, when Roe vs. Wade came about, did anyone foresee the advent of partial birth abortion, or the fact that over 48 million babies would be killed in the womb? If you made those predictions in 1973, you would have been dismissed as an alarmist and a loon. Not only did these things happen, but we also had to make a law to stop people from killing babies born alive accidentally from failed abortions. It's hard to believe we would even need a law to prevent a crying newborn baby from being left to die alone in a soiled linen closet. Yet, it happened.
   
   So, yes, I can envision a time 5, 10, or 20 years from now when some small minority will want to impose their life style desires on the rest of society.

7. Bob

   3 years ago

   Wow, supporting bigotry with even more bigotry... this says volumes. Do you realize that your position on this matter stems from your bias? And yet you do not recuse yourself, you went on to make your demands.

8. neo

   3 years ago

   Mabye he should stay. Thats about the only way the 14th amendment will have proper appication. It will offet the other judges biases.

9. homer

   3 years ago

   Straight judges should never, ever be allowed to judge cases involving straight marriages because they are so blatantly biased about the topic. This would be a boon for homosexuals because we all know that 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Based on Matt Barber's "logic," a straight male judge would be totally biased toward straight men getting divorces...
   
   Really, is the Catholic Church so desperate that they are willing to listen to the juvenile rantings of Mr. Barber?

10. John

    3 years ago

    Wow, you really stuck the stick in the bees nest with this one.
    
    The question here is whether Judge Walker can fairly preside over the case. If the investigation of the facts surrounding his behavior so far indicates that his "actions" are biased, then re should be recused.
    
    The fact that Liberty Counsel has brought this up so that it can be considered is no excuse to call Christians names, accuse them of "hate speech", homophobia, bigotry and so forth.

Leave a Comment