Let Him show His displeasure. You stay out of it.

If you want to change it back, you have to now give a reason to do so.

Do you have one?

That would be a perfect solution, wouldn’t it?

IF YOU AGREE WITH PRESERVE MARRIAGE THEN YOU ALSO AGREE WITH THIS.

read the crap you spewed, you contradict yourself. You can’t educate anyone on anything, you don’t have a clue.
Go away, bigot.

I have to ask again:

If your position is so strong, why do you have to resort to dishonesty and cowardice to defend it?

And isn’t “we know it happened, we just don’t know how, yet, but we’re looking at all the data and evidence in our effort to figure it out…” more reasonable than “God did it. There’s no evidence, no data to back this up. Just trust me. He did it.”?

You said ” . Actually this ruling was an unprecedented legal opinion that even the higher courts disagree with. No other jurisdiction in the world did this.”

The Supreme Court in the USA is their highest Court, how many judges sit on the court is irrelevant. What you said was incorrect.

You’re reaching again.

(And it’s just called “marriage” now. There’s no need for the “SS” in front of it.)

These are contradictory statements.
The only ignorance around here is yours.

Of course atheists can appreciate the beauty in the world and universe. Why couldn’t they? But With regards to right and wrong and issues of morality… i’m not saying atheists can’t be moral people. Some of the nicest, kindest people I know call themselves atheists. What I am saying is that from this worldview there is no objective reasoning to justify what one wants to call right or wrong. So ultimately there is no argument they can provide for what is right or wrong which isn’t simply their own belief of right and wrong. How do we contend with all the differing views of what is right and wrong? Does majority rule on these issues?

If we are at our core the result of billions of years of evolving pondscum, then no person has any place saying what is right and wrong.

Aug. 11, 2010 - American Psychological Association

There is no such thing as traditional, biblically based marriage – at least in the Western hemisphere. I know of no heterosexual couple living that has a marriage that is remotely similar to what is found within the Bible. Biblical marriage viewed women as property; based almost exclusively on procreation.

Thus, those who wish to oppose same-gender marriage on a biblical basis must do so by advocating for their private view of morality as the best way for society, using a stagnant definition of marriage that never existed in a world that is constantly evolving…

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others…

It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.

Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.

The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!”

May 19, 2012 - Mark Osler, JD

It’s not a bully tactic to refer to a group based on their actions.

It IS a bully tactic to pressure the Government and our society to deny people equal access to rights.

Mar. 22, 2011 - M.V. Lee Badgett, P

Um. This is ALL Preserve Marriage cares about.

And who designed marriage?

Oh, as for social benefit? Stable, committed relationships, supported by legal rights ARE a social benefit.

However, that is not the case here. Bermudians were denied access to rights and no acceptible, defensible reason was given. This was wrong and unjust and, rightly, the judge’s ruling reflected that.

Or do you disagree with that standard?

That’s what they have to do now, after the ruling.

And the “bundle of rights” you’re speaking of has a name. It’s called “Marriage”.
And there is no reason whatsoever to deny people access to those rights.

Or is there? Will you be offering one?

However, they do not have the right to impose those beliefs on everyone else.

On this one, the Human Rights Act is supreme and it says that SSM is a human right – it is not overruled by the Convention.