Page 5 of 5 First 12345
  1. #45
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeBnutt View Post
    And I thought this may be of the Tennessee Judge who now refused to grant Divorces between straight couples. silly me.
    ???????????
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Marriage Equality
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #46
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    America is a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY OR ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

    First, in 2004 the issue of gay marriage in Kentucky was PUT TO A VOTE and 70% of Kentucky voters stated they DID NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE IN THEIR STATE. That constitutional amendment stands, to this day and is the LAW OF THE LAND IN KENTUCKY.

    Based on that referendum, the Kentucky CONSTITUTION was amended to read:

    " Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

    FROM THAT POINT ON, it is the LAW OF KENTUCKY that gay marriage is ILLEGAL and PROHIBITED.

    In November of 2014, Kim Davis took an oath to Defend the Kentucky CONSTITUTION which PROHIBITS gay marriage.

    THE SUPREME COURT HAS no power to create laws, nor do the federal courts. Only Congress has the right to create laws based on the US Constitution and THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

    The federal government has NO BUSINESS telling STATES how to RUN THEIR GOVERNMENTS.

    CONGRESS HAS NEVER PASSED A LAW WHICH DEFINES MARRIAGE OR THAT ALLOWS FOR GAY MARRIAGE.

    Therefore, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE SUPREME COURT has overstepped their legal authority by claiming power to dictate to STATES and THE PEOPLE what they can and can not do.

    So the Court had precisely zero authority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by overwhelming and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton in September of 1996.

    The DOMA makes it expressly clear that the business of defining marriage is an issue that belongs exclusively to the states.

    That is the LAW, passed by the elected representatives of the people in the constitutionally prescribed manner.

    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #47
    FreeBnutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 153 Times in 103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge View Post
    ???????????
    Jolie for you, cuz your very good at this stuff.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...-gay-marriage/

    Going Off the Grid!

  5. #48
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeBnutt View Post
    Jolie for you, cuz your very good at this stuff.
    :ahhhhhh:


    Many readers may be scratching their heads right now, wondering how the legalization of gay marriage could possibly disrupt straight divorce proceedings. But spare a moment to hear out Jeffrey M. Atherton, if for no other reason than that the judge’s argument is an increasingly common one as conservatives across the country claim the Supreme Court overreached with its June 26 watershed ruling.

    Today’s study in legal reasoning begins in Chattanooga, Tenn., and inside Atherton’s Hamilton County courtroom. Hamilton County chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton. Hamilton County chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton. Atherton doesn’t appear to have a history of antagonistic rulings. He was easily elected in 2010 and re-elected without opposition in 2014, although a 2012 poll of local lawyers didn’t give him great marks, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press. According to a 2010 letter to the editor from a former legal debate student of his, Atherton was a selfless champion of legal procedure.

    “Despite the time away from his supportive family and the impact on his billable hours, Jeffrey M. Atherton (or Mr. A as he is known to us) spent eight-plus hours per week for more than 20 years pouring his life into high school students who wanted to learn about the law,” wrote Pamela Rector, a U.S. soldier deployed to Afghanistan.

    But it was another line from Rector’s letter that hinted at Atherton’s gay marriage meltdown five years later. “He has lived the principles that he taught us,” she said: “desire for justice, devotion to excellence, commitment to character, love of the law and faith in God.”

    And so it was that when Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner walked into Atherton’s court in late July hoping for a quick and easy divorce, the judge apparently had other ideas. The sexagenarian couple had married in November of 2002, according to the Times Free Press. But after 13 years together, they wanted to split, claiming straying allegiances and irreconcilable differences.

    After four days of testimony including seven witnesses and 77 exhibits, however, Atherton unexpectedly ruled that he would not be granting the Bumgardners a divorce.

    But it was his argument against the divorce that has made waves around the world.

    After quickly running through court testimony about money trouble, a temporary restraining order and claims of infidelity, Atherton jumped into a bold legal analysis that drips with sarcasm.

    “The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee,” Atherton began. “This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

    “The majority’ s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land, accurately described by Justice Scalia as ‘a naked judicial claim to legislative— indeed, super-legislative— power,'” Atherton continued.

    The Supreme Court’s decision was “troubling” because it amounted to a “judicial fiat,” Atherton argued. “… What actually appears to be the intent and (more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/divorce litigation altogether.”

    “Perhaps Tennessee’ s perspective concerning keystones and central institutions must submit to the perspective of those so much higher and wiser than ourselves,” he wrote sarcastically before essentially accusing the Supreme Court of trashing Tennessee’s constitution, if not democracy itself, by legalizing gay marriage.

    “To say the least, Tenn. Const. art. XI, 18,” which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, “having been adopted by the people of the State of Tennessee in 2006 as reflecting the will, desire, public policy and law of this State, and to be applied by its judiciary, seems a bit on the incompatible side with the U.S. Supreme Court’ s ruling,” he opined. “One would think that if the U.S. Supreme Court intended to overturn all or part of a state’ s constitution, it would do so expressly, rather than by implication.”

    Obergefell was a particularly tetchy decision for Tennesseans. In Jan. 2015, the Supreme Court consolidated it with three others, including a challenge to Tennessee’s gay marriage ban, Tanco v. Haslam.

    In a footnote, Atherton then asked if the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling didn’t also overturn another section of the state’s constitution, which proudly states that “the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

    But it is Atherton’s next paragraph that is the real doozy, in which he calls the Supreme Court’s decision “judi-idiocracy.”

    “Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism,” he begins sarcastically, “implementation of this apparently new ‘super-federal-judicial’ form of benign and benevolent government, termed ‘krytocracy’ by some and ‘judi-idiocracy’ by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court.”

    Faced with this “challenge,” Atherton’s decision is simply to throw his hands up in the air and claim that the Supreme Court’s decision had “divested subject matter jurisdiction from this court when a divorce is contested.”

    In other words, if a state can’t even deny gay couples the right to marry anymore, then what’s the point of being in the marriage business anyways. Let the feds handle it.

    “Individuals, at least according to the majority opinion, are apparently authorized (along with the federal judiciary) to define when a marriage begins and, accordingly, ends, (without the pesky intervention/intrusion of a state court),” he wrote.

    Atherton isn’t alone in trying this reductio ad absurdum approach. It’s essentially the same as the slippery slope argument: now that “individuals” can decide when and who to marry, then all the rules are off.

    “When you say it’s not a man and a woman anymore, then why not have three men and one woman or four women and one man?” Texas Republican representative Louie Gohmert infamously told tea party supporters in 2013. “Or why not, you know, somebody has a love for an animal or-? There is no clear place to draw a line once you eliminate the traditional marriage.”

    GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson said much the same in December.

    “When I mention bestiality or pedophilia in the same sentence with homosexuality, people say ‘Carson says they’re the same.’ Of course they’re not the same,” he told the New York Times. “That point was if you change the definition of marriage for one group, you’ll have to change it for the next group and the next group.”

    Of course, Atherton’s decision also comes on the heels of more recent nationwide protests to the Supreme Court ruling. The best known is Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was ordered taken into custody on Thursday after invoking “God’s authority” to refuse issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

    Other states are also contemplating getting out the marriage business entirely. In Mississippi, State House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson told the Clarion-Ledger that he had some interest in that idea. “I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

    In a response to a federal court ruling last year overturning Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban, the state’s House of Representatives voted in March to abolish marriage licenses, leaving them entirely up to clergy. “Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second,” Republican Rep. Todd Russ told The Oklahoman.

    And in a statement supporting Davis issued Thursday, another GOP hopeful, Texas senator Ted Cruz, seemed to sandwich the two arguments — God, on the one hand, and federal lawlessness on the other — together.

    “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America,” Cruz said. “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.”

    “In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution,” Cruz continued. “Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.”

    But several of Atherton’s Chattanooga contemporaries thought the judge was out of line by putting the Supreme Court on trial during a local divorce proceeding.

    “He is just making a statement,” Regina Lambert, one of the lawyers representing plaintiffs in Tanco v. Haslam, told the Times Free Press. “I just think change is hard for people.”

    “I don’t know for sure,” Chattanooga attorney Mike Richardson told the newspaper, “but I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court did not intend to preempt divorce law.”

    Quizzed about his quixotic decision on Wednesday, Atherton didn’t say much. “I don’t want extraneous conversation,” he told the Times Free Press. “I’ll have to stick with the words of the order.”

    One wonders what his students think of his legal reasoning, now.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #49
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Madonna’s brother has some INTENSE words about Kentucky clerk Kim Davis
    Written by Earl Hall on September 6, 2015

    The Material Girl may be a little bent out of shape by her brother Christopher Ciccone’s defense of jailed Kentucky clerk Kim Davis. Ciccone is an openly gay man but posted a fiery defense of Davis. “Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners,” Ciccone wrote.

    “The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man’s approval,” he wrote.

    Per The Hollywood Reporter, Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...d-clerk-820753
    “But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don’t follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of ‘sanctuary cities.’ I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches.”
    Notions like this are being echoed all over the country. People are asking questions like this in regards to fairness. It’s no secret this administration has a track record of ignoring the law. Even the laws it makes. And especially the laws its members take oaths to uphold.

    Anyone remember Obamacare (or is everyone still trying to forget)? Even after that law was passed, the president chose to ignore parts of the law in order to give everyone a chance to get on board. Well, that was the excuse given, considering all the issues the initial website had. Anyway, I digress.

    This issue of Christian rights is going to continue to come up — specially in light of the fact that Muslims seem to get preferential treatment. We just reported about this Muslim convert flight attendant who is suing her employer because she refused to serve alcohol. You HAVE noticed this, right? This administration goes out of its way to make sure the religion of Islam isn’t offended. Heck, they even blamed the Benghazi terror attack on a video making fun of Islam.

    The fact remains that the law of the land now gives homosexuals the “right” to marry. How does this jive with our freedom of religion though? This is a very important question. When this happened I said a few things on my daily radio show. One of the things was that we will begin to have gay couples insisting on religious leaders to perform their ceremonies. Yep, your good Christian pastors from all faiths will be forced into marrying gay couples or risk losing their 501(c)(3) status.

    Churches all over the country are now hiring attorneys and drafting up new bylaws to protect them from just this sort of onslaught. Kim Davis had a choice. She could follow her convictions or she could obey the law. This is a decision many people make every day. The Christian nurse who performs legal abortions, the Christian college student who works part time in a bar, and the Christian pastor who marries a couple after both have been married to other people.

    We all make concessions and draw the line somewhere. Davis drew her line. Civil disobedience helped change and form this country. We all have that right. Choosing the battles to actually fight is the tough part.


    Here is Ciccone’s full post:
    “The county clerk in Kentucky deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval…..perspective is everything…..this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law…..but why should she….when DOJ and other civil authorities don’t follow federal law when they choose not to…..i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of “sanctuary cities”…..i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches…….these things aside….this is why we have elections…..if the folks of this county in Kentucky don’t want her as the county clerk….then don’t have to vote for her…..that is how a democracy works….not to mention the courts.

    In the mean time…..since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?…….can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i’m not mistaken, it’s in the constitution…..something about religious freedom or something……selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy….freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?…or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.”
    I am wondering if Kim Davis will be the spark that causes a movement in this country? Will Americans actually start taking a stand against the attack on our Constitution and our civil liberties? In the face of this socialist regime ripping at the fabric of this country, will we finally say enough is enough?

    Kim Davis did.

    http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/whoa-m...erk-kim-davis/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #50
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading.

    Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriag was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA. The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law.

    So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state.

    And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.

    Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.

    Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.

    ~ Jana Jobe`
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #51
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #52
    FreeBnutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 153 Times in 103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge View Post
    pic didn't make it

    Going Off the Grid!

  10. #53
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,712 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Yes of course, illegal aliens don't follow our immigration laws. Giving them citizenship is unfair and insulting to all of those legal immigrants waiting in line to become citizens. Calling illegal aliens "refugees" is insulting to real refugees that escape persecution from repressive dictatorships like North Korea or Myanmar.

    America In More Trouble Now Than Ever, As Supreme Court Rejects Nation’s Founding Faith
    What faith is going to undergird our laws now?

    Randy DeSoto June 29, 2015 at 1:47pm


    If ever there was a watershed moment in the United States’ move from its founding faith to secularism, it was last Friday. The Supreme Court finalized what had been a growing trend in the United States to make same-sex marriage the law of the land.

    The Court made its determination based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and the fundamental right to liberty. As I wrote about in my book, We Hold These Truths, when the court delves into these arenas of judging the constitutionality of laws based on whether they violate Americans’ right to liberty or equality, it is doing so based on a faith decision.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote last Friday’s majority opinion, admitted as much.

    The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
    What is the new insight based on? Faith.

    Law, in the end, is simply a statement of faith about what the legislature, or in this case, what the court believes is true. Obviously neither liberty nor equality can mean everyone being able to do what is right in his or her own eyes, or there would be no law at all.

    The Founders made clear the faith that undergirded their understanding of the law.

    The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence states “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” entitled the American colonists to declare their independence from a tyrannical king and Parliament who were denying them their liberty and equal treatment under the law.

    The pre-eminent legal treatises of the time, Coke’s Institutes of the Laws of England (1628-44) and Blackstone’s Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765-69), made clear the laws of nature are those observable in creation, while the laws of Nature’s God are those revealed in scripture by the Creator, because He recognized the “imperfection…of human reason” (as Blackstone put it). Thomas Jefferson believed being familiar with both texts was essential to understanding the law.

    The second sentence of the Declaration reads, “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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    In other words, the true purpose of all law established by government is to secure the people’s God given rights. The Constitution, adopted 12 years after the Declaration, was the means the Founders chose “…to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…,” as noted in the Preamble.

    So if the Supreme Court or the legislature is going to secure a “fundamental right” (language Justice Kennedy used in his opinion) essential to the liberty of its people, the place to start, if the nation is going to stay true to its founding faith, should be, “Is there a God-given, inalienable right to do ________?” Fill in the blank…get an abortion, marry someone of the same sex….

    Following the laws of nature and nature’s God, the answer is no. The people can obviously vote these “rights” into existence, and reap whatever consequences arise from going against the Creator’s design, but the Supreme Court should not be creating the rights out of whole cloth. As Sen. Ted Cruz so eloquently put it:

    If those justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office. That’s the appropriate place to write laws — on this floor, not from that courtroom.
    America’s great advances in liberty in race and gender equality were entirely consistent with the nation’s founding faith. The scripture affirms the truth that race and gender are God’s plan, and He is no respecter of person with regards to them. In Christ, there is neither “Jew, nor Greek,” nor “male, nor female.”

    The nation fought a Civil War in the 1860s (followed by the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) and passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s to experience a “new birth of freedom” consistent with the Declaration’s promise (and scripture’s truth) “that all men are created equal,” as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us.

    The women’s suffrage movement relied on the nation’s founding faith to argue that women should have the right to vote. The very first women’s suffrage convention in Seneca Falls (1848) explicitly adopted the language of the Declaration of Independence (including a reliance on “the laws of nature and nature’s God”) to make their case in the Declaration of Sentiments. One of those truths found in the laws of nature’s God is, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)

    This faith was not present in last Friday’s same-sex marriage ruling. When asked about marriage, Jesus quoted Moses, saying, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4-5, Gen. 2:24)

    If our nation’s laws are no longer going to be guided by our founding faith, we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to put our faith in now? We know human reason alone is not perfect, even the reasoning of Supreme Court justices. Friday’s 5-4 decision is evidence enough of this truth. (Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, joined with two Barack Obama and two Bill Clinton appointees to eke out the creation of a new constitutional right.)

    Without a common faith in certain truths, the law lacks a moral impetus, because it is not derived from any higher authority to which the society, for the most part, assents to being true. A majority vote in the Supreme Court or even in the legislature cannot fill this void. Those in power will exercise it with increasing heavy-handedness to enforce a new secular order and will in the process rob citizens of the liberty their Creator intended them to have. The emergence of religious liberty cases in recent years regarding Obamacare mandates and same-sex marriage is just one manifestation of this truth.

    There is really only one answer: a reformation that impacts our understanding of law and society from the pinnacles of power to the man and woman on the street.

    Abraham Lincoln best stated the faith that must undergird such a reformation and recommitment to the nation’s founding faith in the Gettysburg Address. Referring back to the year the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, he said:

    Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

    Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure…It is…for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ shall not perish from the earth.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/sup...ounding-faith/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in