United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court will rule on gay ‘marriage’ issue
Source:
Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b ... ill-rule-on-gay-marriage-issue
Published: Jan 16, 2015
Author: Ben Johnson
Post Date: 2015-01-17 00:00:11 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 66285
Comments: 155
After more than a decade of legal wrangling and a burst of judicial activism that overturned the will of the voters in dozens of states, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to rule on whether same-sex “marriage” is an unalienable constitutional right. Justices announced Friday that they had consolidated four cases from the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky, scheduling two hearings for April. According to the Court's document, the first 90-minute session will ask, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” The second session, scheduled to last one hour, will ask, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” The move comes after the High Court declined to hear a series of appeals in October, leaving states where judges had redefined marriage without legal recourse. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted at a public hearing that justices could weigh in on the issue if lower court rulings began to conflict. In November, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Ohio, upheld the constitutionality of constitutional marriage protection amendments in four states – the four states where the justices agreed to hear appeals on Friday. Court watchers expect a ruling before the end of the court's term in late June. Poster Comment: The X Amendment vs. the XIV Amendment.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: GarySpFC, TooConservative, Vicomte13, liberator, Don, BobCeleste, Uncle Siggy, Orthodoxa, out damned spot, A K A Stone (#0)
Ping
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
You get one guess how our National Theology Board will rule?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Too easy. They will cave and take more states rights away. I thought we had 4 or 5 Catholics on the court. Bad investment.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
Undoubtedly the issue of the fundamental pathology underwriting such marriages will not be considered. Is will be boiled down to a matter of constitutional rights and other specious arguments rather than the court's power to approve of, and impose, serious psychopathology.
Indeed. And a correction to my last post. There are 6 Roman Catholics on SCOTUS bench. That's including the "wise latina."
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
More accurate.
This is a very good time for people to re-read Kings and Chronicles, and note especially the fate of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. They went off the rails on one thing, and that led to another and another and another. Eventually God used the Assyrians, who were completely brutal, to utterly exterminate them. When God sent the Babylonians to destroy Judah, which was also pretty bad, he preserved a remnant of Judah intact as the Jews of the Exile, in Babylon, but he preserved nothing of the Northern 10 tribes. There was no remnant. Israel was completely wiped out, and the link back to Moses and Abraham, and forward to post-Exilic Judah, was broken, the ties annhilated utterly. And what was the sin of the Northern Kingdom? They set up their own altar. They performed the rites of the Torah on that altar, and followed the law, at first, and had local Levites and priests do it, at first. But God had commanded ONE place of sacrifice, at Jerusalem. Not two. Not three. And he had commanded that the priests at the altar were to be entirely drawn from the lineage of Aaron, and not anybody else, for any reason. God did not permit any substitutions, or any second altar. It was God who broke Solomon's Kingdom of Israel into two, and it was God who appointed the King who would break off the Northern Ten Tribes. The split of the Kingdom was ordained by God. But it was the political considerations of the God-anointed King of Israel, his concern that if the altar and religious rite were exclusively at Jerusalem, that the loyalty of the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom would gradually drift back to Judah, from the fact of making pilgrimages there. Also, that the wealth of Israel would be siphoned off into Judah through the Temple taxes. That was the reason WHY Jeroboam set up an altar in Israel - it was because he and his advisors, including Levites who stayed on, thought it was necessary to preserve the political independence of their state and prevent the divided loyalties of their people. But God said one altar, in Jerusalem, not two. And God did not change his mind. Through Prophets he warned the Israelites - 5/6ths of the Chosen People - and he warned the King that He himself had anointed. But the reasons of state seemed so overwhelming to Jeroboam and to the Israelites that they did not listen. They kept their altars and did the same things on them that were done in Jerusalem, a mirror image. And so God annhilated forever 10/12th of the Chosen People, unchose them, and wiped them from the map of the world by the most violent and barbaric of all of the peoples of the Middle East. Completely exterminating Israel forever. Yes, from that initial departure, Israel then did greater and greater sin, and God saw all of that sin, but it was not those sins that God sent Prophets to harp on the Israelites. Rather, God aimed directly at the root every time: I command you to have one altar. It will be in your enemy's country, and your people will serve at that altar, and pay taxes to that Temple. Yes, that will mean that the enemy's kingdom is strengthened and yours is weakened, and that your people will have affection for their King. My religion and Temple is more important than your state, your political independence, your economic welfare. Your great state will indeed be, in the sense you say, always subordinated in a sense to your rival state, because your religion will always be in his land, and your people will go there. What you say is true about their hearts therefore being attuned to Jerusalem, and not to you. Over time, this may very well mean that your state is lost, and that your people go back over to Judah and reunite with them. I split you off from them because of the sins of the King of Judah. Had he not committed those sins, there would have been no religion. You have a kingdom because I gave you one. Your first duty is to serve me, and follow all of my statutes. You are independent, but you are dependent for your religious sacrifices on a Temple and priesthood and altar in a foreign land, and you will never be free of that. Submit, therefore, to your subordination on these matters: I am the Lord. That was the effect of God's message. Israel said no. So God annhilated Israel and left no remnant of it. Judah was rebuilt, but Israel cannot be, because the Northern Tribes are extinct. Sure, their heirs of the body still exist. The Samaritans were (and still are) probably partly the heirs of the body of the Tribes of Israel. Irrelevant. The religious link was broken, the continuity, severed, the rites ended. Forever. Only two or three tribes survived intact: Judah, Benjamin, the portion of Simeon that had been settled in Judah, and the portion of the Levites who were settled in Judah. To the extent that refugees of Naphthali, Ephraim, Asher, Mannasseh, Dan, Gad, Reuben and Zebulun migrated into Judah either at the split of the Kingdom or as refugees from the Assyrians, remnants of the people of those tribes remained, but they were incorporated into the other tribes, just as Simeon had ceased to exist by name by the time of Judah's exile, and had simply become part of Judah. So, the DNA of some of the tribes survived, but then, the DNA of the Canaanites was in the bloodline of David (through Rahab the Harlot). That's meaningless. The Bible does not speak of DNA, it speaks of tribes, and all of the tribes except Judah, Benjamin and a portion of Levi were utterly extinct by the time of the exile, never to return to the earth. And all because the God-anointed King of Israel felt the need to set up a parallel altar, for reasons of state. Some will say that this history lesson is a religious imposition on a political thread. Nope. It's an explanation for the progressive death or America, and the progressive death of Europe before it. It is a mirror, polished by God, to illuminate the folly of men of state over the ages in chosing the short term expedient of the logic of state and politics over the commandments of God. Jesus said, twice on the last two pages of Scripture, that the sexually immoral fail judgment and are thrown into the fire at judgment. One can be forgiven, but to be forgiven one must admit the wrong and forgive others. Our men of state are making it wrong to call a wrong a wrong. America is doomed, and deserves to be.
When they visited this the last time there was a lot of buzz over it and I don't think they had their ducks all in a row yet either. Now that things have calmed down some I think you will see a more in depth ruling on the subject. As far as I'm concerned they should leave it up to each individual state legislature to decide for themselves and overrule all of the activist judges rulings that forced states into accepting it unwillingly. Or they could just throw out Homo marriage altogether and just make it Civil Unions nationwide, no ifs, ands, or buts!!!! So I'm saying I have no earthly idea on how they plan to rule but if history is any indicator of what will happen then I predict the country will receive a gigantic enema.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The only thing left is to elect a horse to the US Senate. Oh wait - there's the junior senator from Massachusetts. I forgot about her. Nevermind.
the Fourteenth needs to be repealed making every law based on it null and void.
Will you cite the scripture please? I have someone telling me that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
Romans Chapter 1 and 10 I think.
I thought we had 4 or 5 Catholics on the court. Bad investment. You know that I do not endorse the gay lifestyle. But please tell me the Constitutional basis for depriving gays the same rights that straight people have. I hope that you realize that every marriage that is recognized by the state is de facto nothing more than a civil union, even marriages perfomed by churches or other religious institutions. It is only the religious institutions that add an extra dimension to that state sanctioned civil union according to the beliefs of the respective religion, which do not in any way limit or enhance recognition of the legality and/or rights and privileges of the state sanctioned civil union. In other words, in the eyes of the state all civil unions are equal whether performed by the secular or the religious, except those that are expressly denied by the state (e.g. - polygamy). And what is the basis for the state banning polygamy?
This may be what you are looking for; https://six11.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/scripture-and-homosexuality-what-jesus-said-and-did/
The Constitution is not the basis for state and municipal powers.
Why can't Kobe Bryant play in the womens basketball league? Why should the government be able to redefine meanings of words? No where in the history of man has men married men. Or vice versa. Why because that is like saying 4 + 1 = 14342352356343345
No problem then. Normal people can get married you know men and women. Same sex freaks can go to the court and get an power of attorney basically. Problem solved.
Of course it is. Please re-read it.
How can it be if the states created the constitution.
Oh wait - there's the junior senator from Massachusetts. I forgot about her. Nevermind. Grinning Emoticon.
That does not appear to an accurate statement. I don't recommend that wikipedia bt taken as a definitive source on any subject but it is a useful place to start if additional research is desired. "Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.[1] A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia, [3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[6] In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[7] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[8]" But even if there wasn't historical precedents for state sanctioned gay unions, so what. This can be said about a number of things in the history of man. "Why should the government be able to redefine meanings of words?" Should society be allowed to do so? It happens all the time, e.g. - just look at what the widely accpeted definition of the word gay meant 50 years ago vs. today. But to your point, to what words are you referring? "Why can't Kobe Bryant play in the womens basketball league?" I am certain that you know the answer to that question as it relates to this thread. It's not because he is gay. Neither can Jason Collins. Both are being treated equally within the framework of the rules.
The Constitution is not the basis for state and municipal powers. Of course it is. Please re-read it. How can it be if the states created the constitution. Technically the states did not create the Constitution the states just ratified it. It was the Constitutional Convention that actually created the Consitution.
Same sex freaks can go to the court and get an power of attorney basically. Problem solved. Not really. The gay community claims that it should have to go an extra mile that straights are not required to do. IMO they have a very valid point. Exactly what is the State's compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage?
It's on the last page of the Bible: Revelation 21:7-8 - "He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But cowards, and unbelievers, and the abominable, and murderers, and the sexually immoral (porneis), and druggers (pharmakeia), and idolators, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 22:12-15 "'See, I come swiftly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according to his deeds. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.' Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city, for outside are dogs, and druggers (pharmakon), and the sexually immoral (porneis), and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie." And note well, this is not Paul talking about Jesus. This is Jesus, in glory, in heaven, and having the LAST WORD on all of it, on the last page of the Scripture. So, anybody who disagrees with a word of any of that: the fact that men are judged by Jesus for their DEEDS (and not simply their beliefs), or that sexual immorality of whatever sort is not a mortal sin, is wrong. No argument is possible. There are parts of the Scriptures before this that open all sorts of questions, but this is Jesus himself, resurrected and enthroned, having the LAST WORD on all of it, and slamming shut the book. These are the final words of God on the matter, the world is bound to all of them, and whoever disagrees with any of it is wrong.
It's disgusting and unnatural?
The desire to not be utterly destroyed by God? The desire of the legislators not to be thrown into the fire at their judgment? The desire to represent the will of the majority of their constituents, who don't want their state to be destroyed by God? Those seem pretty compelling reasons to me. The issue really isn't the homosexuality as such. Sexual sin is sexual sin. Doesn't matter if boys are doing boys, or boys are doing girls - fornication is also sexual immorality. The issue is the official sanction of it, the granting of formal legal status and rights to a sin. For with recognition comes laws that punish discrimination against what is, in fact, an abomination before the Lord. Moreover, with legalization comes Social Security benefits, and the right to not be discriminated against in taking children under the care of the known sexual immoral. Very bad things. The proper answer in a free country is: sin as you please, sexually. But there shall be no state sanction of it, no recognition, no marriage, no privileged status, no social benefits. We're tolerating the evil legally, just as we tolerate fornication out of wedlock and private pornography. We are not given the authority to punish sin: vengeance belongs to the Lord. But we do not have the right to be SANCTIONING it and PRIVILEGING it either. Those are the reasons. Evil will triumph. But then, this country already murders 2 million babies a year, so it's damned already. Leaving the dog to its vomit, the sow to its mire and letting the sins and filth proliferate in preparation for judgment and destruction: this has always been God's pattern with nations that he intends to wipe from the world in a bloody smear of horror, as an example to the rest. "And when all of this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins, when all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins; as surely as water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn, the Gods of the Copybook Headings, with terror and slaughter, return." - Kipling
With people sent by the states to do it. Or are you saying the constitution was illegal and recreated the states?
Exactly what is the State's compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage? It's disgusting and unnatural? Whether you and I believe that is not the point. So are many things, let's not go there please. You need to elaborate a bit more as this is not a complelling case that could stand Constitutional muster in the courts. Is there anyone in ear (eye) shot that believes SCOTUS will not ban states from banning gay marriage and in essence strike down DOMA?
Because they are not delegated to change the meaning of words. They are also prohibited by the first amendment. They are prohibiting the free exercise of religion by forcing society to accept something that isn't. It is kind of like the government saying men are now women and women are now men. Can you name the states comeplling reason to say that men are now women and women are now men? I know it is stupid but not as stupid as pretending two men are married and trying to force normal people to go along with it.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. But I agree that in some manner the states did create at least part of the Consitution as many states would not ratify the orignal document without adding the Bill of Rights. "It was the Constitutional Convention that actually created the Consitution. With people sent by the states to do it." Let's not get Obamaesque about this and say that God created the Consitution or that the electorate created it.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Because technically they were there to amend the articles of confederation. Instead they made the constitution.
State powers preexisted the Constitution, which is a limited delegation of those preexisting powers to the federal government. Read a book.
To exactly what words are you referring? Certainly not marriage as that word doesn't appear in the Constitution. BTW, neither do the words men and women. "They are prohibiting the free exercise of religion by forcing society to accept something that isn't." Exactly how? I am not aware that the State is forcing religious institutions to perform or even sanction gay marriage. If anything the state is saying that religious institutions need to treat gay marriages the same way it treats any marriage that was sanctioned by the state that were outside of the institution's religious ceremony.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments." https://supr em e.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html
Done so many times. Here is what it says in Article 1 Section 10: "Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." I trust that this resolves our disagreement.
Federal district court judges are forcing states and their electorates to sanction gay marriage.
Do you inderstand how the Constitutional Convention came about and why?
Well, you would be breaking the law.....unless perhaps if you were in a Make My Day state:)
I'm not a preacher so that is only theoretical. :)
Exactly! Article 1 Section 10, NOT the Bill of Rights. Again, from the Supreme Court: "It is worthy of remark, too, that these inhibitions generally restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the General Government, or in which the people of all the States feel an interest. A State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. If these compacts are with foreign nations, they interfere with the treaty-making power, which is conferred entirely on the General Government; if with each other, for political purposes, they can scarcely fail to interfere with the general purpose and intent of the Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, would lead directly to war, the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress. To coin money is also the exercise of a power conferred on Congress. It would be tedious to recapitulate the several limitations on the powers of the States which are contained in this section. They will be found generally to restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the government of the Union, in which the citizens of all the States are interested. In these alone were the whole people concerned. The question of their application to States is not left to construction. It is averred in positive words."
Yes. You don't.
It could be considered an act of self defense. ;)
I've been a bad boy.
We need to agree on the meaning of words here. From Mirian-Webster: "sanc·tion noun ÈsaK(k)-shYn : an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country, etc. : official permission or approval" It would seem that the second meaning is on point. I wouldn't say sanction then but rather acceptance as being legal in the general society - closer to the permission definition of the word sanction. That is a difference with a real distinction. There are a whole bunch of things that states must accept as being legal without having to sanction them. Do we need to recount the whole civil rights movement, particularly some states' ban on interracial marriages?
Yes. You don't. Then please educate me.
Ah, you were just protecting your Johnsons. Well, OK then.
This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. this was part of the original text that was sent out to the states to ratified. that text did not include the Bill of Rights, The BoR was added later. So right from the gitgo the Constitution was in fact the basis for state and municipal powers.
You seem a little confused. Let me ask you a question. This may clear it up. Who was the first President of the United States?
A verb is not a noun. SANC'TION, v.t. To ratify; to confirm; to give validity or authority to.
Non sequitur. To refresh your memory: "But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments." You may also consider that part of the education you requested.
It is fascinating how many of these self-proclaimed experts on the Constitution think it established a national government rather than a federal government.
Yes. You don't. Then please educate me. I will help you out. Here is what I know about why the Constitutional Convention came about: Constitutional Convention, (1787), in U.S. history, convention that drew up the Constitution of the United States. Stimulated by severe economic troubles, which produced radical political movements such as Shays’s Rebellion, and urged on by a demand for a stronger central government, the convention met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia (May 25– September 17, 1787), ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation. All the states except Rhode Island responded to an invitation issued by the Annapolis Convention of 1786 to send delegates. Of the 74 deputies chosen by the state legislatures, only 55 took part in the proceedings; of these, 39 signed the Constitution. The delegates included many of the leading figures of the period. Among them were George Washington, who was elected to preside, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, John Rutledge, Charles Pinckney, Oliver Ellsworth, and Gouverneur Morris. Discarding the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation, the assembly set about drawing up a new scheme of government but found itself divided, delegates from small states (those without claims to unoccupied western lands) opposing those from large states over the apportionment of representation. Edmund Randolph offered a plan known as the Virginia, or large state, plan, which provided for a bicameral legislature with representation of each state based on its population or wealth. William Paterson proposed the New Jersey, or small state, plan, which provided for equal representation in Congress. Neither the large nor the small states would yield. Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman, among others, in what is sometimes called the Connecticut, or Great, Compromise, proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation of the states in the upper house. All revenue measures would originate in the lower house. That compromise was approved July 16. The matter of counting slaves in the population for figuring representation was settled by a compromise agreement that three-fifths of the slaves should be counted as population in apportioning representation and should also be counted as property in assessing taxes. Controversy over the abolition of the importation of slaves ended with the agreement that importation should not be forbidden before 1808. The powers of the federal executive and judiciary were enumerated, and the Constitution was itself declared to be the “supreme law of the land.” The convention’s work was approved by a majority of the states the following year. In other words, the country was failing under the Articles of Confederation primarily because the Federal govenrment as established by the AoC was too weak to effectively govern the Republic. It was widely recognized that the Federal government needed more central powers if the Republic was to survive. The Constitutional Convention was convened to correct the short comings of the AoC in that regard. You may try to prove this understanding wrong if you wish. I will listen and be open to changing my understading if you have the facts to justify such.
The big GW is almost universally acknowledged as such but some agrue that it was John Hanson, the President of the Continental Congress. Why to you ask?
How can the created delegate power to the creator? In other words how can the tail delegate authority to the head? Or how can the principal have power delegated to it?
I ask because the states existed before Washington. They later created the Federal Government. Just for a timeline of sorts.
You have yourself wrapped around your own axel. Your first statement was: #15. To: SOSO (#13) But please tell me the Constitutional basis for depriving gays the same rights that straight people have. The Constitution is not the basis for state and municipal powers. Palmdale posted on 2015-01-17 15:50:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says that you are wrong. End of story.
And the states delegated certain powers to the federal government in the Constitution. If there is clause delegating the federal judiciary the power to amend the language and intent of the Constitution to compel states to surrender their inherent police powers and to sanction pervert marriage, please quote and cite it.
Nonsense. It lists a limited set of explicit restrictions on the states in the wake of the creation of the federal government. The Supreme Court unanimously refuted your false assertion, as i have already quoted and cited. Try reading it this time. I can't educate you when you are being willfully ignorant. "It is worthy of remark, too, that these inhibitions generally restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the General Government, or in which the people of all the States feel an interest. A State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. If these compacts are with foreign nations, they interfere with the treaty-making power, which is conferred entirely on the General Government; if with each other, for political purposes, they can scarcely fail to interfere with the general purpose and intent of the Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, would lead directly to war, the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress. To coin money is also the exercise of a power conferred on Congress. It would be tedious to recapitulate the several limitations on the powers of the States which are contained in this section. They will be found generally to restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the government of the Union, in which the citizens of all the States are interested. In these alone were the whole people concerned. The question of their application to States is not left to construction. It is averred in positive words."
Just for a timeline of sorts. The timeline shows us the following: Some Continental Congress delegates had also informally discussed plans for a more permanent union than the Continental Congress, whose status was temporary. Benjamin Franklin had drawn up a plan for “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” While some delegates, such as Thomas Jefferson, supported Franklin’s proposal, many others were strongly opposed. Franklin introduced his plan before Congress on July 21, but stated that it should be viewed as a draft for when Congress was interested in reaching a more formal proposal. Congress tabled the plan. Following the Declaration of Independence, the members of the Continental Congress realized that it would be necessary to set up a national government. Congress began to discuss the form this would take on July 22, and disagreed on a number of issues, including whether representation and voting would be proportional or state-by-state. The disagreements delayed final discussions of confederation until October of 1777. By then, the British capture of Philadelphia had made the issue more urgent. Delegates finally formulated the Articles of Confederation, in which they agreed to state-by-state voting and proportional state tax burdens based on land values, though they left the issue of state claims to western lands unresolved. Congress sent the Articles to the states for ratification at the end of November. Most delegates realized that the Articles were a flawed compromise, but believed that it was better than an absence of formal national government." The Continental Congress gave us a Federation. The Constitutional Convention gave us the Republic that we are today. Can we agree that both were established by the consent of the governed - of course that was before the Gruber Principle was established.
You mean their codification of the Commerce Clause? Riiiiiight................
Barron had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. At this point you're just generating static. I figured your request for education was bogus.
Lets see there were states in 1777. The constitution didn't come about until 1789. So I guess that means that the Federal government did create the states since it came after the states. That makes sense. I mean when the states sent people who drew up the constitution. There was a time warp and what happened was actually before. I hope that clears it up.
Pesky old facts.
I didn't say that there weren't states prior to the Constitution. I said that the Consitution spells out what powers are for the Fed and what are for the states. In other what each can and cannot do. Now the states can in fact amend the Consitution if they so wish. What do you think the chances of geting 2/3 of both Houses agreeing on the wording of an Amendment and then getting 75% of the states approving the amendment these days? N.B. - The Federal gobernmente existed prior to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, which at last check is still the law of the land. No time warp here. N.B. - With the passage of time the Federal gobernmente, with the full blessing of SCOTUS, has pulled more chips to its side of the table from the states. That's my story and I sticking with it.
Exactly what is the State's compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage? The desire to not be utterly destroyed by God? Then why hasn't the state banned abortion?
everyone knows that anthony kennedy is a closet queer. he will side with the democrat muslim liberals to let the poop packers destroy our country. Is Anthony Kennedy 'the first gay justice'? http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/scotus-kennedy/
Willful ignorance is tiresome. "It is worthy of remark, too, that these inhibitions generally restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the General Government, or in which the people of all the States feel an interest. A State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. If these compacts are with foreign nations, they interfere with the treaty-making power, which is conferred entirely on the General Government; if with each other, for political purposes, they can scarcely fail to interfere with the general purpose and intent of the Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, would lead directly to war, the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress. To coin money is also the exercise of a power conferred on Congress. It would be tedious to recapitulate the several limitations on the powers of the States which are contained in this section. They will be found generally to restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the government of the Union, in which the citizens of all the States are interested. In these alone were the whole people concerned. The question of their application to States is not left to construction. It is averred in positive words."
I said that the Consitution spells out what powers are for the Fed and what are for the states. Willful ignorance is tiresome. Yes, it is. I will repeat for the last time then move on, the Federal government pre-existed the Consitution. The reality is that it was rperesentatives of the Federal government that manipulated the convening of the Continental Congress and under somewhat false pretenses. Many, if not most, of the delegates the the CoC had no idea what the real agenda, which was establised by the operatives of the Federal government, was, and this was by design by the organizers. For discussions puproses I will concede that the states formed the Federal government through the convening of the Continental Congress and the ratification of the AoC. But from that moment on the Fed had a life of its own with a very strong sense of self perservation. At that point, prior to the Consitutional Convention, the created became a very viable rival of the creator for supremacy. I leave it to you decide which has obtained the greatest weight of power over time, and, all with the blessings of SCOTUS. You call this static if you wish, it makes no difference to its veracity just to one's willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance
I will agree with you on that. A couple point though if you don't mind. Where does the supreme court get its power to decide if things are constitutional or not and to strike down laws. Perhaps it is necessary. But can you point out some legal authroity from the constitution?
Because the people of the country have given themselves over to evil.
Because the people of the country have given themselves over to evil. In for a penny, in for a pound. But an answer to your question is that the State only deals in matters of the secular physical world and only that portion of which is within its boundaries, except for traeties with other foreign states. There is no concept of sin in the secular world of government just laws that govern the here and now. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. There is no mention of morality either. In the U.S. the state is prohibited from endorsing any particular religion.
Excellent historical summary and comparison. Only comment: I believe the tribe of Simeon sojourned in the land allotted to Judah. I also believe that small amounts of each tribe emigrated to Judah when Jeroboum went off the rails. All of which with the Temple Levites considered as Judah.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
It evolved over time, just as the power of POTUS and that of Congress. No-one on On day one of the new U.S. government per the Constitution, least of all Washington, John Jay, Adams, etc. None really knew how it was all going to work. They jockeyed for position while trying to avoid precipating a Constitutional crisis. The manuvering by Madison and Hamilton are the stuff of legends. Jefferson was probably one of the slickest of all before and during his presidency. Many believed that he violated the U.S. Consitution on more than one occasion, not the least of which being the Louisiana Purchase. So the balance of power between the three Branches of government was in flux and up for grabs from virtually day one of the Republic. Basically each branch staked claims and if no-one challenged it it was theirs.
Anything but marital relations between a man and woman is sexual immorality. Matthew 19: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 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’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
Then again what right does the federal government have in sticking their nose in States rights? X Amendment in particular?
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
And horrible things happened to those cultures. Wonder why?....
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
Tell that to SCOTUS.
Horrible things have been happening in the U.S. for decades, all of which having nothing to do with gay marriage.
I agree. Listener (hope he comes here) has much to say on states rights and the marriage issue.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
Amen.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
Tell that to ISIS.
So the balance of power between the three Branches of government was in flux and up for grabs from virtually day one of the Republic. Basically each branch staked claims and if no-one challenged it it was theirs. That sounds like a reasonable explanation of what happened. But I'm a letter of the law type guy. Especially the constitution. I want it to be followed EXACTLY as it is written. If not I'm probably going to complain. Not that it will make any difference to the PTB. If the constitution is inadequate they should amend it and change it lawfully. That way our overlords obey the law and then we serfs can too. But when they make stuff up. Why should we obey?
What about the children. Do they matter in this queer pretend marriage debate. I don't think no queers should be adopting no kids. Would it have been ok with you to have been raised by two homosexual men. Say if something happened to your parents when you were a 10 year old kid?
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned and remanded to the States, the first state to abolish abortion will be Texas. Texas will become the American remnant for a time.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
They should just go ahead and outlaw it. Ignore the feds. What are the Feds going to do go in there and force the abortions? Time for a showdown. Stand up to evil.
You can look it up if you choose. But all 50 states in their constitutions invoke God: "Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
I want it to be followed EXACTLY as it is written. For the Law of the Land the Consitution is a sparse document that is open to interpretation - kind of like the Bible if you have been following that thread. "If the constitution is inadequate they should amend it and change it lawfully." Personally I would be deathly afraid on a Constitutional Convention - I don't trust "they". But I do not have a prescription on how to get us back on track with the vision that our Founding Fathers had. Perhaps we can't and just will have to ride the social evolution train.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS What does it mean to be blessed? That sounds to me like they are calling out to God. Also since the Declaration of Independance was superior and trumped British Law it also trumps the constitution if we choose to invoke it or something similar.
And why has that been happening? We haven't been wiped out yet.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
------------------------------------------- Right! And the apparent increase in homosexuality along with both increase in acceptance of homosexuality to the point where acceptance is now imposed are among the worst of those terrible things.
Some of it might be. But other parts are crystal clear. Like when it says "no law"
There is no mention of morality either. In the U.S. the state is prohibited from endorsing any particular religion. You can look it up if you choose. But all 50 states in their constitutions invoke God: Sadly that word did not make it into the Law of the Land - not that it could not have been worked into the Constitution if the representatives to the Constitutional Convention wanted it so and/or the states that ratified it wanted so. It's late, guys. I bid you a good night.
It would be like playing one spin at roulette in vegas and hoping you win.
I am inclined to say that some cases the problem is one of enforcement, specifically with the will to enforce and the absence of people to demand it from their elected officials.
Well states like Texas, Georgia and Alabama tried quite a few times and the SCOTUS shot it down. Texas was able to pass scrutiny over a health mandate which virtually closed all abortion clinics in the state save a handful. That's tied up in several suits now. The law basically stated, for women's health concerns, that all abortion clinics must have personnel who can admit women to a hospital in the event of the medical need. That slammed shut most of the clinics here.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Yes, and it was meant to be. Any laws were meant to be in the hands of the locals.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
The Declaration of Independence is our nation's defining philosophical treatise. The Constitution the basis of our laws. We have a severe disconnect these days between what defined our nation's spirit and what filthy body we chose to live in.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Not to mention HIV/AIDS.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
I only clean up messes in Aisle 3 you're responsible for the rest.
Here try these. It's just like posting a picture. If you need help PM me.
That Americans have chosen to ignore God in their pretty little political setup does not mean that God will ignore them. Flesh is grass and words are wind, but God's Word endures forever, He will not be mocked, and all of the nukes in the arsenal will not reach the gates of Heaven. We do as we choose, for a time. Then our biology kills us and we are judged according to an objective set of standards that we did not choose and cannot change. We've chosen as a nation to formally forget that. Which means that we're doomed. It is only a matter of time.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but abortion law should not be remanded to the states. Rather, it should be overturned on the grounds that no man's life shall be taken with official sanction without presentment of the evidence and a trial. Babies in the womb are innocent: there is no evidence and no trial is possible. Therefore, abortion is banned absolutely, because people have the fundamental right to live without being killed unless they have committed a crime. The states have no power to overturn the basic right to life. That is how it should be struck down. Now the truth: we're trying to reform Sodom and Gomorrah. It's not possible. God tarried four centuries before he sent in the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites, for the full measure of the evils of the Amorites was not yet fulfilled. But once it was fulfilled, the wages of sin was the mass death of the entire civilization. God will not be mocked.
They're murderers who deny the identity of God. When men shed blood, God has commanded men to shed their blood. We are commanded by God to kill Isis members because they shed human blood. Punishment for THAT PARTICULAR SIN was delegated to man to attend to. Punishment for sexual sin was only remanded to the Israelites within the Kingdom of Israel/Judah, and that state is gone forever. It is not our place to be hammering gays and heterosexuals for fornication. It IS our place to call it fornication and to not sanction it. If people don't want to rent rooms to unmarried couples, they don't have to. God never created races, and he never drew any sort of distinctions regarding marriage between ethnicities, other than in his Kingdom of Israel, which is gone. Therefore, the evil American laws prohibiting "miscegenation" are not comparable to laws that refuse to recognize fornication, bestiality and buggery as marriage. They are not the same thing, and never were. Moreover, men and women have the God-given right to choose one another as husband and wife, and they are so in the eyes of God, and therefore men do not have the right to thrust them outside and refuse to serve them because the men don't like the racial mix. That is a law of men standing against something that God has joined. Men have no right to racial discrimination laws like that, because they are legislating against God. By contrast, men DO have the right, under God, to legislate against recognition of things that God calls sins. Marriage is not a sin, and it IS a sin to punish people for marrying because of their race. But fornication and buggery ARE sins, and it is not a sin to refuse to recognize them as licit, but it IS a sin TO recognize them as licit, because they are not. In other words, our range of freedom to legislate is very small. In general, God did not give men the authority to dominate other men. When men do it, it's a sin. ISIS dominates and kills men. They have no right to do it. It's a sin. In the case of the particular sin of killing people, God commands that the blood of the killers be shed BY men - so we are commanded to do something about it. It is a sin to kill. It is not a sin to kill killers, it is, rather, a commandment.
Horrible things have been happening since the beginning: slavery and genocide. And we very much suffer today for those sins of the past, because we cannot break free of them.
Well, that's it. If you look in Kings and see what God said when he divided Judah from Israel, he said that he was leaving only two tribes to Judah: Judah and Benajmin. Now, if we think about it, that's not exactly right, for the Levites were all over Israel, and then there was the case of Simeon. However, we have to remember something about Simeon and Levi: they were special cases, both of them, because they were the ones who went on the murderous tear over their sister's rape. Dinah was raped by a Canaanite, you may recall, but the boy did love her and Israel (Jacob) and the boy's father were ready to make it right, by the payment of dowry and proper marriage. Note that this was precisely the process laid out by God in the Torah for the deflowering of a virgin: the man who deflowered her had to pay the father the bride price and the father could decide whether or not to let the man have the girl. In this case, it's made clear that Israel and the father did agree that Dinah and the boy could indeed marry and be together, because although the act was bad the love was genuine. And so it was agreed. The entire village of Canaanites even agreed to be circumcised, and did it! thereby becoming Israelites. But Levi and Simeon filled with their own wrath became mass murderers and exacted their own vengeance, going in while all of these men were recovering from their circumcision and slaughtering them all. For this, Israel was horrified and mortified, saying that by their evil deed, Levi and Simeon had made Israel stink in the nose of all of its neighbors. He was not being rhetorical: Levi and Simeon were mass murderers and very evil. It was not forgotten either. Go to Israel's death, in Egypt, when he propesies the future of his sons, he specifically refers to Levi and to Simeon and their cruelty, and says taht for that they will be scattered in Israel. Of course that comes to pass. The Levites are given no land, but are scattered all over Israel as servants of the cult. And the Simeons are so small in number that they can't fill a full portion, so they are scattered within Judah. By the time we get to Kings, God speaks about how the Kingdom will be divided 10 and 2. This is a little disconcerting, because the math doesn't exactly add up. Ignoring the fact that the Levites are spread all over the place, in the Kingdom of Judah there were originally THREE tribes plus the Levites: Judah, Benjamin and Simeon. So the math would be 9 and 3. Or, if Simeon had disappeared completely into Judah, 8 and 3. The only way to get "10 and 2", with Judah and Benjamin in Judah, is to move Simeon to the Northern Kingdom...which Scripture doesn't say happened. In other words, this is one of the real contradictions of Scripture.
Thanks. I never know how to post pictures. I think I've been told, but I forget. If I need to post one, I'll PM you. Thanks again.
I want it to be followed EXACTLY as it is written. Yeah,and you ain't by yourself. I want it followed EXACTLY,even on issues that I am personally biased against. Neither MY individual freedoms or anyone else's individual freedoms are dependent on the approval of others,OR of our government. They existed by natural law BEFORE the US government was created,and our Founding Fathers recognized this and honored it in law. When this law quits working,America quits working,and America if FAR more important than any our our personal biases.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
AFAIK,no queer children are getting married. Neither are heterosexual children. Do they matter in this queer pretend marriage debate. No. They are not getting married. I don't think no queers should be adopting no kids. I don't either,but it doesn't matter what *I* personally like,or what you or anyone else personally likes. Homosexual Americans are still Americans,and they have ALL the rights the rest of us have. Anything else would be un-American. Besides,just because people are homosexuals,that doesn't mean they will sexually molest any children they adopt,and if they do,they will be arrested and put into prison just like the heterosexual parents of adopted children. "Equality" for everyone! What you and others like you need to get out of your head is the concept that all homosexuals are child molesters/rapists. This is no more,or less,true of homosexuals than it is heterosexuals. Once you drop that false premise,it will be a little easier for you to accept,even though you still won't personally approve of homosexual adoptions.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
If we ever have another one,it will be the end of the country. The globalists will promise free I-Pads and housing for everyone that votes for them,and America will be over and done with. Which is why this country wasn't formed as a Democracy,and why voting was restricted to property owners.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think they were calling out to Allah. Or maybe "The Great Pumpkin".
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Say WHAT? Are you claiming heterosexuals are enlisting in the "homosexual army"? Homosexuals are the same percentage of the population they have always been. You only notice them more now because there are fewer of them hiding from jail sentences and losing their jobs BECAUSE they are homosexuals.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Nope. The Bill of Rights applies to ALL Americans,regardless of what state they live in.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That's because he is a jealousy and vindictive God that can't even follow his own damn rules.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Wrong,again! The government does NOT have the legal or semi-moral authority to demand a woman risk her own life by carrying a baby to term. Or are you now claiming that women don't have a right to self-defense?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The federal government was not delegated the states' police powers.
Agree 100 % !
Reduced to playing with words,are you? The states THEMSELVES agreed to federal domination over state laws when it comes to individual freedoms,and why not when it was the original states themselves that DEMANDED a Bill of Rights as a condition to get them to form the new country?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The government does NOT have the legal or semi-moral authority to demand a woman risk her own life by carrying a baby to term. Or are you now claiming that women don't have a right to self-defense? Of course it does. Women have the right to self defense. Murdering a baby is not self defense.
God is God, and therefore is unbound by rules. You are correct that he is jealous: he has strong emotions and opinions. His opinions are fixed and stubborn, like yours. But unlike you, there is nothing that can put pressure on him to do or not do anything, other than his own choice. So yes, God is jealous, and it is true that God follows no rules. But because he is fixed in his opinions, he is very, very predictable. He said what he wanted, he meant it, and that is precisely what we're all going to be held to, whether we like it, or him or not, and whether we believe in him or not.
That statement is open to dispute in an era when homosexuality has become an acceptable substitute for engaging in an atmosphere of catastrophically failing and hostile heterosexual relationships together with acceptable or licenced or recruitment of kids into homosexuality. Homosexuality resulting from solidly organic causes is probably about the same. But homosexuality is not excusively the result of predestining organic causes. In fact, in many cases organic factors are completely irrelevant while psychological factors are determinent.
A Bill of Rights placing explicit limits on the newly formed FEDERAL government. You're welcome.
But it's so convenient...
The government does NOT have the legal or semi-moral authority to demand a woman risk her own life by carrying a baby to term. Pete no one has a right to murder another human being. You are not right in the head. Liberty isn't murdering your children. Any woman or abortion butcher that murders babies should be executed. People who support it may be guilty of accessory to murder.
Indeed.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Well there is the consideration that Joseph was split into two tribes. That was to make up for Levi being the tribe dedicated to the priesthood.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Lol
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Ahhh,the Jesuit pops up again to play propaganda games with words. Of course a woman doesn't have a right to MURDER a baby. She DOES have a right to terminate a pregnancy if it puts her life and/or health in danger to carry to term. THAT ain't murder,bubba. It's self-defense. And a fetus is NOT a baby or a person. It is a POTENTIAL baby or person.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
ONLY by the people with a bias that are spreading either pro-homosexual propaganda,or the people with a bias that are spreading anti-homosexual propaganda. The ironic,and funny,part is both are claiming there are more homosexuals than there really are because they both think that makes their cases stronger.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yes,and it was agreed the federal government would have supremacy in those issues over the individual states. The freaking Mormons even gave up basic tenets of their religious beliefs because that was a requirement for statehood.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That's true,but murder is a loaded word and that is why you used it. Do YOU have a right to kill a 6 year old,for example,if you see that 6 year old innocently going to push a button that would set off a bomb,and shooting him is the only way you could stop him before he innocently set off a bomb that might kill hundreds? Or would you be murdering him? If YOUR wife or daughter were to be 1 or 2 months pregnant and discover she would probably die if she took the pregnancy to birth and DID have an abortion,would you want her arrested and put in prison?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
For the Law of the Land the Consitution is a sparse document Yes, and it was meant to be. Yes it was. "Any laws were meant to be in the hands of the locals." Clearly not so. The Constituion clearly articulates the subject of the laws that the states can make and that the Fed can make, but because of the sparse nature of the document there is legitimate room for interpretation and thus for opportunism and disagreement. IMO the Founding Fathers relied on the balance of powers established in the Constitution to be the mechanism for resolving disputes. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way over time.
The reality is that it is only the Fed that resolve the issue. Either a fetus is a person or it is not. RIght no the Fed says not and there a fetus does not have the protection of the U.S. Consitution. If the Fed said yes then ALL of the states would have to treat it as such. Having 50 different determinations of what life is deservng of what protection and benefits of the Consttitution is madness.
Or would you be murdering him? To murder someone is not the same as acting in self defense. How can someone innocently set off a bomb. What travels faster sound or bullets? I don't know? Shouting would probably be more effective. Because he would definitely hear you. But you would maybe miss if you took a shot.
killing someone, your child in this case, because you might die would be immoral. Back to the previous. You would shoot the 6 year old. Then he would be dead. And it wasn't even a button to a bomb. If you did that should you be put away for murder?
I don't really care what the law is. I just do what is moral. Or at least I try to. For some reason the lawless government telling us to obey their pretend laws doesn't click with me. I just do what I want.
As long as that does not do violence or injustice to others and things and you are willing to bear the consequences of your actions go with God.
I don't initiate violence. I try to treat people justly. Sometimes I fail at the justice part i'm sure. But I don't go around beating people up. I did kick this one guys ass though
Should you be able to torture a 6 year old because you are 90 percent sure that they can tell you where a bomb is going to go off that will a. Would you do it if it might save 1 person? b. What about if it could possible save 2 people? c What if it could potentially save 10 people? d. What if it could maybe save 100 people?
Silly premise. You could give him a candy bar and he would tell you everything he knows. 6 year old children ain't real good at keeping secrets.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Silly premise. You could give him a candy bar and he would tell you everything he knows.
Except the Supreme Court dejour, really isn't. Per Romans 1:25+, how has Nature ruled...again, and again, and again...?
That's a good argument straight from the mouth of God. It me ask you something having to do with the basic thesis of my reply. Have you ever done psychotherapy with a gay or lesbian? Have you ever consulted anyone who has done successful psychotherapy with gays or lesbians? Have you ever consulted the scientific literature written by people who have done serious psychotherapy with gays or lesbians?
No.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No. Then please refrain from talking as if you did.
No. Then please refrain from talking as if you did. No.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No. Then please refrain from talking as if you did. No. ----------------------------------- Well, I'll talk with you on your own level of seriousness, content, and integrity. damage chad reason log thursday van grandfather pour pump job dot fax. powered log change ani splash tun. alaska asp rib bake barcelona sur compatibility ani damage ways amount sure. honor ani biography asp forum pat puzzle ram developer wed pick log. latest tent community asp admiration sol might sure dad dot fax van. message news bake chad yahoo care. webmaster van log pat capacity asp. comment tag things pour gender la ani message sol closed riga frau textured tun job ani. balance frau clearance tent pump raw. unusual pat shareware sol words job. catalog hat funded tent raw news. strip fax catalog pat retain chi. alaska frau words ram sleep van. catalogue lap generator april conscious hire pie reminder dye balance sol. garden log flight tax may blur. fine blur prosperity chad fabric sur. employer lap dinner fax hardware news. donate pod might tun periodic ani. thanks tax care sure liable tag. surgery sure australian pour sauce pod. album crudnik lightning tag pickup pod. clearance tax frau pie astrology ways. august pour marketplace la inscription fax. pressed eft forwarding chi recipe liable blur comment ephlapsy catalogue blur. asp eft field pour appear ram august chi waterproof tub confirmation delphi bake ranking sol textured van algerian bit blur april pressed van dispatch pour dietary ram brush jacket sure river dye yahoo lap. freemail eft hunger odd chi. prevention odd gender april ney tent. algerian lap
Yes? That was supposed to make more sense than your regular posts? You need to work on that some,bubba.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Sneakypete you and I are both Army vets. We have agreed with each other most of the time. During times when we haven't agreed you have occasionally adopted an air of authority like a platoon sargeant who is not to be contradicted leading his men up a hill into enemy fire by force of command. That's fine in the army, but it is out of place in intelligent thinking civilian life. Forget about your command school of the voice. Using it as a substitute for study and training in a discussion will get you dismissed as a loudmouth and a fool. Learn to listen.
Please tell me you are not advocating recounting Al Gore votes in FL. :)
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Please tell me you are not advocating recounting Al Gore votes in FL. :) Nope. Haven't been to Florida in 25 years. Those words were from randomized nonsense fill words used in advertising blurbs sent to me on the internet.
LOL just pointing out the first two words were damage and chad.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
#3. To: GarySpFC (#2)
#4. To: redleghunter (#0)
the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to rule on whether same-sex “marriage” is an unalienable constitutional right.
#5. To: rlk, GarySpFc (#4)
Undoubtedly the issue of the fundamental pathology underwriting such marriages will not be considered. Is will be boiled down to a matter of constitutional rights and other specious arguments rather than the court's power to approve of, and impose, serious psychopathology.
#6. To: redleghunter (#5)
There are 6
Roman northeast liberal Catholics on SCOTUS bench.
#7. To: redleghunter (#0)
#8. To: redleghunter (#1)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
America is doomed, and deserves to be.
#10. To: redleghunter (#0)
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
Jesus said, twice on the last two pages of Scripture, that the sexually immoral fail judgment and are thrown into the fire at judgment.
#12. To: Zesta (#11)
I have someone telling me that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
#13. To: redleghunter, GarySpFC (#3)
They will cave and take more states rights away.
#14. To: Zesta (#11)
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality
#15. To: SOSO (#13)
But please tell me the Constitutional basis for depriving gays the same rights that straight people have.
#16. To: SOSO (#13)
basis for depriving gays the same rights that straight people have.
#17. To: SOSO (#13)
In other words, in the eyes of the state all civil unions are equal whether performed by the secular or
#18. To: Palmdale (#15)
The Constitution is not the basis for state and municipal powers.
#19. To: SOSO (#18)
The Constitution is not the basis for state and municipal powers. Of course it is. Please re-read it.
#20. To: Rufus T Firefly (#9)
The only thing left is to elect a horse to the US Senate.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#16)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#23. To: A K A Stone (#17)
No problem then. Normal people can get married you know men and women.
#24. To: Zesta (#11)
#25. To: SOSO (#23)
Exactly what is the State's compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage?
#26. To: SOSO (#23)
Exactly what is the State's compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage?
#27. To: SOSO (#22)
It was the Constitutional Convention that actually created the Consitution.
#28. To: yukon (#25)
#29. To: SOSO (#23)
Exactly what is the State's compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage?
#30. To: A K A Stone (#27)
Or are you saying the constitution was illegal and recreated the states?
#31. To: SOSO (#30)
Or are you saying the constitution was illegal and recreated the states?
#32. To: SOSO (#18)
Of course it is. Please re-read it.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Because they are not delegated to change the meaning of words.
#34. To: SOSO (#30)
But I agree that in some manner the states did create at least part of the Consitution as many states would not ratify the orignal document without adding the Bill of Rights.
#35. To: Palmdale (#32)
#36. To: SOSO (#33)
I am not aware that the State is forcing religious institutions to perform or even sanction gay marriage.
#37. To: SOSO (#33)
#38. To: Palmdale (#34)
#39. To: A K A Stone (#37)
If I was a preacher. I would put a bullet in their head before I married them. Just saying.
#40. To: All (#37)
#41. To: SOSO (#35)
Here is what it says in Article 1 Section 10:
#42. To: SOSO (#38)
Do you inderstand how the Constitutional Convention came about and why?
#43. To: SOSO (#39)
Well, you would be breaking the law.....unless perhaps if you were in a Make My Day state:)
#44. To: Devil Anse (#43)
#45. To: Palmdale (#36)
Federal district court judges are forcing states and their electorates to sanction gay marriage.
#46. To: Palmdale (#42)
Do you inderstand how the Constitutional Convention came about and why?
#47. To: A K A Stone (#43)
It could be considered an act of self defense. ;)
#48. To: Palmdale (#41)
#49. To: SOSO (#48)
So right from the gitgo the Constitution was in fact the basis for state and municipal powers.
#50. To: SOSO (#45)
sanc·tion noun ÈsaK(k)-shYn
#51. To: SOSO (#48)
This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. this was part of the original text that was sent out to the states to ratified. that text did not include the Bill of Rights, The BoR was added later. So right from the gitgo the Constitution was in fact the basis for state and municipal powers.
#52. To: A K A Stone (#49)
Who was the first President of the United States?
#53. To: Palmdale (#46)
Do you inderstand how the Constitutional Convention came about and why?
#54. To: A K A Stone (#49)
Who was the first President of the United States?
#55. To: SOSO (#53)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]
#56. To: SOSO (#54)
John Hanson
#57. To: Palmdale (#51)
#58. To: SOSO (#53)
It was widely recognized that the Federal government needed more central powers if the Republic was to survive.
#59. To: SOSO (#57)
Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says that you are wrong.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#56)
I ask because the states existed before Washington. They later created the Federal Government.
#61. To: Palmdale (#59)
The Supreme Court unanimously refuted your false assertion, as i have already quoted and cited.
#62. To: SOSO (#61)
You mean their codification of the Commerce Clause?
#63. To: SOSO (#60)
The disagreements delayed final discussions of confederation until October of 1777. By then, the British capture of Philadelphia had made the issue more urgent. Delegates finally formulated the Articles of Confederation, in which they agreed to state-by-state voting and proportional state
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
There was a time warp and what happened was actually before.
#65. To: A K A Stone, palmdale. (#63)
So I guess that means that the Federal government did create the states since it came after the states. That makes sense.
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#67. To: redleghunter (#0)
(Edited)
#68. To: SOSO (#65)
I said that the Consitution spells out what powers are for the Fed and what are for the states.
#69. To: Palmdale, A K A Stone (#68)
#70. To: SOSO (#69)
I will repeat for the last time then move on, the Federal government pre-existed the Consitution.
#71. To: SOSO (#69)
At that point, prior to the Consitutional Convention, the created became a very viable rival of the creator for supremacy. I leave it to you decide which has obtained the greatest weight of power over time, and, all with the blessings of SCOTUS.
#72. To: SOSO (#66)
(Edited)
Then why hasn't the state banned abortion?
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
Then why hasn't the state banned abortion?
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
#75. To: A K A Stone (#71)
Where does the supreme court get its power to decide if things are constitutional or not and to strike down laws.
#76. To: Zesta, Vicomte13 (#11)
Will you cite the scripture please? I have someone telling me that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
#77. To: SOSO (#13)
You know that I do not endorse the gay lifestyle. But please tell me the Constitutional basis for depriving gays the same rights that straight people have.
#78. To: SOSO, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#21)
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[6]
#79. To: redleghunter (#77)
Then again what right does the federal government have in sticking their nose in States rights? X Amendment in particular?
#80. To: argo, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#67)
muslim liberals
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#81. To: redleghunter (#78)
And horrible things happened to those cultures. Wonder why?....
#82. To: SOSO, Listener, Vicomte13 (#79)
Tell that to SCOTUS.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
We are not given the authority to punish sin: vengeance belongs to the Lord. But we do not have the right to be SANCTIONING it and PRIVILEGING it either.
#84. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#83)
But we do not have the right to be SANCTIONING it and PRIVILEGING it either.
#85. To: SOSO (#75)
It evolved over time, just as the power of POTUS and that of Congress. No-one on On day one of the new U.S. government per the Constitution, least of all Washington, John Jay, Adams, etc. None really knew how it was all going to work. They jockeyed for position while trying to avoid precipating a Constitutional crisis. The manuvering by Madison and Hamilton are the stuff of legends. Jefferson was probably one of the slickest of all before and during his presidency. Many believed that he violated the U.S. Consitution on more than one occasion, not the least of which being the Louisiana Purchase.
#86. To: SOSO, sneakypete (#84)
#87. To: Vicomte13, SOSO (#72)
Then why hasn't the state banned abortion? Because the people of the country have given themselves over to evil.
#88. To: redleghunter (#87)
#89. To: SOSO, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#73)
There is no mention of morality either. In the U.S. the state is prohibited from endorsing any particular religion.
#90. To: A K A Stone (#85)
That sounds like a reasonable explanation of what happened. But I'm a letter of the law type guy. Especially the constitution.
#91. To: SOSO (#73)
But an answer to your question is that the State only deals in matters of the secular physical world and only that portion of which is within its boundaries, except for traeties with other foreign states. There is no concept of sin in the secular world of government just laws that govern the here and now. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. There is no mention of morality either. In the U.S. the state is prohibited from endorsing any particular religion.
#92. To: SOSO (#81)
Horrible things have been happening in the U.S. for decades, all of which having nothing to do with gay marriage.
#93. To: SOSO (#81)
Horrible things have been happening in the U.S. for decades, all of which having nothing to do with gay marriage.
#94. To: SOSO (#90)
For the Law of the Land the Consitution is a sparse document that is open to interpretation
#95. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, A K A Stone (#89)
#96. To: SOSO (#90)
Personally I would be deathly afraid on a Constitutional Convention
#97. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Like when it says "no law"
#98. To: A K A Stone (#88)
#99. To: SOSO (#90)
For the Law of the Land the Consitution is a sparse document
#100. To: A K A Stone (#91)
#101. To: rlk (#93)
#102. To: A K A Stone (#44)
#103. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
(Edited)
Grinning Emoticon.
#104. To: SOSO (#73)
But an answer to your question is that the State only deals in matters of the secular physical world and only that portion of which is within its boundaries, except for traeties with other foreign states. There is no concept of sin in the secular world of government just laws that govern the here and now. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. There is no mention of morality either. In the U.S. the state is prohibited from endorsing any particular religion.
#105. To: redleghunter (#87)
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned and remanded to the States,
#106. To: SOSO (#84)
Tell that to ISIS.
#107. To: SOSO (#81)
Horrible things have been happening in the U.S. for decades
#108. To: redleghunter (#74)
Only comment: I believe the tribe of Simeon sojourned in the land allotted to Judah. I also believe that small amounts of each tribe emigrated to Judah when Jeroboum went off the rails. All of which with the Temple Levites considered as Judah.
#109. To: Devil Anse (#103)
#110. To: A K A Stone (#85)
That sounds like a reasonable explanation of what happened. But I'm a letter of the law type guy. Especially the constitution.
#111. To: A K A Stone (#86)
What about the children.
#112. To: SOSO (#90)
Personally I would be deathly afraid on a Constitutional Convention
#113. To: A K A Stone (#91)
What does it mean to be blessed? That sounds to me like they are calling out to God.
#114. To: rlk (#93)
Right! And the apparent increase in homosexuality
#115. To: no gnu taxes (#99)
(Edited)
Any laws were meant to be in the hands of the locals.
#116. To: Vicomte13 (#104)
He will not be mocked,
#117. To: Vicomte13 (#105)
Therefore, abortion is banned absolutely, because people have the fundamental right to live without being killed unless they have committed a crime.
#118. To: sneakypete (#117)
The government does NOT have the legal or semi-moral authority to demand a woman risk her own life by carrying a baby to term.
#119. To: sneakypete (#112)
" If we ever have another one,it will be the end of the country. "
#120. To: Palmdale (#118)
The federal government was not delegated the states' police powers.
#121. To: sneakypete (#117)
Wrong,again!
#122. To: sneakypete (#116)
That's because he is a jealousy and vindictive God that can't even follow his own damn rules.
#123. To: redleghunter (#101)
Not to mention HIV/AIDS.
What? Who can be distracted by petty concerns about HIV/AIDS when our rights to be different are being violated and our commitment to diversity is under threat. What kind of idiot are you? The next thing might try would be a move to bring up pertainent psychopathology. You should hang your head in shame.
#124. To: sneakypete (#114)
(Edited)
Homosexuals are the same percentage of the population they have always been.
#125. To: sneakypete (#120)
The states THEMSELVES agreed to federal domination over state laws when it comes to individual freedoms,and why not when it was the original states themselves that DEMANDED a Bill of Rights as a condition to get them to form the new country?
#126. To: Vicomte13 (#121)
Murdering a baby is not self defense.
#127. To: sneakypete (#117)
Wrong,again!
#128. To: Vicomte13 (#105)
God will not be mocked.
#129. To: Vicomte13 (#108)
#130. To: rlk (#123)
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#121)
Women have the right to self defense. Murdering a baby is not self defense.
#132. To: rlk (#124)
That statement is open to dispute .....
#133. To: Palmdale (#125)
A Bill of Rights placing explicit limits on the newly formed FEDERAL government.
#134. To: A K A Stone (#127)
(Edited)
Pete no one has a right to murder another human being.
#135. To: no gnu taxes (#99)
#136. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#88)
They should just go ahead and outlaw it. Ignore the feds.
#137. To: sneakypete (#134)
Do YOU have a right to kill a 6 year old,for example,if you see that 6 year old innocently going to push a button that would set off a bomb,and shooting him is the only way you could stop him before he innocently set off a bomb that might kill hundreds?
#138. To: sneakypete (#134)
If YOUR wife or daughter were to be 1 or 2 months pregnant and discover she would probably die if she took the pregnancy to birth and DID have an abortion,would you want her arrested and put in prison?
#139. To: SOSO (#136)
The reality is that it is only the Fed that resolve the issue
#140. To: A K A Stone (#139)
I just do what I want.
#141. To: SOSO (#140)
As long as that does not do violence or injustice
#142. To: sneakypete (#134)
#143. To: A K A Stone (#142)
Should you be able to torture a 6 year old because you are 90 percent sure that they can tell you where a bomb is going to go off that will
#144. To: sneakypete (#134)
Do YOU have a right to kill a 6 year old,for example,if you see that 6 year old innocently going to push a button that would set off a bomb,and shooting him is the only way you could stop him before he innocently set off a bomb that might kill hundreds?
#145. To: redleghunter (#0)
U.S. Supreme Court will rule on gay ‘marriage’ issue
#146. To: sneakypete (#132)
ONLY by the people with a bias that are spreading either pro-homosexual propaganda,or the people with a bias that are spreading anti-homosexual propaganda.
#147. To: rlk (#146)
Have you ever done psychotherapy with a gay or lesbian? Have you ever consulted anyone who has done successful psychotherapy with gays or lesbians? Have you ever consulted the scientific literature written by people who have done serious psychotherapy with gays or lesbians?
#148. To: sneakypete (#147)
Have you ever done psychotherapy with a gay or lesbian? Have you ever consulted anyone who has done successful psychotherapy with gays or lesbians? Have you ever consulted the scientific literature written by people who have done serious psychotherapy with gays or lesbians?
#149. To: rlk (#148)
Have you ever done psychotherapy with a gay or lesbian? Have you ever consulted anyone who has done successful psychotherapy with gays or lesbians? Have you ever consulted the scientific literature written by people who have done serious psychotherapy with gays or lesbians?
#150. To: sneakypete (#149)
(Edited)
Have you ever done psychotherapy with a gay or lesbian? Have you ever consulted anyone who has done successful psychotherapy with gays or lesbians? Have you ever consulted the scientific literature written by people who have done serious psychotherapy with gays or lesbians?
Yes?
#151. To: rlk (#150)
damage chad reason log thursday van grandfather pour pump job dot fax. powered log change ani splash tun. alaska asp rib bake barcelona sur compatibility ani damage ways amount sure. honor ani biography asp forum pat puzzle ram developer wed pick log. latest tent community asp admiration sol might sure dad dot fax van. message news bake chad yahoo care. webmaster van log pat capacity asp. comment tag things pour gender la ani message sol closed riga frau textured tun job ani. balance frau clearance tent pump raw. unusual pat shareware sol words job. catalog hat funded tent raw news. strip fax catalog pat retain chi. alaska frau words ram sleep van. catalogue lap generator april conscious hire pie reminder dye balance sol. garden log flight tax may blur. fine blur prosperity chad fabric sur. employer lap dinner fax hardware news. donate pod might tun periodic ani. thanks tax care sure liable tag. surgery sure australian pour sauce pod. album crudnik lightning tag pickup pod. clearance tax frau pie astrology ways. august pour marketplace la inscription fax. pressed eft forwarding chi recipe liable blur comment ephlapsy catalogue blur. asp eft field pour appear ram august chi waterproof tub confirmation delphi bake ranking sol textured van algerian bit blur april pressed van dispatch pour dietary ram brush jacket sure river dye yahoo lap. freemail eft hunger odd chi. prevention odd gender april ney tent. algerian lap
#152. To: sneakypete (#151)
#153. To: rlk (#150)
damage chad
#154. To: redleghunter (#153)
damage chad
#155. To: rlk (#154)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]