The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles
Title: We will not obey: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015 ... disobedience-if-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: By Todd Starnes
Post Date: 2015-04-28 23:19:07 by out damned spot
Keywords: Christian, Supreme Court, civil disobedience
Views: 30189
Comments: 140
"We will not obey.” That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage. “We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.” “While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states. The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse. The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio. “We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me. He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.” “You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.” Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation. “The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.” And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience. “Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.” That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks. “I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.” Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear. “We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.” Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge. He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union. An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding. “Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ... What will we do, and how will we respond?” Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners. “For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.” To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families. “We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: out damned spot (#0)
Resist "the man"...I'm there!
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
:)
http://www.tedcruz.org
Yeah we'll see how long the parrots remained perched once the tax-exempt gravy train dries up.
HETEROsexual procreation was created for the human species by billions of years of natural selection. That was the reality that existed when Romans 1:25+ was being recorded, and it's the reality now. It's unfortunate for this generation, in the purview of wise religious fools, that they've been castrated and rendered impotent in discerning and making use of those Natural facts.
These folks are fighting a losing battle. The SCOTUS interprets our laws based on the Consitution, NOT the Christian Bible.
While by no means a Christian leader, my name and church can be added to that list.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And every one of them is evidently in denial of the biological facts rendered by nature through millions of years of natural selection: Nature selected HETEROsexual procreation for humans. It's not the first time fools believed themselves to be wise, abominated nature, and suffered the resulting natural due penalties -- and probably won't be the last time either. Stupid is as stupid does.
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography 1821 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html Infidels can be just as moral and religious as Christian sheeple.
It's a human attitude. Ever notice that, througout history, whenever the transhumanist/postgenderist eunuchs manage to prop their ilk up atop the state-established pyramid -- nature always rules against them? Homosexual marriage is as natural as cancer.
In its 4.6 billion years circling the Sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life Maybe one of the homosexual activists in the peanut gallery would like to tell the class exactly where in the above timeline natural selection made homosexual masturbation more beneficial than heterosexual procreation?
Very true....especially us ARMED INFIDELS.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
First, John Adams was referring to a moral and religious people, not moral and religious Christians. So you're argument is addressing a point I didn't make. Second, being a Unitarian, Jefferson did not believe that Jesus Christ is God. He believed there was only one God. Third, your Jefferson quote was referring to the Virginia State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson also proposed "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements." That was also rejected by the Virginia legislature. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the proposals he made for the state constitution.
There is an upside and downside to this. The downside, if this happens, will be Christian charitable organizations losing their tax-exempt status. I am sure most are prepared to deal with this and from what I can tell most already operate as non-profit organizations. We already observed a few states deny Christian based adoption services based on state pro-sodomite laws. One being the emperor's 'home' state. The upside is all the charlatan prosperity gospel televangelists. The Beamer driving 'pastors' will have to find another gravy train. So really losing tax exempt status only hurts financially 'ministries' like Joel Osteen. Yet on a federal level the extension of such measures will also hurt some Christian based or run charities.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
In the interest of historical context, for Adams and his peers, "religious" meant "Christian."
Just think...the temple eunuchs you always talk about will need a second job to make the payments on the McMansion.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
So really losing tax exempt status only hurts financially 'ministries' like Joel Osteen. Ha -- true. "God-wants-you-to-be-rich-and-happy" ministries like Joel Osteen's and Swaggart (yeah, he's still around) is actually a net gain for God's people. They'll then be forced to decide if they're the wheat or chaff. As an aside, when complimented on his designer ties, Osteen -- with all the humility of a Rock Star -- admitted he often gives them away as souvenirs to his "flock." THAT galled me.
Heh...Oh, I mean, :-(
The SCOTUS does neither Willie. If the SCOTUS followed the Constitution they would not even hear the 'gay marriage' issue. Freedom to exercise one's religion IS in the Bill of Rights. Someone's preference to conduct unnatural sexual acts IS NOT in the Constitution.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Jefferson also was a slave owner and had one for his personal pleasure having children with her. Was he one of the religious and moral people to who Adam's was referring?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yup. From what I gather, operations and budgets are already pretty tight. No island vacations or Beemers in the parking lots from what I've seen. Too much scrutiny from all directions in these kinds of churches. We already observed a few states deny Christian based adoption services based on state pro-sodomite laws. One being the emperor's 'home' state. Perfectly acceptable in the neo-America: Pro-abortion, pro-queer adoption, pro-queer marriage states. BUT the denial of Christian-based adoption and coercion of Christian-based business. As Satan's time grows shorter, things become MORE bizarre. And the weak succumb, compromise, or please their master. Where's that "angry God" sermon again? :-)
Had to show that quote again. Spot on. Next step is for the homosexual lobby to define their proclivities as 'moral.' Unattributed to a retired SGM...: "When I joined the Army being gay was against regulations...Then it was ok as long as you did not talk about it...Then it was legal and lauded...I'm retiring before they make it mandatory!"
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Indeed that is a FACT.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
I think that was increased recently by a few billion years. But what's a few billion years of unobserved 'science.':)
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
It is funny but I recall the Pentagon had some study or a conference in the early Bush years where they considered the idea of an all-gay Marine Corps. Fewer problems with homesick soldiers wanting to rotate home for family time, fewer problems with soldiers picking up venereal disease from local women/prostitutes, etc.
Freedom to exercise one's religion IS in the Bill of Rights. Someone's preference to conduct unnatural sexual acts IS NOT in the Constitution. AMEN! And two more AMENS! There is CLEAR deprivation and violations of Christians' 1st Amendment Rights. Bestiality is NOT covered by the Bill of Rights; Neither is Homosexuality (an immoral, criminal act during the Founders' time and for 200 years.) "Christians" who proceed as advocates these queer issues do so at their own peril. A Tree and its Fruit
But the government is forcing people to act against and violate their personal beliefs. This is intolerance with extreme prejudice. But that is typical of "progressives".
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I find no reason that anyone, religious or otherwise, should be compelled to contribute to, or perticipate in, glorification or false normalization of a system of serious psychopathology.
Did I post one? I think I did a few months ago.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
No reason....other than gubmint sanctioned coercion, extortion, and blackmail TO be "compelled" to worship at the altar of homosexuality...OR ELSE.
Yes...but it was only a month or two ago (I believe.) I have it bookmarked somewhere.
Am I wearing black robes? Get a clue: nobody gives a flying spit what my opinion is on anything. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not gonna worry about it much...
The post of the day!
Yeah that would solve much...NOT! Whatever crackpot paid tax dollars for that 'study' missed the fact of HIV/AIDS. I've seen the Army internal trends on STDs of Soldiers recently. Shows a decrease in 'external' contracting of STDs and an increase in internal contracted STDs. Meaning within units where there are males and females a host male or female is causing all the problems. Chlamydia ranks at the top of STDs at least amongst Soldiers. Docs said it was much worse in the 90s as more of the younger Soldiers are getting smarter on STD prevention. They are also getting smarter on avoiding the female soldier in the supply room in a mostly all male unit. In and around even the most sleazy military 'gate towns' mayors and post commanders have helped clean up the strip clubs and other 'unofficial brothel' front stores. Local ordinances have pushed those places out of the city limits and some commanders have made certain locations off limits for health and welfare purposes. When I reported to Fort Sill back in the late 80s the city of Lawton was a hole. Pawn shops, strip joints, massage parlors etc. All on the main road going into post. When I came back to Sill in '94 the massage parlors were all gone, the strip clubs were pushed into the hinter land at the county line, but the pawn shops were still there with a fresh coat of paint.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
According to ... you. “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” So he really meant, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Christian.”
Where's that "angry God" sermon again? :-) Did I post one? I think I did a few months ago. Damn, Ram, I thought that you can do this at the drop of a hat. Are you slowing down?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
All that means is that the solidiers need more money because they have to travel further for their messages and poontang. Hear tell that Roman Generals on occasion would pay for their troops' lady pleasures. Did they have STDs back then?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Guess I missed my one cup of morning coffee today too:)
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
This is a misquote . The wording comes from Article 11 of The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli . The full text is: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The treaty was written by American diplomat, John Barlow. John Adams merely signed the treaty after ratification. Now if you are looking for words penned by Adams then you need look no further than the Treaty of Paris 1798. Here are his words : In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Uh, no. In the context of the time, "religion" CLEARLY meant "Christian." “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” -- John Adams A tangent that is NOT germane to this point.
If he is slowing down, he's let up from 100 MPH down to 90...but elsewhere hit the pedal to the metal :-) I know for a fact that Red juggles several beast-modes.
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God Post Date: 2015-03-07 00:07:19 by redleghunter Great stuff and a keeper.
Ah yes from First Things. Thanks. Have to post another article from that site this week. Thanks.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Have you been keeping up with the USSC case on homo marriage?? If you haven't what do you think this little statement made by Roberts yesterday during oral arguments means... "If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination"? Everybody seems to think Kennedy is gonna be the swing vote but after seeing that I'm not so sure his vote will matter..
“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.”
Reminds me of Wichita Falls when I was going to Sheppard for Tech School. I lived in the apartments that were right over the front gate and there was a motel on either side of those apartments, along with head shops, tat parlors and assorted other crap. It was fun to sit out on the front porch and watch all of the comings and goings at the motels on Fri and Sat nights. Two of the most frequent visitors to the motels were the 2 girls in my Tech School class... LOL...
“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.”
I'm saying you are full of it if you believe the interpret the constitution. They just make stuff up. Roe vs wade.
No shyte captain obvious. I didn't say otherwise. No, actually it was referring to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.
What did Adams do to abolish slavery Comrade?
SCOTUS oral arguments are weird. My observations have been justices will ask opposing arguments to the lawyers. For example the Sue, Joe and Tom question was probably posed to the side opposing homosexual "marriage." I remember Sotomeyer, the wise Latina, asking a leading question to the government SG reference the legality of Obamacare when that was before the SCOTUS. You had conservative pundits gushing over a lib on the court making their argument. It turned out different of course. It is their way of shaking down key arguments to see if they are valid and if the court should even consider them. These lawyers come in with hundreds of "legal precedence" briefings and the court has to weed out the fluff.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Comrade? LMAO. Adams never owned a slave. Was vocally against slavery all of his public life and supported gradual abolishment. Adams was not in the country when the Consitution was drafted. Neither was Jefferson for that matter. But Jefferson kept his slaves to the end of his life. John Adams opposed slavery his entire lifea as a "foul contagion in the human character" and "an evil of colossal magnitude." At the Constitutional Convention, ............... (James Madison, Notes on the Federal Convention, 1787). John Adams wrote, “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in…abhorrence."
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
They didn't just make stuff up. In Roe v Wade, the Court balanced the rights of the Mother against the rights of the baby, and ruled in favor of the mother... especially in cases involving incest or rape. You don't like their decision and neither do I. But the 14th Amendment is purposefully vague and open to interpretation, so that's what they did. Tough shit for you and me, but they didn't just "make it up." That's the way the system works. So the only way to overturn the Court's ruling is to ratify another Constitutional Amendment that specifically protects the baby's Right to Life. Congress has been trying to do that ever since 1973, with no luck. Once again, tough shit for you and me, but that's the way the system works too. If you don't like it, then blame the Founding Fathers because they're the ones who set up the system to begin with.
Like I said they make stuff up. Every supreme court judge that ruled that way should have been taken out in the back of the White House and shot. That is what the President should have done.
No lefty. Th=ey just legalizede child murder. And you cheer it on. We need to prosecute people in favor of abortion. For attempted murder and murder. Then find them guily and remove the scumbags from society. Then they can burn in hell. That is where most leftists go.
Blah blah blah. What did Adams DO to abolish slavery? Fact is, apart from exercising his lips, he DID, nothing; but that won't stop arseholes like you from raising him up as a saint for the denigration of Jefferson, and Washington... etc. COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS ________? --Thomas Jefferson Did Saint Adams pick cotton himself and homespin it into clothes - or did he, like everybody else -- benefit from the labor of despotism?
What's the "observed 'science'" regarding the alleged slavery of the Jews in Egypt? http://www.google.com/#q=were+hebrews+really+slaves+in+egypt www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt Evidently, there is none. Rutro! Was the passover just another myth atop a pyramidesque pile of eunuch-parrot droppings? Maybe Martin Luther wasn't delirious after all... http://www.google.com/search?q=Luther+the+Jews+and+their+lies
Hundreds of thousands of Israelites....Sorry but most the Egyptians who 'witnessed' these things perished. The link above will get you started. Good read. YHWH speaks a lot in that book and also Himself writes these things down.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Adams was not in the country when the Consitution was drafted. Neither was Jefferson for that matter. But Jefferson kept his slaves to the end of his life. Oh, that's gonna leave a mark.
The link above will get you started. Good read. Yes. But...but if Jefferson didn't write Exodus 1, then how could it have happened? ;-)
They do indeed. The libs rely on their personal opinions and biases -- NOT Constitution law.) SC Justices as well as ALL judges should become elected officials with reasonable term limits. They are NOT Kings and Queens.
Nixon??? Only Congress can remove federal judges from office...
My observations have been justices will ask opposing arguments to the lawyers. For example the Sue, Joe and Tom question was probably posed to the side opposing homosexual "marriage." I remember Sotomeyer, the wise Latina, asking a leading question to the government SG reference the legality of Obamacare when that was before the SCOTUS. You had conservative pundits gushing over a lib on the court making their argument. It turned out different of course. Good catch. Sotomeyer gave us a head-fake and deke. Roberts appears to have signaled his mind is already made up (or is THAT another head fake??) Bader-Witchburg is openly and publicly siding with Satan -- as we expect. This is unprecedented from SCOTUS. Legal opinions and viewpoints (and lobbyists) are obviously solicited, polls are considered, and raw personal opinions complete the "scoring criteria." VOILA! The "Living, Breathing Constitution" in action.
The 14th Amendment is purposefully vague and open to interpretation, so that's what they did. Tough shit for you and me, but they didn't just "make it up." Yes, the 14A is vague...but no so vague that infanticide can't still be construed as murder. Why didn't the SC rule that an aborted baby was also a "privacy" issue WITHOUT "due process" as the preborn is clearly a person?? Yeah -- SCOTUS did make up sh*t. They ruled in favor of their own warped, politicized version of the "truth." WHICH STILL SANCTIONS MURDER OF THE UNBORN. Period.
Indeed. The US and West in general are beggars to their own demise. What made our society in the first place was recognizing there are absolutes in our world and universe. Marriage between a man and a woman is one of the human interactions which has been an absolute for all socieites since recorded history.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
No they are not. And a lot of parish priests and bishops should be asked if the SIX...count them SIX SCOTUS justices who are Roman Catholic are getting communion. John Roberts (Chief Justice) Roman Catholic Antonin Scalia Roman Catholic Anthony Kennedy Roman Catholic Clarence Thomas Roman Catholic Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jewish Stephen Breyer Jewish Samuel Alito Roman Catholic Sonia Sotomayor Roman Catholic Elena Kagan Jewish “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
SCOTUS made a life and death decision in Roe vs. Wade. In effect they believed they could make medical decisions and also 'play God' by determining life in the womb is not 'valid life.' My hope is these men repented and embraced Christ before they passed on.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
If you haven't what do you think this little statement made by Roberts yesterday during oral arguments means... "If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination"? Your quote of Roberts -- he's preemptively signaling his obvious pro-gay argument FOR Queer Marriage. I reckon immediately after THIS decision, he'll be on another flight to another isolated "island" -- this time..it just might be into the safe waiting arms of Pope Franco at The Vatican. Roberts has had his own homo-ticket punched as he inexplicably voted for Zero's Death Care. He has been THE Trojan Horse lib chosen by Dubya since Day One. Everybody seems to think Kennedy is gonna be the swing vote but after seeing that I'm not so sure his vote will matter... I agree. Roberts negates Kennedy (who also seems to be in the bag of the fags. Maybe both "Catholic consciences" of Roberts and Kennedy will speak to them (I doubt it.) With not a single Protestant on the SCOTUS (inexplicably), but 3 Jews, 6(!!) Catholics, and 3 Queers aboard, we should have expected the Republic to tank...and quickly. And it HAS. Catholics-in-High Places, were they more about God's Law and the Protestant Founders' Constitutional intent and common sense -- and less about Man's Law -- could have prevented the mess that has become a chaotic Liberal, unprincipled America.
Cha-Ching. The detractors and moral relativists are no respecters of absolutes. OR recorded historical precedence.
The obvious argument in response will be "but the Constitution is our absolute and the 14th amendment says..." What they fail at is the Constitution cannot be an absolute unless it is based on a higher absolute. There is no law without a Law Giver. The Constitution points to the Reformation; the Reformation to the Bible; The Bible points to.....God.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
John Roberts (Chief Justice) Roman Catholic Antonin Scalia Roman Catholic Anthony Kennedy Roman Catholic Clarence Thomas Roman Catholic Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jewish Stephen Breyer Jewish Samuel Alito Roman Catholic Sonia Sotomayor Roman Catholic Elena Kagan Jewish As long as the tip cup on the piano gets tagged with green, priests and bishops will give the wafer to ANY one -- including pro-abortionist celebs and politicians. How about that demo break-down of SCOTUS? What a disgrace. Protestant Supreme Court Justices: : NONE WHAT "conspiracy"?? I'm sure it is just a coincidental oversight that despite America's population identified as 37%, that we have not a single Protestant Supreme Court Justice out of 11 This is a travesty. And America is DYING as a result.
What they fail at is the Constitution cannot be an absolute unless it is based on a higher absolute. There is no law without a Law Giver. (The Constitution ---> Reformation; the Reformation ---> Bible; The Bible ---> God.) Amen! P.S. -- The 14A should be called the Jello-Amendment of the Constitution. It has become the Left's most dependable in-absolute, unstable, malleable monument to moral relativism the Constitution has ever seen, rendering the entire document....a fraud. The 14A has been the loop hole they've fantasized about: a subversive Tool for the Left.
The notion that the Christians are going to "draw the line" and "resort to civil disobedience" HERE, over gay marriage, is absurd. The line should have been drawn at killing babies. It should STILL be drawn at killing babies. Killing babies is a much worse outrage than gay marriage. Nobody gets killed in a gay marriage. But nope. No massive civil disobedience over murder. Given that, the notion that Christians are going to "stand up" and "disobey" is hooey. They will voice their dissent, and they will continue to pay taxes and do all the other things they're told. They'll vote Republican too, even though the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. You can bet on it.
Not when the Pope asks who is he to judge.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
redleghunter (#65) --- I agree, and our governments in the USA should have NOTHING to do with such religious practices. Marriage should not be taxed, or be given tax breaks. -- The queers want govt sanctions. Deny them. Yep, the left abuses the 14th, and virtually every other aspect of our constitution in their effort to replace our republic with a socialist state.. But we constitutionalists can also use it to prevent our governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
The notion that the Christians are going to "draw the line" and "resort to civil disobedience" HERE, over gay marriage, is absurd. The line should have been drawn at killing babies. It should STILL be drawn at killing babies. Killing babies is a much worse outrage than gay marriage. Nobody gets killed in a gay marriage. But nope. No massive civil disobedience over murder. Given that, the notion that Christians are going to "stand up" and "disobey" is hooey. They will voice their dissent, and they will continue to pay taxes and do all the other things they're told. They'll vote Republican too, even though the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. You can bet on it. Not opposing Roe v Wade was the last generations failure to act. This generation has another such case before SCOTUS. Plus, there are many Right to Life warriors in our churches that spend tireless hours standing in at clinics, funding their own pregnancy clinics and paying for ultrasounds for fence sitters.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor. Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did.
What SCOTUS did was to codify that a fetus is not a person per the 14th Amendment. Until and unless that is changed RvW will stand.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I'm sorry. No. Two million babies are being killed every year RIGHT NOW. It's THIS generation's Holocaust. Now we understand why the Germans didn't fight Hitler. For exactly the same reason that we don't fight our own government. 2 million a year for 3 years is 6 million, same as the death toll of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that. Gay marriage is belly button lint compared to that. Christians have done what Jesus said: pay their taxes to Caesar, even though he is bad. They haven't rebelled over the mass murder of babies, just as they didn't rebel over the Holocaust, and didn't rebel over slavery. They're not going to rebel over gay marriage either - it's chump change. I do not care who has sex with whom, or how. I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans.
Yes, that is true. But the pastors in the article are saying that gay marriage will cause Christians to perform law-breaking acts of civil disobedience, and I am throwing the bullshit flag. No, it won't. Christians don't perform civil disobedience over abortion, not in any numbers. They're not going to do so in any numbers over gay marriage either. It's an idle threat, and the bluff is going to be called.
The cynical perspective of this "threat" by the mega-thumpers is that they're expecting a tsunami of "offerings" to be generated between now and decision time.... "We're gonna make you scream, and make you shout, we're gonna turn them pockets inside-out!" - The Right Reverend Deuteronomy Skaggs
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
I think all the Roe v Wade justices are now dead.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Which WAS a medical and moral (lack of) decision by the court. They played 'God' by ruling on such. No, they mandated it. Until then states could decide. Instead SCOTUS made murdering a baby in the womb standard across the USA.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
It's THIS generation's Holocaust. Now we understand why the Germans didn't fight Hitler. For exactly the same reason that we don't fight our own government. 2 million a year for 3 years is 6 million, same as the death toll of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that. Gay marriage is belly button lint compared to that. Christians have done what Jesus said: pay their taxes to Caesar, even though he is bad. They haven't rebelled over the mass murder of babies, just as they didn't rebel over the Holocaust, and didn't rebel over slavery. They're not going to rebel over gay marriage either - it's chump change. I do not care who has sex with whom, or how. I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. I do not disagree with you. I do know murder of the innocent baby in the womb is not even close to sodomite activity. My point, which probably was clear as mud, was the homo marriage deal is here and now and we need to oppose it. Not be like Christians in the 70s who barely raised a peep. Probably because they never thought the court would impose such insanity and evil---making baby murder 'legal.' We can't be the same again. So yes the #ONE issue for Christians is Life and fighting the evils of abortion. I agree.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
I think they mean that Christians won't support gay events and clergy won't cave to perform ceremonies. I think that is the deal on civil disobedience. I'll tell you where this civil disobedience can start...By Christian churches refusing fellowship, communion, and other church ordinances or sacraments to self-proclaimed, known and proud pro-abortion and pro-sodomite 'marriage' church members. Toss them out and refuse fellowship...first come one on one, then with two or three witnesses, then the church. After that if they refuse they are to be tossed. Let's start there. Pastors and clergy have FAILED on that for over 30 years now. Excommunicate the entire Kennedy clan and see what happens. But no, they get Christian burials.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Lol... The Blind leading the Blind IS definitely a problem there. Based on this Pope's strong, unwavering, moral leadership (OH WAIT), the odds that the crucial Roman Catholic SC justices vote pro-family should remain at.....0001% (somebody should check whether Roberts' air itinerary includes Malta again.)
But we constitutionalists can also use it [the 14A] to prevent our governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... Should, but will we? How do you suppose our side can use the 14A to take back the initiative or at least wall off its vulnerabilities? We're getting killed. The .g0v has combined forces with media and liberal business. ITMT, the Left has taken the offensive and driven a tank division thru the gaping holes in 14A. As a result, it appears Constitution has been severely compromised -- IMO, close to fatally. Conservatives' "life, liberty and property" -- as well as "the pursuit of happiness" -- are already one-sided casualties, despite the Left's non-stop rhetoric.
Sadly, that seems to be the only card left in the deck to play... Be that as it may, the language becomes affected. 5,000 years of the word "Marriage" must then be expunged in the semantic context of a man & wife. In 1972 "queer" was still considered a mental illness. I think WE are mentally ill for allowing this day to come without stopping it dead in its tracks 20 years ago (oh wait -- that's what DOMA was all about! Then why is it suddenly considered "unconstitutional"?? Answer: The 14A. How was abortion legalized? 14A.)
The line should have been drawn at killing babies. It should STILL be drawn at killing babies. Killing babies is a much worse outrage than gay marriage. Nobody gets killed in a gay marriage. But nope. No massive civil disobedience over murder. Good points. Given that, the notion that Christians are going to "stand up" and "disobey" is hooey. They will voice their dissent, and they will continue to pay taxes and do all the other things they're told. They'll vote Republican too, even though the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. You can bet on it. The extent of gubmint coercion, extortion, and blackmail is going to dictate the degree of dissent and disobedience...and perhaps other more drastic steps.
Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done. They possibly repented...BUT the damage is done, and the curse passed on to us. We are involved in a brand new spiritual battle with different personnel. This time, the other side has the numbers, the tactical positions, the weaponry, the media, and the courts.... WE have God :-)
"That" (aka "abortion") is the cold-blooded murder of pre-born babies -- even "IN PRIVATE" -- was not ever "medical" decision (other than purely a life/death situation); It is...state-sanction execution of the most innocent of life. Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did. It's clearly understood was SCOTUS did; They sanctioned infanticide and denied life was..."LIFE"! On the basis of the same 14A, a preborn person living in a womb has rights....from which THEY are deprived. Perhaps the fetus or preborn needs to be named WHILE STILL IN THE WOMB.
Yup. Simply put. Since when are SCOTUS medical experts? And btw -- which "medical experts" frauds testified that living, breathing fetuses are NOT "life"??
Will you rebel at the point "marriage" between beast and man or women are sanctioned by gubmint? Brothers and sisters? Fathers and daughters? 5 year olds and 85 year olds? There ARE other worthy battles. And no, Gay marriage" is NOT about "sex"; It's about the state sanction of perversion.
I agree wholeheartedly!! What, if anything, do you think God thinks we should do about it? Regards, Stoner
Si vis pacem, para bellum
By Christian churches refusing fellowship, communion, and other church ordinances or sacraments to self-proclaimed, known and proud pro-abortion and pro-sodomite 'marriage' church members. Toss them out and refuse fellowship...first come one on one, then with two or three witnesses, then the church. After that if they refuse they are to be tossed. Let's start there. Pastors and clergy have FAILED on that for over 30 years now. Excommunicate the entire Kennedy clan and see what happens. But no, they get Christian burials. HEAR HEAR! Now ALL THAT would definitely shake things up. Long overdue. Including further persecution (and maybe even lawsuits) from Kennedy and Pelosi-types. ANY church that compromises on Biblical tenets by sanctioning either abortion OR homosexuality within its ranks must be excommunicated from that body of Christ. His Church can not subject its fellowship to this kind of blatant unrepentant hypocrisy. the AA and quotas.
Thought about it. Schindler /= Hitler. In America we have one political party for which baby-murder is supported 95%. You have the other party for which baby-murder is opposed opposed 95%. Conflating the two criminal "Americas" and indicting ALL doesn't hold water in this case. But I understand your point...and frustration.
I agree wholeheartedly!! What, if anything, do you think God thinks we should do about it? The new gods are promiscuous sex, abortions, and recreational drugs to smother the feelings of emptyness generated by the life style.
Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did. Not that we want to. But what if me and my doctor want to cut you into little pieces. Its our private choice right? Expect to overturn RvW. We would have to get rid of the leftists first.
Here is what our side needs to do. We need to tell them that we have discovered the gay gene. I know there is no such thing but say there is. Then start an abortion clinic that specializes in aborting babies that are going to be born gay. Doing the you will put the abortion rights people against the queers. The only thing is though. The abortion crowd would probably have one exception to abortion. That would be if the person had the "faggot gene".
Gay issues aren't on my radar. Don't care. I think mean people pose more danger to society. The super gay types disgust me, personally. But so do country & western people. Don't make me choose!
It could be done with a lawsuit resulting in SCOTUS overturning or reversing Roe. That is not quite precisely what was written. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153-3 (1973) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
[#67 redleghunter] SCOTUS made a life and death decision in Roe vs. Wade. In effect they believed they could make medical decisions and also 'play God' by determining life in the womb is not 'valid life.' It is not precise that they made such a decision. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 Also, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162-166 (1973) In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling." With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67-72. XI To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. 2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.
I added you to the list because of you unique perspective.
Here are two books about the 14th Amendment and its ratification process. The first I have put on scribd and it is below. It is available as a free PDF download (link below) or from Amazon in various print formats. It was originally a doctoral dissertation in 1906 and then published in 1908. It is now out of copyright. The second is from 1984 and is available from Amazon used very cheap. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908), Horace Edgar Flack (dissertation) https://archive.org/details/adoptionfourtee03flacgoog Free download - - - - - - - - - http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=horace+edgar+flack Horace Edgar Flack Multiple print editions available at Amazon - - - - - - - - - - Joseph B. James Hardcover: 331 pages Used from $1.24 - - - - - - - - - -
I do what i can.
The sub-Neanderthal demographic needs to be represented too, Buck!
Atta boy! The thimble is half full.
(snip) This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. If *that's* not playing God, then what is? For argument's sake of this debate, I'm going to dismiss "the risk to the life of the mother" card. It's the case in a distinct minority number of cases. Almost like a card that's played much like the "race-card," "homo-phobe" card, "xenophobe" card, etal. It's the "Mulligan" That never ends. (snip) We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. But yes, we DO and MUST. "Those trained in medicine and simple science" *should* be able define and resolve "life" At minimum, it is at conception when the egg is fertilized; At the point a heart beats, it's officially "life" by ANY measure of the definition of life -- whether scientifically, theologically, OR through common sense. The problem is that although it is stated that "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer," it indeed *does*. IT has become the final arbiter rejecting the common sense/scientific definition of "life." In doing so as per Roe v Wade, it clearly violates the 14th Amendment. It is also stated that any attending physician with the endorsement of a patient who deems it convenient to discard this "blob of tissue" -- redefined NOT as living or breathing, by "not viable" -- have the final word on what is a Legal Execution of either a fetus or preborn. Five minutes after the Rove v Roe ink was dry, that definition has become a political decision. The lack of distinction between a 7 day-old old fetus and 7 month old fetus -- a purposely vague "danger to the mother" loophole -- is a treacherous compromise that has wound up giving license to kill at will -- depending on the "recommendation" and "judgement" of the attending physician...or abortionist-for-hire. How many abortions (rhetorically speaking) since 1973 *have* been performed legitimately "to save the life of the mother"? And especially given scientific breakthroughs on saving BOTH fetus/baby AND mother?
The "new gods" are those self-absorbed narcissists whose narcotic is whatever they deem pleasing -- regardless of morality, ethics, or consequence to themselves or anyone else. Funny you should mention "emptiness" -- THAT would be upon voiding all spiritual connection and fulfillment with the Creator, God.
So after all the legal arguments and cases, Chan -- where do you stand on Abortion?
But yes, we DO and MUST. In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, no, the Court shouldn't and didn't. Who is we? You and I and the public can speculate all we want. I speculate that abortion is not a matter for Federal jurisdiction. If *that's* not playing God, then what is? They are playing Judge. They are interpreting the law and applying it to the facts. I think it was wrongly applied, but you would not be happy with my opinion either. I believe they should have found it to be a matter for State jurisdiction. It should be a matter for the State Legislatures (or if it is Federal, for the Federal Legislature) to address. The courts rule on the law as it is, not religious beliefs or laws the legislature avoids for political purposes. The legal question is not whether you find life begins at conception, but whether the Court finds the the law finds such and provides it some form of legal protection. I do not find any delegation of authority to the Federal government to judicially regulate abortion. On their assumed authority, they found that "the word person, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." It is the word as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and nowhere else. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Be aware that Roe was also upheld under the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I believe it should have been left to State jurisdiction. I do not find a delegation of authority to the Federal government to decide the issue of abortion.
Time to obey and clean house. That means all the prosperity frauds lose.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Then start an abortion clinic that specializes in aborting babies that are going to be born gay. Doing the you will put the abortion rights people against the queers. The only thing is though. The abortion crowd would probably have one exception to abortion. That would be if the person had the "faggot gene". Yeah it would backfire. The soulless minions of liberal marxism are never logical or consistent. They are like Muslims. While in the minority and out of power cry the victim. Once they get power they force their dogma on all.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Yet their decision led and continues to lead to the death of human life in the womb. They decided. Plus modern embryonic medicine/science has advanced to the degree where the '72 decision is archaic. No OBGYN can deny technology today can prove that SCOTUS decision or lack of one valid today.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Right there...our government decided some animals are more equal than others. Babies are disposable items. The hypocrisy in citing the 14th amendment is staggering. Basic logic: we all start our human journey and growth in the womb. To trivialize a certain point in that journey is absurd. Roe vs. Wade was bad logic and a bad decision. May God have mercy on the butchers.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Excellent points. Plus modern diagnostic equipment makes Roe vs. Wade archaic. But the modern soulless minions of Molech want more dead human babies so they can save more whales and spotted owls.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
You have the other party for which baby-murder is opposed opposed 95%. This is not true. It (or some variant of it) is repeated often here on this site. It's an obvious lie. In 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, the Supreme Court was controlled by Republicans. Roe passed anyway. Ever since then, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republicans. At one point, there were 7 Republcans and two Democrats. The entire Supreme Court has been replaced. If 95% of the Republicans opposed "baby murder", Roe never would have been instituted by the Republicans in the first place, and would have been struck down since, because with 95% of the party on one side on an issue, no wavering Republican would ever have been appointed to the Supreme Court. That is not the case. A little less than half of the Federal Judiciary overall are Republicans. Judicial activism on the issue could bring it to a head time and again...and of course if the Supreme Court does not choose to hear a case, the decision stands in a Circuit. Has that happened? No. You used the right term too: "baby murder". That's what it is. But that is not even how judges like Scalia and Thomas treat it. They treat it as a question of jurisdiction. If there were a law that required, say, the slaughter of all Mormons, that would be treated on its face as insane. There would be no deep, evasive judicial arguments. Judges, and Republicans in general, would address the issue face on and say "Selective murder is unconstitutional", and then provide a litany of clauses to make that clear. But when it comes to babies, it's NOT "baby murder" according to "95%". It's something less than that, an issue, an abstract issue of law and rights. Your Republican allies are not the warriors for this cause that you think they are. If they were, then Mitt Romney would have simply signed he pro-life pledge and been as full-throated in his opposition to abortion as he and the other Republicans are full-throated on economic issue. Truth is, the Republicans have been enablers, and have feet of clay on the issue. Truth is, you and others who really, really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, try as hard as you can to see the Republicans as the party of righteousness and truth on the KEY issus. Truth is, they are not a pro-life party. They are pro get-out-the-pro-life-vote-for-us, but when they get power, they NEVER go after abortion. Truth is, every day since 1973 the Republican Party has had the power to strike down Roe, because every day since 1973 they have controlled the Supreme Court. Truth is, they haven't, and they won't, because nothing like 95% of the Republican is pro-life. They have been co-opted by the Republicans. The Republican Party is mostly about crony capitalism. That's not a vote winner, so they play social issue cards to get the Christians to vote for them, but they put men in charge who never actually DO anything about abortion, and who never have any intention of doing anything about it. And the truth is that pro-lifers who commit themselves to the Republican Party refuse to see it. But willful blindness does not change the truth, no matter how loudly the drum is sounded. The Republicans are NEVER going to be a pro-life party. They've ALWAYS had the power to strike down Roe, from the very day they put it in place in the first place. As Governor of California, Reagan put abortion law in place there. Reagan put O'Connor and Kennedy on the Court. The "95%" dog don't hunt.
Been there read that. Who wrote Exodus? Where's the archaeological evidence supporting the assertion the Hebrews were kept as slaves by their fellow Noahedic tribesmen?
Where's the evidence the Torah is not historical?
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Where's the evidence it's not just another mythology concocted by invading, lying, victors and fallen "angels"?
Jesus Christ followed and taught from Torah. Are you inferring Messiah spread myth?
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." --Albert Einstein
So some Egyptian Pharoah is going to record his greatest defeat or the greatest defeat of all Pharaohs? They will record in pottery and coin the great plagues which inflicted them and cost them every first born. Israel DID record their events. See Torah.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
I forget, which tribe were the "Egyptians" related to again?
The evidence is in the words. They fit together perfectly. Unlike man written documents like say the constitution.
You mean like the evidence of fallen "angels" like Lucifer, err wait, Nebuchadnezzar? Whose who again in Isaiah 14?
I'm talking about how the words work together and never ever contradict each other. What are you talking aboutt? I know there were fallen angels. But what is your point about them?
LOL. Like the one in Isaiah 14?
Show me exactly what you have a problem with. 14 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. 2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. 7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. 22 For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord. 23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts. 24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? 28 In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden. 29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent. 30 And the firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant. 31 Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times. 32 What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.
Do you believe that the Lucifer of verse 12 is "satan" the fallen angel?
I'm not the biggest expert. But it sounds like it to me. Because it talks about ascending into heaven. Tell me please what you think it is describing? Or is it just a fable in your opinion.? How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Jeremiah 6: 16 Thus says the Lord: “Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ 17 Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.’ 18 Therefore hear, you nations, And know, O congregation, what is among them. 19 Hear, O earth! Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people— The fruit of their thoughts, Because they have not heeded My words Nor My law, but rejected it. 20 For what purpose to Me Comes frankincense from Sheba, And sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, Nor your sacrifices sweet to Me.” 21 Therefore thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will lay stumbling blocks before this people, And the fathers and the sons together shall fall on them. The neighbor and his friend shall perish.”
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Yes, GOP leadership are enablers, hypocrites, and weak. The Fix is in. UNTIL/IF something drastic happens within the Party. ALL I'm saying is that IF there are ANY ethics, morals and righteousness within either the Republican/Democrat Parties, IT is found amongst individuals within the Republican Party. Unlike the Dem Party, the GOP reps are NOT monolithic in their respective views and positions. As Governor of California, Reagan put abortion law in place there. Reagan put O'Connor and Kennedy on the Court. I would argue that Reagan's Elite globalist-ringer advisers selected both O'Connor and Kennedy. The truth is that pro-lifers who commit themselves to the Republican Party refuse to see it [full support from the GOP]. I agree. But is there an alternative party to support actually changes and fights in the abortion battle? The Republicans are NEVER going to be a pro-life party. No nowawdays. BUT THEY WERE at one time (and no, you can't cue the Roe v Wade GOP position as representative of the Republican Party. AGAIN, the political Fix was in as arranged by whatever Powers-That-Be.) The "95%" dog don't hunt. Maybe not. But does the 40%-50% dog hunt? Is it 25%? Tell me -- what is the pct. of Democrats who promote pro-life positions? 0%? 2%? The point: ANY AND ALL pro-life positions are found within the GOP whether we the GOP's chronic fecklessness and weakness disappoints us or not. And where pro-life Republicans STILL EXIST to fight that battle.
It's describing the fall of Nebuchadnezzar.
Bzzzt.
You should read the real genealogy.
"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)
How'bout a side of Ham with...
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
#3. To: redleghunter (#1)
(Edited)
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
"It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years."
#5. To: out damned spot (#0)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Nobody is forcing them to abandon their personal their personal beliefs.
However, there are "leaders" of other Christian denominations, as well as Jewish, Scientologist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim (although I doubt it), Wiccan and whatever else you can come up with "leaders" who favor gay marriage.
Even if SCOTUS defers to the 10th Amendment, gay marriage acieves status akin to the Sunday Blue Laws: inconsistant from state to state, but eventually achieving national recognition as religious intolerance wanes.
#6. To: Willie Green, sneakypete (#5)
#7. To: out damned spot (#0)
We will not obey: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes
gay homosexual marriage
#8. To: Willie Green (#5)
"The SCOTUS interprets our laws based on the Consitution, NOT the Christian Bible."
-- John Adams
#9. To: Willie Green (#5)
However, there are "leaders" of other Christian denominations, as well as Jewish, Scientologist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim (although I doubt it), Wiccan and whatever else you can come up with "leaders" who favor gay marriage.
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
moral and religious people.
width=16>Works 1:71
#11. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#12. To: Fred Mertz (#11)
Very Christian attitude you have, Mr. Taliban.
#13. To: Fred Mertz (#11)
(Edited)
Basic timeline
#14. To: VxH (#10)
Infidels can be just as moral and religious as Christian sheeple.
#15. To: VxH (#10)
#16. To: VxH, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Don, BobCeleste, liberator, tomder55, out damned spot (#3)
Yeah we'll see how long the parrots remained perched once the tax-exempt gravy train dries up.
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
First, John Adams was referring to a moral and religious people, not moral and religious Christians.
#18. To: VxH, liberator (#4)
It's unfortunate for this generation, in the purview of wise religious fools, that they've been castrated and rendered impotent in discerning and making use of those Natural facts.
#19. To: redleghunter (#16)
The upside is all the charlatan prosperity gospel televangelists. The Beamer driving 'pastors' will have to find another gravy train.
#20. To: redleghunter, Vx? (#18)
Just think...the temple eunuchs you always talk about will need a second job to make the payments on the McMansion.
#21. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone, liberator, Don, BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#5)
The SCOTUS interprets our laws based on the Consitution, NOT the Christian Bible.
#22. To: misterwhite, VxH (#15)
#23. To: redleghunter, BobCeleste (#16)
I am sure most are prepared to deal with this and from what I can tell most already operate as non-profit organizations.
#24. To: misterwhite, liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#8)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
#25. To: VxH (#9)
And every one of them is evidently in denial of the biological facts
#26. To: VxH (#13)
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
#27. To: redleghunter (#24)
"When I joined the Army being gay was against regulations...Then it was ok as long as you did not talk about it...Then it was legal and lauded...I'm retiring before they make it mandatory!"
#28. To: redleghunter (#21)
If the SCOTUS followed the Constitution they would not even hear the 'gay marriage' issue.
…21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
#29. To: Willie Green, ALl (#5)
Nobody is forcing them to abandon their personal their personal beliefs.
#30. To: out damned spot (#0)
(Edited)
We will not obey: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
#31. To: Liberator (#23)
Where's that "angry God" sermon again? :-)
#32. To: rlk (#30)
(Edited)
I find no reason that anyone should be compelled to contribute to, or perticipate in, glorification or false normalization of a system of serious psychopathology.
#33. To: redleghunter (#31)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#6)
You're full of shit Willie.
Do I look like a Supreme Court Justice to you?
I guarantee... That's a FACT....
So save your whining & crying & griping for Roberts & Kennedy...
Those are the two who are probably gonna screw you by siding with the libtard side of the court on this issue.
So I'm just gonna kick back and munch on some popcorn and watch it happen.
#35. To: redleghunter (#24)
"When I joined the Army being gay was against regulations...Then it was ok as long as you did not talk about it...Then it was legal and lauded...I'm retiring before they make it mandatory!"
Har!
#36. To: TooConservative (#27)
fewer problems with soldiers picking up venereal disease from local women/prostitutes, etc.
#37. To: Liberator (#17)
"In the interest of historical context, for Adams and his peers, "religious" meant "Christian."
-- John Adams
#38. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#31)
#39. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#36)
All on the main road going into post. When I came back to Sill in '94 the massage parlors were all gone, the strip clubs were pushed into the hinter land at the county line, but the pawn shops were still there with a fresh coat of paint.
#40. To: SOSO (#38)
Are you slowing down?
#41. To: misterwhite redleg hunter (#37)
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” -- John Adams
#42. To: misterwhite (#37)
#43. To: redleghunter, SOSO (#40)
#44. To: SOSO, redleghunter, ALL (#38)
#45. To: Liberator (#44)
#46. To: redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Too Conservative (#24)
(Edited)
#47. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#36)
When I reported to Fort Sill back in the late 80s the city of Lawton was a hole. Pawn shops, strip joints, massage parlors etc. All on the main road going into post.
#48. To: Willie Green (#34)
You're full of shit Willie. Am I wearing black robes? Do I look like a Supreme Court Justice to you?
#49. To: misterwhite (#15)
(Edited)
Second, being a Unitarian, Jefferson did not believe that Jesus Christ is God. He believed there was only one God.
Third, your Jefferson quote was referring to the Virginia State Constitution,
#50. To: SOSO (#22)
Jefferson also was a slave owner and had one for his personal pleasure having children with her. Was he one of the religious and moral people to who Adam's was referring?
#51. To: CZ82 (#46)
#52. To: VxH (#50)
What did Adams do to abolish slavery Comrade?
#53. To: A K A Stone (#48)
They just make stuff up. Roe vs wade.
In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion:Amendment XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
#54. To: Willie Green (#53)
They didn't just make stuff up. In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion:
#55. To: Willie Green (#53)
In Roe v Wade, the Court balanced the rights of the Mother against the rights of the baby
#56. To: SOSO (#52)
(Edited)
#57. To: redleghunter (#26)
unobserved 'science.'
#58. To: VxH, liberator (#57)
What's the "observed 'science'" regarding the alleged slavery of the Jews in Egypt?
#59. To: SOSO, Vx? (#52)
Adams never owned a slave. Was vocally against slavery all of his public life and supported gradual abolishment. (John Adams wrote, “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in…abhorrence.")
#60. To: redleghunter, Vx? (#58)
Exodus 1
#61. To: A K A Stone (#54)
they [SC justices] make stuff up.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#54)
Every supreme court judge that ruled that way should have been taken out in the back of the White House and shot. That is what the President should have done.
That's nutz... and unconstitutional to boot...
They have to be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate.
#63. To: redleghunter (#51)
SCOTUS oral arguments are weird.
#64. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone (#53)
In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
#65. To: A K A Stone, A Pole, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#54)
Like I said they make stuff up.
#66. To: Liberator, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, A Pole, nolu chan, A K A Stone, CZ82, wmfights, *Religious History and Issues* (#61)
They are NOT Kings and Queens.
#67. To: Liberator, GarySpFc, Willie Green (#64)
Yeah -- SCOTUS did make up sh*t. They ruled in favor of their own warped, politicized version of the "truth." WHICH STILL SANCTIONS MURDER OF THE UNBORN. Period.
#68. To: CZ82, redleghunter, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, Too Conservative, A K A Stone, stoner, Zesta, SOSO (#46)
Have you been keeping up with the USSC case on homo marriage??
#69. To: redleghunter (#65)
What made our society in the first place was recognizing there are absolutes in our world and universe. Marriage between a man and a woman is one of the human interactions which has been an absolute for all societies since recorded history.
#70. To: Liberator (#69)
The detractors and moral relativists are no respecters of absolutes. OR recorded historical precedence.
#71. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, A Pole, nolu chan, A K A Stone, CZ82, TooConservative, wmfights (#66)
And a lot of parish priests and bishops should be asked if the SIX...count them SIX SCOTUS justices who are Roman Catholic are getting communion.
#72. To: redleghunter, tpaine (#70)
The obvious argument in response will be "but the Constitution is our absolute and the 14th amendment says..."
#73. To: redleghunter (#67)
#74. To: Liberator, CZ82, redleghunter, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, Too Conservative, A K A Stone, stoner, Zesta, (#68)
Roberts negates Kennedy (who also seems to be in the bag of the fags. Maybe both "Catholic consciences" of Roberts and Kennedy will speak to them (I doubt it.)
#75. To: Liberator, redleghunter, y'all (#72)
What made our society in the first place was recognizing there are absolutes in our world and universe. Marriage between a man and a woman is one of the human interactions which has been an absolute for all societies since recorded history.
Cha-Ching. - The detractors and moral relativists are no respecters of absolutes. OR recorded historical precedence. ---- Liberator
The obvious argument in response will be "but the Constitution is our absolute and the 14th amendment says..." What they fail at is the Constitution cannot be an absolute unless it is based on a higher absolute. --- There is no law without a Law Giver. --- The Constitution points to the Reformation; the Reformation to the Bible; The Bible points to.....God. ---- redleghunter
Liberator ---- Amen!
PS. -- The 14A should be called the Jello-Amendment of the Constitution. It has become the Left's most dependable in-absolute, unstable, malleable monument to moral relativism the Constitution has ever seen, rendering the entire document....a fraud. The 14A has been the loop hole they've fantasized about: a subversive Tool for the Left.
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
#77. To: redleghunter (#67)
" My hope is these men repented and embraced Christ before they passed on. "
#78. To: redleghunter (#67)
In effect they believed they could make medical decisions and also 'play God' by determining life in the womb is not 'valid life.'
#79. To: Willie Green, redleghunter, All (#78)
Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did.
#80. To: redleghunter (#76)
Not opposing Roe v Wade was the last generations failure to act. This generation has another such case before SCOTUS.
#81. To: redleghunter (#76)
Plus, there are many Right to Life warriors in our churches that spend tireless hours standing in at clinics, funding their own pregnancy clinics and paying for ultrasounds for fence sitters.
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#81)
Yes, that is true. But the pastors in the article are saying that gay marriage will cause Christians to perform law-breaking acts of civil disobedience, and I am throwing the bullshit flag. No, it won't.
#83. To: Stoner (#77)
Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done.
#84. To: Willie Green (#78)
No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
I'm sorry. No. Two million babies are being killed every year RIGHT NOW.
#86. To: Vicomte13, liberator (#81)
Yes, that is true. But the pastors in the article are saying that gay marriage will cause Christians to perform law-breaking acts of civil disobedience, and I am throwing the bullshit flag. No, it won't.
#87. To: SOSOCZ82, redleghunter, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, Too Conservative, A K A Stone, stoner, Zesta, (#74)
Not when the Pope asks who is he to judge.
#88. To: tpaine (#75)
Yep, the left abuses the 14th, and virtually every other aspect of our constitution in their effort to replace our republic with a socialist state..
#89. To: tpaine (#75)
(Edited)
Our governments in the USA should have NOTHING to do with such religious practices. Marriage should not be taxed, or be given tax breaks. -- The queers want govt sanctions. Deny them.
#90. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, SOSO (#73)
The notion that the Christians are going to "draw the line" and "resort to civil disobedience" HERE, over gay marriage, is absurd.
#91. To: Stoner, redleghunter (#77)
(" My hope is these men repented and embraced Christ before they passed on. ")
#92. To: Willie Green, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#78)
No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.
#93. To: SOSO, Willie Green, redleghunter, Vicomt313 (#79)
What SCOTUS did was to codify that a fetus is not a person per the 14th Amendment. Until and unless that is changed RvW will stand.
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
They're not going to rebel over gay marriage either - it's chump change. I do not care who has sex with whom, or how.
#95. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "
#96. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, SOSO (#86)
I'll tell you where this civil disobedience can start...
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that.
#98. To: Stoner (#95)
" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "
#99. To: Willie Green (#78)
No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.
#100. To: redleghunter, SOSO, liberator, Biff Tannen (#86)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#100)
#102. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone (#53)
So the only way to overturn the Court's ruling is to ratify another Constitutional Amendment that specifically protects the baby's Right to Life. Congress has been trying to do that ever since 1973, with no luck.
In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion:
VIII
#103. To: redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Willie Green (#67)
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
X
#104. To: Biff Tannen (#101)
#105. To: Liberator, redleghunter, tpaine (#72)
P.S. -- The 14A should be called the Jello-Amendment of the Constitution. It has become the Left's most dependable in-absolute, unstable, malleable monument to moral relativism the Constitution has ever seen, rendering the entire document....a fraud. The 14A has been the loop hole they've fantasized about: a subversive Tool for the Left.
The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
A Dissertation of 1906 Published in 1908 Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment Hardcover
Publisher: Mercer Univ Pr; First edition (February 1984)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0865540985
ISBN-13: 978-0865540989
Product Dimensions: 1.2 x 6.5 x 9.5 inches
#106. To: A K A Stone, Biff Tannen (#104)
I added you [Biff Tannen] to the list because of you unique perspective.
Huh?
#107. To: A K A Stone (#104)
#108. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone, Biff Tannen (#106)
A K A Stone: I added you [Biff Tannen] to the list because of you unique perspective. (Huh??)
#109. To: Biff Tannen (#107)
I do what i can.
#110. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#103)
It is not precise that they [SCOTUS] made such a decision [of playing God.]
The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.
#111. To: rlk (#98)
(Edited)
The new gods are promiscuous sex, abortions, and recreational drugs to smother the feelings of emptyness generated by the life style.
#112. To: nolu chan (#102)
(Edited)
#113. To: Liberator, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#110)
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
#114. To: Liberator (#112)
So after all the legal arguments and cases, Chan -- where do you stand on Abortion?
#115. To: Liberator (#96)
#116. To: A K A Stone, BobCeleste, liberator, CZ82 (#100)
Here is what our side needs to do. We need to tell them that we have discovered the gay gene. I know there is no such thing but say there is.
#117. To: nolu chan (#103)
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
#118. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#103)
To summarize and to repeat:
#119. To: Liberator (#110)
#120. To: Liberator (#97)
In America we have one political party for which baby-murder is supported 95%.
#121. To: redleghunter (#58)
Exodus 1
#122. To: VxH (#121)
#123. To: redleghunter (#122)
(Edited)
Where's the evidence the Torah is not historical?
The Torah devotes more than four books to the proposition that the Israelites came to Canaan after having been subjugated in Egypt for generations, and yet there is no archaeological evidence to support that they were ever in Egypt. A prolonged Egyptian stay should have left Egyptian elements in the material culture, such as the pottery found in the early Israelite settlements in Canaan, but there are none...
www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt
#124. To: VxH (#123)
Where's the evidence it's not just another mythology concocted by invading, lying, victors and fallen "angels"?
#125. To: redleghunter (#124)
a prolonged Egyptian stay should have left Egyptian elements in the material culture, such as the pottery found in the early Israelite settlements in Canaan, but there are none...
History is what history is.
#126. To: VxH (#125)
#127. To: redleghunter (#126)
(Edited)
#128. To: VxH (#123)
Where's the evidence it's not just another mythology concocted by invading, lying, victors and fallen "angels"?
#129. To: A K A Stone (#128)
(Edited)
The evidence is in the words.
#130. To: VxH (#129)
You mean like the evidence of fallen "angels" like Lucifer, err wait, Nebuchadnezzar?
#131. To: A K A Stone (#130)
I know there were fallen angels.
#132. To: VxH (#131)
LOL. Like the one in Isaiah 14?
#133. To: A K A Stone (#132)
#134. To: VxH (#133)
Do you believe that the Lucifer of verse 12 is "satan" the fallen angel?
#135. To: VxH (#127)
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#120)
Truth is, the Republicans have been enablers, and have feet of clay on the issue. Truth is, you and others who really, really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, try as hard as you can to see the Republicans as the party of righteousness and truth on the KEY issus.
#137. To: A K A Stone (#134)
Tell me please what you think it is describing?
#138. To: redleghunter (#135)
(Edited)
#139. To: VxH (#138)
#140. To: redleghunter (#139)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]