[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 29817
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 103.

#5. To: out damned spot (#0)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

These folks are fighting a losing battle.
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.

The SCOTUS interprets our laws based on the Consitution, NOT the Christian Bible.
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.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-29   7:15:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Willie Green, sneakypete (#5)

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-29   8:28:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#6)

You're full of shit Willie.

Am I wearing black robes?
Do I look like a Supreme Court Justice to you?

Get a clue: nobody gives a flying spit what my opinion is on anything.
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.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not gonna worry about it much...
So I'm just gonna kick back and munch on some popcorn and watch it happen.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-29   11:31:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

I'm saying you are full of it if you believe the interpret the constitution. They just make stuff up. Roe vs wade.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-29   21:13:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: A K A Stone (#48)

They just make stuff up. Roe vs wade.

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:

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;

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.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-30   6:52:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   10:46:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   11:17:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Willie Green (#67)

[#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

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.

Also,

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162-166 (1973)

X

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   22:05:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 103.

#110. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#103)

It is not precise that they [SCOTUS] made such a decision [of playing God.]

(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 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.

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?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01 00:39:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01 01:57:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#103)

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.

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.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01 02:05:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 103.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com