[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: 29820
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

Comments (1-62) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#63. To: redleghunter (#51)

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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   10:40:17 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: A K A Stone, A Pole, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#54)

Like I said they make stuff up.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   10:57:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   11:14:02 ET  Reply   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.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

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


#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??

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   11:38:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Cha-Ching.

The detractors and moral relativists are no respecters of absolutes. OR recorded historical precedence.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   11:41:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Liberator (#69)

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   11:48:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   11:57:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: redleghunter, tpaine (#70)

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 ---> 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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   12:05:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: redleghunter (#67)

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-30   13:39:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.)

Not when the Pope asks who is he to judge.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-30   13:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Liberator, redleghunter, y'all (#72)

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.

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.

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.

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...

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-30   13:44:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Vicomte13 (#73)

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   13:59:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: redleghunter (#67)

" My hope is these men repented and embraced Christ before they passed on. "

Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-04-30   13:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.'

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.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-30   14:04:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-30   14:09:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: redleghunter (#76)

Not opposing Roe v Wade was the last generations failure to act. This generation has another such case before SCOTUS.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-30   14:28:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-30   14:30:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   14:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Stoner (#77)

Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:06:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Willie Green (#78)

No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:11:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

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.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:16:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:25:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:31:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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..

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:42:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:48:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:53:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Stoner, redleghunter (#77)

(" My hope is these men repented and embraced Christ before they passed on. ")

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 :-)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:57:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

"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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:09:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Yup. Simply put.

Since when are SCOTUS medical experts? And btw -- which "medical experts" frauds testified that living, breathing fetuses are NOT "life"??

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:12:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:15:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "

I agree wholeheartedly!!

What, if anything, do you think God thinks we should do about it?

Regards, Stoner

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-04-30   17:23:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, SOSO (#86)

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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:27:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Stoner (#95)

" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "

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.

rlk  posted on  2015-04-30   19:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Willie Green (#78)

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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: redleghunter, SOSO, liberator, Biff Tannen (#86)

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".

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: A K A Stone (#100)

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!

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-30   21:34:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

It could be done with a lawsuit resulting in SCOTUS overturning or reversing Roe.

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:

That is not quite precisely what was written.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153-3 (1973)

VIII

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   21:47:58 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (104 - 140) not displayed.

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