To: Jeff Head
I don't disagree with anything you said there nor does anything you said there disagree with anything I wrote. Certainly the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of morality that is a question between us and our God. But the Supreme Court is surely the final arbiter of law and to maintain otherwise is simply ludicrous.
My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral but there are now limits to the ability of conservatives to impose their morality through the law-and that is not entirely a bad thing when you see how these bathroom prosecutions undermine our rule of law.
You will also note that I'm very firm that we conservatives should expect the law to oppose homosexuality in support of higher values.
posted on 08/31/2007 4:02:48 PM PDT
("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
Well, I would argue that a President or a Congress with gumption, is the equal to the Surpeme Court on matters of law, or ought to be. Although the Court interprets law, they do not make it or enforce it.
They are all three coequal and all charged and oathed to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
As Andrew Jackson said when speaking of the then Supreme Court Justice's opinion..."let him enforce it."
As to the other, we are in agreement.
posted on 08/31/2007 4:07:53 PM PDT
by Jeff Head
(Liberty is not Free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
“My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral”
Thats where you lost me.
My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral
Why not? It is immoral.
posted on 09/01/2007 12:21:30 PM PDT
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson