Replies

Breedlove sought every means of finding a work around that would not cause him to violate his religious beliefs. The state refused to work with him.

He was fully qualified for his job one day and the previous 2 decades, and the next day with absolutely no change in himself he would have been a criminal.

How’s that for justice?

They don’t seem to get that THE POINT IS
to make you violate your religious beliefs.

Many of us kept stating how if we allowed homosexual marriage then this would happen just like we warned about letting homosexuals into the boy scouts as they would molest boys and they have.

We were told off the radical left, ignorant folk, and the deniers that it was their so called rights to marry and others told us that we were being stupid and the Govt should not stop them from marrying

Instead, they say, the AOC forced them to choose between “taking an act that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs or being criminally prosecuted.”

The left has no problem using coercion to get their way.

Ping

Two former magistrates sued the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts claiming it violated their religious rights by forcing them to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or face discipline, termination, and even criminal prosecution.

I agree with these magistrates' opinion/beliefs on same-sex marriage. BUT, their religious freedom argument is wrong (and dangerous). To the extent they were acting in their official capacity as a magistrate, they were acting on behalf of the government, not themselves, so their personal religious beliefs should play no role in how they carry out their official duties.

Some officious pinhead in black robes should dismiss their case, telling them that they have "no standing." Isn't that what the Supreme A__holes tell us every time we try to dig into Obama's college transcripts or birth records?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, A__holes. Let's see how you like it.

Imagine being Jewish Judge in Nazi Germany and trying to win some legal case against the Nazi’s.

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Horray for liberty, and for taking the Lt. Gov’s blueprint on how to fight this!!

Setting aside the apparent need of the Left to destroy civilization, the root cause of the marriage problem is that government is involved in marriages. I propose a simpler solution; namely that a legal agreement be signed using any notary public and presented to the county clerk for registration of the document. The clerk would simply be noting that a legal document had been filed. The couple could, either before or after that point, find a person of their choice to perform whatever religious rights they and the person performing the rights agree to.

The first element would satisfy all government needs for the registration of the relationship in question. The second element would independently satisfy the moral, ethical, and social needs of the couple and the person performing the religious ceremony.

End of drill.

For years I’ve posted that the ultimate goal of the homosexual normalization movement is to subvert the Church and all other moral resistance that stands in the way.

Now it has become clear to most people for the first time what the true objectives are.

Now I have also sought solutions, solutions that will endure and remain strong against all challenges. And I have found one. To understand what must be done will require you to think a little deeper and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’.

First, here are some ‘knee-jerk’ solutions that don’t work or will not work:

1. DOMA. DOMA was no solution and already has easily been removed as an obstacle.

2. Amending the US Constitution. This is a step in the right direction but amending for the purpose of defining ‘marriage’ is short-sighted and can fail to gather sufficient momentum just as the BBA of years past (Balanced Budget Amendment). It’s actually pathetic to have to think we must amend our sacred document to guard against perversion and there’s no telling if such an amendment would stand the test of time as it may conflict with rulings of other amendments. Such a solution also attempts to enact morality and common sense which is a futile effort, an intractable problem because there’s always another exception, an offshoot, another ‘problem of the day’ that can’t be solved with legislation.

Basically, we can legislate neither morality nor common sense ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.

But before considering other alternatives, we should take note of certain observations:

1. Americans by and large do not want to normalize homosexuality. Recent press and ‘polls’ are trying to condition Americans into thinking that they do want to normalize homosexuality. This is a lie.

2. 38 states passed state legislation defining marriage in its tradition sense or they voted against initiatives to legalize homosexual marriage or they passed laws or held referendums or amended their state constitutions to either ban homosexual marriage or define precisely what marriage is, between one man and one woman.

38 states; think about that.

12 States passed same-sex marriage legislation or initiatives.

3. Now note that it takes 3/4’s of states which is presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.

4. Federal Courts have struck down state bans, definitions and initiatives that seek to uphold traditional marriage.

5. The US Supreme Court is getting ready to review the definition of marriage and they are sure to rule for homosexuals. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote just as he was when he ruled against DOMA in Windsor.

So given the 5 points above it would seem reasonable to amend the US Constitution to define marriage but as previously pointed out this would be solution that falls short.

To understand better, we need to look at the above five points again and importantly the second point. Read it again. What does it tell us?

It tells us the States have no power before the federal government.

It’s as simple as that.

Let’s repeat it with emphasis:

THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Now some may still think ... “Oh but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee. They have been sold to the highest bidder. We live in a time when the corruption in Congress is so thick that it would be unbelievable to past generations.

Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments.

A Marriage Amendment will be challenged by rulings that elevate the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments over it.

Now let’s repeat the main reality:

THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Why is this? How did this happen?

The answer is easily ascertained. This loss of power is a direct result of the 17th Amendment which extinguished the power of state legislatures before Congress. Just a note in passing, the 17th, the 16th and the 18th were all passed in 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day can result in disaster.

Now, 102 years later, we have perversion threatening our freedom of conscience and the very fiber of our beings.

SO, if we are to consider amending our US Constitution, we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the core of the problem. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.

The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it but that can be a very hard sale, perhaps more difficult than privatizing Social Security. The 17th Amendment gave the power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; the reason for repeal will get lost in the noise and be forgotten.

But let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?

The answer is yes. And it involves amending the US Constitution through the States asserting Article V.

Now I will repeat an illustration that shows us how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note that this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and also has incorporated valuable input from concerned Freepers.

************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII

To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

Section 2.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************

Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. Now I will point out that such an amendment does not get us out of the woods completely. US Supreme Court Justices can still base bizarre rulings from the 14th Amendment and other amendments to overrule a 28th Amendment like the one above. But then States can void such rulings and this sets the stage for a grand conflict that can be resolved by a President and a Congress that will reign in the US Supreme Court by packing it, cutting its budget and pruning its jurisdictions. The 28th Amendment can survive as a preeminent amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.

WHAT WE CAN WE DO TODAY?

We should strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

And we should strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.

Most people today don’t even know who their state legislators are. Is this surprising in light of the 17th Amendment?

Start with a simple task today. Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.

In a marriage...the two people marry each other. The priest, minister, rabbi, judge...whatever, merely acts as an official witness...by the power vested in me by the State of —————I pronounce you whatever and whatever you are..The person conducting the ceremony is merely the states witness...nothing more.