Posted on 09/01/2015 5:55:47 AM PDT by Nextrush
Anything in the last fifty years or so is very highly suspect, more-so the more recent.
You did not address the rest of my statement.
The nature of humans requires opposite genders for humanity to survive. That some couples may not produce offspring does not invalidate the requirement. Homosexual unions can not - by their very nature - produce offspring. This fact has always been recognized.
Comparing homosexual unions to bans on interracial marriage is nonsense. Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not.
Love sometimes must take the form of a rebuke. Affirming one in his sin and furthering him along the road to perdition is not love but rather its opposite.
Cite something from the Constitution itself.
Homosexual couples can and do use surrogates for impregnation or birthing, as do straight couples. I agree with your moral case against SSM, but our preference has been defeated in the US legal system. And current law must obtain until and unless a future SCOTUS majority decides otherwise.
Surrogates? You premise your position on surrogates?
That surrogates are REQUIRED for ANY AND ALL homosexual unions to produce offspring proves my point.
I think it is important to keep natural law, reality, and reason at the front of the debate, because these concepts are less malleable than “religious convictions”. Moslems have deeply held religious convictions... that lead to beheadings and other murderous rampages.
When people are too ignorant or evil to discern between righteous and wicked attitudes and beliefs, demagogues can call truthful people “religious” in order to paint those opposed to brazen lies as wacko extremists. Often the quiet, unassuming, reasoned folks who are repulsed by these abominations *are* religious.
In these cases, though, their religious convictions are synonymous with the natural order of the created universe. The religion angle is a sitting duck. The reality angle is harder to demagogue.
I crafted a headline quick. There was Supreme Court ‘action’ in the case, refusing to hear an appeal.
This case does lead back to a Supreme Court ‘order’ to force gay marriage on the nation.
The useful idiot leftist force is strong in this one...
“On the other hand she was elected to carry out the duties of the county clerk, one of which is to issue marriage licenses”
Yes, but the “marriage licenses” she has the official duty to issue are Kentucky marriage licenses, NOT Federal marriage licenses, and Kentucky marriage licenses do not apply to — and, therefore, it is ludicrous to issue them to — same-sex couples.
By proxy (SCOTUS) FedGov has it’s position on the subject; Kentucky remains unmoved.
I’ve got a bad feeling this thing’s going to be hammer-and-tongs down to the last man standing.
Contempt for what is contemptible is virtue.
Submission to what is contemptible is complicity.
“Beast.gov” is a sort of Web 2.0 referent to the biblical concept of “the fourth beast” of Daniel 7; understood to be representative of that vile and terrible kingdom yet to rise in the earth that will be ruled by Antichrist — “The Beast” of St. John’s Revelation (cf. Rev. 13).
MUCH has been written, and the Biblical specifics are too often clouded by a profusion of extrabiblical supposition, speculation, and philosophizing.
A few things are clear amid the fray:
— this coming kingdom will be a corporate manifestation of deepest evil.
— the influence of this kingdom will be global with no attached necessity that its borders encompass the whole Earth.
— in the depths of such darkness, the church will stand apart as a polar opposite to the vileness of the beast kingdom, and stand with blazing purity and unstinting commitment to Jesus, even in its very teeth.
— there will be more martyrs; perhaps millions. IOW, you think ISIS is vile; you ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet.
— every living soul WILL choose a kingdom, and in that time there will be ONLY TWO to choose from. YOU will side with the beast, or with Jesus Christ.
And there’s more, but even at this I risk seeding argument between the pre-trib, the post-trib, the Preterists, and the amillennialists, and a host of other assorted -ists lining the halls of eschatology.
I do hope, however, that what I have presented is at least enlightening enough to give you a grid put “Beast.gov” into an understandable context.
Do you think post-menopausal women should be prohibited from marrying?
That's why I think the most effective approach here would be for states to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses entirely.
Who the hell is anyone in a state government to insist on "licensing" a marriage, in the first place?
If that makes me a liberal, then maybe one of us should be stepping back and looking at what constitutes conservative principles in this republic. We're witnessing the wholesale collapse of Western civilization. There isn't much of a "Christian coalition" left in a nation where Planned Parenthood butchers unborn babies and sells their body parts, is there?
The good news is that what you're seeing here isn't going to last very long. The bad news is that it's going to unravel when this country is filled with Mexican Muslims.
I don't see how this can be the case. So if a heterosexual couple wants to get married and is free to do so by any objective measure, what happens if an elected legislature tells them that they can't?
I did. The signing portion is the most important part. It is under the authority of those Delegates that it has the legitimacy it possessed when it was sent to the states.
It acknowledged that Jesus was "Our Lord", and this wasn't a mere formality back in 1787.
It's precursor, the Articles of Confederation, was even more explicit.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.
But as for citing the Constitution, here's another bit of which most people are unaware.
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
The President was not required to work on the Sabbath because that would be a violation of Christian doctrine.
In these cases, though, their religious convictions are synonymous with the natural order of the created universe. The religion angle is a sitting duck. The reality angle is harder to demagogue.
I understand your point and I agree with it.
More like we should treat the existing system as "broken" and try to throw as many monkey wrenches into illegal rulings as we possibly can.
What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.!"
Thank the 14th amendment for that. It is so badly written, and so overreaching that courts can use it to implement anything they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.