Posted on 10/08/2014 6:47:35 AM PDT by marshmallow
Edited on 10/08/2014 7:07:16 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
[snip]
When the gay marriage lobby defeats the rest of the state laws we can expect a final gay blitzkrieg of the Maginot Line of churches.
Up until the late 1870s, law students were taught to go to the Constitution to find out if a law was constitutional in each case. After that they were taught case law and that the question at hand was “settled law”.
My thoughts:
— First, remember this IS a Christian nation. As the great thinker Francis A. Schaeffer pointed out in 1982, (http://www.peopleforlife.org/francis.html), this nation was built upon a Biblical worldview. Everything in the Constitution needs to be understood in that context. Anything that violates Biblical Law erodes the foundation upon which the Constitution was built.
— States do not have to put up with this. The federal judiciary has no more right to violate the Constitution than anyone else. States have every right to invoke our Biblically based Constitution and reject the “interpretations” of the activist courts. There has never been a better case for state-level nullification.
— In liberal states that want to go along with this nonsense, county sheriffs in patriotic areas can and should continue enforcing bans on gay marriage. County sheriffs are our last line of defense when even the states are corrupted by communists.
— Citizens can and should also be prepared to take direct, nonviolent action to enforce existing gay marriage bans — notwithstanding the actions of the courts to “strike down” those bans. Local ordinances should be passed reinforcing state laws. In some cases, citizens’ arrests might be a useful tool — in places where Constitutional sheriffs are available to take custody of those arrested.
Where do the people go?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Yet when one goes to court, one is expected to call that person in a long, black robe - “your honor.” There is nothing honorable about their leftist rulings. I agree with Mark Levin - Supreme Court judges should be term limited and radical judges should be subject to impeachment and recall. How dare they overrule the will of the people in the states? I also don’t understand why Americans sit be and allow this stuff to take over - no protests, nothing - its like, “ho hum.”
I guess I have to find out on what grounds they are basing their immoral judgment because immorality is a societal ebola. Dormant for 21 days and then all lets loose ending in a breakdown of internal organs and death. Pretty apropos, eh?
I do a fair amount of forensic work and, when called upon to do so, I address judges as either “Sir” or “Ma’am”—Nothing further.
The function of the judiciary was left weak and vague by the Founders for a reason.
Ah, I see said the blind man. Funny thing about reading a document in historical context. Must be done in every field of literature and Language, but not in deciphering our Constitution or the Bible.
I say we amend the Constitution to protect the original intent and make it law that all rulings must adhere to the founding principles in historical context in historical English. Theologians learn ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Or at least they should.
It’s as if the courts have decided that marriage has less to do with protecting minor children than it does with permitting the tax-free “inheritance” of money, pensions and social security payments from one “spouse” to the other.
GREED is a powerful motivator for “change”.
We need a Constitutional Concordance and dictionary with reference to the founder’s writings all in one volume. No cherry picking and it must complete including debates between the founders. Boy, what an encyclopedia that would be. Screw the immoral judges who think they rule the world from the Throne.
The blood of the innocent flows from the SCOTUS bench down the steps and through the completely interconnected streets of the United States through which every American steps staining their skin and infecting their souls.
If we don’t do it for abortion, the abomination that causes desolation, why expect it for homosexuality? The one and only thing that got conservatives to rally, and I was appalled, was the tea party tax rallies. That was universal, I suppose. Social psychologists have the knowledge to get a nation to recycle or do whatever it they want you to do, so why aren’t conservatives stating things in a universally relative manner?
Take 33 minutes and watch this award winning video [Graphic]. Logical progression of the value of life and why we as a group DO NOTHING. (also psychologically proven-someone else will do it)
Less Morality = More laws
Less Morality = More licensing,taxing, regulation,etc.
See where this is going?
This should be the last straw. We should be calling for state secession if nullification fails.
So far we have kept it out of Georgia. The SCOTUS should have ruled that its a states rights issue. Every state should make the decision of who they issue a civil marriage license to.
“I am troubled by this rush to homosexual marriage because of the legal reasoning used.”
There is another facet here as well, ie refusing to “believe” in gay marriage.
except that doesn’t work. I reminded my son of this fact and he insisted the number was more like 15-25%.
This is what people who watch comedy shows for their news believe; or people who only watch one or a few sources for news and never fact check for themselves. If it’s on the internet, it must be true right?
1.7% figure is from the CDC, a government agency who, if anything, have more of a motive to overstate the number of homos in the nation.
Loving v. Virginia. States are not allowed to set their own moral, cultural, or historical standards regarding marriage.
I know, I get it. The propagandists in the MSM refuse to utter realistic info regarding it though, so their worldview colors their agenda or vice-verse and you get inaccurate reporting that leads people to believe fallacious information.
Understood. But what if a state repudiates this decision?
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.