Doma

[Yarddog]

Yeah the 5 unelected Judges let the world know how they feel about the will of the people over their own judgment when they denied the peoples will concerning gay marriage on propisition 8 in California didn't they?

Focus now son and stay with the topic and don't sway. To be exact, it was the will of 52% of the people so the vote was fairly split. And I was a little amazed at how the judges were split as well. Usually, the 5-4 votes are consistently split between the conservative and liberal judges but in this one the sides were mixed together.

SCOTUS didn't rule that Prop 8 was unconstitutional though, so they didn't go against the will of those 52% of Californians. A California district court did that. SCOTUS agreed with the California Supreme Court that proponents of Prop 8 didn't have the legal standing to appeal the District Court's ruling.

Just as we also saw how the courts really feel when the archdiocese tried to practice their own freedom of religion on that lesbian teacher didn't we?

That ruling was from a Civil court which a jury set the verdict of guilty. We have yet to see what an appeal will find without a jury. I wouldn't be surprised to see this verdict thrown out.

As we are also now seeing many Christian business owners being sued across the country for standing up for their faith in God, and for their right to speak out against homosexaul acts by refusing to partake in their sinful events.

I am clueless as to what these events are but these claims are usually shown to be false or extremely exaggerated. Give a link showing the exact items which you refer to.

Can a lawless generation be trusted in upholding the law and righteousness?

Do you uphold these?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

SCOTUS didn't rule that Prop 8 was unconstitutional though, so they didn't go against the will of those 52% of Californians. A California district court did that. SCOTUS agreed with the California Supreme Court that proponents of Prop 8 didn't have the legal standing to appeal the District Court's ruling.

The bottom line is the will of the people was over ruled by the courts and justices. They can use all the legal mumbo jumbo and definitions they want, but the voice of the people was snuffed out by the legal system.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Here's an old article on the prop 8 issue, which speaks volumes....

justice: The people are too stupid to vote


By Jen Shroder

Shockingly, the discussion between the California Supreme Court and Kenneth Starr has turned into the argument that the California voters were unable to read our own voter information when we voted for Prop. 8! It is argued the information in the rebuttal regarding the validity of marriages already in place is too obscure.

In other words, it seems the Justices are looking to disallow Prop 8 with the excuse that Californians are too stupid to read our own voter information and don't understand what we are voting for! That we "can't be expected" to find the language addressing current marriages in the rebuttal.

We PAID for that voter information to be delivered. We took the time to read it and we voted, only to be told we are not smart enough to comprehend the information??? We have voted against gay marriage time after time after time. The will of the PEOPLE is clear and yet appears to be disregarded and overruled again. THIS IS TYRANNY.

What happens with Proposition 8 will effect the entire country. Our nation is being stripped of all liberty under the guise that THE PEOPLE are TOO STUPID to vote!

FAIRNESS has also become an issue for those who rushed to the altar, even as a petition for Proposition 8 was being formed. If FAIRNESS is the issue, what about the lack of fairness should Prop 8 be denied?

In addition to tyranny over the will of the People, how FAIR is it that everyone's children be forced to receive sexually explicit materials promoting homosexuality in our classrooms?

Marriage is a legal agreement to provide for children. That is not an issue for homosexuals. Gay activists have stated they want the legitimacy of marriage, but it is also used as a club to impose gay material in public schools. Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy presented to the California State Assembly this excerpt found in Los Angeles schools: In "Young, Gay, & Proud," the author writes: "There are a lots of ways for gay men to have enjoyable sex. ... It's up to you to find out what you like and how you like to do it. ... Jerking off is a fun, safe and healthy way for guys to enjoy our bodies and fantasies." The author goes on to provide explicit details of how "gay men can make love." A note of encouragement follows profanity-laced tips on performing anal sex: "You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good." [1]

What about the parents that have been arrested and threatened with arrest if they attempt to remove their children from pro-gay activities? What about the pastors who are threatened with lawsuits if they don't perform the marriages of gay couples? How fair will it be if pastors must step down rather than disobey God? Or are accused of hate speech if they read from Romans in the Bible? To ignore the "unintended consequences" and argue that what the People enacted is invalid because we are too stupid to read the voter information is outrageous! Worse, it's tyranny.

Please pray the Justices uphold Prop. 8 and protect our children. And if they do, please pray for me, because every outspoken conservative is already targeted, and the rage will be real.

Sadly the Justices of the Supreme court care less for the voice of the people as well.

 

[Archivist]

So who's will was done? The courts, or the people's? I thought it was a government for the people, and by the people...yet what the people voted for twice has been rejected by the courts. (who are also by definition supposed to be for the will of the people).

But one of the roles of government is to protect the rights of the minority. The fact is that those who brought the suit lacked standing to do so, and those who would have had standing to do so declined to bring suit.

Standing is not a new legal concept. To have a case, the standard says, you have to show actual harm. Otherwise anyone could sue about anything in the federal courts.

Your problem shouldn't be with the Supreme Court. It should be with those who had standing to bring the action but declined to do so.

 

[Yarddog]

The bottom line is the will of the people was over ruled by the courts and justices. They can use all the legal mumbo jumbo and definitions they want, but the voice of the people was snuffed out by the legal system.

The will of some of the people are ruled out by most all decisions. Prop 8 ruled out the will of 48% of California voters.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

But one of the roles of government is to protect the rights of the minority. The fact is that those who brought the suit lacked standing to do so, and those who would have had standing to do so declined to bring suit.

Standing is not a new legal concept. To have a case, the standard says, you have to show actual harm. Otherwise anyone could sue about anything in the federal courts.

Your problem shouldn't be with the Supreme Court. It should be with those who had standing to bring the action but declined to do so.

My problem is with those who stand up for injustice, imorality, and corruption at the highest levels of government. Who reject the Truth according to the word of God, and who have left off doing righteous judgment according to that same Word of Truth.

A government who separates itself from God, and the values contained in His holy word is no different than an individual who has forsaken the way of righteousness. Both their paths will lead to destruction.

 

[seeingeyes]

The bottom line is the will of the people was over ruled by the courts and justices. They can use all the legal mumbo jumbo and definitions they want, but the voice of the people was snuffed out by the legal system.

The problem with this argument is that Prop 8 was not voted on in response to a bunch of people demanding rights from the CA government, it came from people exercising rights that they already had according to the CA government.

The same-sex marriages that occurred before Prop 8 were upheld as valid, so California found itself as a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but doesn't allow it. :/

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

The will of some of the people are ruled out by most all decisions. Prop 8 ruled out the will of 48% of California voters.

And 5 single individuals over ruled what the majority of the people and the majority of the states in these united states defined as marriage between a man and a women.

Again, a government for the will of the people, and by the will of the people? Hogwash! It is a few immoral persons in places of power, pushing for and passing laws that embrace immoral acts. Promoted also into law are these same ungodly, unjust and immoral people sitting in places of authority, power and wealth.

These same people of power. wealth and authority are also trying to cram down the throats of the majority of people their corrupt agenda, by lies and deceit not only here in these United States, but also the entire world.

 

[Archivist]

My problem is with those who stand up for injustice, imorality, and corruption at the highest levels of government. Who reject the Truth according to the word of God, and who have left off doing righteous judgment according to that same Word of Truth.

But the Supreme Court did not "stand up for injustice, immorality or corruption." The Court dismissed a case on a procedural issue.

A government who separates itself from God, and the values contained in His holy word is no different than an individual who has forsaken the way of righteousness. Both their paths will lead to destruction.

But while the US may be a nation with Christian majority, it is not a Christian nation--our government is and should be secular.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

But while the US may be a nation with Christian majority, it is not a Christian nation--our government is and should be secular.

I disagree with your first point. This nation, nor any other nation in this present evil world is with a Christian majority; as many also use the term Christian loosely. Gods people are currently scattered about amoung the nations of the world, and are even a very small minority.

But I do agree this nation is not a Christian nation, because if it was it would be reflected in the values, morals, laws, and lifestyles of it's people.

And I also believe it is secular as you say, being that it, like all the other nations that preceeded it are only temporal, and worldly; which will also pass away.

Psalm 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

 

[Yarddog]

And 5 single individuals over ruled what the majority of the people and the majority of the states in these united states defined as marriage between a man and a women.

Continually repeating this fallacy will never make it truth.

 

[RDKirk]

all the weddings I know of were by invitation, they weren't public. Membership has nothing to do with it, a contract with the church and a paid fee entitles one to a church wedding. I don't see how anyone can force a church into contract for a homosexual wedding. Now, if that church is taking government monies for one reason or another maybe then Uncle Sam can have a say.

Public accomodation laws in some states already require it--this Supreme Court act doesn't change that.

I'd have to look it up, but there already has been one case in which a Church was required to rent a retreat for a homosexual event because they commonly rented that retreat to the public for all kinds of other activities.

I don't see a problem with this. It must means churches must devote--that is, hold holy and sacred--that which they claim pertains to God. If they profane their property by commercial use such as public rental, then profanity is profanity, to God as well as to man.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Continually repeating this fallacy will never make it truth.

They sure ain't speakin for the majority when it comes to defining marriage as between a man and a woman are they?

 

[Yarddog]

They sure ain't speakin for the majority when it comes to defining marriage as between a man and a woman are they?

Why are you jumping around so much. You had been writing about Prop 8 and now you flip back to DOMA.

It appears as if your poll does not match one taken between June 11-13, 2013. So, they seem to be speaking for the majority. Your poll only shows which states allow gay marriage or those that don't. That is not a poll which reflects what the majority of Americans believe about the issue.
Civil Rights

(I deleted the poll because it did not copy and paste correctly. Please go to the link which I provide "Civil Right" to view.)

Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights

.​

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Why are you jumping around so much.

It's really not that hard to follow, go to your post claiming my qoute a fallacy where I said " the majority of the states in the United States define marriage as between a man and a woman"

Then go to chart for confirmation.

 

[ebia]

Fail who's test, the Supreme Commands. They already showed they don't care about the states or the voters decisions on such matters because they also tore down propisition 8 in California which the people voted into law.

A government for the people hah! It's a government that is empowered by the Red Dragon himself, and the children of hell are put into positions of power to carry out his agenda.

Um, the job of a court is to uphold the law, not to listen to voters.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Um, the job of a court is to uphold the law, not to listen to voters.

That's funny, the activist Supreme command just this week alone has tore down 2 laws that congress had inacted into law by unanimous decisions.

Government by, and for the people? Ha!

 

[seeingeyes]

That's funny, the activist Supreme command just this week alone has tore down 2 laws that congress had inacted into law by unanimous decisions.

Government by, and for the people? Ha!

That's the job of the Supreme Court. To determine the Constitutionality of laws. That's why it exists. If it could not 'tear down' laws, then it would just be nine bloggers in black robes complaining about Congress.

These are the checks and balances provided by the Constitution.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to the “demolition” of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

Keep up the good work Supreme Command!

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

That's the job of the Supreme Court. To determine the Constitutionality of laws. That's why it exists. If it could not 'tear down' laws, then it would just be nine bloggers in black robes complaining about Congress.

These are the checks and balances provided by the Constitution.

I believe their weights and balances might be a little off balance by all the corruption and bribe taking going on between the law makers and big business.