Posted on 04/28/2015 7:46:39 PM PDT by Steelfish
As will I. I’m just not optimistic about a moral uprising.
We haven’t done it yet. Why would anyone get off their couch now?
And even if we did go marching (peacefully) in the streets, what difference would it make?
None. It wouldn’t accomplish one thing.
We need to take serious action (not rioting) to really change this.
Cool!
Not all victories are won in court or at the statehouse. With respect to abortion, lives are being saved. I know, because I’ve been a part of that. You can’t win the long fight in short bursts of Hollywood happy endings. We are winning the long fight because every day tens of thousands of ordinary foot soldiers keep fighting for individual lives, and for the hearts and minds of people who can be persuaded. We will never give up. We will never go away. We will never ever stop. Eventually we will outlast them, and suddenly it will be over.
I fully believe the same will be true in the marriage fight. We will suffer greatly in the early days. But it will not stop us. God will not tolerate evil indefinitely. If we stay in the game, and put our trust in Him and not men, eventually we will find we really were on the right side of history, because history belongs to God.
Peace,
SR
We need to take meaningful action against this.
Yes. Keep talking. Yes. Protest. Yes. Definitely support those brave souls who a targeted in the fight.
But we’ve got to do more for THIS issue.
The nuclear family is THE foundation for a free people. That is why the Marxists work so hard to undermine and destroy it.
You have to isolate the individual so that they have nowhere to turn but the government.
The destruction of marriage began with the hetros. Yup. It’s our fault. No fault divorce. People being allowed to enter into the contract without understanding what they were actually signing up for. The notion of ‘romantic love’ vs a contractual obligation...
All of these things have been gutting the sanctity of the union for awhile now.
At this point, the only real hope I have is that the SCOTUS understands that by redefining marriage, they open the door to EVERYTHING else.
I just ordered one of these flags off the internet.
I figure I will start flying it from Memorial Day on.
Bump
Marie, plenty (as in a few thousand ) God fearing, life supporting Christians across the land, took a stand 24 years ago and risked arrest ......and yes it was against abortion.
But not enough people stood with us......not enough churches gathered steam......
.....and we knew......we knew......history would repeat itself.
And it has.......
.......but now it will involve even more of us.....who will not stand for tyranny and injustice.
These very leaders who are you’re reading about today........Graham, Dobson, etc.......stood with us then, too.
Yeah jerk,all the gays wanted to do is visit their partners when they were sick in the hospital,that’s all they wanted,now look where we are.Give me a break
I found this on Wikipedia
In a letter to P.K.Rao, dated September 10, 1935, Gandhi disputes that his idea of civil disobedience was derived from the writings of Thoreau:[18]
“ The statement that I had derived my idea of Civil Disobedience from the writings of Thoreau is wrong. The resistance to authority in South Africa was well advanced before I got the essay ... When I saw the title of Thoreau's great essay, I began to use his phrase to explain our struggle to the English readers. But I found that even "Civil Disobedience" failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase "Civil Resistance."
(Bold emphasis mine) We need to turn up a notch! IF not now, when and for what?
The Supreme Court does not make laws that people can then "disobey."
If a Supreme Court ruling says abortion is okay, how do I "not obey" that? I am already not having abortions. I'm not performing them either. Am I being disobedient to the Supreme Court ruling?
"Not obeying" a Supreme Court ruling seems pointless.
Combined General and Nanny State PING! and DANG!
I’ll sign it too.
Amen!
So?
Absolutely and he is not politically correct. He says the truth and does not worry about blow back.
His Father was/is a wonderful man also...I may get in trouble for saying this, but I think Franklin is less worried about everybody liking him.
I don't know Roberts' motive in asking the question but I would have answered him that the question is not a straightforward question in any sense, of illegal discrimination or otherwise, because it tacitly assumes the very alien premise at issue; i.e., a re-definition of marriage without any basis or precedent in our laws or morality.
Cordially,
bump for later
I don't think the Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage directly. I think they will reject the argument that it's a Constitutional right under the equal protection clause.
But they'll probably legalize it through the back door, by saying that under the full faith and credit clause, every state must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
So if it remain s illegal in your state, that's OK, but the gay couples will simply go to another state where it's been legalized and get married -- and then your state has to recognize them as married. Thus, de facto legalization throughout the country.
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.