1 posted on
08/11/2010 9:30:19 AM PDT by
Kaslin
To: Kaslin
Liberal politicians ignore the will of the people, while liberal judges ignore the rule of law. When the politicians figure out how to bypass popular elections, there will be no way out.
2 posted on
08/11/2010 9:39:12 AM PDT by
Spok
(Free Range Republican)
To: Kaslin
Judge Walker takes a different view. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians," he wrote in finding of fact No. 77. To support this view, he disapprovingly pointed to teachings of the Southern Baptist, Evangelical Presbyterian, Free Methodist, Lutheran-Missouri Synod, Orthodox and Catholic churches. Ping for later
3 posted on
08/11/2010 9:41:16 AM PDT by
Alex Murphy
("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
To: Kaslin
Does a child have a right to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father? No, but once conceived, the child has the right to live and the mother an obligation to see to defend that life.
Or do two men have a right to hire a technician to secure an ovum for them, unite it with a sperm in some laboratory, and implant the child so conceived in a woman treated not as a mother but as a gestational mule?
Not a natural right, but a legal one, albeit unnatural one if society grants it to them.
JMO
5 posted on
08/11/2010 9:47:24 AM PDT by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: Kaslin
[The Founding Fathers understood the laws of nature]
Yep. And today the laws of nature are quantized via measurement of reproductive fitness.
25 years ago, Sex, Evolution and Behavior was one of the texts used for the Animal Behavior course in the biology dept of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's Concordia College in Seward, Nebraska.
Read it, understand it. APPLY IT.
"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."
--Albert Einstein
Hmmm, I wonder what effect "Normalizing" the abomination of nature has upon the Social and Biological/reproductive fitness of societies that do the "normalizing"?
Got Due Penalty for Perversion?
6 posted on
08/11/2010 9:49:08 AM PDT by
LomanBill
(Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
To: Kaslin; P-Marlowe; wagglebee; Forest Keeper
Yes, Walker has decided that nature does not exist. He has decided that male and female are insignificant. In fact, he’s ruled that they are not REALITY.
Vaughn Walker has assaulted reality.
Some things are natural and some things are unnatural. We have led ourselves through so much in the area of biology to believe that we are the referees of the origin and the cessation of life, that we have come to believe that we are god.
We aren’t. That reality will be driven home to us by nature and Nature’s God.
If this ruling stands, then it will more quickly corrode this republic and this freedom shall not stand.
7 posted on
08/11/2010 9:56:16 AM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
To: Kaslin
9 posted on
08/11/2010 10:08:29 AM PDT by
LomanBill
(Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
To: Kaslin
Jefferson is not a strict Deist. . .he definitely believed in a personal God and a God who was intimately involved in the affairs of humanity. He also believed in Jesus, just not each and every doctrine pertaining to Jesus. He believed that the existence of God was a "self evident" truth. . .and that reasonable men should be able to rationally conclude, even without the aid of scripture or a religious dogma, that God was at the root of the infinite order of the universe.
This is why he emphasizes "the laws of nature and of nature's God" and "self evident truths" rather than citing the bible (in the Declaration). Another practical reason was that the potential of factionalism amongst the faithful was a real concern of the Founders.
10 posted on
08/11/2010 10:42:09 AM PDT by
McBuff
To: Kaslin
14 prior Supreme Court decisions over a 100 year span have held that marriage is a RIGHT that comes from God/natural law.
The only difference with the current ruling is that those prior 14 decisions all had the same definition of marriage.
The most recent decision just changed the meaning of the word. If a judge can change the meaning of that word, then why not the meaning of other words such as the word RIGHTS itself, let alone words such as privileges, immunities, citizen, free, slave, up, down.
Noam Chomsky and Lewis Carroll win. Webster loses.
To: Kaslin
Walker substituted his morality for that of millions of Californians. One man rule is tyranny.
It is as simple as that.
15 posted on
08/11/2010 12:07:49 PM PDT by
Jacquerie
(It is happening here.)
To: Kaslin; little jeremiah; scripter; wagglebee
[Article]
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled last week from a courtroom in San Francisco that "same-sex marriage" is a constitutional right, views Americans who agree with Jefferson and Hamilton as religiously motivated bigots. Queer judge plays crooked umpire ping.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson