Exactly!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman were defined very clearly by God LOOOOOOOOOONG before Governments were instituted among men. In plain words, the gubmint can pass all the laws they want. It doesn’t change what marriage is defined as. Shame on the homosexual crowd for turning to gubmint to define it for them. Shame on us for consenting to allow the gubmint to define it.
*bump*
And I came to the conclusion, we lost this argument ages ago!
If you are going to argue that marriage is a holy sacrament akin to a baptism. Then you can't only single out gay marriage as not qualifying. All those people who went through civil ceremony’s are also not married! Anymore than someone who takes a bath has been baptized!
Great article. Redefining marriage calls to mind the attempt by the State of Ohio in 1894 to redefine the value of ‘pi’ to - I believe - ‘3.2’ from its real value ‘3.14159...’. Not exactly the kind of law that inspires confidence in government.
Most Americans live their lives without ever having to encounter those who celebrate perversity. They are uncomfortable when someone calls abortion and sodomy what it is. If the advocates of these practices lose the courts as their allies, their agenda will not get nearly as far. On another note, millions and millions of innocent unborn children killed is a heavy price for any country to pay on a temporal basis, let alone in the eternal scheme of things.
President Cruz needs to remember this judge when there’s an opening...
Look no further than Puerto Rico. The judge there got it exactly right.
Amen! The truth must stand, even if it stands alone at this time.
“These judges, Judge Sutton reveals, have substituted their own moral judgment for the rule of law. Some years ago, the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall told a group of his clerks that this was precisely his legal philosophy. “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up,” Justice Marshall advised.”
Judges that behave like Thurgood Marshall are really nothing more than would be dictators. It is after all the responsibility of the legislator to decide what is right not judges. When judges take on that role they assume the mantel of legislator and excursive on to themselves. Making the whole of law about their judgment rather than the consent of the governed.
this is why the behavior of people like Thurgood Marshall and most of the present Federal injustice system can never stand the test of time. One way or the other there can be only one writer of the law and either that law is written by the peoples judgement thou amendments and congress or written on the ‘moral’ judgement of some nameless life time employee in a black robe is the difference between dictatorship and republican Democracy.
After all if we believed in the superiority of the ‘moral judgement’ of 9 men in black robes we wouldn’t have a legislative, executive, nor even for that matter a written set of law to make such judgement.
In the end even the tyranny of federal employees wont be able to consele the true practical nature of their usurpation of the power of law.
uniquely procreative union of a man and a woman.
////
not pc.