Posted on 07/03/2015 8:10:45 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
...Americans still loyal to the premises of right and justice must emphatically reject this decision. They must refuse to submit to it, just as in colonial times America’s first patriots refused to submit to British taxes imposed without regard for the will of legislatures elected by the people...
The Obergefell decision is a more directly treasonous betrayal of constitutional law and justice than any of those previous acts of tyranny. As ratified by the American people, the U.S. Constitution derives its authority from their sovereign will. In the Declaration of Independence they cite the authority of “the laws of nature and of Nature’s God” and the will and judgment of the Creator and Judge of all the world, as the basis for their claim of sovereignty. By purporting to extend the name of marriage to acts and relations that make no imperative contribution to the common good of human nature as endowed by the Creator, God, the U.S. Supreme Court challenges that will and judgment, treating it as of no account.
But if the sovereign power of the Creator is of no account, then the authority from which the people of the United States claim human sovereignty over themselves is of no account. The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision thus directly challenges the ratifying authority (i.e., the authority of the people as conferred by the Creator) that makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land. So the decision is not just an attack on some provision of the Constitution, nor even an attack on the institutional arrangements it establishes. It is an attempt to shut down the font of legitimacy from which flows the Constitution’s lawful claim to represent the authority of a sovereign power...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
yeah well when you have (as of yesterday) 62% who agree with the decision and probably at LEAST half of the “other side” that wouldn’t get off their a**es if it were on fire. (and likely more) ... I think you’re spitting into the wind here.
Yeah, well, the numbers were the exact opposite right up until the Republican Party went inert and silent under the leadership of Mitt Romney.
Agree sadly...
So, you’ve given up on our sovereign claim to self-government under God, because some pollster’s numbers look bad?
I’m psyched about Rev John Rankin, whom I just *discovered*.
He writes about *Judicial Putsch*
In the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing human abortion, dissenting justice Byron White called it an exercise in “raw judicial power.”
In today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, dissenting justice Antonin Scalia called it a “judicial putsch” (overthrow).
In both cases, these supposed “rights” were invented apart from Constitutional law. This means we are no longer a nation of laws, but of a nation where the human wills of certain elitists are imposed on the rest of us.
Does it matter? From antiquity we have the biblical understanding of human freedom under the rule of law, and governed by King Yahweh. In Mesopotamian and Egyptian culture, we have kings who call themselves gods, and impose slavery on the non-elites of society. The “state” is god.
In the biblical profile of Sodom and Gomorrah, social and sexual anarchy lead to the state becoming god, no dissent is permitted, and the poor and needy get trampled.
In the Roman Empire, Caesar was eventually lifted to the status of a god, where Tiberius was the “son of the divine Augustus.” The self-proclaimed son of god. So when the true Son of God appears, the greatest contest of the ages comes to pass. Thus, for early Christians to call Jesus Lord was to oppose Caesar as lord, and thus the persecutions began.
We are now a nation that has forsaken its heritage of unalienable rights given by the Creator, and replaced it with the state as god.
The trajectory now in the United States is to remove the religious liberty of all people who dissent from the state as god, including those of us who say no to human abortion, say no to same-sex marriage, and say no to state enforced healthcare that cheapens real care and costs us much more.
And just like Nazi Germany where the church was squeezed into compliance — save a few brave souls who resisted like Dietrich Bonhoeffer — the next assault will especially be against pastors, churches and Christians who do not yield to the state as god. Support homosexuality, ordain homosexual clergy and perform same-sex marriages or lose your tax exemption ...
When was Romney President. Or are you just BS in the wind. If we had Romney in 2012 none of this shi! happening to America now would have happened. Wake up! You obviously have no idea who Romney is. The GOP took a crap long before Romney.
Indeed. And yet, if you ask people if they still “hold these truths to be self-evident...” most will still say yes, they do.
All the while, like our politicians, not understanding what your public policies must actually look like if you still truly believe in the founding principles of this free republic.
Romney gained control of the GOP when he won its presidential nomination. And they instantly stood down in the war to defend marriage, while the Dems pulled out every stop.
Sorry you missed that.
Romney is the one who opened the door to the abominations we're seeing now, when he unlawfully instituted "gay marriage" in Massachusetts.
I'm sorry you missed that too.
The majority of colonists were opposed to going to war with Britain and we all know how that turned out.
The majority of colonists were opposed to going to war with Britain and we all know how that turned out.
**************
True but that was long before massive government largesse, social entitlements, EBT cards, etc. We are sheeple now.
Many of the 47% would support a return to a federal system and it’s a mistake to write them off. The real enemies are the crony capitalists and the globalists.
Thank you for your strong words, Alan Keyes. You should have been our 1st black president.
For some of the folk hereon, only 10% of USAians supported our revolution. They were the real USAians, just like others hereon.
Yet another judicial branch fraud- using lawyerly flimflam to fabricate a right that doesn’t exist.
Here are the questions:
1] Is there any written source for unalienable rights in the United States apart from the Creator identified in Genesis 1-2?
2] Is marriage itself an unalienable right – one that all people can demand for themselves – or is it an option under liberty?
3] How does the Creator define human sexuality?
4] Are same-sex marriage advocates thus forcing a choice between unalienable and ultimate rights given by the Creator, on the one hand, versus basic and penultimate rights defined by human authority, on the other?
5] And if so, are same-sex marriage advocates decoupling the Declaration of Independence from the United States Constitution and civil law?
6] Can same-sex marriage advocates give any example in human history where a homosexual ethos has advanced the well-being of the larger social order?
7] Is homosexuality a fixed or immutable trait? In Goodridge, re Marriage Cases and in Kerrigan, no scientific basis for a supposed genetic or social determinism for homosexual identity was even attempted. And I have seen none attempted otherwise. Apart from clear evidence of a “fixed or immutable trait,” Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, relative to defining a “suspect” or civil rights class status, is not met for homosexual persons qua self-identified homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a civil rights class in U.S. law.
http://revjohnrankin.blogspot.com/2015_04_01_archive.html {strike me dead, [I posted a link to a blog]
Rankin’s thoughts: that one of the reasons for marriage is procreation; since same-sex marriages can’t procreate, then there is no reason for *same-sex-marriage*
It's even worse than that. They have declared an abominable wrong to be right.
At least 20% are absolute sheep and will mindlessly go in whatever direction the other sheep are running. My guess is that about another 10 -20% give issues minimal thought and are easily persuaded by the constant media barrage and propaganda.
So the 62% cited is not much of a majority on an issue like this.
In addition, I’d love to see how the survey questions were worded to come up with that. Also, whatever questions were asked leading up to it can have a huge effect on answers. I would bet I could get a majority of respondents to agree with nearly ANY statement, if I designed the survey properly (or improperly, depending on how you define it).
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.