Exactly!
Wonderful!!
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 ]
Have you donated to the FReepathon this quarter?
click the button donate today!
I’m writing in Roy Moore for Pesident if the GOP offers another bum of a candidate.
Why not ignore the laws?
Obungo does it everyday. In fact he makes up his own.
F U B O!
You can’t kick “Right Reason” out of a “Just Law” and all unjust law (irrational laws that promote vice) are “null and void” (Justice John Marshall).
Sodomizing others is TOTAL DEHUMANIZATION and SATANISM. Promoting such dehumanization and an irrational RELIGION in ANY “Just” law is unconstitutional and irrational and removes the Court from Reason and “...the Laws of Nature and nature’s God”—the basis of our Justice System.
Only Christian Ethics were based on Right Reason—it is why only Christian Ethics are aligned with Natural Law (reason/science/logic). It is why only Christian Ethics can be promoted in a “Just Law”.
These judges (like above) have a DUTY to throw out evil “law” and we have the Natural Duty to disobey them (MLK, Jr./Birmingham and Nuremberg Trials).
Good for sanity/reason/science/truth in our “Justice” (virtue) System.
While I support Chief Alamama Justice Roy Moores stance against gay marriage, why does not he simply point out the following?
Not only does the Constitutions silence about marriage means that marriage is a unique, 10th Amendment-protected state power issue, but the constitutions silence about so-called gay ”marriage” means that it is not constitutionally protected right.
The states will play a large role in reversing the excesses of a runaway, tyrannical federal government.
Just as the founding fathers intended!
Other states should be ashamed for not doing the same.
This is exactly how states should respond to a patently unconstitutional ruling handed down from the federal level. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to create new law, new rights. They are interpreters. Everyone knows that same sex marriage is in no way protected or guaranteed by the constitution on any level. Its a farce. One may believe it should be and if that is the case it is the responsibility of those individuals to amend the constitution not the other way around.
Wait, what? The states have their own governments and constitutions and courts that the federal government is supposed to respect? When did this happen?
credit to him and respect and he is exactly right.
However, in this instance, and in many others as well, what the majority of we the people don't want was forced down our throats by naked judicial tyranny and our voices in dissent were ignored. If my assessment of the court's brazen over-riding of the rights of all Americans in order to cater to the desires of a relatively small minority is out of line I am not adverse to correction by learned legal scholars. I'm not a Constitutional expert by any means, but I'm pretty sure that the founders didn't envision same-sex "marriage" as an unwritten provision of the same set of laws that were intended, in part at least, to protect the sacred institution of marriage from the immoral desires and acts of adulterers and/or homosexual deviants.
States Rights Test bump for later....