BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION

The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

[exmarine]

I, for one, no longer consider myself a Conservative. Like my favorite journalist, Joseph Farah, I do not believe there is anything left to conserve. Writing congressmen is a colossal waste of time; voting for one or the other of the same two parties is an exercise in futility, especially since NONE of our representatives follow the U.S. Constitution. Why do these people bother to take oaths of office?

Our founders stated clearly that our Constitutional Republic could not survive without virtue. The problem is that the society/culture that elects our representatives and from which come the judiciary is morally depraved. After the Constitutional Convention, when asked by an inquirer what type of govt had been formed, Franklin replied, "A republic if you can keep it" - these words were quite wise and prescient. Adams said that our "Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." Washington said that morality and religion (Christianity) are "indispensible supports" to a free society. Clearly, our nation is founded on the principle of self government wherein each individual's actions are restrained by his/her conscience as that conscience is directed by a Holy God. In today's reprobate society, restraint has been cast aside. Unless God shows mercy and there is a spiritual awakening, the greatest form of govt in world history will be finished. I am not optimistic at all about the outcome, but I know I must pray more and continue to fulfill my moral obligations as a citizen.

[exmarine]

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

"Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention...The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. -Alexis de Tocqueville, French Historian

"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." -Noah Webster

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." -Thomas Jefferson

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." -George Washington

[betty boop]

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

But Luis, they'd then be legal residents of the new state. How does the 11th Amendment apply under that set of facts?

[betty boop]

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.

Gee. This seems to be a great description of my own thinking on the matter!

exmarine, thank you so much for the quotes from our illustrious forebears. The TJ you quote is particularly resonant, given the situation of our own time, IMHO. Thanks!

[betty boop]

Given this strong tradition of a state's right to refuse to recognize a marriage validly contracted in another state if that marriage would offend the fundamental public policy of the state, there appears to be no reason for enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act. The states already have the ability to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage should they so choose.

This is the present legal status quo, Luis. As long as the 14th Amendment is also the law of the land, in any conflict between a state vis-a-vis same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and the way SCOTUS seems to be interpreting the "privileges and immunities" clause these days (i.e., as against state interest), which side do you think would prevail in that fight? Especially since, as Justice Scalia recently pointed out, the present ruling shooting down Texas law seems to put all forms of state prohibitions of marriage (polygamy, incest, underage, consanguinity, etc.) on shaky ground.

[betty boop]

...let's not bemoan the direction of society at large until we have at least turned around ourselves.

Amen, to that, logos! It's time to "walk the talk." Thank you so much for writing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"As long as the 14th Amendment is also the law of the land, in any conflict between a state vis-a-vis same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and the way SCOTUS seems to be interpreting the "privileges and immunities" clause these days (i.e., as against state interest), which side do you think would prevail in that fight?"

Betty, I posted legal precedent answering that question, not only that, but the 11th. Amendment clearly takes the SCOTUS out of that scuffle.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But Luis, they'd then be legal residents of the new state."

I'm not sure about that, how can they be legal residents of that State, and be in clear violation of the law of that State?

You know prior to moving whether your marriage will be recognized or not. If yours was the case, then the existing exemptions from the FFaCC would not exist at all.

[betty boop]

Betty, I posted legal precedent answering that question, not only that, but the 11th. Amendment clearly takes the SCOTUS out of that scuffle.

Luis, it may well be as you say. But you have more faith in stares decisis than I do! :^) All my best -- bb.

[Kudsman]

I've got a chance to check in and find I missed the ball. Thanks anyway for the pings. I started reading through the thread. Got to around 101 posts and started developing another paine. So I really don't feel like reading into it much further. The only thing I would like to add if it hasn't already been reminded is:

1.) Leviticus 18 verse 22. BTW it is MO that failure to heed Lev. 18 v21 is at the root of many of todays ills.

2.) Leviticus 20 verse 13.

I guess my question as a lay person would be do you believe homosexuals are created by God that way and if so why? Another mystery to me. Or do you believe homosexuality to be a learned lifestyle using free will choice as a basis? I must admit this troubles me on a few levels. Firstly I know that I am a sinner and as such I would loathe to throw a stone. Secondly I would say that I do detest the sin but if a person were to live their social life in a goodly manner I would have no reason to want to condemn. Another words if it truly was a private matter then no cause for strife would exist. Do we need a government to declare the actual act of sodomy illegal? Wouldn't the laws against lewd and lascivious behavior, assault and rape already incorporate sodomy if it was performed in front of witnesses? We all come to God on His terms when called or we ignore Him at our own peril. And that I believe is very private and protected in this country. Please correct me if someone (or some court) has changed that because I will need to make travel and real estate plans.

C-ya soon I'm going surfing USA. Love.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the Scriptures!

WRT to your questions, the main thing I have to say is that anything which is an abomination to God is an abomination to me, but all that I may do is hate the sin, I must love the sinner.

WRT to the laws, the Scriptures are rather clear that He will remove His protection and blessing from the nation that turns its back on Him. The U.S. was founded on Judeo/Christian moral absolutes. Giving them up will have dire consequences.

OTOH, how far the law can and should go to mandate moral absolutes, I cannot say. But we the Christians ought to pray earnestly for a national spiritual revival.

My two cents...

[Kudsman]

But we the Christians ought to pray earnestly for a national spiritual revival.

I have for many that I know and continue to seek guidance. I will join you in this prayer tonight. Good to see you again. Warm hugs.

[Alamo-Girl]

It's great to see you, too! And thank you so much for joining in agreement! Hugs!!!

[Kudsman]

Just one more thing (and I imagine my last on this thread) regarding the subject of this thread. I find it notable that of all the things clarified in the New Covenant this matter is not one expounded on. Mayhap this needed no futher clarification as it was relevant from the time of Lott until present day. Amazing that such antiquity still affects humans today. Has to be a masterplan IMHO. TCN. Be seeing you in the news.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I find it notable that of all the things clarified in the New Covenant this matter is not one expounded on.

In Romans 1, God explains that He gives people up to such vile affection as punishment for a particular kind of sin.

[unspun]

Romans 1
¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


1 Corinthians 6
⁹Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Jude 1
¹Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by^[1] Jesus Christ:
²Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
³Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. ⁴For certain men whose condemnation was written about^[2] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
⁵Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord^[3] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. ⁶And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. ⁷In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
⁸In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings .

New International Version - http://www.biblegateway.com

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[unspun]

Do we need a government to declare the actual act of sodomy illegal?

I'm just not sure this is the very best question (nor do I imply that you meant it to be). I think a better question might be, "What is the most beneficial way for the most appropriate government to be of good influence, regarding this problem?"

There are many things a government can do to be instructive-to-disciplinary ("discipline" means "teach," at it's root) short of breaking down people's doors.

(I tend to think that we conservatives need to refrain from being twisted pretzels and knots by John Locke's double negative.)

[Kudsman]

Well met and thanks. I stand corrected because of the use of the word expounded. Bad choice on my part. What I meant to say was that the scripture in Leviticus re: homosexuality was never modified. Yes Paul does address the issue but it takes him many more words to say the same thing that is stated in Leviticus 18 and 20. Homosexual acts are an abomination and the penalty is death. No ambiguities, no deviating, and no futher qualifications offered. The sin and punishment remain the same in both old and new testament. I do apologize for any confusion I created.

Also U please don't for a minute think I approve of any homo acts. What I meant by private is if I don't see it or have knowledge of it, there would be nothing outwardly offensive that I could readily identify as wrong to me. What a person with these faults does in private and their reconciliation (or lack of) with God is personal to them.

I don't have the time nor inclination to ferret out said individuals, it is hard enough to manage my own life. Although I do admit that the more I give over to God the easier it gets. That is just my personal experience, I am not offering it as Tim's truth or anything. I would simply encourage anyone to try it. You might like it.

[unspun]

I would just make a disctinction between government's abilities to provide an instructive, disciplining influence, plus a basis in law of what is considered illegitimate vs. legitimate on the one hand -- and hunting for homosexuals (or marijuana smokers, etc.) on the other.