Rep. Alvin Holmes
Posted on 02/12/2005 1:00:23 PM PST by CitizenM
Democrat putting up cash, saying Bible not clear on union of sexes
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The bible makes no mention of a man marrying his 1965 mustang either. Does that make it legal?
The bible makes no mention of having sex with you clone. Does that make it legal?
The bible makes no mention of marrying a dog you really realy really love. Does that make it legal?
The bible makes no mention of use of "male enhancement" vitamins purchased over the internet. Are they allowed by the bible?
You can't prove a negative. This lawmaker is smiply a kook and needs to be exposed as a kook. How many other looney statements haas he made? Time for the freepers to start digging DEEP into his past.
Dissonance abounds. The argument was Biblical support for one man, one woman marriage. The Bible clearly proscribes sexual relations between those of the same sex and Genesis clearly commands one man, one woman with the purpose of procreation. You lose on the merits.
The second part clearly doesn't depend on the first part. I am not even sure if the second part of your statement is factually correct.
No idea what you're talking about.
People have been procreating long before the Bible was written, so it cannot be something that is unique to Christians. You are in no shape to call on my dissonance.
Certainly I am. We are arguing the Bible which begins with the ensoulment of Adam and Eve and you are arguing that procreation existed before that time. One has nothing to do with the other. The argument was the Bible, remember????????????
The Constitution also makes no reference to marriage, and in fact the ninth and tenth Amendments leave it up to the state.
The ninth Amendment is simply a constraint on the federal government, nothing more, nothing less. The 10A used to give powers to the state late 20th Century jurisprudence has made a farce of that. Roe and Lawrence being two of the more eggregious holdings. But you are correct in that the Constituion does not mention marriage but the Constitution through 14A is the guarantor of equal protection fro all. Heterosexual marriage fulfills that requirement.
The federal govt has no jurisdiction over such things.Sure they do, the federal government is the fianl guarantor of equal protection.
The debate should be whether federal govt can stop homosexuals from marrying each other.
No, the debate should be whether or not the citizens of this country want to assign special rights to folks because of wht they do in the bedroom. If you, the states or the feds decide to pry open the institution of marriage for same sex couples then one would hope you would be honest and open it for all. In fact, equal protection would demand it.
No one is forcing the Catholic Church to recognize homosexual marriages.
The Catholic Church has already been forced to offer health insurance including abortions in California by the courts. I don't hold out much hope that your statement will continue to obtain.
The point is whether CA or NY can recognize a marriage between two or more adults who enter voluntarily into a contract.
Right, you support that, I don't and neither does the Bible, polygamy not withstanding.
Christianity does not forbid homosexual marriage, and even if it did it is a moot point.
Now you're dissembling. You don't speak for the Catholic Church or any other Church. The Catholic Church proscribes it as does the Bible and any claims to the contrary are simply lies.
I think.
Just adding to the mix.
Proving a negative is an old lawyer persuation trap. We need to view this as an trap more than a demand for proof.
The words of Jesus:
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
I have a hard time seeing your point, i.e., that the Bible says nothing about marriage. Here is Jesus Himself answering questions about it. He is saying that marriage is an act of God, joining a man and woman together, and for folks to leave it that way. Of course, He was talking to hardheaded people, who wanted Him to be wrong, or who refused to hear Him.
As to your question and assertion: yes, governments CAN allow homo marriage (e.g., Sodom & Gomorrah); Christians can't. And, to the extent that OUR U.S. government reflects, espouses, is founded on -- Christianity, neither can it. Times may change this, but I hope not.
I'll chip in too! Maybe this could be the new FR fundraising thread. LOL!
They can not. That is the scary thing. The Truth suffers in their wake. The Constitution needs responsible, grounded Citizens to keep it, and our Liberties alive and well.
Imagine Hillary as POTUS with the Patriot Act at her disposal? For that reason alone, it should have a sunset provision as soon as GW leaves office. I can trust him, and the fiduciary trust has not been betrayed, but godless Marxist/liberal/atheists? Wow.
I'll pass.
What one man one woman marriage? Find the Hellinic equivalent of marriage and see where it shows up in the Bible. Don't quote irrelevant passages about Adam and Eve. The words "holy matrimony" didn't exist in English parlance until fairly recently. Furthermore, the Old Testament is packed with cases of polygamy. So much for one man one woman theory. Again, show me where God says that marriage has to be between a men and women. That is not asking you to prove a negative.
The Bible restricts sexual relations between man a woman. That has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a social institution, not divine.
You also claimed that marriage fulfills the Biblical purpose of procreation. I called on your dissonance, because one need not be married in order to procreate, and vice versa. One can attribute the miracle of life and death on the divine, but definitely not marriage. Marriage is an institution that only exists among humans. It is an invention by man. It comes from the Latin word maritare, and if you find out what it means you will know why the early Church was opposed to it. Find out when the first sacrament of marriage was written. The earliest account of Christian marriage was simply a blessing in facie ecclesiae. The Church in the middle ages had no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage, and had no means on validating one either. All the touchy feely stuff you said about marriage and the Bible are all ex post. Sure, there are God's laws against sexuality but marriage isn't about God. It is about what kind of cohabitation the state things is proper. If you reflexively start quoting Bibilican passages with the word wife in it, just remember that any kind of cohabitation in those days meant you were someone's wife with or without (probably without) the blessing of the Church. It is no different than any other family law that is on the books, and they all need not conform to Christian values because it is about the state and not the Church. If we were to take your advice seriously, then couples who cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to live together because God knows they maybe doing something ungodly. Couples that engage in sodomy should definitely be forced to separate because we all know that sodomy is sinful. The Bible is full of accounts of polygamy and wives that are underage. Clearly, we cannot ask the govt to legalize those things. The Bible may or may not sanction certain things, but the state has a separate objective function to maximize. If the state were to enforce every single dietary laws in the book, then all restaurants will be bankrupt.
The Bible is a moot point on this issue because we are not asking the Church to accept homosexual marriage. The point is whether the state can discriminate against homsexuals to marry each other. The state should not recognize any marriage. Treat marriage as a contract that any party with sufficient capacity to make judgements can enter into. That was essentially the basis of Lord Harwidke's Act in the 18th century.
Your defense using the 14th Amendment is laughable. Heterosexuals are not being discriminated against if homosexuals get married. It is not like there are only so many marriage licenses to go along. It could be a 14th Amendment case if somehow heterosexuals feel threatened or discriminated against because of homosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment is a liberal's tool. No conservative should have any use for it. It is an intrusion into state's rights and conservatives should shun it and not embrace it.
I brought up the 9th because the federal govt keeps taking stabs at family law in the states. I don't see 38 states enumerating such rights to the federal govt. It is an overreach. The only way the feds have any control over this is if there is a Constitutional amendment, and I am sure a lot of conservatives will vote against it.
bump
Adam and Eve
Marriage was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence ( Gen 2:18-24).
Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed ( Mat 19:4,5).
It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage ( Mat 19:5; 1Cr 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced ( Gen 4:19; 6:2).
We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age ( Gen 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8,9; 29:23-30, etc.).
Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record.
It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons ( Gen 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden ( Exd 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted ( Gen 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden ( 31:15; 34:12; Exd 22:16,17; 1Sa 18:23,25; Rth 4:10; Hsa 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic law made no change.
In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house ( Gen 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends were invited ( 29:22,27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home.
Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ of Nazereth corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage ( Mat 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds (Mark 10;6-9).
The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife ( Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18,19; 1Pe 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" ( Hbr 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times ( 1Ti 4:3).
The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people ( Isa 54:5; Jer 3:1-14; Hsa 2:9,20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints ( Eph 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" ( Rev 19:7-9).
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
So what your saying is...you are not sure.
10 to 1 says this POS Alabama lawmaker crawfishes on this bet.
Rep. Alvin Holmes
Alabama Rep. Alvin Holmes, Dist 78, (Montgomery) convinced and connived with House Clerk Greg Pappas to remove the Confederate Battle flag from the Alabama House Chambers in Montgomery, Alabama. They removed the battle flag and replaced it with "the first National", and did so without permission, any hearings, requests , warnings, or notifications to the house.
******
Alvin Holmes Requests Federal Investigation of State Troopers, Other Agencies
Representative Holmes Says State Troopers Guilty of Racial Profiling(2/7)
******
He pointed out that after the first black legislator (him) attempted to gain immunity from arrest under a provision of the 1901 Constitution, everybody wants to change the law.
To him, that's racism in black and white. He even accused a black deputy sheriff of racial profiling when he stopped the legislator on Interstate 65 for supposedly weaving in and out of his lane.
The deputy said he smelled alcohol on Mr. Holmes' breath. Mr. Holmes then invoked legislative immunity to keep from going to jail, and officers drove the legislator home instead of arresting him.
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, is asking the lieutenant governor to remove another Montgomery lawmaker, Sen. Larry Dixon, from a legislative committee that reviews state contract proposals. Holmes claims Dixon discriminates against black contractors, a charge the Republican senator denies.
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) has unsuccessfully pushed bills to add sexual orientation to the state hate crime law for the last five years. This year, the measure passed the state House, but stalled in the Senate.
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery
"If you say you are a 'conservative' in Alabama today," the lawmaker said, "you're saying you are a racist."
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said Alabama needs prison reform. "Half of the people in prison at the present time shouldn't be in prison," he said.
Holmes described the prison system as "rotten to the core" and said he will approach fellow legislators about reform. "It took having somebody I love ending up in prison for me to realize how bad it is," said Lynn Fryer, who has a son serving life in prison. Fryer said problems with the phone system also need to be addressed. She recalled several times when the phone "just cut off" in the middle of conversations with her son.
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes vowed to filibuster traffic camera legislation, calling it a "tool" to harass and intimidate blacks, but the bill's sponsor says the camera aimed at red-light runners only sees the vehicle.
******
Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, chairman of the Civil Rights Committee for the Legislative Black Caucus, said, “This is a priority for me.
“I am for removing the racist language from the Alabama constitution,” Holmes said.
******
Alabama taxpayers are paying state Rep. Alvin Holmes $42,250 to teach one world history class at Alabama State University, and faculty members, most of whom teach four courses for the same amount of pay, are enraged over what they call Holmes’ preferential treatment.
******
Rep. Alvin Holmes and Rep. Laura Hall are leading the threat to filibuster the entire legislative calendar if the anti-gay amendment is allowed. The move suprised John Giles of the Alabama Christian Coalition “It is puzzling why the Black Caucus wants to stand in the way of preventing gay marriages in Alabama.
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Holmes, a 24-year statehouse
veteran, said the caucus won't be satisfied with leaving 1956 language in the constitution that says there is no right to an education at public expense in Alabama.
******
Plaintiffs: Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes, other state representatives
Defendants: Alabama Governor Guy Hunt
Date(s) of Disposition:
01/04/1993: Judgment for the plaintiff
Bringing down a symbol of hate
It took three lawsuits and a forgotten piece of legislation, but lawmakers and lawyers finally forced an Alabama governor to stop flying the Confederate battle flag over the capitol dome.
******
June 18, 2003
"I've been arrested 27 times for civil rights causes," says Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes, a legendary African American lawmaker. "I was a field staff member on the SCLC, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. . . . I am the one who filed the lawsuit to remove the Confederate flag from the top of the state capitol. . . . I am the one who introduced the bill to make Martin Luther King's birthday a state holiday."
******
State Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said he introduced the bill Tuesday in response to a recent written opinion by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore that homosexuality is "inherently evil." Moore's declaration was made as the Supreme Court awarded custody of children to a heterosexual father instead of a lesbian mother.
Holmes said he wants to make sure that some future court does not interpret Moore's opinion to be the law of the state of Alabama.
"This clears up that matter of what's evil," Holmes said.
It will not matter what scripture you give him, he will not be convinced. 1 Corinthians 2:14
What do you mean "My interpretation isn't credible? I'll call the ACLU..."
What about polygamy? It is clearly condoned by the Bible. If it is good enough for Abraham, it is good enough for me. Should govt be allowed to ban polygamy even though it is sanctioned by God?
Marriage was contracted in the patriarchal age with near relatives. Gn 20:12;24:24;28:2.
If it wasn't permitted, how would man have filled the earth starting with Adam and Eve?
A short time later in Leviticus 18:6 the very same thing was FORBIDDEN.
The same holds true for polygamy. (and all of your other arguments)
Where's my check, Alvy?
This is why I gave you the analogy about God saying that raping babies is wrong. Your argument is the last refuge of losers.
I am amazed how you went from not knowing about the Bible to being a Biblical expert in less than 50 posts.
You are advocating changing the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is incumbent on you to provide the reasons for employing Orwellian Newspeak. The Bible is a loser for you. You will find nothing in the Bible supporting marriage between those of the same sex. Nothing, zilch, nada. So lets leave religion behind and argue on the other merits.
The Bible is a moot point on this issue because we are not asking the Church to accept homosexual marriage. The point is whether the state can discriminate against homsexuals to marry each other. The state should not recognize any marriage. Treat marriage as a contract that any party with sufficient capacity to make judgements can enter into. That was essentially the basis of Lord Harwidke's Act in the 18th century.
That is the quintessential libertarian view and one that I don't concur with because it is naive. The institution of marriage in the USA has been the same institution since the getgo. One man, one woman. Lord Harwikes not withsatnding. The state is inextricably bound up in marriage and they would be in contracts as well because contracts are simply pieces of paper without the power of the state to enforce them. But anybody can enter into a contract right now. And anybody can get married as long as they fulfill the non discriminatory requirements of same. If marriage laws said "homosexuals can not marry anybody", then the institution would be discriminatory but it doesn't and it's not. And that won't change no matter how often you repeat the discrimination canard.
Your defense using the 14th Amendment is laughable. Heterosexuals are not being discriminated against if homosexuals get married. It is not like there are only so many marriage licenses to go along. It could be a 14th Amendment case if somehow heterosexuals feel threatened or discriminated against because of homosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment is a liberal's tool. No conservative should have any use for it. It is an intrusion into state's rights and conservatives should shun it and not embrace it.
What's laughable is your reading comprehension skills. You made this crap up out of whole cloth. I never said any such thing. It is amazing what a true ideologue sees when he peers through the looking glass. But feel free to quote me asserting that heterosexuals are being discriminated against. Good luck, you'll need it.
As far as the left and the 114th, I agree with you. But the 14th is exactly what SCOTUS used in Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade. Do you agree with those holdings which remove power from states and assign it to federal courts in contravention of the plain meaning of the US Constitution? I have found that social libertarians are among the most eggregious in supporting the usurpatation of state powers by federal courts and I'm hoping that that shoe doesn't fit you.
I brought up the 9th because the federal govt keeps taking stabs at family law in the states. I don't see 38 states enumerating such rights to the federal govt.
States have powers, the federal government has powers, citizens have rights and the 9th Amendment is simply a constraint on federal power, nothing more, nothing less. I think you know the difference but I'm not sure.
It is an overreach. The only way the feds have any control over this is if there is a Constitutional amendment, and I am sure a lot of conservatives will vote against it.
They will vote against it until the first federal court overrules DOMA and if that happens conservatives of all sorts will vote for 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.