You know what I mean Vern.
Ping - your Christian/Catholic beliefs are against the law... So says this activist Judge...
ping
This Judge is more than just wrong. He’s hideously wrong. It goes beyond activism. His ruling reads like a valley girl rant. So criticism by PERSON A of GROUP A “could be harmful”. You can go anywhere with that kind of logic.
This judge has no place on a bench.
“Walker also quotes resolutions from the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Orthodox Church of America.”
In addition to those church bodies and of course the Catholic church, how about the Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Amish, and who knows how many more religions?
All of them draw lines for sinful behavior. Why did this judge concentrate on mainline Christians?
138 pages is reason alone to disrobe the fellow. And we wonder why the justice system doesn’t work...
According to news reports, the “judge” is a queer. Therefore by definition he is mentally ill.
One of the sure symtoms of mental illness is ranting against Christians!
What if a judge ruled on a marijuana legalization case, while it was known that he had a sophisticated hydroponic pot farm in his garage? How is this judge’s conflict of interest any less?
Sure, go ahead and attack Christians. Have at it, judges. But remember - everything you rule goes a thousandfold against Muslims, because they actually kill.
And eventually, your rulings are going to have to apply to them, too - O brave liberal judges.
LOL
Awww, that’s why Congress gets to establish a Church of Tolerance. Oh, wait....
By the “legal reasoning” of the Federal judge, no State Constitution can meaningfully exist cause it is an infringement upon “the rights of the people” not ceded to the Federal Constitution. “rights” which the Federal court cherry picks to enforce and define in order to effect their own policy’s.
This is why the “bill of rights” including the 9th and 10th amendments could not be applied to the states the result would be a madness that would effectually abolished the states and the people’s right to form and govern them.
But that is the legal reasion of the federal court in its dictated meaning of the 14th amendment in not only this ruling but Roe V. wade(same logic or lack there of).
Short of disputing the insanity of the courts edict i would very much prefer given the other problems with the same amendment that we just repeal the 14th amendment in favor of something more simpler(harder to corrupt) and to the point.
My suggestion would be a Federal Constitutional Amendment something like this:
{
Section 1:
The Fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2:
No Government of the United States shall in anyway discriminate on the account of race.
}
ping for later
At least Vaughn Walker’s idiotic ruling will be overturned. He should have recused himself on day 1. It’s as absurd as having a proud polygamist preside over a polygamy trial or an avowed pedophile judge decide a NAMBLA case. This is pure liberal activism in action.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
-Prop. 8 Judge: Pope Hurt Homosexuals-
What about how the homosexuals have hurt the church?
Gay Priests and Gay Marriage
What the one issue has to do with the other.
By Stanley Kurtz, from the June 3, 2002, issue of National Review
“The sex-abuse scandal currently plaguing the Catholic priesthood has already grown to the point where it poses a serious threat to the power, prestige, and credibility of the American Catholic Church. The sky, so to speak, is falling. An institution whose fundamental strength and continuity (whatever its many problems) could once be taken for granted is experiencing a genuine crisis.”
Yet, over and above its significance for the Catholic Church, the greatest lesson of this scandal has yet to be drawn. The uproar over priestly sex abuse — especially the calls to do away with both priestly celibacy and the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality — offers spectacular confirmation of nearly every warning ever issued by the opponents of gay marriage.
The argument over gay marriage has always turned on the question of whether marriage will reduce gay promiscuity, or whether gays instead will subvert the monogamous ethos of traditional marriage. The priesthood scandal is a stunningly clear case in which the opening of an institution to large numbers of homosexuals, far from strengthening norms of sexual restraint, has instead resulted in the conscious and successful subversion of the norms themselves. Historically and theologically, moreover, priestly celibacy and marital fidelity have always been intimately related. Indeed, there is already good evidence to suggest that today’s attack on priestly celibacy heralds tomorrow’s assault on the ethos of marital monogamy.
......The priest scandal also teaches a critical lesson about the time that it takes to undermine an institution. Defenders of civil unions in Vermont, for example, are fond of saying that since the advent of civil unions two years ago, “the sky has not fallen.” The answer is that the effect of civil unions and gay marriage on the ethos of marriage will likely percolate for years before the harm becomes evident — after which time it will be too late to turn back.
This is exactly what has happened to the Church. It has been at least 30 years since the homosexual presence in the priesthood began to increase markedly. All along there were signs of trouble, yet no profound institutional crisis. Only now, after three decades, is the Church experiencing an authentic emergency, one that has provoked calls for at least two sorts of solutions — removing or reducing the presence of homosexuals in the priesthood, or the abolition of celibacy itself. The first solution would drive away liberal Catholics, and devastate a priesthood that is now substantially homosexual; the other would represent a tremendous blow to traditional Catholics. After 30 years of gay marriage, it would be equally difficult to go back — yet the subversive effects of gay marriage on the ethos of marital monogamy could, by then, have reached a similar stage of emergency.
....Advocates of gay marriage are fond of comparing those who warn against it to racists who purveyed silly scare stories about the effects of miscegenation. But the real model for gay marriage is the priesthood scandal. Here is a case in which gay sexual culture has not been tamed by, but has instead dramatically subverted, a venerable social institution — “
Catholic beliefs hurt homosexuals but sodomy and STDs don’t? The world truly has turned upside-down.
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
