Posted on 10/27/2014 10:19:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Former President Jimmy Carter said the federal government really doesn’t have a role in ruling on gay marriage — that the issue should actually be left to the states to decide.
“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually,” Mr. Carter said, during a WFAA-TV in Dallas-Fort Worth interview. “As you see, more and more states on deciding on gay marriage every year. If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”
In 2013, Mr. Carter actually said that he supported nationwide gay marriage, Newsmax reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
First, I simply do not understand how a person who proclaims they are a Christian supports something that God has plainly said is wrong.
Second, what about California who voted overwhelmingly against homosexual “marriage” only to have it struck down by some renegade judge. What about nearly every other state that took proactive steps to stop sodomy... only to have one judge rule against the people of that state.
Jimmy Carter, like the rest of these satanic tools are wrong. Carter is pretty old now, won’t be long until he will be required to give an account of himself.
In 2013, Mr. Carter actually said that he supported nationwide gay marriage, Newsmax reported.
Old Jimmy certainly fooled a lot of Southern Baptists. . . .not to mention Al Gore and Bill Clinton. They just didn’t do their homework.
Sounds abusive to summer squash and turnips.
Well Jimmy Carter agrees with Ted Cruz, what does that mean?!
“Jimmy Carter: Leave gay marriage to a left-leaning federal judge in each state to decide”
There, fixed it.
Eek!
Jimmy should just shut up, simple.
It’s not the folks in Massachusetts or any other state; it’s left-wing judges in those states. So it really doesn’t matter what the people say, some judge with an agenda will overrule them.
When these people start saying that courts should not decide this stuff, then maybe I can listen
State judges> I repeat: it is up to the people of the state. State judges answer to the people of the state. It is delusional to think that it is just the judges. People now support this depravity. No point in denying it.
The President not only appoints SC judges, he decides a lot of issues for the federal government, gay issues, abortion, etc.
If I remember correctly, a "republican" named Romney had a lot to do with queer marriage in Massachusetts.
Federal lawlessness is and has always been most pronounced among its employees wearing blackrobes where the very idea of law takes on a purely dictatorial nature.
They have convinced themselves and demanded we teach our children in school that this is their right, but no one group, particular one hand picked by Washington has the right to completely rewrite The Federal Constitution.
So Federal judges and their dutifully empowered army of lawyers and politicians simply tell us that they didn’t find words in a Constitution that were never written nor law that had never before been imagined much less applied under a text already 200 years old in practice.
Anyone with senses knows their fall back position is a lie that only the childishly insane or corrupt would be foolish enough to buy.
Maybe but im not going to join a circular shooting squad. What is done is done, and whether or not Romney had anything to do with it either deliberately or by being played a fool is ill-relevant because hes not on my ballot.
State judges can be just as corrupt and self-serving as Federal judges. The only advantage in state judges is that we have a chance thou experimentation in arrangement to find ways to better control and limit them to lawful behavior.
If a judge is to uphold a Constitutional law it must be in refusal to enforce a legislative or excursive act. This is the same authority that all oath takers share in the same capacity as judges for the same oath taking reason.
A judge thus cannot by contrast ligitimately demand any act by any other party, they like every other part of Government are in control of their own actions alone, to allow them power over other acts is to place them in a position of superiority to constitutional division.
It is thus said that no judge can demand a state or state authority issue a licence or anything else for that matter. They can however hold in their rulings on a case by case basis licences issued to be invalid for their proposes.
So say in a case pending on whether or not a drivers licence of a man in one state is valid in anther state a Federal judge could decide that the licence was not valid under existing law. But he could not legitimately demand that either state issue such a licence.
In both cases when a Judges abuses is power and issues such an edict the appropriate course of action is as was done in “Madison vs Marbury” The state, local, or Federal official should simply not comply with the edict provide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
That is the absolute indepsinable truth about the Federal injustice system that people have failed to learn and practice. By respecting their positive power It is we that have given them power Over the Constitution instead of simply respecting their power under the Constitution.
This is not their power anymore than it was in “Madison vs Marbury” when Thomas Jefferson demonstrated their limits. We have to teach our officals to respect the true power of the Federal court and iqnore its illigitmite demands.
In short tell the Federal court as Jefferson and Jackson did, to enforce its own positive edicts. That is how a true constitutional system works, when each party enforces the Constitution using only their given powers. In the Courts cases that is the power to decide guilt in cases of enforcement.
Jimmy “racial purity” Carter. A golden moment from the 1975 campaign for the presidency.
The Bible doesn’t even mention racial purity. But it does mention the abomination of sodomy, that those who practice this vile sin are worthy of death (Romans1:29-32). I am hoping one day a State will condemn it with the condemnation it deserves.
Well, of course he’s in favor of having the states decide *now*. The tide is in his favor.
Federalism is easy when numbers are on your side. It’s not like he has any strong convictions or anything.
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.