Posted on 09/01/2015 5:55:47 AM PDT by Nextrush
It happened in Kentucky minutes ago with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis explaining to a gay couple why she would not give them a marriage license....
Cameras were there......
I suspect a lot of people out there -- even good, principled conservatives -- are operating under the erroneous assumption that they should never be forced to choose between God and Caesar. A lot of folks right here on FreeRepublic treat the modern State as either a deity unto itself or as an instrument of God that must be given deity-like allegiance. They'd do well to learn the lesson that this is absolutely NOT the case.
Scalia’s statement is a good reference.
He also discussed the chaos for the states in matters like this, where conscience is concerned and burned the justices who made the law. Justice Kennedy bastardized the faith, threw out conscientious objection and submits the people entirely to the government by way of the laws of man.
This kind of judicial activism has proven to be the catalyst for wars. It can not to be defended, on moral and religious grounds.
Out of curiosity, what was your previous handle?
You are quite ignorant, although you don’t comprehend the magnitude of it quite yet.
Are you ignorant of the 1st amendment? Are you ignorant of natural law?
You are definitely and absolutely ignorant of God’s law!
Daniel 5
20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:
21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Pretty sure everyone knows that the OT enjoins the death penalty for male homosexuals and that in the NT, St Paul condemns both male and female homosexuality. However, in our legal system, man-made law is enforced when it conflicts with man’s interpretations of natural law or God’s law.
Anthony “Rainbow Warrior” Kennedy’s SSM ruling is detestable, but it’s law, and conservatives had better stand up for strict and consistent enforcement of the law, because the widespread current acceptance of civil disobedience (=breaking laws “because conscience,” “because religion,” etc) is destroying respect for the law generally, and is encouraging movements like Black Lives Matter, blocking traffic, rioting, and even violence against law enforcement. When you condone civil disobedience, you undermine law and public safety, period. It is bizarre and tragic to see numerous conservatives accept the avowed “democratic socialist” Martin Luther King, Jr’s premise that it’s acceptable to break laws you don’t like “because Christian.” If in the ‘60s we’d consistently and relentlessly arrested, jailed, and fined sit-inners, lie-inners, and rioters, we could’ve avoided the explosion of crime in that decade, but instead we legitimized lawbreaking, abandoned vital social controls, and reaped the whirlwind. From Nixon in ‘68 to Bush in ‘88, Republicans ran on law and order and won. In 1992, even Bill Clinton found it necessary to pledge law and order to win. That only makes it stranger these days to see more and more Republicans backing civil disobedience.
I already addressed your various points and claims: you cannot pick and choose which of God’s laws you will follow. Nor can you claim one of God’s existing laws justify the absence of a US law. As people pointed out, using Abraham can justify polygamy.
Civil laws and religious laws are separate, regardless of token efforts like Congress recognizing Noahide laws.
Christianity isn’t the United States of America’s official religion. It’s the majority religion of it’s citizens.
I understand you have a hard time separating sins against God, so I’m going to reiterate one can repent to God for homosexual acts.
I don’t agree with the SCOTUS’ judicial activism and support this woman’s stand against it, but that doesn’t mean I agree with your distorted viewpoint.
Oh, Lookie who came back a day later!
You still have an unanswered question from Darksheare concerning your post #259. I believe he asked you something about how you figured that homosexuality was a “race, creed or religion.”
He also made a few points in his post #289 to which you have yet to respond.
Your continued silence only serves to underscore the fact that you can’t defend the indefensible. I guess it’s perfectly understandable in that light.
They aren’t going to respond.
Direct questions and clarification is too hard.
Just making the silence more pointed.
By the way, Mr. Toast, since you are such a legal beagle you should be familiar with the term Qui tacet consentire videtur.
What was your previous handle?
I sense a tag team here..
“At least since SCOTUS ruled that the Civil Rights Act supersedes religious scruples against serving all races and creeds. “ -your idiotic post 259
Show how homosexuality is a race or creed.
You CAN do that, right?
Hmmmmm,
Seems Mr. Soo-To-Be-Toast has some “interesting” opinions on other subjects -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3321632/posts?page=11#11
(Careful there Mr. Eater, your inner Paultard is showing.)
No tag team on my end. I don’t defend idiocy whether it’s someone saying homosexuals are a protected class of people, or another who claims Jews believe an automatic death penalty should apply to homosexuals.
Hmm.
So what was your previous handle?
Your homepage has this statement on it:
"NY to SF to NV. FReeper since Jan 2001."
So, if you're proud of being a long time FReeper, you should also be proud of your previous screen name, N'Est Pas?
So - Who were you?
Please cite the US Code, the US Constitution, the general laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or the Kentucky Constitution to back up your claim that SSM "is law".
Ivanka Trump wrote a book. Did you read it?
And that has exactly what to do with the question?
No. And most likely I won't.
What was your previous screen name?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3331594/posts?page=259#259
Hello, you still have yet to show how homosexuality is a race, creed, or religion.
You also need to cite what law is being violated, and where the Supreme Court gets legislative powers.
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.