|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Moore is a hero to me of course. He knows that the people have voted against gay marriage and that their will should prevail over the misbegotten rulings of the Supreme Court that call the will of the people unconstitutional. He also knows that the laws of this nation were originally based on the Ten Commandments, which are also now treated as unconstitutional by the twisted mindset of Political Correctness.
Now comes the barrage of claims that I'm wrong and the SCOTUS are right. So I'm going to go take a nap. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And there's the barrage. Nicely done. I think you all touched on all the usual accusations and false claims. Since I've answered them all a bazillion times before there's no point in exerting myself again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I made neither an accusation nor a claim. I asked a question. This is what you said:
So you don't think the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land? Technically it's a question but it's really more of an accusation that I don't think the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Of course I think it should.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I think it's the SCOTUS who are acting unconstitutionally by calling the vote by state citizens unconstitutional. And I believe four of the nine SCOTUS agree with me, it's just that we happen to have a wildly politically correct majority in the five who would overthrow the votes. This has happened in state after state now, state citizens voting against gay marriage and courts telling them they have no right to their vote. This is what is unconstitutional.
ooh child wants to know what about the people voting one way one time and another way another time and doesn't that sort of make the whole thing untenable? Of course not, that's democracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Even Thomas Jefferson warned that SCOTUS could get too much power, and he was right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They just did it with Alabama, you missed it? Justice Thomas actually objected to their doing that because it signals what their vote will be in April. Here's the
Washington Post on it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Family Research Council:
It may be the Supreme Court of the United States, but it isn't a united one. At least two justices are disgusted by the Court's activism on marriage -- and they aren't afraid to show it. Hours before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to same-sex "marriage" in Alabama, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia took aim at their colleagues in a blistering criticism of the majority's decision. Instead of defending the will of the people, Thomas blasted the Court for "(looking) the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws."
This is "another example of this court's increasingly cavalier attitude toward the states," Thomas fumed. "This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way for the court to carry out its role," he said, echoing the concerns of so many Americans, "and it is indecorous for this court to pretend that it is." All the Court has done, Thomas laments, is create more chaos and confusion. "I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important question." Fortunately for Justice Thomas and anyone else who respects the rule of law, the Supreme Court certainly has an uphill climb imposing its will on Alabama. As of yesterday, only nine of Alabama's 67 counties were issuing same-sex "wedding" licenses in the strong show of support for the state's constitution that Judge Moore called for. "A lot of states in this union have caved to such unlawful authority, and this is not one," Moore told CNN. "This is Alabama. We don't give up the recognition that law has bounds. It's my duty to speak up when I see the jurisdiction of our courts being intruded by unlawful federal authority." While liberals scoffed at Moore's ability to sway the courts, most probate judges listened -- shuttering license windows across Alabama in the most aggressive pushback to judicial activism Americans have seen since the courts began picking off state marriage amendments. By record numbers, other probates dropped out of their wedding obligations altogether. If there are consequences, Washington County Probate Judge Nick Williams said, so be it. "I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." In a refreshing change, Alabama is using the law to determine their actions -- not the radical opinions of politically-motivated judges. This explosion of resistance is also important for another reason: it exposes the Left's agenda as purely court-driven. In Alabama, probate judges are elected, so obviously, their biggest priority is reflecting the law that was passed by voters. If Americans were truly on board with this effort to redefine marriage, governors, state attorneys general, and other elected officials wouldn't bother fighting it. Instead, these probates are showing where the people really are on the issue -- and it isn't where the media would have you believe. Senator Jeff Sessions (R), who represents the new ground zero on marriage, referenced on this in his strong words for the court. "I think it's an unhealthy trend that judges feel that they're somehow reflecting popular opinion when first of all, it's not popular opinion, and secondly, who are they to be ruling on cases based on how they feel," he told Roll Call. "The attorney general of the state of Alabama has appealed, which I support. And while a number of courts have held the way (the) Alabama court has, others have not, and to me this line of cases ... represents an activist judiciary," Sessions said. "No Congress has ever passed a law or a constitutional amendment that would ever have been thought to have this result. So, I think the proper role of the federal courts is to follow the law as it is -- not as they wish it to be."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Chris Pinto radio show on the Fourteenth Amendment
States' rights, Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, Christian defenses of slavery, Democrats defended slavery with same kind of reasoning now using to push gay rights, fourteenth amendment big issue for Supreme Court in April.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Interesting. I read that as he's not worried about following the Constitution because he IS following it. Difference of opinion on what the Constitution requires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Forcing it down our throats is the main similarity, having no respect whatever for the majority, which believe it or not IS supposed to rule in this country according to the Constitution, with minority rights also respected. But what's happening in this case is the minority is ruling the rest of us. Driving Christians out of business is tyranny of the minority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As marc9000 pointed out let the voters decide and that be the end of it. There is no need to keep revoting on the issue. Deal with what the voters said in the first place. Which is nothing but what they've had to deal with already.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I've said a million times already, there are some cases where the majority has to give to the minority and that is the case with racial discrimination. It is NOT the case with a bogus "discrimination" made up against a tiny minority made into a bogus special class of people who used to be defined by what was called Sin and/or Unnatural Behavior. This is NOT a legitimate minority. Sorry. We should not be required to change a universally recognized law that marriage is between man and woman to accommodate a tiny minority of aberrants. There are other ways of making their lives more comfortable than by making the majority miserable and depriving decent law-abiding citizens of their living.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Right, it's fine with you if people who did no harm to anyone in running their business are now subject to harassment and fines because of their religious beliefs which require that they not serve a particular event. Right, that makes sense to you, it makes no sense to me or anybody else who could be in that position.
What you aren't getting is that it is the Christians who are being targeted for discrimination, to be run out of business because of their beliefs. Gays do not have to patronize those businesses, they have plenty of choices, but they choose to harass and hurt Christians. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Don't be nave. The only people who are going to refuse to serve a gay wedding, or PREDICTABLY going to refuse it, are Bible Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is a very recently made-up application of marriage to a bogus group that has no business getting married.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024