I'm good with ignoring all sky daddies' laws. Even Allah's.
Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
I'm good with ignoring all sky daddies' laws. Even Allah's.
I'm not coming over to your place, so forget about it.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
... and a spark of humor. (is this the REAL Legina ... or an impostor?)
I couldn't care less what Diane Feinstein has to say about her, the Democrat Dogma is strong in that one.
It comes down to personal beliefs.
God's Law.
Man's Law.
The Constitution was written by 'Man'. Using 'reason & logic'.
God's Law ... wasn't really written by 'God'.
Support this?:
"Why Did God Kill A Man For Picking Up Sticks On The Sabbath Day?"
http://godlovespeople.com/articles/killed_for_sticks.htm
"Numbers 15:32-35, “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”"
Sounding a bit silly... when was the last time SCOTUS Nominee and Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett picked up rocks to kill folks for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? When was the last time a Jewish person did such a thing? It is their particular part of the Bible that you are reading from (fourth book of the Torah).
The reality is, pretending you are afraid that Amy Coney Barrett is going to take up arms against folks chopping wood on Sunday is absurd, and useless, it takes a true belief in the dogma of your political party to really believe that such nonsense will happen or to convince yourself it is a valid question.
Simply pointing out one of 'God's Laws' that most people ignore, think is stupid, but ... is in The Ten Commandments (obey the Sabbath) that Religious types want to have in every Courthouse."No other Gods before ME". Another of 'God's Laws'. Opposite of Free Speech/Free Expression in the Constitution.
So. In my opinion, putting people on a Supreme Court that hold 'Religious Views' is going to put them at odds with their Faith. The 'Good Book', the one people say was 'written by God', says:
"Leviticus 18 and 20
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
Most Religious types believe what's in the Bible. 'Free Thinkers' on the other hand, use 'reason and logic' to come to common sense solutions.
'Will Queers Still Be Allowed to 'Marry' is a valid statement in light of a 'Religious type' (Barrett) being installed on the Supreme Court. The Bible, the Book written by God, says 'No'.
What is your fear of 'Democrat Dogma' and can you describe what it is?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
They also took an oath to the Constitution. "Render unto Caesar".
"No other Gods before ME". Another of 'God's Laws'. Opposite of Free Speech/Free Expression in the Constitution.
So. In my opinion, putting people on a Supreme Court that hold 'Religious Views' is going to put them at odds with their Faith. The 'Good Book', the one people say was 'written by God', says:
"Leviticus 18 and 20
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
Most Religious types believe what's in the Bible. 'Free Thinkers' on the other hand, use 'reason and logic' to come to common sense solutions.
'Will Queers Still Be Allowed to 'Marry' is a valid statement in light of a 'Religious type' (Barrett) being installed on the Supreme Court. The Bible, the Book written by God, says 'No'.
What is your fear of 'Democrat Dogma' and can you describe what it is?
Be careful on what Litmus Tests you seek to make mandatory when nominating a Justice. It's on the Road to Unintended Consequences.
Only idiots I saw were those RWers who tried to conflate the Bible with the Constitution. The Constitution forbids this and has rulings to prove it.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/cases/
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
The Court considered whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was violated by a Maryland requirement that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God to be eligible for the position. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the requirement violated the Establishment Clause by giving preference to candidates who believed in God and were willing to state their beliefs, over other candidates. In this, Maryland effectively aided religions involving a belief in God at the expense of religions or beliefs that do not, a position that a state is expressly prohibited from taking. (Citation: 367 U.S. 488)
Last edited:
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Worried about how the new court will affect your plan to wed?
You seem like a 'Religious type' to me. So ... do you support 'Gay Marriage'?
You know, 2 guys butt-fucking each other is just like a Man and a Woman getting Married and having Biological Children?
Or ... do you believe what the Bible says, the Word of God, on the subject?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
The one they gave. Render unto Caesar. If they can't, then they should recuse themselves.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Sodomy laws were tossed out almost 20 years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/ Note that it, too, was a 14th Amendment violation.
"Marriage" is a religious thing. The only reason the state should be interested is as a revenue source and creating, for a price, a legal document for the courts. This too falls under the 14th Amendment. Religious aspects don't matter because of the First Amendment.
I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I think the 'Render unto Caesar' is about paying Taxes.
Agreed.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Specifically, yes, but the intent is to divide the spiritual from the secular. Use Romans 13:1 on them.
Specifically, yes, but the intent is to divide the spiritual from the secular. Use Romans 13:1 on them.
Yeah. Well, in this case, are you going to separate the 'spiritual' Barrett from deciding cases that might go against her deep Belief in the Bible?
"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
She has to go with the law. "Jesus says" is not a legal argument. Did you hold it against Ginsburg because she was Jewish? Or because she was a woman? Maybe because she was short? Or wore glasses?