U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
Well its clear they did not interpret the constitution but acted against it..just as the other supreme court justices said. What we have is a group of lawless judges and no one is under any obligation to obey a unconstitutional ruling such as this. No that is NOT the final say..the people have the final say and she was just one of the first to speak.
L
ok, now we get to the root of the issue. because the dissenting ones disagreed, the ones whom you happened to agree with, you are mad and don't like the ruling, and feel the bible excuses you from having to obey it. Now I get it. Whether the ruling be "lawless according to scripture", it isn't lawless according to the majority of the supreme court...which is why it is now the "law of the land", as in America. You don't want to separate "God's Law" from "American Law", but unfortunately, that separation has existed already for YEARS.
Our founding fathers who were morally repugnant thought it was God's law to enslave Africans. In the sixties many people fought segregation and racism was God's law. Let's not forget the millions of people who were murdered in the Roman Catholic Crusades under supposedly God's law. Mixing religion with government always results in tyranny
1. I cannot even waste time correcting this given how wrong it is.
2. The people who triumphed over segregation also appealed to divinity.
3. Misunderstanding of the Crusades.
4. A statement you have made before that you clearly have no interest in defending when a logical answer is suggested in return.
2. The people who triumphed over segregation also appealed to divinity.
3. Misunderstanding of the Crusades.
4. A statement you have made before that you clearly have no interest in defending when a logical answer is suggested in return.
Mitspa isn't just looking at the Bible. He's looking and legal precedent. This largely misunderstood notion of separation never really existed in our Constitution which is the ultimate law of the land.
With their decision, the Supreme Court, has ignored the origins of their profession and the foundations of justice. You ignore notions of justice as well. If there is no higher Law to defend outside the parameters of the law, then we have an interesting ethical quandary.
Suppose for a moment the Supreme Court declares it a constitutional right to kill widows after the death of their husband. Would you not be against this measure? Would you not refuse to obey? Would you not view it as unjust?
With their decision, the Supreme Court, has ignored the origins of their profession and the foundations of justice. You ignore notions of justice as well. If there is no higher Law to defend outside the parameters of the law, then we have an interesting ethical quandary.
Suppose for a moment the Supreme Court declares it a constitutional right to kill widows after the death of their husband. Would you not be against this measure? Would you not refuse to obey? Would you not view it as unjust?
L
I understand legal precedent. I also understand the certain times throughout history where the Supreme court felt it had to go against that legal precedent...such as with segregation..and discrimination..and I agree with you, that we do have "an interesting ethical quandry" that results from God's law being separated from man's law...but this is nothing new. As for the notion of separation "never really existing in our constitutions", well, that is completely debatable, but I'm not even going to go there. The truth in that, I believe, truly lies somewhere in the middle of both "sides" of the issue, as it often usually does in issues such as this.
As for the analogy of the supreme court "declaring a constitutional right to kill widows after the death of their husband", my answer to you is, of course not. I would not kill a widow....and yes...I would probably be jailed for it. Would I like it? no. Would I give all the praise and glory to God? Would I have to take God at His word that "All things work together for the good of those in Christ Jesus"? yes. Now....let me ask you something.
Suppose that the Supreme court declared that "all unkind words spoken in anger...(such as a slip of the tongue)" shall carry a 20 year prison term...and it just so happens you are having a really bad moment and the S word or H word, or D word slips...or maybe its not you, but rather the unsaved neighbor next door. First, would you deem that ruling "unjust"? and second, would you even be able to guarantee that you will obey?
As for the analogy of the supreme court "declaring a constitutional right to kill widows after the death of their husband", my answer to you is, of course not. I would not kill a widow....and yes...I would probably be jailed for it. Would I like it? no. Would I give all the praise and glory to God? Would I have to take God at His word that "All things work together for the good of those in Christ Jesus"? yes. Now....let me ask you something.
Suppose that the Supreme court declared that "all unkind words spoken in anger...(such as a slip of the tongue)" shall carry a 20 year prison term...and it just so happens you are having a really bad moment and the S word or H word, or D word slips...or maybe its not you, but rather the unsaved neighbor next door. First, would you deem that ruling "unjust"? and second, would you even be able to guarantee that you will obey?
M
Of course I don't like the perversion of our society..and the other judges not only disagreed but called this ruling the most unconstitutional ruling even handed down from the court ... The constitution is the law of the land...those judges ONLY have authority in as much as they obey the constitution ..when they reject it, they have no authority . And of course we the people and the constitution decide what is American law...not a few lawless judges. No one is under any obligation to obey this ruling legally or morally.
I never suggested that prayer should be withheld because of the parent? 
I was making a point about the motives of this person who demanded compassion and prayer for this child and then laughed and ridiculed this lady...why are you not asking her why she is laughing instead of praying for her?
I was making a point about the motives of this person who demanded compassion and prayer for this child and then laughed and ridiculed this lady...why are you not asking her why she is laughing instead of praying for her?
L
I certainly didn't "lol" to her suffering in jail. Don't you dare sit here and post my response to a part of a discussion in the name of "clear context" You are a fool, mitspa.
If God gave you a gay child? I would pray for that child...and for you...that you learn to love that child as much as the Lord Himself does....and I could care less what you "reject". Go sweep your own heart out before trying to TNT anothers. You are such the hypocrite!
And contrary to your unpopular opinion, I don't believe I have ever "defended" the gay lifestyle.
If God gave you a gay child? I would pray for that child...and for you...that you learn to love that child as much as the Lord Himself does....and I could care less what you "reject". Go sweep your own heart out before trying to TNT anothers. You are such the hypocrite!
And contrary to your unpopular opinion, I don't believe I have ever "defended" the gay lifestyle.
L
According to who, you? LOL. ok. Actually, I came on this forum for Christian "fellowship" and "friendship" and while I was at it, prayer for my son. So I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to falsely "define" all my reasons and motivations for coming here. I didn't say "God" makes children gay, so again, stop putting words in my mouth.