Author Topic: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality  (Read 465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Manna: 81
  • Gender: Male
Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« on: Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 15:29:25 »
REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
_______________________________
 
Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights
On Immorality

    “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled the Idaho and Nevada bans [on same-sex marriage] violate couples’ rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.”Arizona Republic, Phoenix.

     I stand flabbergasted and disgruntled every time a Federal Judge or panel of Federal Judges strikes down a State law that relates to ethical values and replaces it with a law that supports and promotes a licentious lifestyle.

     These Judges, most of whom appear to be extravagantly liberal in their thinking, distort the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution so that it embodies the “right” for homosexuals to marry their own kind and lesbians to marry their own gender. They say to deny them that right “violates couples’ rights to equal protection.”

     I disagree and believe their interpretation is faulty. As I view the Fourteenth Amendment, it does not, either directly or indirectly, shore up sexual aberrations or same-sex marriage. Yes, the Amendment limits the actions of all State and local officials, such as when a State passes a law that infringes upon or is contrary to said Constitution and its Amendments. Banning same-sex marriage by a State does not fall into that category, however.

     It is not a question of the United States Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land. Nor is it a question that Judges, both State and Federal, shall be bound by said Constitution. The problem arises when Federal Judges overstep and overrule State Judges by interpreting the Constitution’s Amendments to their own liking and, as a result, wind up fostering unprincipled sexual gratification by allowing men to marry and sleep with men and women to marry and sleep with women.

     This is what has occurred in the same-sex controversy. These are acts of usurpation upon States’ Rights by Federal Judges, and deserve to be treated as such. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

       “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      It is apparent that a State that initiates a law upholding ethical values by banning same-sex marriage does not “deprive any person their freedom or due process of law.” Furthermore, common sense dictates a limit to a citizen’s liberty, else he is free to indulge in the lowest form of depravity. Let me bolster this conclusion by tendering a scenario.

     Consensual incest among family members is as old as history. Considering the downward spiral our country is experiencing, I envision the day when two family members will file a lawsuit in their State claiming they are deprived of their rights on the basis they are not permitted to marry, whether sister and brother, son and mother, or daughter and father.

     Reflect upon this reasoning. If Federal Judges can override a State’s decision and allow a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, based upon what they say concurs with the Fourteenth Amendment, how could they consistently deny marriage between two family members? The same Amendment would apply equally to both circumstances. There is absolutely no consistent way Federal Judges could deny two family members their “rights,” as per their own logic and interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    I would like to add at this juncture that Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg appeals to the Fourteenth Amendment to condone and Constitutionally legalize his marriage to his “male wife.” God forbid, but should he be elected President, his “First Lady” would be of the male gender.

     I accuse Federal Judges of misinterpreting our Constitution to further their own liberal agenda. And while the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Heaven’s moral standards are universal and eternal. Yet Heaven’’s ethics are set aside, downplayed, and overridden by mere men who apparently delight “in playing God—in spite of the fact that God, via the apostle Paul, condemned and condemns homosexuality.

     “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the [eternal] reign of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the [eternal] reign of God” [1 Cor. 6:9-11].

     Any of these grievous evils, of course, can be repented of and the guilty party receive God’s forgiveness. But a continuous and chronic lifestyle consisting of these evils is another matter, the great apostle proclaims. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, reinforces his pronouncement [1 Tim. 1:10].

    Let it be recalled that whole cities were demolished because of homosexual activity [Gen. 19:23-25]. Even our Lord Jesus spoke negatively of Sodom [Matt. 11:23]. A question we all should consider is if America continues traveling the path of vicious, unprincipled evils, will our God be provoked to demolish her—in one form or another?
« Last Edit: Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 16:10:32 by Reformer »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« on: Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 15:29:25 »

Online Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12390
  • Manna: 218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #1 on: Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 18:37:58 »
The 9th is notoriously liberal and where liberals go to get the ruling they want but is also the most over turned court in the land.  Trump has put conservatives on it but need a few more retirements or deaths to get a majority.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Manna: 81
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #2 on: Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 20:38:04 »
Johnb:

    "Trump has put conservatives on it but need a few more retirements or deaths to get a majority."

    True. If a sufficient number of conservative Judges in all areas of law are appointed, perhaps the evil path America is treading can be reversed. May our God intervene!

Buff

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #2 on: Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 20:38:04 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 04:43:49 »
The fundamental problem here is that the definition of marriage has been changed; for thousands of years marriage has always been reserved for the union of the opposite sexes.  But no longer.

We cringe at many of the positions of morality, or rather immorality, as established under Sharia, the formal law of Islam.  It is extremely difficult to legislate some aspects of morality, specifically sexual morality.  And as much as some of us would prefer that sexual immorality not be engaged in, it is nearly impossible to prohibit it through law.  But what I really object to is the government formally condoning or promoting sexual immorality; but that is precisely what is happening with rulings such as that coming from the 9th Circuit.

Actually, I would rather not have the government intruding upon anything concerning marriage, i.e., real marriage; but given various rules and regulations concerning taxes, rights of ownership, inheritances, etc., none of which has anything to do with sexuality, that is not likely ever to happen.   But I think legally defining the state-endorsed union of two (or more) persons of the same sex to be a marriage is abhorrent and its only purpose is to denigrate the Judaeo-Christian values and ethics.  But then that is the goal of the leftists like most on the 9th circuit.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 04:43:49 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #4 on: Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 04:57:06 »
Let it be recalled that whole cities were demolished because of homosexual activity [Gen. 19:23-25]. Even our Lord Jesus spoke negatively of Sodom [Matt. 11:23]. A question we all should consider is if America continues traveling the path of vicious, unprincipled evils, will our God be provoked to demolish her—in one form or another?
I think it is a mistake to extrapolate from God's dealings with His chosen nation Israel as recorded in the OT to nations of today.  There are no similar chosen nations today.  Christianity, unlike OT Judaism, is not a covenant of a chosen nation; rather it is a covenant of chosen individuals. If God were to punish nations for their sinful behavior, then one would think that He would have demolished nations like Russian, China, Iran, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. whose atrocities are certainly no less vicious and unprincipled than anything we might find in America.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #4 on: Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 04:57:06 »



Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Manna: 81
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #5 on: Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 21:53:24 »
4WD:

    "I think it is a mistake to extrapolate from God's dealings with His chosen nation Israel as recorded in the OT to nations of today."

    Israel had not been established as a nation when God demolished Sodom and Gomorrah. We do not know if and when God will bring other cities and nations down to dust because of their level of lewd and licentious behavior as He did Sodom and Gomorrah.

   Please bear in mind there was one predominant evil that dominated the two cities God wiped off the face of the earth—homosexuality. America is becoming more possessed with this satanic evil as each day, week, month, and year arrives and passes. How much longer will our God tolerate it?

Buff

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #5 on: Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 21:53:24 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #6 on: Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 05:20:08 »
4WD:

    "I think it is a mistake to extrapolate from God's dealings with His chosen nation Israel as recorded in the OT to nations of today."

    Israel had not been established as a nation when God demolished Sodom and Gomorrah. We do not know if and when God will bring other cities and nations down to dust because of their level of lewd and licentious behavior as He did Sodom and Gomorrah.

   Please bear in mind there was one predominant evil that dominated the two cities God wiped off the face of the earth—homosexuality. America is becoming more possessed with this satanic evil as each day, week, month, and year arrives and passes. How much longer will our God tolerate it?

Buff
There is absolutely nothing in the NT presentation of the gospel that says anything about God bringing other cities and nations down to dust because of their level of lewd and licentious behavior as He did Sodom and Gomorrah.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Manna: 81
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #7 on: Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 10:34:15 »

4WD:

    Final note on this: My remark of "if" and "when" [above] does not affirm there is something specifically alluded to in the new covenant scriptures that God will demolish other cities for lewd [homosexual] behavior.

    Our God does not always announce in advance His forthcoming decisions and proclamations regarding a diversity of matters.

Buff


Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #8 on: Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 11:15:57 »
4WD:

    Final note on this: My remark of "if" and "when" [above] does not affirm there is something specifically alluded to in the new covenant scriptures that God will demolish other cities for lewd [homosexual] behavior.

    Our God does not always announce in advance His forthcoming decisions and proclamations regarding a diversity of matters.

Buff
Unless God announces in advance or proclaims after the fact His decisions, then you have no right to even suggest such.  There is far too much of that that goes on as it is.  There are too many "God does this or God does that" and "God says this or God says that" when there is absolutely no corroborator of any of it.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #8 on: Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 11:15:57 »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Manna: 81
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #9 on: Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 14:16:39 »

4WD:

   Look, as a definite final note on this matter, rest assured I am not in an argumentative mood. I will, however, give you a little something to think about.

   As far as my research and knowledge go, the new covenant scriptures did not nor do not indicate in any precise way the Great Depression of the 1920s. Yet it happened. Apply this apparent fact to the opposite of what you seen to have stated.

Bye,

Buff

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #10 on: Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 04:50:01 »
Buff, you seem to be one of those who hold to a pseudo-deterministic view of God's dealing with His creation.  That is, you like to think that God's being in control means that He causes everything.  I said pseudo-deterministic because it also seems like you want to pick and choose what it is that God has actually caused.  You point to the great depression of the 1920s, or any other happening in the world,  as a possible God-directed punishment for mankind.  That is without any Scriptural basis whatever. And it seems to me to be extremely foolish.  But I won't bother to pursue it any further.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Manna: 81
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #11 on: Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 12:21:07 »

4WD:

    Totally irrelevant to what I have said. Shame on you! I have no time to spend on this issue any longer, as I've already stated. No offence intended.

Buff

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10478
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #12 on: Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 15:12:25 »
You obviously didn't understand what I said; otherwise you would know that it is relevant.  But I will leave it at that.

Offline Link

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Manna: 49
Re: Federal Judges vs. States’ Rights On Immorality
« Reply #13 on: Sun Jan 12, 2020 - 08:05:48 »
I agree that judges ruling that 'equal protection' under the law requires legalizing gay marriage is an incredibly stupid interpretation.  Before this wicked re-interpretation of the Constitution was legislated from the bench, marriage laws did not discrimination based on 'sexual orientation.'

If a single man felt he was 'sexually oriented' toward women, he could marry any willing single woman.  If a single man felt he was 'sexually oriented' toward men, he could marry any willing single woman.

If a single woman felt she was 'sexually oriented' toward men, she could marry any willing single man. If a single woman felt she was 'sexually oriented' toward women, she could marry any willing single man.

Why should the law be changed...from the judges bench rather than the legislature at that...to accommodate strange desires.  This wasn't a case of allowing for equal protection.  It was a case of redefining marriage in a way that defies God.

What we need are conservative activist judges...activist judges for righteousness.  Liberal judges tend to be the activists, trying to promote an agenda, often a wicked one in recent times, but we need judges that are willing to create legal upheaval a bit to restore justice. 

 

     
anything