Confusion about "the law of the land"

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you and a friend argue over a key element in a book that you've both read, what would you do to prove your case to your friend?

That's not what's happening here. First, we aren't friends.

You're right, activist Judges couldn't care less about the Founders original intent. Regarding us being friends: we're brothers in Christ. Just because I believe what God says in Holy Scripture and you make things up as you go along...

Second, we aren't equals when it comes to an understanding of the law.

Correct, I haven't been indoctrinated by the godless ACLU.

Third, I'm not arguing. I'm telling you what is and you're mostly trying to tell everyone what you feel should be. Okay, feel away, but don't confuse it with more than that.

i.e. Town Heretic is speaking for the homosexual movement and their activist Judges that don't abide by the Constitution of the United States.


Quote:
I'd find out what the author of the book had in mind when he or she wrote it.

Which is why women can't vote?
Like I said, there's the principle in play and there's our steady attempt to live up to that. Or, if you like (or if you don't) there's an evolutionary element to that document.

I don't recall the 19th Amendment being the results of an activist Judge's ruling.


Quote:
When it comes to our founding documents, including that of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers are very clear; all that a person has to do is look at their "original intent".

Which brings up an interesting question, how many slaves is too many slaves?

When it comes to homosexuals being enslaved to sin, one is way too many.

 

[PureX]

But his point is valid, no? :think: SCOTUS does not create laws, but interprets and gives opinions. Those opinions may be in error. Congress creates laws.

Are you really expecting perfection? That would be rather presumptuous, wouldn't it? I mean, how would you even know perfection if you saw it?

Or is perfection in this case defined as that which agrees with your idea of it?

 

[Town Heretic]

Regarding us being friends: we're brothers in Christ.

I don't know your heart, but I know your practice, so I'll hope that's true and wonder at what you do with it.

Just because I believe what God says in Holy Scripture and you make things up as you go along...

So dishonesty is a linchpin of your Christian walk or just an excusable lapse? I don't do anything of the sort.

Correct, I haven't been indoctrinated by the godless ACLU.

No, I'm not now nor have ever been a member of that organization, agree and disagree with them issue by issue but find the defense of civil liberty to be a good idea. We're not equals in understanding of the law because you lack the education, formal or otherwise. So this isn't simply two people with a different opinion any more than it would be if you disagreed with a physician over a medical diagnosis.

i.e. Town Heretic is speaking for the homosexual movement and their activist Judges that don't abide by the Constitution of the United States.

Not a single rebuttal in any of this, just more declarative nonsense dipped in horsefeathers. Get it out. Get it all out. And when you've had your cry the law will still be the law.

I don't recall the 19th Amendment being the results of an activist Judge's ruling.

What you don't know would fill an encyclopedia. Have you an actual argument or is this it?

When it comes to homosexuals being enslaved to sin, one is way too many.

And that issue will never be decided by a human law.

 

[GFR7]

@Purex & Town Heretic:

But supposing a Justice had died or retired, or some conservative was appointed, and the ruling had gone the other way, and "one man, one woman" was now "the law of the land"?

Would you both be speaking as you are now? :think:
Answer honestly.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow. The Christian right is really, really, really struggling to come to terms with the Obergefell ruling. :think:

 

[ok doser]

@Purex & Town Heretic:

But supposing a Justice had died or retired, or some conservative was appointed, and the ruling had gone the other way, and "one man, one woman" was now "the law of the land"?

Would you both be speaking as you are now? :think:
Answer honestly.

 

[GFR7]

:mock: :mock:

 

[Jose Fly]

Notwithstanding, there remains a gaping contradiction between the idea that it's unconstitutional to prevent 2 men marrying, and the idea that this is only now the law of the land.

Then please explain on what legal basis a county clerk would deny a marriage license to a same sex couple.

 

[PureX]

@Purex & Town Heretic:

But supposing a Justice had died or retired, or some conservative was appointed, and the ruling had gone the other way, and "one man, one woman" was now "the law of the land"?

Would you both be speaking as you are now? :think:
Answer honestly.

Yes. Because I'm simply explaining the way the system works. And I don't cry and whine that the system is broken every time it does something I don't like.

 

[GFR7]

Then please explain on what legal basis a county clerk would deny a marriage license to a same sex couple.

:think: There isn't really a legal basis.......

 

[Jose Fly]

:think: There isn't really a legal basis.......

So there we go. Since there's no legal basis on which to deny same sex couples marriage licenses, they must be issued.

It's kind of the "the government doesn't grant rights, it only restricts them or takes them away" thing. So basically, we're all allowed to do what we want, except those things that are expressly illegal (e.g., deny marriage licenses to same sex couples).

 

[Town Heretic]

@Purex & Town Heretic:

But supposing a Justice had died or retired, or some conservative was appointed, and the ruling had gone the other way, and "one man, one woman" was now "the law of the land"?

Would you both be speaking as you are now? :think:
Answer honestly.

Happy to. Now listen honestly to the answer and be honest when or if you respond to it. Would I be speaking as I am now? About it being the law and about a constitutional amendment being the only recourse? Sure.

I'd disagree with it as a matter of law, but then I disagree with Roe too.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Theres no confusion about following the laws of the land for any christian who cares about what God says and His word says, its untill the law conflicts with God.

Ask Paul and the apostles who went to jail for their beliefs too.

 

[GFR7]

Happy to. Now listen honestly to the answer and be honest when or if you respond to it. Would I be speaking as I am now? About it being the law and about a constitutional amendment being the only recourse? Sure.

I'd disagree with it as a matter of law, but then I disagree with Roe too.

True. :first:

 

[GFR7]

Theres no confusion about following the laws of the land for any christian who cares about what God says and His word says, its untill the law conflicts with God.

Ask Paul and the apostles who went to jail for their beliefs too.

Yes, that's true; they did. That's why I never understood the bit about "all government comes from God". It doesn't. This is a great conflict IMO within the scripture.

Romans 13:1 :

Every person should obey the government in power. No government would exist if it hadn't been established by God. The governments which exist have been put in place by God.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes, that's true; they did. That's why I never understood the bit about "all government comes from God". It doesn't. This is a great conflict IMO within the scripture.

Romans 13:1 :

Every person should obey the government in power. No government would exist if it hadn't been established by God. The governments which exist have been put in place by God.

There is no conflict at all, if the people want corrupt government, God lets them have it too, for judgment reasons.

 

[GFR7]

There is no conflict at all, if the people want corrupt government, God lets them have it too, for judgment reasons.

That is a good and reasonable interpretation. :up: