Whoever the two consenting adults, both of their parents are touched by the inevitable early death, the shame (and I'm meaning societal, if not spiritual, emotional, but those too) of it. They lobbied for this, but all of them know they are harming their extended families. Because of that, as representatives and only empowered as much as they serve the needs of all the people, the law has harmed society. There is no question.
There is almost always a question. The rest is argument and foundation. Conversion to Christianity will doubtless work emotional harm to Muslim families and vice versa. Should the law erect a barrier to it? As a Christian you could argue that allowing any other expression of faith is encouraging an ongoing harm to those outside of the faith. There's really no end to that line of approach. In our compact we recognize the necessity of individual responsibility and their right to consequence.
The law needs to be changed away from full and impartial acceptance. We never 'legalized' adultery for example.
But then adultery is a breach of contract between two parties joined by the seal of the state, whatever else enters into it beyond the state's empowerment.
The law just rightly left it alone. They should have done the same, despite lobbying and lawsuits. Sadly, the SCOTUS didn't care to listen. They are operating without any balance and check.
No, as with any branch of government they can be checked, only it takes a strong willed Congress to manage it. And that's the way it should be for any branch and power or we'd see our government spend most of its time squabbling between branches instead of between parties.
lain:
I would, that all SCOTUS rulings would necessarily have to pass through the House and Senate, just as the President's.
Then you're just extending the membership of the legislative. Though most branches have overlap, they each still hold vital and distinct jobs.
In a nutshell, imho, justice cannot be 'blind' less it hurts the whole, it is trying to serve.
The blindness of justice is to privilege and power. So the majority, or the rich cannot claim a better share of her attention or protection. The presumption of innocence, by way of example, is true for any man charged of a crime. That's to the good in principle, even if we all can't be happy with a particular manifestation.
Some things are just 'right' BUT because we disagree on which is 'right' justice will never be blind. We are responsible for holding up and defending what we know to be right. Right now in America, there is not much the average joe can do to affect or protest. We march by the millions at the Capitol - Nothing. The system imho, doesn't work any more. My paradigm: You CANNOT attack your base, without ruining your country. They rightly need the most consideration. The government as a whole, is dysfunctional, because they reject this paradigm. Imho, that is the political and economic reason we are in the state we are in. The only way to 'make America great again' is to foster the base of a country: Families. All this overt attention to minority views and needs is not all bad, but the pendulum has to swing back or there is going to be a revolution, and I honestly believe, SCOTUS is has a huge hand.
See I've never agreed with the "again" or the "take back" approach to government. I don't think we've had a generation where there wasn't some serious moral compromise or failing, along with important strides that would eventually deal death blows to them.
I'm saying that is the wrong take of separation and state. It 'used' to be illegal to commit adultery. It is still illegal to be polygamous.
And it was for a very long time perfectly legal to own people, and to deny women the right to own land or minorities to vote. The separation of church and state is to protect us in our expression of faith and to protect us from the sort of dangerous nonsense that happened in Europe when a majority of Christians exercised power over minorities of Christians (and others) to hammer the law into their own particular dogmatic shape.
I believe you believe this. I 'think' some of your education has harmed you and must be eschewed.
In order, good, because we have to credit one another with our own minds or we might as well be blogging...and I don't believe a solid education ever harms the possessor, because it creates a methodology of approach to ideas that is rooted first in reason and by that light examines popular sentiment and subjective feeling.
No, it is the same reason it is illegal to harm a child, at least as far as parents are concerned. Kids cannot get married until they are 18 or older. If enough kids lobbied and marched for 10 years, they could get it lowered, simply because justice is (or isn't), blind. As I see it, because of the way SCOTUS operates, such would inevitably happen, despite parent's protest. Why? Because 'they aren't loud enough.' Such, isn't justice imho.
Actually kids could lobby until their legs were weary and the legislature could then respond if it felt obligated, but I believe the Court would strike an attempt given the understanding relating to consent and capacity to contract.
All laws are supposed to serve all, not show favoritism.
And that's why slavery is gone and women and minorities can vote and live where they please, though it took some struggle to accomplish it.
I have never doubted your love for Christ, or for me, or for those who are in sin.[/qtuoe]
Likewise.
I have disagreed with you
Also likewise.
and I 'think' some of your hang-on's are due to accepting legal paradigms THEN becoming a Christian.
I'd say, as regards my approach, that it isn't a matter of accepting legal paradigms, but is a recognition of the necessity and value in a system that won't give us a 30 Years War without a metaphysical fight, that protects the right of every man to remain the arbiter of his conscience and exercise, so far as those will not impede the next fellow's right to the same.
Politically, I agree things tend to go through cycles. I'm not sure where this one is headed, but there are Christians to be found in both parties and ideologies. There's even a Pro-Life group within the Democratic party.
A wonderful prayer. For all of us. I accept it as my own, even if to another
Thank you, kindly.
