Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    President Obama Evolves on Marriage. And He Wants the Constitution to ‘Evolve’ With H

    President Obama Evolves on Marriage. And He Wants the Constitution to ‘Evolve’ With Him.


    Ryan T. Anderson
    @RyanT_Anderson

    October 21, 2014




    President Barack Obama hosts a reception in honor of national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month in the East Room of the White House June 15, 2012. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Newscom)


    Commentary By



    Ryan T. Anderson
    @RyanT_Anderson
    Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.

    President Obama has evolved on marriage.

    Again.

    After supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman until just before the elections of 2012, Obama announced back then that he supported democratic efforts to redefine marriage—but he didn’t think judges should redefine marriage. Now, just before the elections of 2014, Obama has announced that he thinks there’s a constitutional requirement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.

    According to the Obama of today, the Obama of early 2012 held an unconstitutional view of marriage.

    “Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all 50 states,” Obama told the New Yorker.

    This is a case study in how liberals “evolve” on policy. First they embrace a policy change. If they can’t convince a majority of Americans to vote for their preferred policy, they discover that the Constitution requires their preferred policy. So, according to the Obama of today, the Obama of early 2012 held an unconstitutional view of marriage. Or, perhaps, it wasn’t unconstitutional back then but it is now.

    But this isn’t how the Constitution works.


    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, explained earlier this month what the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment means in the marriage context:
    It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage…. [It is a] preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

    Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

    Indeed, during the Supreme Court oral arguments over California’s Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman—this same point came up. Justice Antonin Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer arguing Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, a simple question: “When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional?”

    Scalia had proffered some possible dates: “1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes–some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When–when–when did the law become this?”

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/21/pr...lves-marriage/


    As Obama’s latest evolution shows, we’re not only redefining marriage, we’re redefining our Constitution.


    Finally, Scalia asked, “50 years ago, it was okay?” And Olson responded: “I–I can’t answer that question.” And Scalia then pounced: “I can’t either.

    That’s the problem. That’s exactly the problem.”


    And as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out at the time:

    I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.

    As former Attorney General Ed Meese and I argued last month in The Washington Post, in a system of limited constitutional self-government, the people and their elected representatives should be making decisions about marriage policy. While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of this debate, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the redefinition of marriage—unlike, for example, the case of interracial marriage. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution.


    Citizens are, of course, free to redefine marriage policy to include same-sex relationships, but so too should citizens be free to retain in law the historic definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman—as citizens in a majority of states have done.

    Nothing less than the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States are at stake. And as Obama’s latest evolution shows, we’re not only redefining marriage, we’re redefining our Constitution—making it a living, breathing, evolving document.

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/21/pr...lves-marriage/


    This is unconstitutional and will not stand. The "man" who would be King, can "decree" what ever he wants, no one has to abide by it. The definition of "Marriage" is between a man and a women, not a man and a man. or a women and a women, or even a man and a dog, and visa versa, no matter what ever else some person may want... Saying it does not make it so. Wake up America..

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Repent! For the Kingdom of Sodom is at Hand

    Philip Stallings 19 hours ago

    Recently, there was an LGBT parade right outside a local business I frequent. One thing that I noticed was that not only was it swarmed with Millennials, but the persistent theme of this parade and many others was marked by a simple word "change." However, the change they want is for people to repent of biblical morality and embrace the perversion of sodomy.

    Many of those attending were kids and they had painted on their bodies or were carrying posters that read "change." I began to think about this in a way that many have not.

    What do you and I think of when we think of the Gospel? I think of "repent." Repent in the Greek is metanoeó, and means "to change your mind," especially in respect to God and His Law regarding sin. The interesting thing here is that these sodomites and their supporters are in a backwards, sinister way "preaching" their gospel in this message. They are basically telling the Christians to "change" their minds regarding this wicked sin. What else do you think "change" would mean in these parades? Change what exactly? We know what they are wanting to change. They want the definition of marriage to change, but more importantly they want the perceptions of Christians, that view it as sin, to change. So, essentially, what we have going on now on our public streets are the sodomites telling the world to "change" their thinking on this because the Kingdom of Sodom is at hand!

    One of the most troubling things to me was after viewing a recent poll regarding generations in favor of redefining marriage to include sodomites that the most significant movement was among Millennials. The most obvious correlation for this is the public school system's indoctrination of wickedness. The Scripture paints an eerie parallel for our day in Isaiah 3:5, 9:

    And the people will oppress one another, every one his fellow and every one his neighbor; the youth will be insolent to the elder, and the despised to the honorable.

    For the look on their faces bears witness against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves.
    It is interesting to note that the word "proclaim" in verse nine is translated from the Hebrew word "nagad" in the NIV as "parades."

    There is no question that the sodomites have become militant in their wicked movement. Recently, we have seen the queer mayor of Houston not only seek to institute wicked policies, but we've also seen the sodomites swing their fists at Christians and their Pastors when they get into power.

    Yesterday, there was a report out challenging a minister in Idaho to either marry sodomites or face up to 180 days in jail and a daily $1,000 fine for not marrying sodomites.

    When are we going to realize that this is war? What would have avoided this in the first place was to enact the death penalty for those that physically practiced this abomination. There can be no doubt that the trend now is not only to bully and wreak havoc among Christians, but to lock up Pastors and anyone else that stands for the truth until God's Law is eradicated from their mist.

    This is nothing less than a war and Christians need to be standing up everywhere in this nation contending earnestly for the faith! We should be getting just as passionate in our message of "change" and call upon this nation to repent and to follow God's Law on this matter.
    What is most troubling to me is that some of the most politically active "Christians" are the liberal progressives. This shoul
    d not be. True, orthodox Christians need to stand upon the rock, Jesus Christ, and not be ashamed of the Gospel and welcome any persecution for standing for the truth. Are we not to consider it pure joy (Matt. 5:11-12)?

    We all know what recently happened regarding the Supreme Court kicking the issue of State bans regarding marriage and then the fallout from this having the appeals court's decisions standing that strikes down state bans. Fortunately, there have been reports from my home state of North Carolina where a few of the civil magistrates refused to issue marriage certificates to the Sodomites. I certainly commend these men for standing up for the truth on these matters (Acts 5:29). We need to encourage others to follow suit.


    I believe we should be encouraging and standing by our local magistrates to follow the law, God's Law! Yes, this may mean we lose our jobs or get feces thrown at us, or even be jailed. I say, bring it on! There is no neutral position on this. Jesus said you are either with me or against me. May we, with Paul, echo his words as we go forward in standing for the truth, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."

    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
    You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/re...hcW4xE3wYZM.99




Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2013, 11:51 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2013, 12:38 PM
  3. WikiLeaks: Hillary Analyzes Argentina's President marriage
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-03-2010, 10:31 AM
  4. Another BS story - Thinking on immigration must evolve
    By Chexfive in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 06:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •