‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

The most numerous and, collectively, the most powerful form of government on earth is the family. This is why worldly governments are so obsessed with destroying and undermining families.
Post Reply
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Post by iamfreeru2 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:21 pm

I put this here because the latest from SCOTUS is an undermining of the very foundation of the family and will result in the total detruction of America by a just YHWH.


Audio file:
https://www.box.com/s/6ldbg0iq3gph0csu0xqg

http://dateline.radioamerica.org/
‘No Grounding in the Constitution’
Posted in June 26th, 2013
by GregC in Podcasts

The Supreme Court had no reason to rule on the merits of the Defense of Marriage Act but the majority opinion lays the groundwork for a sweeping, national legalization of gay marriage in the near future, according to Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed gay marriage advocates a pair of victories. In addition to dismissing a defense of California’s traditional marriage amendment based on legal standing, it struck down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional that allowed federal benefits only for spouses in heterosexual marriages. That’s because the 1996 federal law recognized a marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. The court preserved the DOMA provision that allows states to refuse recognizing gay marriages performed in other states.

“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. ”DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.”

Kennedy was joined on the opinion by the court’s four liberal justices.

Staver blasts the majority for ruling on the merits at all, saying the case never should have come this far since the Obama administration refused to defend DOMA. The government, the plaintiff and the lower courts all agreed on the earlier verdict so Staver says this matter never should have reached the Supreme Court.

“The parties all agree that the ruling below is correct. Therefore, it should never have gone to the court of appeals and certainly the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. This is just an advisory opinion,” said Staver. ”This is unprecedented that the court took this step to actually even decide the merits of the case.

“And then when it decided the merits of the case, it used words such as ‘bigotry’, ‘hostility’ and ‘demeaning’, referring to the equal protection clause but it never did an equal protection analysis,” he said. ”Every equal protection clause analysis has to at least determine several things. One is the so-called right that you’re after, one that is rooted in history and part of our idea of ordered liberty. Here they’re asking for the right to same-sex marriage. Has that been rooted in our history? Is it part of ordered liberty? The answer to that is obviously no. The reason they didn’t address that question is because they would have to have come to an opposite conclusion. They skipped it. It’s unbelievable.

“This is just five people that have written a piece of opinion and issued it under the guise of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it has no grounding in the constitutional text or in the history of its previous precedent,” said Staver.

Some defenders of traditional marriage say today’s decisions weren’t a total loss because the court refrained from issuing a nationwide pronouncement in favor of gay marriage. Staver is not among them. He sees today’s DOMA ruling as the precursor such a ruling in a future case.

“In the short term, it’s not the blanket same-sex marriage across the country. That’s something that we actually could have had from this case today. On the other hand, this is the 1972 contraception for individual cases that ultimately laid the foundation for the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. This is the groundwork for same-sex marriage that the court laid today. There’s no question about it,” said Staver. ”The way that they wrote this decision, while it doesn’t put same-sex marriage across the country, they are telegraphing that’s what they want to do. And they will open up the floodgates of litigation and they are begging for another case to come to the high court.

“This decision crosses the line and the people have to respond or they’re going to be under a ruling oligarchy of five individuals that have untethered themselves. They’ve cut the line between themselves and the Constitution,” said Staver.

Staver was a strong supporter of Proposition 8 in California, but believes the unusual collaboration of justices in the majority were correct in dismissing the appeal based on standing since California officials refused to defend their own law.

Justices Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan rejected the standing of the traditional marriage supporter defending the constitutional amendment. Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Kennedy dissented.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Post by editor » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:07 am

From everything I've ever read, homosexuals on the average lead a much more promiscuous lifestyle than heterosexuals. Marriage is antithetical to their perspective on life, which is primarily short-term.

Short-term thinking is evident in every aspect of their lives. Most homosexuals who live long enough to die of old age, die lonely. They don't form many lasting bonds with partners, and they have fewer family members and no children. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason the Scriptures label homosexuality as a sin. The lifestyle is not conducive to long-term happiness.

Collectively, the most powerful form of government in the world is the nuclear family. This is why state and federal governments spend so much time and energy dividing opinions, inciting race hatred, and eroding moral values. Anything which erodes the power of the nulear family increases the power of state and federal government. The efforts to promote the acceptance of homosexuality these past years is, I believe, intended to serve this end.

Having said that, I am in favor of individual liberty. I do not care how other people live their lives. I may try to persuade people I care about to make what I consider to be good choices, but in the end I concede everyone's right to free agency. This includes the right to be the author of one's own self-destruction.

I believe the bottom line in this debate, from the perspective of homosexuals, is and always has been the benefits (money). If the United States were to discontinue ALL redistribution of the wealth handouts, and do away with all their unconstitutional taxing systems so that no groups were given tax favoritism over other groups, then homosexuals would not WANT to marry each other.

Going back to a smaller government, a lawful tax system, and ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFITS for anyone, would be good for everybody in this country. Government does not belong in the charity business.

"
How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law - which may be an isolated case - is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it."
Frederic Bastiat, in his book The Law (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/the-law1.shtml) wrote those words in about A.D. 1840, and they are just as true today.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Post by iamfreeru2 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:26 am

Here is a short video where John MacArthur does not mince words regarding homosexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dspKqCPtdRQ
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Post by iamfreeru2 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 am

editor wrote:From everything I've ever read, homosexuals on the average lead a much more promiscuous lifestyle than heterosexuals. Marriage is antithetical to their perspective on life, which is primarily short-term.

Short-term thinking is evident in every aspect of their lives. Most homosexuals who live long enough to die of old age, die lonely. They don't form many lasting bonds with partners, and they have fewer family members and no children. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason the Scriptures label homosexuality as a sin. The lifestyle is not conducive to long-term happiness.

Collectively, the most powerful form of government in the world is the nuclear family. This is why state and federal governments spend so much time and energy dividing opinions, inciting race hatred, and eroding moral values. Anything which erodes the power of the nulear family increases the power of state and federal government. The efforts to promote the acceptance of homosexuality these past years is, I believe, intended to serve this end.

Having said that, I am in favor of individual liberty. I do not care how other people live their lives. I may try to persuade people I care about to make what I consider to be good choices, but in the end I concede everyone's right to free agency. This includes the right to be the author of one's own self-destruction.

I believe the bottom line in this debate, from the perspective of homosexuals, is and always has been the benefits (money). If the United States were to discontinue ALL redistribution of the wealth handouts, and do away with all their unconstitutional taxing systems so that no groups were given tax favoritism over other groups, then homosexuals would not WANT to marry each other.

Going back to a smaller government, a lawful tax system, and ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFITS for anyone, would be good for everybody in this country. Government does not belong in the charity business.

"
How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law - which may be an isolated case - is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it."
Frederic Bastiat, in his book The Law (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/the-law1.shtml) wrote those words in about A.D. 1840, and they are just as true today.
Is it love to not share the truth with homsexuals, that they are destined for hell with a continuation of their sin against YHWH? Or is tolerance love? It should grieve us as Christians to see others living a sinful life and is why it is so important to share the good news of the gospel of the Christ. "Gays" call the teaching of Scripture hate speech. I disagree, it is "love speech", to take a quote from John MacArthur, from a holy God who has declared homosexuality an abomination. I have posted another sermon by John MacArthur that addresses how sinful homosexuality is. To believe homosexuals would not want to marry if there were no money is simply not true. The homosexual is living in sin and has nothing to do with money, but their defiance of a holy God. Listen to some of John's encounters with homosexuals and what transpired. It never ceases to amaze me how gracious and awesome YHWH is!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0GqVyYYfHc
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Post by editor » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:56 pm

I think I've made it clear that I think homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle. All reason points to this conclusion, and the only possible rebuttal comes from emotion.

Of course the anti-homosexual advocates often debate from an emotional perspective as well, which is, in my humble opinion, counterproductive. It is seldom, if ever possible to successfully use an emotional argument to persuade a man to change to an opposite viewpoint, when the principle elements of his current viewpoint are based on emotion.

Before one can argue from a rational perspective, he must understand the facts. This takes a lot more work than making an emotional plea, and quoting a few Scriptures. But if you are sincere in your desire to bring a blessing upon the homosexual, by convincing him of your counterperspective, then you will find it more rewarding.

Concern about the afterlife, or the disposition of one's immortal soul, requires long-term thinking. As I have already explained, the homosexual lifestyle embraces short-term thinking. Therefore it stands to reason the only successful persuasive arguments will involve primarily short-term improvements to lifestyle.

People care most about what affects them directly. This is why my earlier remarks were not intended to influence homosexuals to change their lifestyle. Until and unless they begin to receive benefits at the public trough, their lives are their own, and I care not what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

This debate has been spurred by the current attempt by homosexual advocates to use the courts to give homosexuals a recognizable place at the public trough. Make no mistake that this current push for recognition of marriage is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

That is why religious arguments and emotional pleas will fail.

Myself being a man who is concerned about that which directly affects me, I resent the idea that homosexuals as a group may ultimately find a place at the public trough, and thereby steal more of my property. I do not confine this concern to homosexuals, but instead extend it to every group and every individual who seeks to plunder what is mine.

I know there are some homosexuals who would seek to marry, even in the absence of political/monetary benefit. This does not change the fact that for most it is about the money.

Marriage, at its fundamental level, is a contract made between two or more people. It generally contains mutual agreement to cohabitate, prohibit promiscuity, share resources, and (in the case of long-term thinkers) plan for the future disposition of the shared estate property. This small microcosm government, otherwise known as family, is the only construct under which communism works.

Government seeks to destroy this construct, beginning with the marriage license. Under their license, husband and wife are not joined to each other. They are instead each joined to the State, and made co-provisional-trustees of a trust. All of the family's property, including the children, are the corpus (body) of the trust. The State is the beneficiary. As Trustor (creator of the trust) the State reserves the right to appoint new trustees if they believe the current trustees are in any way unfit.

Anyone who has read my other articles on this site, knows I recommend that heterosexuals not use a state marriage license, but instead marry according to the old common law.

Homosexuals, who probably do not understand the relationship with government in marriage, now wish to subject themselves to this same evil system of division/control, in exchange for a few dollars in benefits. I predict that if they get what they think they want, they will be ultimately unhappy with the outcome.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: ‘No Grounding in the Constitution’

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:45 am

editor wrote:I think I've made it clear that I think homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle. All reason points to this conclusion, and the only possible rebuttal comes from emotion.

Of course the anti-homosexual advocates often debate from an emotional perspective as well, which is, in my humble opinion, counterproductive. It is seldom, if ever possible to successfully use an emotional argument to persuade a man to change to an opposite viewpoint, when the principle elements of his current viewpoint are based on emotion.

Before one can argue from a rational perspective, he must understand the facts. This takes a lot more work than making an emotional plea, and quoting a few Scriptures. But if you are sincere in your desire to bring a blessing upon the homosexual, by convincing him of your counterperspective, then you will find it more rewarding.

Concern about the afterlife, or the disposition of one's immortal soul, requires long-term thinking. As I have already explained, the homosexual lifestyle embraces short-term thinking. Therefore it stands to reason the only successful persuasive arguments will involve primarily short-term improvements to lifestyle.

People care most about what affects them directly. This is why my earlier remarks were not intended to influence homosexuals to change their lifestyle. Until and unless they begin to receive benefits at the public trough, their lives are their own, and I care not what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

This debate has been spurred by the current attempt by homosexual advocates to use the courts to give homosexuals a recognizable place at the public trough. Make no mistake that this current push for recognition of marriage is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

That is why religious arguments and emotional pleas will fail.

Myself being a man who is concerned about that which directly affects me, I resent the idea that homosexuals as a group may ultimately find a place at the public trough, and thereby steal more of my property. I do not confine this concern to homosexuals, but instead extend it to every group and every individual who seeks to plunder what is mine.

I know there are some homosexuals who would seek to marry, even in the absence of political/monetary benefit. This does not change the fact that for most it is about the money.

Marriage, at its fundamental level, is a contract made between two or more people. It generally contains mutual agreement to cohabitate, prohibit promiscuity, share resources, and (in the case of long-term thinkers) plan for the future disposition of the shared estate property. This small microcosm government, otherwise known as family, is the only construct under which communism works.

Government seeks to destroy this construct, beginning with the marriage license. Under their license, husband and wife are not joined to each other. They are instead each joined to the State, and made co-provisional-trustees of a trust. All of the family's property, including the children, are the corpus (body) of the trust. The State is the beneficiary. As Trustor (creator of the trust) the State reserves the right to appoint new trustees if they believe the current trustees are in any way unfit.

Anyone who has read my other articles on this site, knows I recommend that heterosexuals not use a state marriage license, but instead marry according to the old common law.

Homosexuals, who probably do not understand the relationship with government in marriage, now wish to subject themselves to this same evil system of division/control, in exchange for a few dollars in benefits. I predict that if they get what they think they want, they will be ultimately unhappy with the outcome.
I do not need to defend the word of YHWH or what I have posted,and will not, because it needs no defense. I will just say this is not about emotion. It is about sin and turning from it in obedience to YHWH.

You have brought in other issues I totally agree with, but really are not the topic of this discussion.However, if you want to discuss the other issues I would be happy to do so in another thread. I do appreciate your thoughts. This is in no way trying to tell you how to run your forum.

Blessings
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
Post Reply