Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Justices Ginsburg and Kagan performed same-sex ceremonies before the ruling,
an overt form of impartiality, along with stated opinions, especially by Ginsburg
concerning agenda. This violated U.S. Law and their ruling can be overturned.
I am not describing a theocracy. We do not have such, nor do we want one;
And then you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
but, this country was established on principles and standards set by God, and our government since its founding has been guided by those standards.
The second statement is the definition of a theocracy. So yeah, you are absolutely describing and advocating for a theocracy. And no, the U.S. is not, and never has, been one. You obviously have no understanding of the founding of this country.
It doesn't even matter, as The People will never take this ruling seriously. It's effect will only be to strengthen the resolve to clean up the mess left by a once-great nation's tragic and self-destructive guilt-trip.
Of course they will. Only the hardcore opposition will never accept it. They mercifully will be vanishing over the next 30 or so years along with their antiquated ideas.
And they can have their opinion and their rules within their own church. I am not a member of their church so their opinion has nothing to do with my life now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
That's generous of you.
It kinda is. Seeing as you and yours have been busy insisting your rules should apply to everybody, in your church and out. The Lutheran Church of Missouri's synod is, I'm sure, a weighty factor in the life of Lutherans in Missouri. The rest of us? Not so much.
What court does one go to to overturn a Supreme Court ruling?
They can ask for a rehearing but it's extremely rare that it would be granted. The problem is that you will also have to disqualify both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas for remarks they have made over the years in public in regards to gay marriage.
In ignorance, Americans were led to believe they were bound by laws that were never binding without their consent. This is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, wherein
• Job #1 = secure (endowed) rights, and
• Job #2 = govern those who consent.
How did we consent?
By volunteering to be subject citizens, and enrolling into FICA / Social Security.
The remedy is to withdraw consent. But you should not do so without first taking the effort to READ LAW, and verify that your state constitution and statutes still honor the republican form of government, the sovereignty of the American people (noncitizens), their endowed right to life, liberty (natural and personal), and absolute ownership of private property upon which they can establish a domicile (not a residence!). (The pursuit of happiness is a euphemism for absolute ownership of land - for only upon your own domain can you pursue happiness without the permission of another.)
American Christians can refuse to participate in their abominations when they violate religious beliefs.
WITHDRAW CONSENT.
Establish a Domicile. Become an Inhabitant.
Stop being a stranger in your own country.
Until consent is withdrawn, no remedy is possible.
After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed.
I always love your posts because you specifically spell out the way things were set up and the way they should be.
In principle and law, I believe you are right on the money here. However, on a practical level, I'm not so sure this course of action wouldn't be met with arrest and detention by what has become a police state. It's a forced collective now... exactly the opposite of what the founders had intended. And obviously, the lawmakers and judges today are not interested in justice as was define in the founding documents.
Honestly, if I had somewhere to go that was any better (as in another nation), or if I thought I could get away with "withdrawal" right here in the US, I'd do so in a heartbeat. I no longer know this nation. It's like a foreign land filled by foreign people I can no longer relate to. And whether they changed or I changed, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. The generations of Americans that I could actually relate to are now, by and large, dead and gone.
Interesting that I loved my grandparents and their generation (generally speaking), but I can't seem to find a reason to love anyone I see around me today or that which they espouse. They might just as well be aliens from Neptune. Not that I really hate anyone either; I just do not relate to or belong to what this nation has become.
I would, however, like to read or study this entire concept that you bring up aspects of quite often on these forums. Besides in the founding documents, where does one go to find these sorts of principles that actually provide a bit of hope for the future (at least in my eyes, because I'd love to withdrawal from the collective). Is there any practical documentation on this topic out there beyond the law books? (as in description of these laws or summaries)
In the coming days we will continue to be releasing articles further discussing the justification for and techniques that can be used by Congress, state officials, and the American people to resist today’s unlawful decision.
They can ask for a rehearing but it's extremely rare that it would be granted. The problem is that you will also have to disqualify both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas for remarks they have made over the years in public in regards to gay marriage.
I agree. The number of times the Supreme Court has granted a re-hearing can be counted on one hand.
I will note, that the only person that can 'disqualify' a justice from sitting in on the case is: the justice him or herself. It is called 'recusal'. Usually a justice will recuse him or herself due to a financial conflict of interest. I have never heard of a justice recusing him or herself due to having a prior opinion about the desired outcome of a case before the Court.
This is not a life-jacket being tossed out to those disappointed with yesterday's ruling, but an anvil.
What are you going to do? Symbolically abstain from marrying someone of your own gender? That'll show those judges!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Wrong. "We confess that God’s divine law of marriage and the entire Ten Commandments apply to all."
First Amendment. First Commandment. You can only pick one.
Quote:
That standard has already been established by a Holy God, and written down, and our laws (until now) have been guided by that standard, which as the above quote states, "apply to all" (even you, sweetie).
Did I mention the First Amendment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
