'We Will Not Obey'

mbrown1219

Heaven's Stables
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-what-the-117695904751.html

The Supreme Court gay marriage arguments: What the justices revealed — quote by quote
Jeffrey Rosen for Yahoo News
April‎ ‎29‎, ‎2015




The Supreme Court gay marriage arguments: What the justices revealed — quote by quote

A rainbow-colored flag flies in front of the Supreme Court on Monday, the day before the court heard arguments on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. (Andrew Harnik/AP Photo)



In the same-sex-marriage oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, eight of the justices revealed their personalities and their very different approaches to marriage equality in particular and the Constitution in general. What follows are the most revealing quotes, in order of seniority, from each of the justices who spoke at the argument (Justice Thomas was silent), along with their central concern and contribution to the debate.


Chief Justice Roberts has long been troubled by the idea that courts might short-circuit a democratic debate over marriage equality by imposing a constitutional right to marry by judicial fiat. In his dissent from the Windsor case in 2013, he wrote that he was reluctant to “tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry” without convincing evidence that a law’s “principal purpose was to codify malice.” He might vote to uphold same-sex-marriage bans on the grounds that the people, not judges, should decide the future of marriage.


Roberts also hinted that same-sex-marriage bans might be vulnerable as a form of sex discrimination. “I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” Still, a majority of the court seems more interested in striking down the bans as a violation of liberty, equality, and dignity, and it would be surprising if Roberts joined majority opinion emphasizing sex discrimination.


Justice Scalia was especially troubled by the possibility that ministers might be required to conduct same-sex weddings that violated their religious convictions. Some commentators seized on his question as evidence that he believes the constitutional recognition of same-sex marriage is inevitable and wants to engage in damage control. Justice Kagan responded that rabbis at the moment are not required to marry Jews and non-Jews. She spoke from experience, having had to persuade her own New York City rabbi to conduct his first bat mitzvah after she turned 12.


Since the Lawrencedecision in 2003, Justice Kennedy has insisted that laws disadvantaging gays and lesbians violate their dignity and their constitutional rights to liberty and equality. Kennedy’s focus on dignity has been so influential in lower-court decisions that lawyers on both sides referred to dignity no fewer than 16 times. Kennedy’s 2003 opinion emphasizing the dignity of LGBT couples led Scalia to predict that the decision would inevitably lead to the end of bans on same-sex marriage, despite Kennedy’s claims to the contrary. Now Scalia’s dissent looks especially prescient.


Justice Ginsburg has been described as the Thurgood Marshall of the women’s movement, and she invoked her experience as a litigator for women’s rights to question the conservative justices’ claim that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would transform the definition of marriage. In fact, Ginsburg argued, the definition of marriage was transformed after the women’s movement led to the demise of laws that treated wives as the property of their husbands. Because marriage has, in recent years, become increasingly inclusive, Ginsburg suggested, gays and lesbians deserve the same equal treatment as women and other previously disadvantaged groups.


Justice Breyer’s question surprised some same-sex-marriage proponents, who have counted him a reliable vote on their side. In fact, he seems to have been testing the thesis of his book “Active Liberty,” which argues that courts should generally defer to democratic decision makers unless fundamental rights are being infringed. Breyer’s ultimate vote for same-sex marriage seems implicit in his subsequent observation: “After all, marriage is about as basic a right as there is; that the Constitution and Amendment 14 does say you cannot deprive a person of liberty, certainly of basic liberty, without due process of law; and that to take a group of people where so little distinguishes them from the people you gave the liberty to, at least in terms of a good reason not to, and you don’t let them participate in this basic institution … that violates the 14th Amendment …”


Justice Alito is a history scholar who has eloquently argued for the preservation of tradition. He noted that ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato, wrote approvingly of same-sex relationships, even though the ancient Greek city-state did not recognize same-sex marriage. Alito, who often asks the hardest questions at oral argument, went on to ask why, if marriage were a fundamental right, four people — “let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers” — could be denied the right to marry and form a single union.The lawyer’s response — that four lawyers were unlikely to consent to this relationship — didn’t seem to satisfy him.


More than any of the justices, Justice Sotomayor focused on what she identified as the basic question of whether the right to marriage is a fundamental right. If so, she said, it had to be extended to all citizens on equal terms. Cutting through the abstractions about dignity or the legalistic debate about tiers of constitutional scrutiny, Sotomayor sought to provide a broad, basic framework for resolving the case in terms all citizens can understand.


Justice Kagan was skeptical of the empirical claims made by same-sex-marriage opponents: namely, that bans on marriage by gay people would encourage responsible procreation by straight people by emphasizing the connection between marriage and procreation. Kagan asked whether it would be constitutional for the state to deny marriage licenses to straight couples who said they didn’t want to have children. She also questioned the state’s claim that allowing same-sex marriage would harm traditional families. Kagan found it “inexplicable” that Ohio was suggesting adopted children would be better off if raised by married straight parents but not by married gay parents.

Predicting the outcome of a case by the questions asked at a Supreme Court oral argument is always hazardous, but based on their past constitutional positions, there seem to be at least five justices — Kennedy plus the liberals — who are ready to recognize some version of a right to same-sex marriage. For more analysis, listen to the National Constitution Center’s We the People podcast discussion of the same-sex-marriage oral arguments.



Katie Couric News Video

How will the Supreme Court decide on same-sex marriage?
Yahoo News and Finance Anchor Bianna Golodryga spoke to Yahoo's Liz Goodwin and President & CEO of the National Constitution Center Jeffrey Rosen just moments after arguments closed at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.


Jeffrey Rosen is president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and a law professor at George Washington University.

Visit link for more: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-what-the-117695904751.html
 
Last edited:

Carl

Well-Known Member
Not a one of the comments even suggested that the Founders of this Nation had thoughts on what a marriage is all about. Most dealt with what a decision will mean to our society today.

Father God, I look to You for Your decision to prevail in this case. May Your Will be done.
 

Hol

Worships Him
There was only about 25,300+ signatures for the defense of marriage petition. That doesn't seem like very many. Especially not enough to make a difference or is it? What are your thoughts on this? Or does it matter not if there were only 10 signatures, it's the action that counts?
Maybe this will serve as a time the LORD acts and only a small number of folks were effectively praying, so He gets all of the glory!
 

Kenny64

Well-Known Member
Do not be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of change. By his will he gave birth to us through the message of truth, so that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” (James 1:16–18, LEB)


As the Supreme Court Justices deliberate on the interpretation of the fourteenth amendment as it relates to same sex marriage. GOD gave me this scripture today. People in general don’t like to have their dirty laundry brought out into the open for others to see. As disciples of CHRIST it has to be difficult to watch as society self-destructs around us. Although we knew this was coming and have seen similar disintegration in the morals of society throughout history. For me at least what was back in time is never as poignant as events in the present.


Acts 5: 29.

THEN PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES ANSWERED AND SAID, WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN.


Subjection to the civil magistrate is a scriptural doctrine. "The powers that be, are ordained of God. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s." Caesar has his rights, and those rights God commands us to respect. His powers are given to him of God, and sanctioned of God. But the prerogatives of civil government are given for a certain end, and have their limitation. If its delegated powers be perverted to another end, or if it transcend its limits, its claims to respect cease to be sanctioned of God. If civil government in any form, forget the limitation of its prerogatives, and invade the prerogatives of God, it is at its peril. God is supreme in his legislation, and he whose mandate secures the rights of Caesar has also said, "and to God the things that are God's." God will claim his own, and no civil government can release its subjects from rendering unto God the things that are his. Our allegiance to civil government must be subordinate to our allegiance to the higher government of God, and hence, if at any time the claims of the one conflict with those of the other, the weaker must give place to the stronger, and the civil must yield to the divine.


The man that truly fears God, will hold his will, his law supreme, and his obligations to regard it as sacred and inviolable. As these obligations are personal, and as no being in the universe can step between him and his God, or bear his responsibilities for him, he will examine every law of men which lays claim to his regard, and if it demand active or passive disobedience to the will or law of his God, he ought to disobey it, and he will disobey it.


The fourteenth amendment the Bill Of Rights and the fifteenth amendment which provides its protection are just in purpose and consistent with the will and purpose of GOD in his dealings with man. When men use what is just for unjust purpose they attempt to pervert what is intended for good. And such is the case presented by those who propose that men and women who have forsaken the natural affections should have equality based on their errant behavior.


“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error. And just as they did not see fit to recognize God, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do the things that are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greediness, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malevolence. They are gossipers, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, unfeeling, unmerciful, who, although they know the requirements of God, that those who do such things are worthy of death, not only do they do the same things, but also they approve of those who do them.” (Romans 1:18–32, LEB)


There should not be any division or debate over same sex marriage within the church. We are called to love the person and through our love we are to repudiate any behavior that separates a person from GOD. The word of GOD is clear on the matter, there are no loopholes.
 

SonSeeker

Well-Known Member
There was only about 25,300+ signatures for the defense of marriage petition. That doesn't seem like very many. Especially not enough to make a difference or is it? What are your thoughts on this? Or does it matter not if there were only 10 signatures, it's the action that counts?
Speaking more in the carnal, 25,300+ is just a drop in the proverbial bucket, as of today it's up to 31,000+ so that's a good sign. As the word gets out about this petition, the number if signer should increase significantly.
Keep praying. ,:pray :pray :pray
 

SonSeeker

Well-Known Member
I would love to encourage the family here to read Mike's book "The Sifted Generation" I have almost finished the book and HIGHLY recommend it to all. If it is within your budget I encourage you to buy more than one copy. If you are like me you will want one to keep on your bookshelf for reference and you will think of many people you would like to "gift" the book to. Mike's book needs to reach as many hands as possible.
My copy just arrived today! I am fasting today for a "procedure" being performed tomorrow & noon. (Don't ask!:nono You don't want to know). So for the balance of today, I plan to curl up with The Sifted Generation.
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
There was only about 25,300+ signatures for the defense of marriage petition. That doesn't seem like very many. Especially not enough to make a difference or is it? What are your thoughts on this? Or does it matter not if there were only 10 signatures, it's the action that counts?
Sis, it is GOD that counts. He only needs 1 man who will trust and obey him.

We Christians need to get our eyes of this natural world and the things we see and trust in our Lord and Savior who alone controls all things.
 
Last edited:

Lily

Looking Up
I didn't mean to imply that God needs any help from us. I was just a little surprised at what seemed like a low response to the defending marriage petition. I was looking at it more as a sign of the times than what God could or couldn't do. I wasn't even necessarily believing that these numbers told the whole story. This was just one online petition. I often don't frame my posts correctly, I don't say what I'm thinking and that's my fault.

Not sure what else to say except that I fully agree that we need to always keep our focus on God in all things.
 

WaitingOnHim

Renewed In Christ
I didn't mean to imply that God needs any help from us. I was just a little surprised at what seemed like a low response to the defending marriage petition. I was looking at it more as a sign of the times than what God could or couldn't do. I wasn't even necessarily believing that these numbers told the whole story. This was just one online petition. I often don't frame my posts correctly, I don't say what I'm thinking and that's my fault.

Not sure what else to say except that I fully agree that we need to always keep our focus on God in all things.
Don't feel sorry Lily, not at all. I feel exactly the same way you do. I also know that God doesn't need any help in this, or any other matter, from us. It is just a little discouraging to see so few willing to show their support for His will in such a vital area.
 
Top