[Hoot Gibson]

If I hate abortion, and PP offers that service, but then PP offers other services to women that are very generic in their benefit to women (meaning all would agree they are a help), does my hatred of the one service invalidate all the others? Or, is that an obvious logical fallacy and example of painting with too broad a brush?

Not one penny of federal money should be spent supporting Planned Parenthood. No number of good deeds can bring back the millions of lives that abortion mills like Planned Parenthood have sucked from the face of the Earth.

[TheRealThing]

Not one penny of federal money should be spent supporting Planned Parenthood. No number of good deeds can bring back the millions of lives that abortion mills like Planned Parenthood have sucked from the face of the Earth.

Not one penny, I agree. We live under certain and sundry forms of tyranny. The federal government forces citizens to pay for abortions, benefits for homosexual partners, rounding up and shipping Syrian refugees from the Middle East to a neighborhood near you or me, and the housing and substance to support same. We paid for the, according to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the capture and processing for 59,000 non Mexican border crashers as of 2012. And they were from some very bad places. We pay for the cell phones, cigarettes, beer etc. of those who are supposedly in need of assistance. And the list is literally endless.

I for one, am extremely agitated with government, and I would like to think that soon I will not have to listen to the voice of one Barack Obama ever again. BTW, I was thrilled to hear Marco Rubio today make the statement that he would appoint a SC Justice who would interpret the law using the original intent approach. Have you heard what Ted Cruz has said along those lines? Cause this living document gig is a no go for me.

[Hoot Gibson]

Not one penny, I agree. We live under certain and sundry forms of tyranny. The federal government forces citizens to pay for abortions, benefits for homosexual partners, rounding up and shipping Syrian refugees from the Middle East to a neighborhood near you or me, and the housing and substance to support same. We paid for the, according to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the capture and processing for 59,000 non Mexican border crashers as of 2012. We pay for the cell phones, cigarettes, beer etc. of those who are supposedly in need of assistance. And the list is literally endless.

I for one, am extremely agitated with government, and I would like to think that soon I will not have to listen to the voice of one Barack Obama ever again. BTW, I was thrilled to hear Marco Rubio today make the statement that he would appoint a SC Justice who would interpret the law using the original intent approach. Have you heard what Ted Cruz has said along those lines? Cause this living document gig is a no go for me.

Ted Cruz is a true conservative who clerked for a very conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Cruz has known Scalia for 20 years, including during his time clerking for Rehnquist at the Supreme Court.

If you are really concerned about who the next president will appoint to the Supreme Court, you owe it to yourself to get familiar with Cruz's stellar record as a Constitutional originalist. Nobody else running for president holds a candle to Cruz's legal experience and conservative record.

Cruz is one of the top trial attorneys in the country. His challenge to Trump to file a lawsuit was a serious one. He would love to put Trump under oath to take his deposition. Assuming Trump's lawyers are competent, they would strongly advise Trump to drop the threat of nuisance suits against Ted Cruz.

Marco Rubio earned his law degree from the University of Miami and entered politics a couple of years later. Ted Cruz has argued cases before the Supreme Court and won many times, including landmark cases such as the DC v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban.

Cruz also won a major case against the Bush administration while he was Texas Solicitor General, in Texas v. Medellin, in which the death sentence against a Mexican citizen who was convicted of murdering two young girls was upheld by a 6-3 vote.

Cruz also successfully defended the Ten Commandments Monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Supreme Court.

Cruz has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any lawyer in Texas and more than any of the 535 members of Congress. Cruz is much better qualified to serve on the Supreme Court than many past justices were when they were appointed to the Court.

As a lawyer, Rubio is novice who would need to rely on advisers to select nominees for the SCOTUS. Ted Cruz is very familiar with the process of vetting and selecting nominees to the Court.

There is no guarantee that appointing a conservative judge to the Court will result in that judge remaining an originalist, as John Roberts has proven. (Cruz was involved in selecting Roberts as one of Bush's nominees, although he has said that his first choice would have been his former boss, Michael Luddig, who was also considered.) Roberts has voted with conservatives on the Court most of the time, but he voted with the liberals to save Obamacare, which was a shock to everybody who supported his appointment.

Trump has ridiculed Cruz for "giving us" Roberts, but Cruz was a young attorney in the Bush Justice Department at the time and that decision was not made at his level. It is just another example of Trump's dishonesty, IMO.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

With the tragic passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, this country has lost its most vital and influential moral compass. We can only pray that God will open the hearts, eyes, and minds of those who continue to mindlessly wander through this morally decaying country.

God bless the memory of His faithful servant, Antonin Scalia. I am confident that He has done so.

[The Urban Sombrero]

With the tragic passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, this country has lost its most vital and influential moral compass. We can only pray that God will open the hearts, eyes, and minds of those who continue to mindlessly wander through this morally decaying country.

God bless the memory of His faithful servant, Antonin Scalia. I am confident that He has done so.

Are you suggesting that a person who disagrees with your view of the Constitution has "no moral compass?". Would Scalia have said that of Ginsberg? Is a heterosexual woman who supports the right of same sex folks to marry under a civil government somehow a morally pathless person?

[RunItUpTheGut]

Are you suggesting that a person who disagrees with your view of the Constitution has "no moral compass?". Would Scalia have said that of Ginsberg? Is a heterosexual woman who supports the right of same sex folks to marry under a civil government somehow a morally pathless person?

If you are a religious person, then yes.
In a plot twist, gay marriage getting illegally passed by the treason court was the best thing possible for Repubs.

The democrats cant run on that this year and you no longer see it being made a big deal like it once was. Since its already illegally legal, theres no arguments.

I wonder how many rainbowers will stay home this election compared to the past.

[Hoot Gibson]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her moral compass when she went to work for Planned Parenthood, the largest operator of abortion mills in the U.S.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Are you suggesting that a person who disagrees with your view of the Constitution has "no moral compass?". Would Scalia have said that of Ginsberg? Is a heterosexual woman who supports the right of same sex folks to marry under a civil government somehow a morally pathless person?

Actually, I am saying that anyone who intentionally interprets the clear intent of the US Constitution in a way obviously never intended has no acceptable moral compass.

Justice Scalia was unwavering in his deeply held belief in the sacredness of life. He, as our founding documents make perfectly clear, believed that life was a gift from God to be respected and not destroyed for the sake of convenience.

He further, as a devout Roman Catholic, believed in the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage as founded by God. This is absolute.

Yes, indeed. He was the moral compass of the USSC. And yes indeed, anyone not respecting the absolute right to life and anyone denigrating the sacrament of marriage is amoral.

You don't change the law of God to suit the whims of an amoral, decaying society.

Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are godly men. Justice Kennedy and Justice Roberts have many good Christian traits. However, no one led like Justice Scalia. Without his influence and example, the country will accelerate its pace to moral destruction.

[Hoot Gibson]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her moral compass when she went to work for Planned Parenthood, the largest operator of abortion mills in the U.S.

Oops. Ginsburg was the General Counsel for the ACLU, not Planned Parenthood. I should have said she lost her moral compass when she took that job. She should never have been confirmed to the SCOTUS. Now, she refuses to retire even though she dozes off on the job.

[TheRealThing]

If you are a religious person, then yes.
In a plot twist, gay marriage getting illegally passed by the treason court was the best thing possible for Repubs.

The democrats cant run on that this year and you no longer see it being made a big deal like it once was. Since its already illegally legal, theres no arguments.

I wonder how many rainbowers will stay home this election compared to the past.

LOL, very well said. Illegally legal. :Thumbs:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Actually, I am saying that anyone who intentionally interprets the clear intent of the US Constitution in a way obviously never intended has no acceptable moral compass.

Justice Scalia was unwavering in his deeply held belief in the sacredness of life. He, as our founding documents make perfectly clear, believed that life was a gift from God to be respected and not destroyed for the sake of convenience.

He further, as a devout Roman Catholic, believed in the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage as founded by God. This is absolute.

Yes, indeed. He was the moral compass of the USSC. And yes indeed, anyone not respecting the absolute right to life and anyone denigrating the sacrament of marriage is amoral.

You don't change the law of God to suit the whims of an amoral, decaying society.

Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are godly men. Justice Kennedy and Justice Roberts have many good Christian traits. However, no one led like Justice Scalia. Without his influence and example, the country will accelerate its pace to moral destruction.

Was America in moral decay from 1789 until 1863?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Was America in moral decay from 1789 until 1863?

On the whole, there were moral problems prior to Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade. But, never like in the world of today. The lack of moral abolutes is nearing the terminal point now in light of the sub-human and inhuman decisions coming from our courts. Of course, the government schools, the media, the entertainment industry, and the liberal theologians are also great contributors to the present decay and likely future demise.

You seem to be totally hung up on slavery and the "plight" of blacks. While my ancestors most likely were slave owners, all that is long past. As I am not tainted by the alleged sins of my forefathers, neither am I obligated to pay a ransom to or give special treatment to those who may have long ago had ancestors who were slaves. They should have the God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like the rest of us. The rest should be up to them to perform.

[The Urban Sombrero]

On the whole, there were moral problems prior to Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade. But, never like in the world of today. The lack of moral abolutes is nearing the terminal point now in light of the sub-human and inhuman decisions coming from our courts. Of course, the government schools, the media, the entertainment industry, and the liberal theologians are also great contributors to the present decay and likely future demise.

You seem to be totally hung up on slavery and the "plight" of blacks. While my ancestors most likely were slave owners, all that is long past. As I am not tainted by the alleged sins of my forefathers, neither am I obligated to pay a ransom to or give special treatment to those who may have long ago had ancestors who were slaves. They should have the God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like the rest of us. The rest should be up to them to perform.

My point has never been to suggest who is and who is not righteous or racist. It has been to suggest that "original intent" cannot be the end all be all of Constitutional interpretation because the Framer's "we" was not inclusive, and the principles of Justice and equal protection under the law, when denied to a person or a group, should not be beholden to an injurious majority to decide when and where to grant Justice and equity to an injured minority. The legislatures of the various states, and the U.S. Congress, are not the final arbiters of the most basic "blessings of liberty," and history is a witness to that truth.

[TheRealThing]

My point has never been to suggest who is and who is not righteous or racist. It has been to suggest that "original intent" cannot be the end all be all of Constitutional interpretation because the Framer's "we" was not inclusive, and the principles of Justice and equal protection under the law, when denied to a person or a group, should not be beholden to an injurious majority to decide when and where to grant Justice and equity to an injured minority. The legislatures of the various states, and the U.S. Congress, are not the final arbiters of the most basic "blessings of liberty," and history is a witness to that truth.

Point #1 You wouldn't know anything of what you're saying because you're barely 50 if that.

Point #2 You're white and part of the majority. To make matters worse, you're a country boy who grew up around precious few of any minority.

Point #3 Equal protection does not apply to acts of depravity.

Point #4 According to one of your past leaders, you all don't know what the definition of is, is, much less what the definition of we, is.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Point #1 You wouldn't know anything of what you're saying because you're barely 50 if that.

Point #2 You're white and part of the majority. To make matters worse, you're a country boy who grew up around precious few of any minority.

Point #3 Equal protection does not apply to acts of depravity.

Point #4 According to one of your past leaders, you all don't know what the definition of is, is, much less what the definition of we, is.

I will only address point #3, as the rest are just various forms of insult having no bearing on the issue at hand. No relationship is just the act of sex, however, it appears that is where you are fixated. The "act of depravity" you termed it. Most Christians would label that act sin. However, a civil government is not a church board and grants freedom of conscience in a whole host of behaviors and choices that its individual representatives may well detest. A civil government such as ours is inclusive in the "we," even when personal convictions and beliefs might oppose the particular choices and behaviors. Another example might be pornography being utterly rampant on the internet. I oppose it, wish it wasn't so, think it degrades and dehumanizes, yet its right to be there is protected by civil authority.

[TheRealThing]

I will only address point #3, as the rest are just various forms of insult having no bearing on the issue at hand. No relationship is just the act of sex, however, it appears that is where you are fixated. The "act of depravity" you termed it. Most Christians would label that act sin. However, a civil government is not a church board and grants freedom of conscience in a whole host of behaviors and choices that its individual representatives may well detest. A civil government such as ours is inclusive in the "we," even when personal convictions and beliefs might oppose the particular choices and behaviors. Another example might be pornography being utterly rampant on the internet. I oppose it, wish it wasn't so, think it degrades and dehumanizes, yet its right to be there is protected by civil authority.

Points 1,2 &4 were observations not insults.

And let's be clear, the issue at hand is your continuing attempt to validate homosexuality. And don't try that reverse psychology on me cause everybody on this board knows the homo fixation is yours. I am the one who some years ago, first mentioned to you that if you have issue with Christendom calling out sin, your problem is with God not us. We are the messengers, God is the law giver. And frankly, it is not like we have any choice in the matter. We are to call out sin, and that is not optional to the individual Christian, rather it is a requirement to all.

Your arguments have always amazed me. You argue for separation of Church and State because you don't want Christ's influence in government. But you don't mind a bit when government steps outside it's role and presumes to amend, codify, or otherwise overturn the law of God. As of today, the government has not offered to pass laws stating that it is okay to lie, cheat, steal, etc. Only in killing our own unborn and in ratifying the sin of homosexuality have they dared to so blatantly shake their fist in the face of God. Those two sins therefore deserve the most attention.

In any case, the Scripture is clear. In Romans Chapter 1, verses 18-20, God declares to us that He has revealed Himself to every man through Creation. In verses 21-23 He recalls being rejected of men who became fools and changed the glory of God into idols and other conceptions of man. In verse 24 God declares that man's degeneration is measured by his perversion of sex. It was at that point that He began to give them up. And as verse 25 further proclaims, men began to exchange the true God for the lie.

That lie is the product and purview of Satan, and he is the god of this present, Christ-rejecting world, and the father of most of mankind who BTW, reflect the attributes of him as their mouths are full of guile. God therefore is the One Who called out the seriousness of the signpost sin of homosexuality in the book of Romans. In any case imaginable, the 'we' in 'we the people' was never intended to include the sexually depraved as a protected class. Even more significant as it applies to your adopted argument, the society that the founders set up righted it's own ship with regard to slavery, black people and the like. People like you can't let it go because IMHO it is the revolution you crave, not the resolution.

[The Urban Sombrero]

What is of interest to me is that simply because a man does not hold that a particular method of interpreting the Constitution is the be-all-end-all method...suddenly, he can't be a Christian, is a child of the father of lies, is fixated on homosexuality, etc. How is this not simply the oldest form of logical fallacy around? Abusive ad hominem, argument to the person instead of to the issue? This vitriol in defense of one's way of viewing the world burns people at the stake "for the glory of God," drowns women in Salem "for the glory of God," burns down black churches "for the glory of God." Not saying my adversaries on this site would support or do any of those things, but we do have to carefully mind what manner of spirit we are of.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

What is of interest to me is that simply because a man does not hold that a particular method of interpreting the Constitution is the be-all-end-all method...suddenly, he can't be a Christian, is a child of the father of lies, is fixated on homosexuality, etc. How is this not simply the oldest form of logical fallacy around? Abusive ad hominem, argument to the person instead of to the issue? This vitriol in defense of one's way of viewing the world burns people at the stake "for the glory of God," drowns women in Salem "for the glory of God," burns down black churches "for the glory of God." Not saying my adversaries on this site would support or do any of those things, but we do have to carefully mind what manner of spirit we are of.

I was not aware that we had a constitution at the time of the Salem witch trials. Also, I'd be interested in some solid evidence that black churches were ever burned down "for the glory of God."

If the discussion needs to be about evil acts of deranged individuals acting in a perverted manner and claiming their acts were for the "glory of God", I suspect we can find a goodly number committed by people of all races, creeds, colors, and sexual "preferences". Such facts, I'm sure, were and are abhorrent to God and should be to all of us.

Nonetheless, there is a multitude of difference between these acts, all unlawful, and the "legal" premeditated murder of our babies and the destruction of the God ordained definition of the sacrament of marriage.

If one cannot admit such a great difference, then one is merely trying to be argumentative because such a person can't possibly be that ignorant of truth.

Yes. I fervently believe in interpreting the constitution as it was written and intended- original intent. I, like some other posters, feel that our country is well on the way to absolute moral destruction. Another Obama appointee or appointments by Clinton will merely speed up the process. In those cases, we're done. Don't doubt it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I was not aware that we had a constitution at the time of the Salem witch trials. Also, I'd be interested in some solid evidence that black churches were ever burned down "for the glory of God."

If the discussion needs to be about evil acts of deranged individuals acting in a perverted manner and claiming their acts were for the "glory of God", I suspect we can find a goodly number committed by people of all races, creeds, colors, and sexual "preferences". Such facts, I'm sure, were and are abhorrent to God and should be to all of us.

Nonetheless, there is a multitude of difference between these acts, all unlawful, and the "legal" premeditated murder of our babies and the destruction of the God ordained definition of the sacrament of marriage.

If one cannot admit such a great difference, then one is merely trying to be argumentative because such a person can't possibly be that ignorant of truth.

Yes. I fervently believe in interpreting the constitution as it was written and intended- original intent. I, like some other posters, feel that our country is well on the way to absolute moral destruction. Another Obama appointee or appointments by Clinton will merely speed up the process. In those cases, we're done. Don't doubt it.

Yet again, the "witch trials" was used to illustrate that "holy zeal" can lead to travesties done in the name of devotion to God. Your point about "all races, all creeds" doing dastardly deeds for "the glory of God" is a compelling reason why freedom of conscience is of such singular importance, and why reading "we" expansively is so important.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Yet again, the "witch trials" was used to illustrate that "holy zeal" can lead to travesties done in the name of devotion to God. Your point about "all races, all creeds" doing dastardly deeds for "the glory of God" is a compelling reason why freedom of conscience is of such singular importance, and why reading "we" expansively is so important.

The idea of "freedom of conscience" is a fraud. In modern, liberal, amoral America, it would likely be described as "if it feels good, do it". Such a philosophy leads to ultimate destruction. We must have absolutes and those absolutes, in my opinion, must be based on the Word of God. Otherwise, why bother because, in the end, there would be nothing.

[TheRealThing]

What is of interest to me is that simply because a man does not hold that a particular method of interpreting the Constitution is the be-all-end-all method...suddenly, he can't be a Christian, is a child of the father of lies, is fixated on homosexuality, etc. How is this not simply the oldest form of logical fallacy around? Abusive ad hominem, argument to the person instead of to the issue? This vitriol in defense of one's way of viewing the world burns people at the stake "for the glory of God," drowns women in Salem "for the glory of God," burns down black churches "for the glory of God." Not saying my adversaries on this site would support or do any of those things, but we do have to carefully mind what manner of spirit we are of.

Lord help us. There is a good reason that the salvation walk is referred to as the 'straight and narrow.' Matthew 7:14 (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Most go in at the wide gate.

I explained that Rom 1:25 talks about men choosing the lie over the truth. There are only two possibilities for mankind. He is offspring of only two origins, God the Father through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, or Satan the father of lies.

John 8:44 (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I cannot say which you are, I don't know you.


The irony of your lack of understanding is incredible. You would merrily use the power of the US Constitution to make right certain moral issues of your own identification. But woe unto him who might offer to use the wisdom of the ages in discerning the intent of the founders who oft made reference to God within the founding documents. My argument would be that the US Constitution would not dare to interlope on God's authority.

You want to use the law to force white Christians into submission before liberalism. I don't know any easy way to break this to you but, most of us red neck white boys are not about to just lay down and let the La-La's redefine every facet of human life for us.

At one point in all this you actually tried to say that Rev 18 prophesizes the ' field being flipped' in favor of anybody who isn't white. Where that leaves you is anybody's guess, but now you're trying to say I have somehow tied salvation and originalism together. Both of us know better than that.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Lord help us. There is a good reason that the salvation walk is referred to as the 'straight and narrow.' Matthew 7:14 (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Most go in at the wide gate.

I explained that Rom 1:25 talks about men choosing the lie over the truth. There are only two possibilities for mankind. He is offspring of only two origins, God the Father through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, or Satan the father of lies.

John 8:44 (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I cannot say which you are, I don't know you.


The irony of your lack of understanding is incredible. You would merrily use the power of the US Constitution to make right certain moral issues of your own identification. But woe unto him who might offer to use the wisdom of the ages in discerning the intent of the founders who oft made reference to God within the founding documents. My argument would be that the US Constitution would not dare to interlope on God's authority.

You want to use the law to force white Christians into submission before liberalism. I don't know any easy way to break this to you but, most of us red neck white boys are not about to just lay down and let the La-La's redefine every facet of human life for us.

At one point in all this you actually tried to say that Rev 18 prophesizes the ' field being flipped' in favor of anybody who isn't white. Where that leaves you is anybody's guess, but now you're trying to say I have somehow tied salvation and originalism together. Both of us know better than that.

Now, if civil authority tried to force Christian churches to admit homosexuals as members, I would say that violates freedom of conscience. But, it seems to me, that the civil authority said equal protection extended to same sex couples, and you are on BGR vehemently voicing your displeasure. I am assuming the church you attend will be extending no memberships to gay couples, nor will you be forced to.
I do not believe the civil authority expressed as judicial branch was doing handstands upon the ruling. To them, it was saying "we" extended to the right of same sex couples to have the license of the state sanctioning their bond. To say that the civil authority recognizes a right is not the same as a bunch of the men of Sodom trying to beat down a door to rape Lot's angelic visitors.

[TheRealThing]

Now, if civil authority tried to force Christian churches to admit homosexuals as members, I would say that violates freedom of conscience. But, it seems to me, that the civil authority said equal protection extended to same sex couples, and you are on BGR vehemently voicing your displeasure. I am assuming the church you attend will be extending no memberships to gay couples, nor will you be forced to.
I do not believe the civil authority expressed as judicial branch was doing handstands upon the ruling. To them, it was saying "we" extended to the right of same sex couples to have the license of the state sanctioning their bond. To say that the civil authority recognizes a right is not the same as a bunch of the men of Sodom trying to beat down a door to rape Lot's angelic visitors.

Haven't you heard? "We the People" do not recognize the State as grantor of our rights. They are rather given to us by our Creator. Marriage is not a right and as such, is not regulated by the US Constitution. But, I defer to an authority to make my case.

EXCERPT---
"The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction."
http://jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard-...rriage.php

And I disagree with you completely with regard to marital bonds. Marriage is an institution of God, and the marital bond described by God is between one man and one woman. Civil authorities are supposed to represent the will of the people. In Kentucky for example, 79% of "the people", voted in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Your civil authorities, went around "we" and ruled against our will, thereby forcing the scourge of legalized homosexuality upon us. So to build upon your analogy. In this case the civil authorities have passed and are enforcing laws, which are being written specifically for homosexuals. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that even Sodom did not bother to formally legalize homosexuality.

[Truth]

The discussion has broadened beyond the loss of Justice Scalia. So, let me just state that this country is far less moral with his passing and, with the present leadership of the country, destined to accelerate its way to amoral oblivion because of the likelihood that someone with the moral shortcomings of Obama will replace the beloved justice.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Haven't you heard? "We the People" do not recognize the State as grantor of our rights. They are rather given to us by our Creator. Marriage is not a right and as such, is not regulated by the US Constitution. But, I defer to an authority to make my case.

EXCERPT---
"The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction."
http://jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard-...rriage.php

And I disagree with you completely with regard to marital bonds. Marriage is an institution of God, and the marital bond described by God is between one man and one woman. Civil authorities are supposed to represent the will of the people. In Kentucky for example, 79% of "the people", voted in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Your civil authorities, went around "we" and ruled against our will, thereby forcing the scourge of legalized homosexuality upon us. So to build upon your analogy. In this case the civil authorities have passed and are enforcing laws, which are being written specifically for homosexuals. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that even Sodom did not bother to formally legalize homosexuality.

I am speaking of civil authority as in the checks and balances system as exists under our Constitution. There is more to freedom and liberty and justice than a showing of hands. History surely teaches that.

[TheRealThing]

I am speaking of civil authority as in the checks and balances system as exists under our Constitution. There is more to freedom and liberty and justice than a showing of hands. History surely teaches that.

What history teaches either goes over the liberal's head or he tries to alter.

[The Urban Sombrero]

What history teaches either goes over the liberal's head or he tries to alter.

Ah, he'll be ridin' the horse of insults when he comes.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, he'll be ridin' the horse of insults when he comes.

Surely you're not going to try to duck the historical revisionist predilections of your liberal brethren? With all the lies floating around out there, I'm just glad my kids are out of school although happily, I was able to help them see the truth. Deny it all if you like, and redefine my corrections and constructive criticisms as insults, I call them observations. And as for the 'moyen de locomotion', I prefer to think of it as a noble steed.

[TheRealThing]

The discussion has broadened beyond the loss of Justice Scalia. So, let me just state that this country is far less moral with his passing and, with the present leadership of the country, destined to accelerate its way to amoral oblivion because of the likelihood that someone with the moral shortcomings of Obama will replace the beloved justice.

Have you seen the list of his top picks? All girls and all liberals. I mean, it ain't like we don't already have two of his appointees on the court already. So, all this moderate talk being bantied about is pure baloney. He'll pick somebody who will see us in flames long before they would rule from the middle.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Surely you're not going to try to duck the historical revisionist predilections of your liberal brethren? With all the lies floating around out there, I'm just glad my kids are out of school although happily, I was able to help them see the truth. Deny it all if you like, and redefine my corrections and constructive criticisms as insults, I call them observations. And as for the 'moyen de locomotion', I prefer to think of it as a noble steed.

What I am going to tell you is that I am not playing blame games or accusing people on the right. I am saying that "we" in terms of justice and equal protection and freedom of conscience had to expand from the worldview of the Framers, and depending on the Tenth Amendment and amending the Constitution in matters of establishing fundamental justice, fundamental equal protection, fundamental freedom of conscience is not be-all-end-all sufficient.