[TheRealThing]

The SCOTUS said that equal protection under the law applied to homosexuals. To me, that decision does not enter the "Is it sin or is it not" debate. It is a decision based on what merits equal protection for a citizen.
I realize your literalism, but "suggest" was simply a mode of speech. Straining gnats is no better than building straw men.

"Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." Phillipians 2:4. Not a bad philosophy for responsible foreign policy, and what I am talking about in "Do not lord it over."

This nation grants the Church tremendous latitude and freedom, with no persecution to speak of in any real sense. Our Constitution has protected that to this point. Our Founders protected religion without imposing it. Our Founders embraced Christianity without mandating it. Our Founders desired morality, without always modeling it, as they were human and not gods. Our Constitution, in my view, gives wide latitude, and recognizes that one man's pursuit of happiness might well offend another, or even God, but such is the permissive will of God, and such is Constitutional democracy.

That rationalization did not work out too well for Pilate now did it? He could not wash his hands of responsibility, and libs will not be able to hide behind the straw man set up by the laws of men be it via the SC or otherwise.

As to the rest, even if our Constitution guaranteed US citizenry the right to challenge God's law, (the height of ridiculousness) that would not be a defense at the judgment which is just as real a force as government. But in fact the Constitution does not give us the latitude as you put it, to disobey or rebel against God at all. Only by twisting what is otherwise the very clearly set forth intent of the founders can your absurd stretches of those truths be made. This country is not nor has it ever been a constitutional democracy. That is the liberal's attempt to revise our founding. A democracy is ruled by the will of the majority. We are rather a republic and as such are ruled by the Constitution.

My guess is for example, that you would set aside the function of the electoral college without a second thought. Such actions are characteristic of a democracy where the majority always rules. In our case it is the constitution that limits power in our representative form of government, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. This is why your argument about Hillary winning a majority of the vote, other than the fact that said majority comes from only California, is so troubling. You talk big, but you know little.

But as to your view of foreign policy. So you will very merrily dismiss God's impact on our founding in favor of deism, but you will nonetheless insist we make foreign policy based on Philippians 2? I suppose if the US was to go to war with North Korea for example, for launching a nuclear device against our homeland, that you would insist on getting off a flotilla of humanitarian aid to the people of North Korea in response, that about right? Who needs an army or a national defense strategy?:dudecomeon: