Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

The Glory Land

Which State In The Us Will Be The Last Too Say, Yes To Gay Marriages ?

Gay States All For One and One For All?  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Which State in the US will be the last too say, yes to gay marriages ?

    • Florida
      0
    • Texas
      3
    • Utah
      1
    • You don't care, who cares?
      2


Recommended Posts

People need to understand that SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to throw out a state referendum wherein the people of the state voted to amend their state constitution.  But in this brainwashed society in which we live, folks accept whatever SCOTUS says...totally misunderstanding what state's rights are, and how the 10th amendment limits EVERY branch of federal government.

 

SCOTUS did put a stay (and it was unanimous) on the federal court decision re: Utah's amendment.  Indiana is getting ready to vote on it - and I believe that when it comes up for a referendum, the citizens of IN will vote to add the same-sex marriage ban to the state constitution.  That falls outside the purview of SCOTUS, because it is the will of the people of said state, in compliance with their state constitution.  But, again, people don't seem to understand what states' rights are...and are so quick to bow to federal government and say, "whatever, big brother."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to understand that SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to throw out a state referendum wherein the people of the state voted to amend their state constitution.  But in this brainwashed society in which we live, folks accept whatever SCOTUS says...totally misunderstanding what state's rights are, and how the 10th amendment limits EVERY branch of federal government.

 

SCOTUS did put a stay (and it was unanimous) on the federal court decision re: Utah's amendment.  Indiana is getting ready to vote on it - and I believe that when it comes up for a referendum, the citizens of IN will vote to add the same-sex marriage ban to the state constitution.  That falls outside the purview of SCOTUS, because it is the will of the people of said state, in compliance with their state constitution.  But, again, people don't seem to understand what states' rights are...and are so quick to bow to federal government and say, "whatever, big brother."

 

But a State cannot violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.  A state cannot pass a law making it illegal to go to church.  Or marry someone from a different race.  Or fine people for exercising free speech.  If that were the case, the Bill of Rights would be useless.

 

I'm not saying it same sex marriage is a constitutional right.  But if the Supreme Court of the US says it is, it is the law of the land.  States cannot reject that.  Just like states could not lawfully segregate their schools when the US Supreme Court found doing so was unconstitutional. Just like states cannot restrict abortions before the first trimester.  That is why overturning Roe v. Wade is so important.

 

How the Supreme Court interprets that constitution is the law of the land.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a State cannot violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.  A state cannot pass a law making it illegal to go to church.  Or marry someone from a different race.  Or fine people for exercising free speech.  If that were the case, the Bill of Rights would be useless.

 

I'm not saying it same sex marriage is a constitutional right.  But if the Supreme Court of the US says it is, it is the law of the land.  States cannot reject that.  Just like states could not lawfully segregate their schools when the US Supreme Court found doing so was unconstitutional. Just like states cannot restrict abortions before the first trimester.  That is why overturning Roe v. Wade is so important.

 

How the Supreme Court interprets that constitution is the law of the land.  

No, kob, how the SCOTUS "interprets" the constitution is not  the law of the land. The Constitution is. SCOTUS is not supposed to interpret the Constitution - they are to apply it. Big difference that too many citizens don't understand - and that is why they get away with things like  do.  

 

When the state's citizens VOTto add an amendment to the state constitution, any court that overthrows it is stepping over it's bounds.  Each state has a certain way to amend their state constitutions. IN and UT are two which send final decision to the people to vote.  That is not violating constitutional rights - it is ensuring that the state constitution is followed.  And the federal constitution does not trump state constitutions (at least it's not supposed to, but we are living in such a "the federal government has every right to..." era that too many people sit back as SCOTUS twists it to do so).

 

Yes, RvWade needs to be overturned. Simply because it never should have been even heard by SCOTUS. But the 10th amendment of that Bill of Rights you mentioned guarantees that the federal government (and that would include SCOTUS) does not have the constitutional authority to okay or negate abortion, same-sex marriage, segregation, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, kob, how the SCOTUS "interprets" the constitution is not  the law of the land. The Constitution is. SCOTUS is not supposed to interpret the Constitution - they are to apply it. Big difference that too many citizens don't understand - and that is why they get away with things like  do.  

 

When the state's citizens VOTto add an amendment to the state constitution, any court that overthrows it is stepping over it's bounds.  Each state has a certain way to amend their state constitutions. IN and UT are two which send final decision to the people to vote.  That is not violating constitutional rights - it is ensuring that the state constitution is followed.  And the federal constitution does not trump state constitutions (at least it's not supposed to, but we are living in such a "the federal government has every right to..." era that too many people sit back as SCOTUS twists it to do so).

 

Yes, RvWade needs to be overturned. Simply because it never should have been even heard by SCOTUS. But the 10th amendment of that Bill of Rights you mentioned guarantees that the federal government (and that would include SCOTUS) does not have the constitutional authority to okay or negate abortion, same-sex marriage, segregation, etc.

 

You would be right pre-Civil War.  However, after the Civil War the 14th Amendment was adopted:

 

 

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

No state may make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US.  Under the 14th Amendment, a State may not pass a law that violates the federal constitutional rights of a citizen of the US.  This means that the Bill of Rights now extends to the states as well.  A state cannot pass a law that violates a citizens rights under the Bill of Rights. Post Civil War, the states had to abide by the Bill of Rights as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right or wrong, the federal government will eventually force homosexual marriage upon every state just as they did forced busing, interracial marriage, abortion and a host of other things that states once determined for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a State cannot violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.  A state cannot pass a law making it illegal to go to church.  Or marry someone from a different race.  Or fine people for exercising free speech.  If that were the case, the Bill of Rights would be useless.

 

I'm not saying it same sex marriage is a constitutional right.  But if the Supreme Court of the US says it is, it is the law of the land.  States cannot reject that.  Just like states could not lawfully segregate their schools when the US Supreme Court found doing so was unconstitutional. Just like states cannot restrict abortions before the first trimester.  That is why overturning Roe v. Wade is so important.

 

How the Supreme Court interprets that constitution is the law of the land.  

Some people will never recognize that a coup d'etat has taken place in this country and the constitution no longer applies.

 

God bless,

Larry

Edited by ThePilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a good read - written by "equal rights" people - on the 14th amendment and same-sex marriage (and other things).  http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage.html

It does not automatically follow that the 14th amendment would allow same-sex marriage. If that were true, UT would not have been given a stay by SCOTUS - they would have automatically judged the UT law as unconstitutional.

 

Correct, Pilgrim...thanks to apathetic Americans (including Christians).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people will never recognize that a coup d'etat has taken place in this country and the constitution no longer applies.

 

God bless,

Larry

 

I'm truly confused by this statement. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government.  The US has never had such.  We elect a President and members of Congress.  When the term is over or when they are elected out of office, they exit peacefully and the new elected official.

 

How do you think a coup has taken place?  

 

I understand that the wealthy control things.  It is the wealthy donors who fund campaigns.  I know wealthy hire lobbyists to write and change laws.  That has always been the case.  Yes there are some ills in our system, but nothing like other countries, especially in developing countries.

 

I'm really scratching my head here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm truly confused by this statement. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government.  The US has never had such.  We elect a President and members of Congress.  When the term is over or when they are elected out of office, they exit peacefully and the new elected official.

 

How do you think a coup has taken place?  

 

I understand that the wealthy control things.  It is the wealthy donors who fund campaigns.  I know wealthy hire lobbyists to write and change laws.  That has always been the case.  Yes there are some ills in our system, but nothing like other countries, especially in developing countries.

 

I'm really scratching my head here.

Well while you are scratching your head I will attempt to explain what I mean.  The united states has been taken over by the oligarchy.  We live in a nation that was born in a bloody rebellion, became a confederation under articles of confederation and was later changed into a republic under a constitution.  Unfortunately being human the group that formed the constitution left a loophole in it just in case they changed their minds later.  They left a way to amend it.  And amend it they have.  

 

Kings and rulers of all sorts down through history have always found it difficult (if not impossible at times) to fund their pet projects and especially their wars.  The only way to fund a war or whatever by the ruler is to either borrow the money from somebody or to tax the people.  Now if you borrow the money you have to gain enough plunder from a war to pay the costs of troops and material or you have to tax the people.  As war becomes more expensive the ruler eventually finds himself having to do both.

 

The Federal Reserve Act and the passage of the Income Tax amendment solved the rulers financing problems for a while.  If you were to study the history of the so-called federal reserve, you would find the people who dreamed it up and pushed it through were the same who pushed the income tax.  The big bankers and Wall Street.  The same people who loan the rulers money and collect the interest from the government.  What a conicidence, huh.  Now it is easier for the government to borrow money and easier for the bankers to loan it to them.  After all the income tax has made it a lot easier to collect the money from the people to pay the loans back to the bankers. 

 

The people do not profit from the arrangement, but the rulers and bankers sure do. 

 

I would call it a non-violent Coup d'tat, I guess.

 

I don't have the time or the ability too write several hundred pages on the subject so if you really want to understand what is going on you should start by reading: The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin available at Amazon or maybe your local library.

 

God bless,

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as "gay" marriage. Gay is a word correctly used in the Bible which means happy.

The acceptable terms to use when referring to a homosexual would be: sodomite, dog, reprobate, pedophile, predator. 

None of the above can get married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yabruf said:

No such thing as "gay" marriage. Gay is a word correctly used in the Bible which means happy.

The acceptable terms to use when referring to a homosexual would be: sodomite, dog, reprobate, pedophile, predator. 

None of the above can get married.

HI!

How about "Sinner" - that is also an accurate and appropriate term.

And while we are at it, how about visiting the introduction section and letting us know a bit about yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DaveW said:

HI!

How about "Sinner" - that is also an accurate and appropriate term.

And while we are at it, how about visiting the introduction section and letting us know a bit about yourself.

 

Hi Dave,  

Ok I will head to the intro section now, thanks.

With regards to the "sinner" title, I would not apply that to a reprobate. Since all sin is not equal, I am unable to classify that level of depravity as a sin that is common to man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yabruf said:

Hi Dave,  

Ok I will head to the intro section now, thanks.

With regards to the "sinner" title, I would not apply that to a reprobate. Since all sin is not equal, I am unable to classify that level of depravity as a sin that is common to man. 

Interesting - I don't think anyone here 8s trying to classify it as "a sin that is common to man"....

But isn't the blood of Christ enough to cover any sin that is repented of and confessed to Him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yabruf said:

But perhaps a discussion on the reprobate doctrine needs its own thread?

Yes, it should have its own thread. I've made a 'Reprobates & Salvation' thread under Biblical Issues and moved the two previous comments there for further discussion on this issue. 

In response to the earlier list of terms synonymous with homosexual, I'm going to object to one of them - not by means of defending the practice, but in the interests of honesty.  A large number of pedophiles may be homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pedophile. Let's not create a false straw man for people to react to rather than dealing with the true issue. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Salyan said:

Yes, it should have its own thread. I've made a 'Reprobates & Salvation' thread under Biblical Issues and moved the two previous comments there for further discussion on this issue. 

In response to the earlier list of terms synonymous with homosexual, I'm going to object to one of them - not by means of defending the practice, but in the interests of honesty.  A large number of pedophiles may be homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pedophile. Let's not create a false straw man for people to react to rather than dealing with the true issue. 😉

I understand your logic but I disagree. If a sodomite is not currently involved in pedophilia, its because they have not been caught yet or havent had the opportunity.

I will elaborate in the new thread you have created.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2018 at 10:32 PM, Salyan said:

That’s a very broad brush. You really can’t say something like that with any authority. Only God knows the intents of all hearts. 

I will rely on the statistics from the CDC and multiple studies on homosexuals deviants confessing to pedophilia. 

I will also rely on personal experiences from family members connecting homosexuals with pedophilia.  

I will rely on undercover documentaries of interviews with homosexuals confessing of pedophilia.  

And lastly I will rely on my own common sense to make the obvious connection between the homosexual and pedophilia. If a man or woman has been given over to same sex behavior, they will do anything, including harm a child. 

While my above list may not be "authoritative" enough for you, any one point, by itself, is sufficient for me.

There is a reason why Leviticus 20:13 is a commandment of God. Its because he does know the intents of all hearts and wants to stop, prevent, abolish, and deter this type of wicked behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...