Constitution
Elena Kagan, The Fox in the Chicken Coop
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. – Franklin D. Roosevelt
As the Supreme Court conveniently looks at the issue of homosexual marriage, the Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.
The Defense of Marriage Act
The specific issue the Supreme Court will be deciding on is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 to protect marriage as between a man and a woman. Radical homosexuals are attempting to create an unlawful stir because part of the law bars them from receiving federal benefits that heterosexual married couples receive, even in states where same sex marriage is considered “legal.”
Apparently these pretended justices have a severe hearing problem. Thirty-one states have already voted down homosexual marriage in agreement with the Laws of God and our Republic and a little common sense, while nine states and Washington, D.C. have deceived themselves into thinking that THEY HAVE defied God and the people and unlawfully passed homosexual marriage.
Haven’t they learned from Canada, who is suffering dire consequences after illegally passing homosexual marriage?
The Supreme Court and Proposition 8
The United States Supreme Court is also reviewing a challenge to California’s ban on homosexual marriage. 7 million California voters made their voice heard that they were in agreement with the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, banning homosexual marriage. Radical homosexual activists got involved and circumvented the people, bringing the case before a radical homosexual judge, Vaughn Walker, who appealed Prop 8.
Walker is no longer on the bench. In any case, the court was right where they wanted it.
The stage has been set, and just in time. Before the elections, Obama came out in support of homosexual marriage. Of course, he first had to repeal DADT and place 225 homosexuals in key positions…such as the Supreme Court… before he made his announcement.
And here is Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan, Justice of the Supreme Court. Photo: Supreme Court Historical Society
Such a one is Elena Kagan.
Elena Kagan is the former dean of students at Harvard. Contrary to Harvard’s founding mottos, “For Christ and the Church” and “For the glory of Christ,” Kagan is known for “Queerifying Harvard.”
During her tenure, she did the following:
- Kagan hired former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein to teach “queer” legal theory, in which he taught courses on taking up new identities such as bisexuality, transgender f**k, involving polygamy, sadomasochism, and the sexuality of minors.
- Kagan also hired other radicals (a lesbian and a transsexual) to teach transgender law courses, as well as Cass Sunstein who has written in support of polygamy and free-for-all marriage relationships.
- Kagan viciously attacked our military in opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” even banning military recruiters from coming on campus. Kagan’s attempt to ban the recruiters was unsuccessful, and even after losing her legal campaign, she encouraged students to continue protesting them.
- Kagan’s radical activism on campus was so toxic that there was even a campaign to make the entire university trans-inclusive, using Harvard’s “gender identity” non-discrimination policy to spew gender confusion among students on campus.
Elena Kagan has never judged a case a day in her life, yet Obama, unqualified for office himself, has seen fit to “qualify” her on the Supreme Court bench…just in time for the Court to review homosexual marriage.
Man’s law and God’s law
Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that the DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates “the fundamental guarantee of equal protection.” The phrase “equal protection” comes from the Fourteenth Amendment. Verrilli conveniently omitted that equal protection is “of the laws.”
The question is, whose law? The laws of our republic, which are derived from God.
As Thaddeus Stevens said in his debate on the floor over the 14th Amendment,
No distinction would be tolerated in this purified republic but what arose from merit and conduct.
William Blackstone, author of Commentaries on the Laws of England (whom our founders studied when establishing America), stated,
No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.
America needs to come to terms and understand that no president, no administration, no Supreme Court, has the right to break God’s law.
Homosexual Manifesto Threatens America:
Who is Bradlee Dean?
[subscribe2]
Bradlee Dean is an ordained Christian preacher, Radio show host for the #1 show on Genesis Communication Network from 2-3 p.m. central standard (The Sons of Liberty), a National Tea Party favorite. He also speaks on high school and college campuses nationwide. Bradlee is also an author, a husband to one, daddy to four boys. You have probably seen Bradlee through such outlets as The New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, The Weekly Standard etc.
-
Clergy4 days agoFaith alone will save the country
-
Civilization2 days agoElon Musk, Big Game RINO Hunter
-
Civilization5 days agoFreewheeling Transparency: Trump Holds First Post-Election News Conference
-
Civilization5 days agoDr. Jay Bhattacharya Will Rebuild Trust in Public Health
-
Civilization3 days agoLegacy media don’t get it
-
Constitution23 hours agoBiden as Feeble Joe – now they tell us
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: Mismanagement Plagues $50 Billion Opioid Settlement
-
Civilization2 days agoA Sometimes-Squabbling Conservative Constellation Gathers at Charlie Kirk Invitation
Robert Fleming liked this on Facebook.
Allison Gross Barclay liked this on Facebook.
God can enforce his own laws.
Ron Gaudreau liked this on Facebook.
The federal government does not define marriage. If it will respect a state’s right to let cousins marry, it should respect a state’s right to let gay couples marry, and give federal benefits to them.
Two problems with that. One, federal benefits become a precedent for forcing State benefits. Two, the idea is for these roommate pairs to get a false marriage certificate in one State, then move to another State and wave that around and sue for recognition of said certificate as true under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Terry, I fail to see how these marriages are false. Marriage licenses are legal documents and may be given out at the discretion of the state. By virtue of giving them out, they are not false.
I don’t recognize them as valid under natural law, if the two persons listed as “spouses” are of the same gender.
Cool, so don’t accept them. Have fun with that. The Laws of man should reflect the needs of society and the culture they live in, and the fact is that the PEOPLE (not supreme court, not state legislature) of Maine voted to legalize same sex marriage. The federal government has no right to deny benefits to those that my government issues marriage licenses to.
The thing is while the DOMA would work as an amendment it does not work as a law. The Full Faith and Credit Clause says a contract in one state must be honored in another. A marriage contract is legally (not morally but legally) just a contract so having just one type immune from a part of the Constitution cannot be done with just a law it requires an amendment. I think it would be better if the state treated marriage similar to baptism in a legal sense, i.e. left it to the church of your choice, and simply issued civil unions to everyone. While neither the radical homosexuals or the religious fundamentalist would be happy about this it does have the benefit of keeping the government out of imposing religious views and avoids the separate but equal issues of marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause also makes clear that each State may set its own standards of proof, validity, and so on. But of course that will never satisfy the gay lobby.
The reasoning behind this piece is pure nonsense, unless Mr. Dean is advocating that the USA should be a theocracy, in which case it’s also against the very founding principles of this nation.
Just start with the First Commandment, and a nation dedicated to following “God’s laws” would have to criminalize the worship of any other deity (or the lack of worshiping as well). In fact, you’d even be opening the door to questioning whether it would be illegal to practice the Jewish faith, if recognizing “God” meant recognizing Jesus Christ as God, and not anything less.
You could then run down any number of other instances of “God’s laws” that you’d have to enforce in addition to your focus on homosexuality. Adulterers like Newt Gingrich would find themselves in a pretty uncomfortable place, I’d imagine, as would be anyone running a non-essential business on the Sabbath.
The point is that people like Dean, who want to put on blinders and think that “God’s law” only applies to the behaviors they find undesirable are among the worst kind of hypocrites, trying to improve “the land of the free” by applying a personally-selected menu of what should be allowed or forbidden.
This nation was founded in part by Christians escaping persecution from other Christians, some of which took place within the colonies themselves.
Spend a little time with some good history books, Mr. Dean, and then maybe some extra time in church to meditate on the price paid by many because men like yourselves chose to play God, and decide what “life under God” should mean for your fellow citizens.
All right. You’ve had your chance to rant.
Now play some of the videos, especially the one about how the sanction of SSRSB has worked out in Canada, and re-examine your views. If you dare.
I’ll watch them this evening and let you know what my impression is.
In the meantime, what’s your reply to the question I’ve posed, which you completely avoided above- How can you have a nation living true to “God’s laws” unless you undermine the Constitution, cherry-pick which laws to follow, or both?
Your argument assumes without warrant that the Constitution is some kind of “atheist document.” It isn’t. Nor did the Framers ever mean it as such.
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
-Bradlee Dean, May 2010
Yes, killing people because they don’t fit with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That’s very Christian, Im sure its exactly what Jesus would have wanted.
So why does anyone care what this guy says?
Mr. Dean is simply reminding everybody that at least one group of people are serious about their moral laws.
And, I imagine, he picked the Muslims because they have now become the Progressive left’s favorite protected group. (Protected, that is, so long as the Progressives’ Messiah has not decided to kill any of them, on any given day, with a bolt out of the blue.)
A Christian does not try to justify himself according to law. The only death penalty still in force, according to a proper understanding of Divine grace, is the penalty for murder in the first degree. That goes back to the Noahide covenant, and God has never revoked that.
That aside: we deal here with a process that begins, ostensibly, with granting to same-sex-roommates-sharing-bed the privileges and immunities that attach to married couples. This starts with immunity from testimony in criminal matters and ends with granting to surviving roommates the right-of-first-refusal of a dead roommates’s possessions, ahead of said roommate’s blood kin.
And it ends, as the first video embed shows, with forbidding anyone to criticize homosexuals in any way, shape or form for being homosexuals, and acceding to virtually any demand they might make.
Including the power to adopt, hence recruit, children.
What is the question? The only question I see is a loaded question. Which I don’t hold myself obliged to answer.
What you consider a “loaded” question is only problematic for you because answering it requires confronting an uncomfortable paradox – if you have a “Christian nation” that lives faithfully and truly under “God’s laws”, then you have to void the First Amendment because it conflicts with the First Commandment.
That’s just one basic example of why the Constitution was intended to frame a civil government that allowed for the free practice of religion by the citizens. That doesn’t mean that it promotes atheism or secularism over religion, but simply that the structure of our Federal government is in no way tied to the tenets of any specific faith or denomination.
So if you want to walk away from the question go ahead; you’re certainly not obliged to answer it. I suspect that the real motivation is a lack of an answer, not the desire to provide it.
I call your question loaded, because it has a false premise. The false premise in this case is that Christians must somehow “establish religion,” that is, to require individual belief, support the bishops with a taxpayer salary, etc.
How does the Constitution forbid a Christian, as an individual, to live faithfully and truly under God’s laws?
Of course, if it did, then you would see me advocate civil disobedience. See Acts chapter 4 for the details of the kind of disobedience I would propose.
Now maybe you really think the Constitution forbids individuals to live faithfully and truly under God’s laws. Maybe you yourself are eager to enforce a prohibition against a Christian, as an individual living faithfully and truly under God’s laws.
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
You want an answer? You got it.
And maybe I should tell you, as Jack Nicholson told Tom Cruise, that you can’t handle The Truth.
I can handle the truth just fine. Let’s start by correcting a few distortions…
“How does the Constitution forbid a Christian, as an individual, to live faithfully and truly under God’s laws?”
It doesn’t of course, and I never said that. I was, however, commenting on Bradlee Dean saying “America needs to come to terms and understand that no president, no administration, no Supreme Court, has the right to break God’s law.”
There’s no editorial statement along the lines of “The views in this essay are those of Bradlee Dean, and not necessarily shared by CNAV”, making it a fair assumption that you agree with him at least in spirit. You gave him a forum here, after all.
So the President, Supreme Court, or any administration has no right to break God’s law, but in upholding the First Amendment, they are condoning the worship of other Gods by the citizens. We also enact laws that defy other Commandments besides the First as mentioned above in a prior comment.
Saying that the laws of the land must conform to “God’s law” is changing the rules from freedom of religion to enforcement of religion by the state, and then the fighting begins over men & women interpreting what “God’s law” even means. People like me have no ill will towards Christianity, but firm opposition to Christianity driving the laws of a free society. That’s compulsory religion, or a theocracy for all practical intent.
“Maybe you yourself are eager to enforce a prohibition against a Christian, as an individual living faithfully and truly under God’s laws.
Are you sure you want to go down that road?”
You need to stop building up strawman arguments and then expecting me to defend them. I’ll defend what I say, not what you imagine.
Okay, watched the videos, and my ears are sore from listening to Deans loud, monotone delivery style. The guy could use some voice classes, no matter what his message is.
As for the content:
THEN THERE WAS ELENA KAGAN
Yawn. Woman has views you can’t stand, recruits like-minded people to teach and promote those same views, and then – gasp – advocates legal forms of protest against the policies that she doesn’t agree with. About as un-American as… oh, wait. That’s exactly what we’re free to do as Americans.
HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO
More Yawn. The offensive rant of one person decades ago is as representative of the mainstream LGBT community as Westboro Baptist is of Christians. A minute’s search on YouTube could pull up enough clips of Pat Robertson saying ridiculous, offensive things too, and he’s considered a respected conservative Christian by many. Not just a strawman, but a straw-bogeyman approach.
WHO IS BRADLEE DEAN?
Just a guy who manages to be so offensive in his messaging that when the Republican Assembly leaders in Minnesota invited him to offer an opening prayer for one of their sessions, he managed to put off so many people from both parties that the GOP leadership had the regular chaplain offer a second prayer immediately afterward, and then issued a public apology for Dean’s behavior. With friends like this…
link to minnesotaindependent.com
Bradlee Dean is clearly a guy who gets under your skin. Which, from where I sit, is all the more reason to keep him on as a contributor.
Dean doesn’t get under my skin at all- he just makes me laugh, once the volume on my speakers is properly adjusted.
He also fits in pretty well with the editorial views expressed here. I’m looking forward to seeing who else gets invited to the party.
Stick around. You might learn something.
It seems to me that Bradlee Dean is essentially calling for the exact opposite of what Jesus asked of his followers (“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven” -Luke 6:37; “Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” -Mark 12:31).
Or maybe I just missed the part where Jesus said that it was morally acceptable to judge and murder groups of people in an act of extreme hubris.
Bradlee Dean did not call for murder.
He does, however, point out that when a significant proportion of the lawful residents of a country commit this kind of sin, the whole country suffers calamities on their account.
Interesting how a single discussion thread can contains such glaring contradictions.
“Bradlee Dean did not call for murder.”
He doesn’t call for murder himself, but he’s on record for admiring others who do as being not just moral, but “more moral than even the American Christians”:
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
And then we have your statement:
“A Christian does not try to justify himself according to law. The only death penalty still in force, according to a proper understanding of Divine grace, is the penalty for murder in the first degree.”
Quite the leap of logic to promote Dean as someone people should learn from, when his own words make him someone acting contrary to what your consider proper Christian behavior…
Bradlee Dean never said he admired Muslims. At worst, he grants them a grudging warrior’s respect. Their acts of murder do not impress him. Their moral and political consistency do. Like me, Bradlee Dean respects brass more than hypocrisy.
Neither Mr. Dean nor I would actually call for summarily executing anyone, much less on the basis of sexual orientation. (For the record, I support the death penalty strictly as punishment for murder in the first degree, or for treason in a context that makes it tantamount to murder. And only after the offender has stood trial by jury, and said jury has convicted him or her.)
But it’s worth remembering that Muslims, who are another Favorite Liberal Protected Group, do have this attitude of seeking to punish homosexuals by death. The (un) worthies of CAIR, etc., might not dare say this out loud, at least not in front of kefirs like you and me. But they definitely say it “over there.” If you are really consistent in your various advocacies, you will repent of advocating for Muslims.
“Bradlee Dean never said he admired Muslims. At worst, he grants them a grudging warrior’s respect. Their acts of murder do not impress him. Their moral and political consistency do. Like me, Bradlee Dean respects brass more than hypocrisy.
Neither Mr. Dean nor I would actually call for summarily executing anyone, much less on the basis of sexual orientation. ”
I didn’t realize that Dean has employed you as his paid spokesman, or has given you permission to state what he thinks or feels on his behalf. That’s the problem with reposting the works of others – you can choose to post them or not, but when you do, your site is now finding itself obliged to play spin doctor for someone who’s not even on your editorial staff.
Let me repeat the relevant section of the Bradlee Dean quote I’ve already listed above, with the key section capitalized by me:
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you THEY THEMSELVES ARE UPHOLDING THE LAWS THAT ARE EVEN IN THE BIBLE OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD, BUT THEY SEEM TO BE MORE MORAL THAN EVEN THE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS DO, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
Saying that non-Christians are “more moral” than American Christians isn’t just respect – that’s a very specific statement of admiration. A “warrior’s respect” would be saying that he appreciated how true to their faith they are, even if he disagreed with that faith. Stating that adherence to an extreme view is “more moral” isn’t just respect; it’s a values based judgment in admiration.
The other part you’re in denial about is that you’re claiming that the only aspect of Biblical law that justifies killing is punishment for murder, per the Noahide Covenant. Dean is saying something quite different, namely that the killing of homosexuals for practicing “abomination” is still justifiable based on the codes in Leviticus, and that it is morally superior of fundamentalist Muslims to consider this law as binding when American Christians do not.
This is one of those contradictions that takes the legitimacy away from people like Dean. We don’t follow the codes of the old Testament and live under Mosaic Law as devout Jews do, and as Jesus did, because Jesus supposedly established “a New Covenant” that made the old codes obsolete. However, you and Dean have no problem cherry-picking those old laws as Jesus never did to try and justify your views.
Dean states that it is moral to call homosexuality an abomination, and moral to consider it worthy of Old Testament capital-crime status. Those are his words, and no spinning on your part can change what he means by them – only a statement from Dean himself can do that.
Let the record reflect that I have not discussed my evaluations of Bradlee Dean with him or any member of his team, nor have they asked me to make any such evaluation. I say that only to assure Mr. Dean and his team that I do not pretend to have any arrangement that I do not in fact have.
I repeat my own evaluation: no one can, with any justice, accuse Bradlee Dean either of advocating murder (or summary execution) or wishing to contract any alliances with those who so advocate, threaten, or act.
Now why anyone feels so obsessed and compelled to object to someone’s negative evaluation of homosexuality, might possibly be for a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist to determine. The closest thing I have to that kind of training is a core clinical clerkship in psychiatry in medical school. And I wouldn’t want to stand on my diagnostic skills, to the point of giving a clinical evaluation of the above.
My “obsession”, as you put it, isn’t with people judging or even condemning another lifestyle. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and I’ll defend First Amendment rights with my life.
However, I will also take a hard stand against people like Dean, who regard people who call for the death of others based on their sexual orientation as morally superior to those who do not. That’s the kind of attitude that gets people killed around the world, and it’s wrong, bordering on malevolent.
Dean’s own words claim that fundamentalist Muslims, who take the Old Testament literally enough to justify killing gays, are more moral than an American Christian such as yourself, who believes that to be wrong. You’re just dancing around his words now, and pretending that not calling for murder himself means that calling others who do so morally superior to Christians is acceptable.
And yet you give this man a pulpit on your site and defend him. That’s your right of course, but “why” would be the more appropriate question for analysis.
Not “morally superior.” Those are your words, not his. Consistent, yes.
But how can a fundamentalist Muslim take the Old Testament seriously? Their founding document is called Qu’ran, or Koran. Now that they take seriously.
“More moral” “morally superior”? Splitting hairs is a pretty lame way to dodge the point.
As for Muslims and how they regard the Old Testament, you need to do some research, apparently.
I’ve done quite enough research. Just because Muslims use the Old Testament, does not mean that they hold it in the same regard as do the Jews. Besides, they twist the Old Testament—by, for instance, substituting Ishmael for Isaac on Mount Moriah.