Ignite the Pulpit
Pretended legislation through assault
I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people. – Chai Feldblum, an open Lesbian who was nominated to serve as a Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Barack Hussein Obama
This morning, the Supreme Court once again usurped their authority by committing an abomination (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9, Romans 1:24, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Jude 1:7) when unlawfully wading outside of their jurisdiction and meddling with the God-ordained definition of marriage. A 5-4 ruling has overturned key parts of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). The Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal made by 7 million people of California who twice voted to ban homosexual marriage in their state (Prop 8), claiming their appeal “has no standing.”
Let’s look at a timeline of events leading to today’s ruling:
- In January 2009, Obama becomes president of these United States. He vows to fundamentally transform America.
- 2009 – Obama appoints at least 224 homosexuals and transvestites into key positions in government.
- May 2010 – Obama nominates former Dean of Harvard Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court bench, a radical lesbian who had never judged a case a day in her life, and who was known for “queerifying Harvard.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yxsh3fJpmQ)
- Feb. 2011 – Obama declares DOMA unconstitutional and directs the Department of Justice to stop defending the law in court.
- July 2011 – Obama supports Dianne Feinstein’s bill to repeal DOMA.
- Feb. 2012 – US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules CA Proposition 8 unconstitutional
- May 2012 – Obama publicly endorses homosexual marriage, and is declared America’s “first gay president” by Newsweek.
- Dec. 2012 – US Supreme Court agrees to hear cases on DOMA and Prop 8.
- Feb. 2013 – US military extends some benefits to homosexual partners.
- April 2013 – Obama spends $350 million on sexual indoctrination curriculum for children, teaching that the only “unsafe” sex is becoming pregnant.
- June 2013 – Supreme Court rules in line with the Obama administration’s radical ideology being forced upon America for the past 4 years.
It is clear to see that this was a planned agenda aimed at fundamentally destroying, not transforming, America. Does Michael Swift’s supposedly satirical “Gay Manifesto” raise serious red flags to anyone?ARVE Error: need id and provider
Just like Roe v. Wade, this immoral, unconstitutional, and unlawful decision was against the will of the people. If the Supreme Court is left unchecked, this decision will bring about another bout of devastation and destruction to America – especially the young generation.
America has been forewarned
America has been forewarned in the past concerning homosexual marriage. Canadian Archbishop Prendergast spoke at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, warning Americans of the consequences of forced homosexual marriage upon the Canadian populace.ARVE Error: need id and provider
For example, for simply writing a letter defining Catholic teaching on homosexual marriage, Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, Alberta, was called up before the Human Rights Commission in 2005. Bishop Henry’s complaint was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff who admitted that he only filed the complaint to get media attention.
During his speech, Archbishop Prendergast quoted Henry as saying,
Human rights laws designed as a shield are now being used as a sword. The issue is rarely truth formation, but rather censorship, and applying a particular theology through threats, sanctions, and punitive measures.
The Archbishop went on to note the consequences of homosexual marriage in Canada:
- restrictions on freedoms
- forced sex education
- sexually confused children
- sexual experimentation among children
- muzzling and debilitating the Church
- more births out of wedlock
- more in vitro fertilizations
- more abortions
- more poverty
- more misery
- more disease
- more addictions
- higher health care costs
In Canada the radicals have sought to lower the age of consent to 14 years old for anal intercourse.
What does this have to do with homosexual marriage?
Absolutely everything.ARVE Error: need id and provider
As mentioned earlier, Obama already spent $350 million on a sexualized curriculum, called the Personal Responsibility Education Program. The minds of America’s children will be raped of their innocence as they undergo sexual indoctrination.
America, simply put, this is criminal.
Government, including the Supreme Court, does not have executive, legislative, or judicial powers to break the laws of our Constitutional Republic. Today’s ruling is pretended legislation.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void. – Chief Justice Marshall
Think Overturning DOMA is bad?
You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean. Help his lawsuit against them. Stand for America and get your free gift.<https://shop.youcanruninternational.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=60>
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.
CATEGORY:Ignite the Pulpit
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Executive5 days ago
Biden administration: just say anything!
News5 days ago
Macron criticized for removing expensive watch during pensions debate
Creation Corner5 days ago
Oumuamua – object of speculation
Executive2 days ago
DeSantis losing key support
Executive4 days ago
Trump prosecution disappointment
News5 days ago
China, US Navy spar over guided-missile destroyer in South China Sea
Executive5 days ago
Ron DeSantis’ donors and allies question if he’s ready for 2024
Money matters5 days ago
Nearly $100 billion in deposits pulled from banks; officials call system ‘sound and resilient’
“Just like Roe v. Wade, this immoral, unconstitutional, and unlawful decision was against the will of the people.”
Why, in your opinion, are these decisions unconstitutional? Please use specific citations from the constitution in your answer.
Why, in your opinion, are these decisions unlawful? Please cite specific law(s) broken and who they were broken by in your answer.
For one thing, this violates the principle of a republican form of government. The US District Court was in serious error in overruling a State constitution. There are no privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States at issue.
You have the right to marry, but you do not have the right necessarily to marry anyone or anything that moves.
And if you’re gay, you’re nuts. Pure and simple. The Supreme Court has called nuttiness normal and normalcy nutty.
“For one thing, this violates the principle of a republican form of government. The US District Court was in serious error in overruling a State constitution. There are no privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States at issue.”
1. It wasn’t declared unconstitutional under the Privileges or Immunities clause. It was under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
2. This isn’t either of the decisions made today.
“You have the right to marry, but you do not have the right necessarily to marry anyone or anything that moves.
And if you’re gay, you’re nuts. Pure and simple. The Supreme Court has called nuttiness normal and normalcy nutty.”
Focus! I asked for specific laws and citations of the constitution that make these decisions unlawful and unconstitutional.
We deal here with natural law. Which those two cases trumped.
But I don’t expect you to understand. You really do agree, if not that hetero is nutty-o, but that homo is normal.
“We deal here with natural law. Which those two cases trumped.”
Where exactly are these “natural laws” codified and do you have other examples?
“But I don’t expect you to understand. You really do agree, if not that hetero is nutty-o, but that homo is normal.”
You’re changing the subject again. We’re talking about the unconstitutionality and unlawfulness (or lack thereof) of today’s rulings.
I am on the correct subject. The Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. It always had some “undefined terms,” and things that no one thought needed writing down.
One of them: that same-sex roommates sharing bed, if you grant that any two men (or two women) were that foolish in those days, would never presume to claim the privileges and immunities of marriage.
Michael Alan Kline Sr liked this on Facebook.
So…if you dont want to get gay married…dont. No one is forcing you to marry a gay partner.
I had several issues with this article. For Starters, YOU do not choose what is or what is not constitutional. You don’t have that power. Our forefathers decided that the interpretation of the constitution was done by the Supreme Court. Not Bradley Dean, Not Terry Hurlbut.
Secondly, a transvestite is a man who identifies as a man who dresses as a woman. Obama has appointed TRANSGENDERED people to various posts in the government. There is a difference
and…You never explain HOW it is unconstitutional, besides that it goes against the teachings of the Bible.
Thirdly: People have been sexually confused since the dawn of time, and would be regardless of gay marriage
Four: “More babies out of wedlock” Gay people don’t generally procreate. if its out of wedlock, thats because they can’t get married. Bad logic
five: More abortions. See above argument
Six: More poverty. No evidence of this. if anything, more people getting married will mean more money going into the economy and less poverty.
seven: More addictions. To what?
Eight: “Against the will of the people”. Most polls show that a slight majority of Americans support Gay marriage.
Nine: Young people rejected the GOP and accepted sexual freedom (and gays) regardless of legalization, so this changes nothing.
Ten: not in the article, but Terry’s comments about how “If you’re gay, you’re nuts”. Do you win many converts with that comment? It could be better argued that listening to a magical man in the sky and a really old book written by men is nuts.
Pro tip: Don’t expect the GOP to hold the presidency while conservatives still act like you guys. It makes you come across as bigots. Plenty of young people hated Obama, but refused to vote for Romney on the principle that the GOP is bigoted.
Maybe the next thing that happens, is that a church that refuses to perform nuptials for SSRSB, loses its 501(c)(3) status and instantly becomes a taxable Subchapter C corporation.
I would imagine that “babies born out of wedlock” is a side-effect of a society that says, with the spectacle of SSRSB getting the dignities, privileges, and immunities of marriage, that marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore, and “anything goes.” Same for addictions. If there is neither God nor devil nor heaven nor hell, anything is permissible. Did not Fyodor Dostoyevskiy say that?
Finally, I don’t seek to convert those who make snide remarks. They’re hopeless. I seek to rally those who wonder whether it’s still permissible to tell off people like you. So I do the telling-off.
Florida’s Republican Senator Marcos Rubio showed his liberal colors too, along with the New Jersey Senator. We have no representation in Congress.
“I am on the correct subject. The Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. It always had some “undefined terms,” and things that no one thought needed writing down.”
True, but “natural law” is not a defined or undefined term in the constitution. It simply isn’t there. I ask again: where do you get a codified list of “natural laws”? If they’re just up to whoever makes them up, you could do all kinds of silly things like outlaw tattoos or mixed fabrics because they’re “unnatural”.
“One of them: that same-sex roommates sharing bed, if you grant that any two men (or two women) were that foolish in those days, would never presume to claim the privileges and immunities of marriage.”
Now you’re just wildly speculating, and even if that’s true, it’s irrelevant. Just because these theoretical people didn’t presume to claim the privileges and immunities (wait, didn’t you say this case _wasn’t_ about those?) of marriage, that doesn’t mean people today don’t.
I say you’re changing the subject because I’m trying to get you to back up the claims made in this article, specifically the unconstitutionality and unlawfulness of the decisions made yesterday. You don’t seem willing to do that.
I’m done trying to establish something under, shall we say, “progressive” or “secular” rules. When I detect the markings on the cards, I quit the game.
“Maybe the next thing that happens, is that a church that refuses to perform nuptials for SSRSB, loses its 501(c)(3) status and instantly becomes a taxable Subchapter C corporation.”
Why would that happen? Churches can refuse to marry anyone they like. They don’t even have to marry anyone at all. Give me one case where a church lost their tax-exempt status due to refusing to marry someone, otherwise you’re just wildly speculating. I can give you one that hasn’t, and anti-miscegenation laws have been illegal for almost 50 years:
link to kentucky.com
Ah, sure. And Obama said he would never ask a church to perform nuptials for SSRSB. And the Moon is made of green cheese, and Mars is a hot red pepper. Tell me another one.
“When I detect the markings on the cards, I quit the game.”
That seems awfully defeatist and even intellectually lazy, to proclaim no further responsibility to continue discussion on the basis of some presumed or even totally imagined dishonesty on the part of those you disagree with. And judging by the way you perpetually dodge important questions about the material you publish on this site by ignoring and / or changing the subject and points that are raised, a more accurate statement might be “When I detect the markings on the cards, I suddenly decide we’re playing backgammon.”
I deal here with adversaries who would dispute the sum of two plus two if it would suit their political agenda. That’s what I mean by marked cards.
I know intellectual dishonesty when I see it. I answer it with my articles, not through comments. And in the end, it all comes down to credibility of the witnesses, and what kind of world you want to live in.
“I’m done trying to establish something under, shall we say, “progressive” or “secular” rules. When I detect the markings on the cards, I quit the game.”
Use whatever rules you want, as long as it’s not the rules you’ve made up yourself. Again, all I’m asking is for you to back up the claims made in this article. Otherwise, you could publish literally anything that anyone makes up and not be accountable.
“Ah, sure. And Obama said he would never ask a church to perform nuptials for SSRSB. And the Moon is made of green cheese, and Mars is a hot red pepper. Tell me another one.”
Great, so wild speculation is all you’ve got. Obama tells you he’s not going to do that (not that he had to, since that’s not something he can do anyway), and all you have is “YEAH RIGHT OBUMMER”? Give me a break.
Every time a liberal like you says that Obama cannot do a thing, he finds a way to do it. And every time Obama says he is not going to do a thing, he is already planning to do it. That is, if it’s about ridding this country of its religious heritage.
It is no secret to me that you share with Obama the belief that “religious” is a subset of “nut,” unless said religion is Islam. And then only because Islam is inherently anti-American and anti-everyone-else-but-Arab. Arab as a nationality and a way of life, that is, not necessarily as a race.
I half expect him to belt out the English lyrics of “State Hymn to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” doing his best Al Green imitation, every time he speaks.
“Every time a liberal like you says that Obama cannot do a thing, he finds a way to do it. And every time Obama says he is not going to do a thing, he is already planning to do it. That is, if it’s about ridding this country of its religious heritage.”
Alright, then. Obama can’t fly or shoot laser beams out of his eyes. Is he planning that now? Seriously though, other than paranoia, what reason do you have to suspect he’ll force churches to marry same-sex couples (even if he could)? Seems to me if he were going to do force churches to marry people, he would have already forced churches who refuse to marry interracial couples to do so. As he is a child of a mixed-race couple himself, that subject would hit a lot closer to home.
“It is no secret to me that you share with Obama the belief that “religious” is a subset of “nut,” unless said religion is Islam. And then only because Islam is inherently anti-American and anti-everyone-else-but-Arab. Arab as a nationality and a way of life, that is, not necessarily as a race.”
Uhh okay, Terry. I don’t know who you’re confusing me with, but they sound terrible. I’m not sure how this is relevant, either.
“I half expect him to belt out the English lyrics of “State Hymn to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” doing his best Al Green imitation, every time he speaks.”
I know you really hate Obama, but this is a silly caricature of him. You would do better to attack him based on what he’s actually done rather than what you think he’ll do (constantly “any day now!”).
OK now that I’ve addressed as well as I could this bizarre tangent you’ve taken us down, could you answer my questions? How exactly are these decisions unconstitutional and unlawful?
I wouldn’t put it past him to start thinking he could do all those things, now that you’ve put the idea into his head. The way he acts about things being beneath his dignity, supports just this kind of absurd megalomania.
You haven’t shown that you would even accept any answer I gave as valid. So, no.
You’re here on my sufferance, anyway.