Supreme Court Seat may go to a Lesbian or Rev. Wright

I agree with most of what you said, but have to take exception to "While we may be ready for gay/lesbian unions". You may speak for yourself on that one, but please don't use the term "we". I'm certainly not ready for it. I don't believe that condoning the sin of homosexuality in any way, shape, or form is OK.

 

If the church was of one accord, we'd be amazed at what God would stop through the church! But there is already too much deception and division even within the church..... in the very people who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. Too many are deceived for two reasons...... they don't love the truth nor seek after it...... and they find pleasure in iniquity or those who work iniquity.

 

I have to say RD... You kill me with the Wright. Although he did retire as pastor so could probably use the job. :thumbsup:

 

I am only concerned that a Justice uphold the Constitution and issue rulings & opinions accordingly.

 

Would you be OK with a pedophiliac sitting as a Justice as long as they upheld the Consititution, etc? How about an abortionist? How about a complete drunk? How about an open adulterer?

We should hold the people that are in leadership in our government to the highest standards and any openly sinful person should not be condoned by a Christian. Like it or not, these leaders influence decisions and are role models for the up and coming generation. I don't want any open sinner to be in a position like that and I would think that any Christian would agree.

 

Most of these would have to be taken in a larger context. But you cannot equate active pedophilia with adultery, abortion, or drinking to excess. Pedophilia is illegal if thoughts become action. Drinking to excess is not illegal in one's home, but becomes so if done in public or while driving under the influence of alcohol.

I don't choose political leaders based on anything other than their ability and fitness for the position.

 

All of the above are just as bad. They are all sin and all condemn the sinner to hell. You choose to think that one is a worse sin than another, but that's simply not true.

There in lies your problem. You don't think that "fitness for the position" should be measures against God's Word. I do. I'll side with God on this one. You go ahead and side with whomever it is you are siding with.

 

Having a gay justice upholding the Constitution------and issue rulings and opinions---------would be like asking the Fox for his humble opinion on how the Chicken coop should be built!!!!!!!!!

 

Does this not make us stop and ponder how long will God put up with this? When wrong seems right and right seems wrong......... no fear of God before their eyes.

 

MP, your error is one that many make: Compartmentalization.

One's character is an integral part of one's qualifications. Now...should they be a capable jurist? Of course. I wouldn't put an honorable 11 year-old on the court. I wouldn't put an honorable illiterate person on the court.

But...one cannot simply separate one's character from one's abilities. They go together. This is a big country...and it is quite possible to find nine people with character and abilities.

Besides...I grow tired of first identifying people by group designation. Pretty soon, we'll be looking for an overweight, transgendered, handicapped, left-handed Eskimo. (the ultimate minority candidate)

 

We had 7 [seven] perverts on the court in 1973 who found somewhere in the Constitution [apparently between the lines] the right to kill unborn babies at will. We still have 4 perverts on the court who agree. I suppose replacing one with a sexual pervert would make little difference.

 

That's an interesting link. I'm glad that there are other who make that distinction. It just comes to show how words & other phrases have been twisted around over the years. I have always referred to sodomites as homosexuals. Gay is supposed to be defined as being bright & colorful or happy.

I also don't like hyphenated Americanisms. I guess if I wanted to even though I am only 1/8 Irish, I could say I'm an Irish-American, a European-American (even though I have never been to Europe), or since I am extremely overweight, I could say I am an obese-American. There's a lot of different things I could be if I wanted to.

In all honesty, I am an American-American.

 

A g&y or Rev. Wright may not be the thing to wonder about. Instead.... What if Obama appoints a muslim to the Supreme Court? Has anyone thought about that scenario? It wouldn't surprise me if CAIR is lobbying for it behind the scenes. After all, diversity, ya know.

See the truth about CAIR here:

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

You can check out the actual CAIR web site to see their action alerts and how they influence the WH right now, without a muslim justice on the bench. Just imagine....

CAIR action alerts:
http://www.cair.com/actioncenter/actionalerts.aspx

 

Can you name a liberal/leftist Justice who has voted to uphold the Constitution and the circumstances?