Senate confirms openly gay federal circuit judge

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Jedi Knight, Sep 24, 2013.

  1. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    The vote surprises me. Although in the secular world it has no bearing on being a judge, you would think at least a few votes would express disapproval. For example, why did those vote for this judge that always campaign against abortion rights? What is the difference from a Christian standpoint? The answer is, they do not care about abortion or gay rights, they care about being reelected.

    Also, has anyone ever seen a headline that said the Senate just confirmed a heterosexual judge? No you have not. Why is that?
     
    #2 saturneptune, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2013
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Precisely what constitutional grounds would the Senate have to refuse confirmation?

    This has been going on for ages. One of the early incidents was the approval of Pres Bush's appointment of an openly [email protected] ambassador to Romania.
     
  4. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    CK4, they could have voted against him on the basis that he lacks good judgment or common sense, that he has a reprobate mind.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Would that not also apply to a fornicator, an adulterer (who proved himself unfaithful to his vows), a liar, or a blasphemer?

    As a senator their responsibility is not to press their personal standards, but to look for constitutional qualifications and a professional record.
     
    #5 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2013
  6. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    That is the reason that it is said that the US Constitution is all sail and no anchor.


    "Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor. "

    Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), British historian. Letter, May 23, 1857.
     
    #6 church mouse guy, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2013
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I would firmly disagree with Macaulay.
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    C4K, you just said that moral standards are not based in the Constitution above and that is why a gay federal judge is proper and now you are telling me that the constitution has an anchor. You have me greatly confused. What is the anchor?
     
  9. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would also disagree with Macaulay and would further ask, CMG, what prompted the comment? There is no guarantee of Christian values in the Constitution, there is no banning of those who practice homosexuality from government, there are no caveats that would allow for special circumstances by which conservatives in the Senate could deny his appointment. it is far more concerning to me, in fact, that he is anti-abortion than is the fact he is gay. It is becoming a fact of life today, and we are still in the world though we are not of the world. We'd better get used to it. Doesn't mean we have to like it. Just get used to it.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The quote said that the Comstitution is 'all sail and no anchor.' I assume that to mean that the Constitution flaps with the wind, and is not an anchor. I contend that it is the anchor of the nation. It is solid. It is what anchors the laws of the US.

    Nothing in that anchor precludes the confirmation of this judge.

    Moral standards come from God. He and the constitution are not one and the same. The founders were wise enough to leave God out of the legal anchor.
     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I merely said that CK4 was right that there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent this person who does not follow the laws of nature from being a federal official of high rank because the Constitution, as you point out, has, in your words, thisnumber, no guarantee of Christian (or any other values--in my words). Or in the words of the 19th century British commentator, there is no anchor in the Constitution. Therefore, when you both disagreed that there was no anchor, I merely asked what was the anchor?

    It seems America is based upon the notion that the king is the law of the land--there is no basic principle. Furthermore, I disagree with those who say that people have consciences and know right and wrong.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Yup, American Christians seem to think that the US Government owes them something. Far from it. Opposition is the norm.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Refusing to confirm someone because of grievous immorality is a good reason. The fact that people who call themselves Christians no longer equate homosexuality as immoral but simply personal preference is more of a commentary on the state of Christianity than it is the constitution or our representatives who confirmed a homosexual.
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    No, the point is that the Founders wrote a document that is meaningless in the hands of a Congress that could vote for whatever they pleased. Nothing holds the Constitution down because there is no underlying principle, as you point out.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So should open adulterers be excluded? Known liars? Divorced people who have proven themselves unfaithful?

    I'm not sure any professed Chrisitans around here would deny that homosexuality is a sin, just that nothing in the Constitution would bar their confirmation.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Reckon Ill have to look at the quote in context. We seem to differ on its interpretation.
     
  17. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The world no longer sees it as grievous morality, therefore they will not use it as a standard by which to judge immorality. As I said, get used to it. There is no reason to expect the world to act like the church, and if we hold such expectations, we are going to be grievously disappointed.

    Again, they are politicians first and (sadly) Christians second, or even third, fourth ... nineteenth? They are "the world" and did what the world does.
     
  18. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry folks, and it may be true that the Constitutional standards are not Christian standards. However, what is the basis of being anti abortion based on the Constitution, but not being concerned about an unnatural relationship in marriage? That is the height of hypocrisy.

    If one is going to base their beliefs and morals on a Constitutional standard, then what is their basis of pounding the podium each election over family values and right to life and at the same time condoning homosexual behavior? For that matter, what was the purpose of excluding them from the military for centuries? I will tell you what drives the decisions of these self righteous politicians, it is money, power and reelection, not a moral compass.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    You missed my point entirely
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Lives are at threat. The same cannot be said about adultery and fornication, no matter what the gender of the participants.
     

Share This Page

Loading...