Senate confirms openly gay federal circuit judge

[Revmitchell]

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.

Oh well....then if those things are not murder then they must be A...ok...then.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Oh well....then if those things are not murder then they must be A...ok...then.

Then let's be sure to point out every time an adulterer or a fornicator gets approved for public office.

I'll admit I was stunned when Pres Bush appointed Michaal Guest as ambassador to Romania and then the Senate approved him. There was a lovely reception for him and his partner in the Rose Garden and Romania changed their anti-homosexuality laws before the lovely couple took up residence.

We had better get used to the fact that this world is no longer going to be guided by our principles.

 

[Jedi Knight]

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.

Ask Anthony D. Weiner
Former U.S. Representative

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ask Anthony D. Weiner
Former U.S. Representative

Fair point..

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't see how you can say that the Constitution does not prevent something on one hand and on the other hand say that the Constitution has an anchor. The Supreme Court found nothing in the Constitution to say that abortion was wrong and Ron Paul said that the Constitution should not be amended. So that is a slice of the cross-section of American political thinking.

American law follows worldwide practice that the king is the law of the land. You have to look outside the Constitution to find anything other than the principle of majority rule, in my opinion.

 

[Revmitchell]

We had better get used to the fact that this world is no longer going to be guided by our principles.

Uh no we do not have to get used to it. And I am not convinced that we should just shut up and sit down.

 

[Aaron]

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 g@y ambassador to Romania.

They don't need Constitutional grounds. A senator can vote no for any reason he wants.

But, a homosexual is at best in defiance of natural law at its most basic level, and at worst, cannot discern at all. As natural law is the basis of the Constitution, a homosexual judge cannot properly adjudicate.

 

[Aaron]

Uh no we do not have to get used to it. And I am not convinced that we should just shut up and sit down.

That's right.

"Teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You missed my point entirely

Then why don't you enlighten me as to your point, because it does not seem readily discernible.

That's right.

"Teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

And if they will not "observe"? What then? Kill 'em all?

To say "we don't have to get used to it" is a head-in-the-sand attitude.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Sorry. Dupe, because my browser returned to an old screen and I thought my post didn't "take".

 

[Aaron]

And if they will not "observe"? What then? Kill 'em all?

Is civil government ordained of God? What is its purpose?

To say "we don't have to get used to it" is a head-in-the-sand attitude.

If you would say "we'd better get used to persecution and suffering for speaking out against idolatry and immorality," I would agree, but that ain't what's being said.

And you know it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Is civil government ordained of God? What is its purpose?

That's not an answer. Civil government has long abandoned the Christian foundation upon which liberty is founded. There are governments that have never acknowledged their God-given right to govern. God doesn't dictate that they do so. He only says the power comes from Him. If they choose not to acknowledge Him, there is nothing we can do. Our Constitution didn't set up a theocracy, it set up a democracy, which is to say that our founders expected Christian love, charity and justice to be enacted, but not biblically enforced. What we can do in our churches to protect our faith is not the same thing we can do in our legislatures to protect our freedoms, nor should it be, necessarily.

If you would say "we'd better get used to persecution and suffering for speaking out against idolatry and immorality," I would agree, but that ain't what's being said.

And you know it.

Actually, I know the exact opposite. If we are going to insist that biblical principles be the rule of the nation, and the day, then we are fundamentally changing how we have governed ourselves for 227 years. We are biblically guided, not biblically ruled. There is a subtle but distinct difference in those two attitudes.

The problem: Our founders never envisioned a day when gay marriage, homosexuality, advocation of free love and free drugs, in addition to a general moral decline, would be held dear in the hearts of the majority of the populace. Had they so anticipated, they would have probably been more dynamic in establishing biblical principle in law. They did not. Therefore, we live with it. Or we change it. And as I've said, such change fundamentally changes us as a nation -- for the better, to be certain, given this day an age. But nonetheless, it changes us in a way the majority will no longer support.

 

[church mouse guy]

That's not an answer. Civil government has long abandoned the Christian foundation upon which liberty is founded. There are governments that have never acknowledged their God-given right to govern. God doesn't dictate that they do so. He only says the power comes from Him. If they choose not to acknowledge Him, there is nothing we can do. Our Constitution didn't set up a theocracy, it set up a democracy, which is to say that our founders expected Christian love, charity and justice to be enacted, but not biblically enforced. What we can do in our churches to protect our faith is not the same thing we can do in our legislatures to protect our freedoms, nor should it be, necessarily.

Actually, I know the exact opposite. If we are going to insist that biblical principles be the rule of the nation, and the day, then we are fundamentally changing how we have governed ourselves for 227 years. We are biblically guided, not biblically ruled. There is a subtle but distinct difference in those two attitudes.

The problem: Our founders never envisioned a day when gay marriage, homosexuality, advocation of free love and free drugs, in addition to a general moral decline, would be held dear in the hearts of the majority of the populace. Had they so anticipated, they would have probably been more dynamic in establishing biblical principle in law. They did not. Therefore, we live with it. Or we change it. And as I've said, such change fundamentally changes us as a nation -- for the better, to be certain, given this day an age. But nonetheless, it changes us in a way the majority will no longer support.

If you want to get technical I suppose the first proof-positive that there is a problem with the Constitution was the Dred Scott Case. And then the Congress outlawed polygamy and the court is now saying that that was illegal for the federal government to regulate marriage. Then the court ruled that it was okay for the Democrats under Roosevelt to inter Japanese-Americans based upon their race. And, as we all know, the court ruled in Roe v Wade that the unborn baby was not entitled to due process as a human being and could be executed at the whim of the mother with no legal permission from the court for that specific baby and no court protection for the baby.

 

[Aaron]

That's not an answer. Civil government has long abandoned the Christian foundation upon which liberty is founded. There are governments that have never acknowledged their God-given right to govern. God doesn't dictate that they do so. He only says the power comes from Him. If they choose not to acknowledge Him, there is nothing we can do. Our Constitution didn't set up a theocracy, it set up a democracy, which is to say that our founders expected Christian love, charity and justice to be enacted, but not biblically enforced. What we can do in our churches to protect our faith is not the same thing we can do in our legislatures to protect our freedoms, nor should it be, necessarily.

First, civil government was instituted by God. They are His ministers to execute wrath upon the evildoer and to praise those who do well. That is their function.

And yes, He does command them to govern righteously. Psalm 82. (No, this isn't to Israel. The name "Most High" is how YHWH is known among the gentiles.)

The problem: Our founders never envisioned a day when gay marriage, homosexuality, advocation of free love and free drugs, in addition to a general moral decline, would be held dear in the hearts of the majority of the populace.

Not true. They knew of Sodom. They also knew of the profligate immorality of Greece and Rome. They knew what brought them down and also knew that men are the same everywhere.

The Constitution is an enumeration of powers. It limits the federal government. If it isn't granted a power explicitly, it doesn't have it. It is in the state charters where Christ is invoked and rights are enumerated.

It is the reason Christians still have a voice, and can still exercise power in this nation.