Senate confirms openly gay federal circuit judge

[Jedi Knight]

Vote 98-0 to approve former Department of Justice lawyer
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/senate-confirms-openly-gay-federal-circuit-judge/?cat_orig=us

 

[saturneptune]

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?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

CK4, they could have voted against him on the basis that he lacks good judgment or common sense, that he has a reprobate mind.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

CK4, they could have voted against him on the basis that he lacks good judgment or common sense, that he has a reprobate mind.

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

I would firmly disagree with Macaulay.

 

[church mouse guy]

I would firmly disagree with Macaulay.

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?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

I would firmly disagree with Macaulay.

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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?

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

Yup, American Christians seem to think that the US Government owes them something. Far from it. Opposition is the norm.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

Reckon Ill have to look at the quote in context. We seem to differ on its interpretation.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Refusing to confirm someone because of grievous immorality is a good reason.

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.

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.

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

 

[saturneptune]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

You missed my point entirely

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

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.