Remember Kim Davis

[Salty]

No but if you choose to break the law you should be prosecuted. I believed that getting drafted to kill Vietnamese was immortal. Thank goodness I failed the physical.

1 - The Bible does teach that murder is a sin - but ALL killing is NOT murder.
2 - We were in Nam so that the South Vietnamese could have freedom
3 - Did some US Troops murder - of course - and they were prosecuted

but back to the main subject at hand.

Do Did Rosa Parks sin by sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to go to the back of the bus?

Where does Acts 5:29 come into play?

 

[Alcott]

The SC, in essence, ruled that Utah's Condition of Statehood-- to define marriage as only between one man and one woman-- was unconstitutional all along. Similar to how the Dred Scott decision made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional for the 37 years it had been law.

 

[FollowTheWay]

It’s 103 pages long.

Historically, if I remember correctly, the state of California had voted by 2/3 majority to change its constitution to prohibit same sex unions. A single state judge, who is gay, ruled the constitution of California unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS refused to hear that case on appeal, (thank you justice Roberts) so the ruling stands.

In essence, a single gay judge in California has forced same sexual marriage on the entire country.

peace to you

Wrong. California voters passed Proposition 8 which made same sec marriage illegal. The US Supreme court in 2013 overturned this law and made it legal again in California. That was under Roberts.

 

[FollowTheWay]

1 - The Bible does teach that murder is a sin - but ALL killing is NOT murder.
2 - We were in Nam so that the South Vietnamese could have freedom
3 - Did some US Troops murder - of course - and they were prosecuted

but back to the main subject at hand.

Do Did Rosa Parks sin by sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to go to the back of the bus?

Where does Acts 5:29 come into play?

Acts 5:29 supports killing???? "We ought to obey God rather than men? " That doesn't support killing. Read MAT 5:38-39.

 

[Salty]

Acts 5:29 supports killing???? "We ought to obey God rather than men? " That doesn't support killing. Read MAT 5:38-39.

Lets try this again --- all Killing is NOT murder!

 

[canadyjd]

Wrong. California voters passed Proposition 8 which made same sec marriage illegal. The US Supreme court in 2013 overturned this law and made it legal again in California. That was under Roberts.

You are wrong on the facts.

peace to you

 

[Jerome]

So lest SUPPOSE...the Town Clerk was a Muslim - and she would* not issue you (a female) a marriage license until...you covered her face.

Huh?
Why would a prospective bride be asked to put a face covering on the Clerk?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Lets try this again --- all Killing is NOT murder!

Stick to the Bible or can you use it to support needless wars?

[Rom 12:17-21 NKJV] 17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but [rather] give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance [is] Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You are wrong on the facts.

peace to you

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia.

This is THE TRUTH. What is YOUR "TRUTH?"

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court.

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8]

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.[9][10][11] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.[12]

The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013.[293] Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.[293] Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor were in the minority.[294] The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute".[11] Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (This only applied to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine nor rule on whether in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the minority, said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected,[11] because "the basic premise of the initiative process [and] the essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around".[7]: 13 

 

[Salty]

Stick to the Bible or can you use it to support needless wars?

1) on the quote of mine that you quoted - it did NOT mention War ----
War is NOT the only time that people are killed.
If a person came into my house with a weapon - and I was to kill him - that would NOT be murder!

Now keep in mind - this tread - is about Kim - and if she has a moral obligation to obey God over man.
as far as WAR - (which has NOTHING to do with Kim) take it to this page: Who decides if a war is inmoral or unnecessary

 

[Salty]

Jerome quoted my post: "So lest SUPPOSE - you walk into a town clerks office -
and the Town Clerk was a Muslim - and she would* not issue you (a female) a marriage license
until:

A) you covered her face."

Huh?
Why would a prospective bride be asked to put a face covering on the Clerk?

OPPS - that answer "A" should have read "A) you covered YOUR face"

As Muslims do not believe that a female should show her face.

 

[canadyjd]

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia.

This is THE TRUTH. What is YOUR "TRUTH?"

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court.

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8]

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.[9][10][11] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.[12]

The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013.[293] Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.[293] Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor were in the minority.[294] The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute".[11] Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (This only applied to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine nor rule on whether in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the minority, said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected,[11] because "the basic premise of the initiative process [and] the essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around".[7]: 13 

Thanks for the info which supports my original post. A single gay judge in California ruled the Californian constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case on appeal, letting the original ruling by this one judge become the law of the land

The two thirds majority of the people where over ruled by one man. Five justices on the SCOTUS let that ruling stand.

Now our schools are grooming kindergarteners for sexual exploitation by teaching homosexuality and transgender transitioning.

peace to you

 

[FollowTheWay]

Thanks for the info which supports my original post. A single gay judge in California ruled the Californian constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case on appeal, letting the original ruling by this one judge become the law of the land

The two thirds majority of the people where over ruled by one man. Five justices on the SCOTUS let that ruling stand.

Now our schools are grooming kindergarteners for sexual exploitation by teaching homosexuality and transgender transitioning.

peace to you

1. This is the "gay" Judge of the Federal Court in N CA who ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional:

Walker was originally nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4][5] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived insensitivity to gays and the poor.[6]

On September 7, 1989, Walker was re-nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California vacated by Judge Spencer M. Williams.[2] He was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received his commission on November 27, 1989.
**************************************************************
2. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7]
3. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court
4. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
*************************************************************

In summary, that's one District Court Judge, the CA state government, the CA Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.

Just repeating an incorrect statement does not make it true even though it worked for Trump.

THE END

 

[Baptist Believer]

The SC, in essence, ruled that Utah's Condition of Statehood-- to define marriage as only between one man and one woman-- was unconstitutional all along.

Interesting premise, but I went back and double-checked the primary sources:

The landmark Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. United States, concerned itself only with polygamy (aka “plural marriage”), but did not define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The Utah state constitution was required to have a statement prohibiting polygamy, but it did not define marriage as being between a man and a woman:

“Article III
“First:--Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.”​

 

[canadyjd]

1. This is the "gay" Judge of the Federal Court in N CA who ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional:

Walker was originally nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4][5] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived insensitivity to gays and the poor.[6]

On September 7, 1989, Walker was re-nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California vacated by Judge Spencer M. Williams.[2] He was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received his commission on November 27, 1989.
**************************************************************
2. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7]
3. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court
4. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
*************************************************************

In summary, that's one District Court Judge, the CA state government, the CA Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.

Just repeating an incorrect statement does not make it true even though it worked for Trump.

THE END

Bottom line, the people of California voted to change their constitution to protect traditional marriage. At that time, the political elites were claiming the decision should be left to the states. The people responded and the elites melted down.

All that you wrote about the one judge doesn’t change the truth he is gay and made that decision which has now been forced upon the country against the will of the majority.

And it’s not “THE END” because evil is never satisfied. Now these same people are pushing to groom children in kindergarten for sexual exploitation by teaching them about homosexuality and gender transitioning.

Peace to you

 

[Salty]

.

And it’s not “THE END” because evil is never satisfied. Now these same people are pushing to groom children in kindergarten for sexual exploitation by teaching them about homosexuality and gender transitioning. ...

Absolutely
Correct!! They are willing to take baby steps to obtain their immoral standards.


And this is the reason - in the past - the Pro-life groups got very little - if any action -
They wanted all or nothing.

We must never stop fighting.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Bottom line, the people of California voted to change their constitution to protect traditional marriage. At that time, the political elites were claiming the decision should be left to the states. The people responded and the elites melted down.

All that you wrote about the one judge doesn’t change the truth he is gay and made that decision which has now been forced upon the country against the will of the majority.

And it’s not “THE END” because evil is never satisfied. Now these same people are pushing to groom children in kindergarten for sexual exploitation by teaching them about homosexuality and gender transitioning.

Peace to you

Absolutely
Correct!! They are willing to take baby steps to obtain their immoral standards.


And this is the reason - in the past - the Pro-life groups got very little - if any action -
They wanted all or nothing.

We must never stop fighting.

How do you know he was gay7 Oh. The final word was from Robert's Supreme Court. The truth hurts doesn't it?

 

[Salty]

How do you know he was gay7 Oh. The final word was from Robert's Supreme Court. The truth hurts doesn't it?

Have no ideal if he was happy.

 

[canadyjd]

How do you know he was gay7 Oh. The final word was from Robert's Supreme Court. The truth hurts doesn't it?

He self-identified as gay. It is common knowledge. He should have recused himself. He made the ruling and soon after retired.

The only truth that hurts is that the will of the people was usurped by unelected judges.

The “final word” may yet to be heard. The American people can still stop the madness by changing the COTUS to protect traditional marriage, children and woman’s rights.

peace to you