No. You can't even prove God exists, so God cannot be part of any ruling in a court of law. If I am wrong, then I will face His judgement, not yours. But that doesn't change the fact that you cannot prove your assertions, despite trying to complain about this ruling by pointing out a ruling where the SCOTUS defied scientific facts about a tomato. In order for this to be a valid comparison, then you need to show a similar comparison, not the complete opposite, turning to your belief system, rather than facts.
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
You won't be able to claim that you weren't warned, that you didn't know.
Here is the text of the modern oath taken by supreme court justices:
The constitution is not a moral or religious document.
Willing to bet they don't have to include the "so help me God" if they don't wish to do so. But even if they do, that doesn't mean that they believe in the same God that you or others do.
Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
Nothing in the Constitution supports the effort to redefine marriage away from what it is, and has always been understood to be.
“If the law supposes that…the law is a ass - a idiot”—Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
With the Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) ruling, the Supreme Court established, as “the law of the land”, that a tomato is not a fruit. Of course, this was a nonsensical ruling. By every accepted biological definition, a tomato is, indeed, a fruit, and the court ruling otherwise would not change this.
Implementing an unalterable falsehood into law does not make it true; it remains every bit as false as before. All that is thus accomplished is to make a mockery of the rule of law itself.
Trying to define, by law, the concept of marriage to include anything other than a specific type of union between a man and a woman is exactly the same sort of mockery of law as ruling that a tomato is not a fruit. A tomato remains what it is, and marriage remains what it is, regardless of any absurd attempt to define it otherwise by law.
I've been married for 25 years.
Not a damn thing has changed at all for us.
We don't let other people define our marriage. It's ours. We define it.
Also - it's a damn good marriage.
The constitution is not a moral or religious document.
Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
Nothing in the Constitution supports the effort to redefine marriage away from what it is, and has always been understood to be.
It IS relevant. It make you wrong again.
What is relevant is that the Constitution is the highest law of this nation, and all public servants are required to act in strict accordance with it; including the Justices on the Supreme Court, whose oath and duty is to uphold it and to issue rulings in accordance with it—a duty which five of the members of that court blatantly violated on this occasion.
Whether or not the Constitution can be described as “a moral or religious document” is completely irrelevant to its purpose and authority.
If so, then the government shouldn't address marriage one way or another, correct? They should act as if it doesn't even exist, right?Marriage was established and defined by God, not by man, and no mortal institution has the authority to override God on this matter. Those who presume to do so will one day stand before God to be judged, and they will be held fully accountable for this evil.
If so, then the government shouldn't address marriage one way or another, correct? They should act as if it doesn't even exist, right?
Your personal opinion means nothing. The constitution was written to prevent personal opinions from becoming law.
Laws are nothing but a bunch of collective personal opinions.Your personal opinion means nothing. The constitution was written to prevent personal opinions from becoming law.
No it wasn't.
Laws are nothing but a bunch of collective personal opinions.
Laws are nothing but a bunch of collective personal opinions.
Read it.
OMG you could not even find a real response.·Sorry yours is a silly response to a valid comparison about court decisions.
·
·
Your personal opinion means nothing. The constitution was written to prevent personal opinions from becoming law.
You had no point but to play the race card—a vacuous argument that calls for nothing better than the response that I gave.
Do you think anyone in office is driven by political, social and cultural views? Do you think perhaps the views of politicians and justices find their way into laws? This might trouble you but government and politics has more to do with opinion than it does facts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?