God's Law or Government Law?

[Bipsic]

Doesn't mean I know everything. I've been wrong before. I just don't like that nine people, who are not elected by The People, make laws for the whole country. I have always taught that Marbury vs. Madison gave them the power of judicial review. Not lawmaking.

 

If it was that simple, we would have no set of precedence. I guess I look at it this way: The Supreme Court isn't going to take a case and say this is what the 9 of feel like the tax code should say this, or everyone convicted of a violent crime should go to jail for a certain amount of time, but each time they rule on a given case, that holding is a further interpretation of the parameters of the constitution that can be used to make additional laws or inform people what the cannot do.

[LIPTON BASH]

The Supreme Court being able to do this gives the ability to check the legislature from passing laws that go against rights granted in the constitution.

[Fear the Nation]

We are also called to submit to authority placed over us. So where does this leave us?

[Hatz]

When it violates our constitution, then they should step in and protect. But is it the governments job to do what they deem is best for us? Or is it the government's job to make decisions based on the will of their constituents?

 

So did Brown v Board violate the Constitution?

[Hatz]

Are supreme court justices elected? And who has the authority to check a supreme court ruling?

 

Unless I am wrong, I believe the answers are No and No one. But I have been wrong before.

 

The bodies that nominate and approve them are elected. That is where the accountability lies.

[PP1]

The Supreme Court being able to do this gives the ability to check the legislature from passing laws that go against rights granted in the constitution.

 

And is marriage a right that is granted in the US Constitution?

[LIPTON BASH]

And is marriage a right that is granted in the US Constitution?

 

I think if you read Bluegrasscards post it will explain my point a little further.

 

In a perfect world marriage would not be a function recognized by the government. But that isn't the case. Marriage is used for government benefits and is used for estate planning in our laws. As such because homosexuals are a protected class under defenition of the law and marriage is sanctioned by the government , under the constitution the government can not discriminate against a protected class on a sanctioned function of the government.

 

The ruling has a legal basis.

 

Now if this movement tried to go into the church and tell the church what marriages they must recognize then the government would have no legal basis and I would be the first person in the protest line.

[formerkywrestler]

Agree to disagree.

If you allow God's law I have a feeling you would be very displeased with the end results.

[Bengal Maniac]

If you allow God's law I have a feeling you would be very displeased with the end results.

 

Pretty much Syria like, I believe.

[Bipsic]

I think if you read Bluegrasscards post it will explain my point a little further.

 

In a perfect world marriage would not be a function recognized by the government. But that isn't the case. Marriage is used for government benefits and is used for estate planning in our laws. As such because homosexuals are a protected class under defenition of the law and marriage is sanctioned by the government , under the constitution the government can not discriminate against a protected class on a sanctioned function of the government.

 

The ruling has a legal basis.

 

Now if this movement tried to go into the church and tell the church what marriages they must recognize then the government would have no legal basis and I would be the first person in the protest line.

 

I know people have some pretty strong feelings about this, but Congress in its infinite wisdom has not found sexual orientation a protected class for anti-discrimination purposes, but it is included for hate crime legislation. The reason we had to have this Supreme Court case happen is because of the gray area in which sexual orientation exists. To keep count, its not covered under the Civil Rights Act but it is covered under federal hate-crime laws and the EEOC considers it covered under just plain sex discrimination for employment purposes.

 

If Congress did include it as a protected class, it would be hard to believe that gays wouldn't be able to marry. Surely one couldn't deny the right based on race, age (over 40), religion, etc... Instead, even though the text of the constitution doesn't specifically say "everyone has a right to get married," it does say the state cannot deny any person "the equal protection of the laws." Since the government didn't have a "compelling interest" the Court came to its ultimate conclusion.

[ThrillVille Cardinal51]

So I'm not an authority on the bible, but I think Jesus covers this situation in Mark 12:13-17.

 

They were testing him with a catch 22 question, like this. Basically, the Pharisees asked Jesus to teach on whether the Jews should pay Roman taxes. They were trying to trick him, because whichever way he answered, he would have made somebody upset. Jesus then asks for a coin, and points out that Caesar's face is on it. He tells the crowd to then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's. Jesus essentially separates church and state here. With this same logic, why can't we separate state-recognized marriages and Christian Marriages?

 

Also, Paul wrote in Romans that all authority on earth is given by God, and we as Christians are called to be obedient to authority. In the case of the clerk not issuing licences, I think she was being disobedient in the eyes of God (not that we all aren't...)

 

If she felt like her job was going to lead her to sin, she should have quit. Christians are called to cut sin out of their lives, and go to extreme measures to do so (Like cut off hands and pluck out eyes).

[Hatz]

And is marriage a right that is granted in the US Constitution?

 

Would the Preamble cover it?

 

Promote the general welfare ...

 

Secure the blessings of liberty ...

 

?

[PP1]

So I'm not an authority on the bible, but I think Jesus covers this situation in Mark 12:13-17.

 

They were testing him with a catch 22 question, like this. Basically, the Pharisees asked Jesus to teach on whether the Jews should pay Roman taxes. They were trying to trick him, because whichever way he answered, he would have made somebody upset. Jesus then asks for a coin, and points out that Caesar's face is on it. He tells the crowd to then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's. Jesus essentially separates church and state here. With this same logic, why can't we separate state-recognized marriages and Christian Marriages?

 

Also, Paul wrote in Romans that all authority on earth is given by God, and we as Christians are called to be obedient to authority. In the case of the clerk not issuing licences, I think she was being disobedient in the eyes of God (not that we all aren't...)

 

If she felt like her job was going to lead her to sin, she should have quit. Christians are called to cut sin out of their lives, and go to extreme measures to do so (Like cut off hands and pluck out eyes).

 

Within reason. If the government told us we had to make sacrifices to Baal, God would not want us to do it.

[mexitucky]

Within reason. If the government told us we had to make sacrifices to Baal, God would not want us to do it.

 

What in the world....have you ever read the 1st Amendment? Do you understand it?

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

 

Your example would be the "Establishment of religion" by forcing people to perform religious rituals.

[mexitucky]

Would the Preamble cover it?

 

Promote the general welfare ...

 

Secure the blessings of liberty ...

 

?

 

Kentucky's own Justice Brandeis is the Godfather of Privacy. There is no "Right to Privacy," there are a bunch of cases that carve out the right. Marriage is one of the things that are protected through those cases.