I recently find myself engaged in a number of discussions regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, and how that impacts the US legal system as a whole, and how it can be that Kim Davis, famous for refusing to allow her county clerk office to issue same-sex marriage licenses, is not ACTUALLY in violation of any laws.
Before I engage in this discussion, let me be clear. This is not a debate on the legal or moral right or wrong of gay marriage, and I will not entertain that discussion here. I will be clear on my opinion. I don't care. I simply DON'T CARE. It's your bedroom. Your time, your life, and your judgement day. You decide what conversation you want to have when you get there. On the subject of Kim Davis, I think she should do her job, and if it violates her beliefs, she should probably find another job. She was not elected to judge others. Either way, my opinion is irrelevant, and is only stated to get it out of the way of the point.
This is a conversation about accuracy, and the truth. I hate inaccuracies more than just about anything, except lies. That is the reason for the writing of this post. If you want to debate me on the Biblical legality of same sex marriage, and YOUR opinions of such (I've already stated I don't care) please make a new post and invite me to it.
The Supreme Court does not make, write, or enforce law. The Supreme Court can "tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution.
It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution
and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a
state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution." (Reference: http://goo.gl/eCrQF2)
The recent Supreme Court decision does not make law. The state of Kentucky does not have a same-sex marriage law in place, so the judge cannot lawfully hold her in contempt for violating a law that doesn't exist. He may be able to hold her based on violating the terms of her service as clerk overall, but he cannot hold it against her that she violated a law that didn't exist. However, that IS what is happening in this case.
So, what's my point? My point is this. If we, as a law abiding nation, are going to give the Supreme Court the right to make law, as is happening in this case, then we must obey ALL of the decisions of the Supreme Court along that line.
If that is the case, than the United States truly IS a Christian nation, and that voids any decisions or laws about the allowance of homosexuality in this country.
In 1892, the Supreme Court came to a decision on the matter of "Holy Trinity vs. United States." (Text: https://goo.gl/ChDcHJ) Up for debate was the illegality of the church, Holy Trinity, to employ a minister from another country based on the law that forbade this practice. Their decision, ultimately, was that it did not violate the law, since the spirit of the law was to stop the practice of bringing in unskilled, cheap labor, and not to prevent churches from hiring qualified ministers.
In their pursuit of an opinion on this case, the justices and their staff went through hours and hours, volumes and volumes of American documentation and literature to determine the nature of the nation overall. In the language of their officially issued opinion: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume
of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this
is a Christian nation."
Let's be clear. In a Supreme Court opinion, it is stated in clear English, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. If Supreme Court decisions MAKE law, then any decisions made after this 1892 decision are null and void if they are opposed to CHRISTIAN ideals. This would include Roe vs. Wade and the most recent gay marriage decision.
Please stop being inaccurate. Supreme Court decision does not make something law. This nation was and is founded on Christian ideals and Christian principles by Christian individuals who wanted to make a place for Christians (and others) to freely celebrate their religion. AND...while laws cannot be made prohibiting same sex marriage, individuals are still not required to obey laws that do not exist.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment