The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – It’s all about love…

Jeff Cumberbatch - Columnist, Barbados Advocate

Jeff Cumberbatch – Columnist, Barbados Advocate

BU shares the Jeff Cumberbatch Barbados Advocate column  – Senior Lecturer in law at the University of the West Indies since 1983, a Columnist with the Barbados Advocate since 2000 and BU commenter – see full bio.

Musings: It’s all about love… 7/12/2015


“A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another…” – John 13:34

As the on-going employment rights dispute between the Barbados Industrial Development Corporation [BIDC] and the National Union of Public Workers [NUPW] rapidly descends into farce, what with the dismissing employer now reportedly seeking what I suppose to be a declaration from the local courts as to its entitlement in the matter, and the Minister responsible for Labour castigating the NUPW but, remarkably, not the BIDC, for failing to revert to the status quo ante once attempts at political mediation have commenced, I consider that it may be an appropriate time for this column to step away from the fray and to leave resolution of the matter up to the workings of a social system that seeks to reduce even complex legal issues to primitive partisan political sentiment. I should state that I have heard or read nothing further on the issue so far to alter the view I offered two Sundays ago in the essay “Labour is not a commodity”.

Last Sunday also marked the expiry of proverbial nine days for the wonder of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that a marriage between members of the same sex was lawful in the several jurisdictions to have fretted its fitful “hour” upon the public stage. It should be recalled that this 5-4-majority ruling was a consequence of the court’s treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution that enjoins the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” or denying “to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law”.

Of course, this decision did not comport with the views of those who, for one reason or another, regard such a holding as nothing short of a sinful abomination. Hence, a decision that heralded a further evolution in what might be considered a human right, as some of those that preceded it, was subjected to the postulation of nightmare scenarios of the probable legalisation of paedophilia, polygamy, polyandry and even bestiality as a consequence of the judgment. This reaction is scarcely novel.

Similar sentiments might have been expressed by some elsewhere when it was decided in Brown v Topeka Board of Education that separate educational facilities based on race are inherently unequal; after Roe v Wade that limited the right of the state to regulate abortions; and at the ruling in the far less celebrated Torcaso v Watkins that the states and the Federal Government were not allowed to require any religious test for holding public office. That our local law is identical in these three respects might surprise more a few.

And for those who would call down the wrath of God on the US for this ruling, they must at the same time do so for the people of Ireland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and Uruguay, to name a few, all jurisdictions where this form of marriage is lawful.

In my view, much of the angst is owed to a perception that the ruling serves only to adulterate the sanctity of traditional marriage although, as has been pointedly remarked elsewhere, this might better be preserved locally by prohibiting divorce and criminalizing adultery, phenomena that pose far more deleterious threats to that institution than the unlikely prospect of same-sex marriage between two strangers perhaps ever could.

As I suggested last week, marriage in these parts has always enjoyed a unique existence, one not necessarily consonant with Biblical teachings or of those latter-day apostles who purport to speak for God. From earliest times, it seemed to be viewed among the hoi polloi as an unnecessary and unarguably restrictive indulgence. Much more in vogue then was the visiting relationship that gave rise to the notorious phenomenon of the mother who “fathered” her children. One presumed advance on this was the “live-wid” relationship where the father came home at night although the parties never enjoyed the “benefit of clergy” …or of laity for that matter.

Eventually, these arrangements and their thitherto wrongly so-called, illegitimate, offspring were given legal sanction with very few dissenting voices, if any, at what was, in effect, substantially connived-at fornication. However, my earlier thesis that there are two Barbadoses, the imagined puritan and the actual hedonist, when it comes to traditional standards, especially those pertaining to sexuality, would be further justified in this regard and would have served to sanitise any perception of moral obloquy.

The truth is that the recent ruling is not the first time that the SCOTUS has had to treat with Biblical dogma and the institution of marriage. In the improbably titled Loving v Virginia in 1967, the Court was forced to contend with a lower court opinion that “Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red. And he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with [H]is arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that [H]e did not intend for the races to mix…”

As a result of this assumedly self-evident proposition , Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been validly married nine years previously in the District of Columbia, were convicted of the charge of violating the marriage laws of Virginia that provided “if any white person intermarry with a colored person or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punishable by confinement in the penitentiary for not less(sic) than one nor more than five years”.

In a brief unanimous judgment that would repay reading, the SCOTUS opined that restricting the freedom to marry because of racial classifications violated the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Court gave short shrift to the argument, as it had done earlier in Brown v Topeka Board of Education, that equal application of the statute to blacks and whites was enough to remove the classifications from the Amendment’s proscription of all invidious racial discriminations.

There are obvious differences between the Loving case and the recent ruling on same sex marriage. For one, the selected Biblical passage prayed (no pun) in aid in the latter case, that “man should not lie with man as with a woman” is textual rather than ascribed as with the patently inaccurate thesis on separation of the races. For another, the Lovings were capable of procreation unlike a same-sex couple. Yet both of these considerations; the former because of its lack of bindingness in a secular constitutional polity as opposed to in a theocracy, the latter because of its treatment of what is merely one incident of the marital relationship as the sole key to the essential validity of that union, are inadequate to nullify the arguments of the US Supreme Court.

The truth is that marriage is not merely a religious institution, but is also a civil contractual arrangement that confers and imposes certain express and implied rights and obligations that are legally enforceable on either party. Indeed, even these incidents themselves, as many other precepts, have undergone fundamental change over the years in keeping with the evolution of the human perception of justice.


  • it good that this should happen for the word tell us as it was in the days of lot so it will be when the son of man will be revealed. The passing of the law that allows and legalizes the action of the people as it was in the days of lot.


  • The missing piece of the theological and legal commess is the continued criminalization of sodomy/buggery. SCOTUS and the other countries dealt with this before the marraige matter. We will continue to ignore male on male congress between consenting adults as long as we insist that discrimination is a human right fixed in our social DNA.


  • I do believe that man is at liberty to choose as he wishes, so long as his choice or choices falls within the confines of sound human laws. Now, if there is suppose to be a high wall of separation between Church and State, why is it then that the State insist upon legislating the sexual affairs of two consenting individuals, by employing the instrument of religious morality as a basis to invalidate such relationship?


  • Separation of church and State specifically means that the state cannot imposed its will on matters that are under the laws and guidelines of religious teaching, The supreme did not take away such a Right from the Church in its ruling. The Supreme however did take away the right of the Church from imposing its religious doctrines in any way that would deny an individual the basic Equal Right of liberty and the pursuit of Happiness That is a guarantee Law within the Constitution of the USA for everyone.The church must acknowledge that a denial or using religious doctrines to stifle individuals Equal rights is not written in the Constituiton or was given any legal weight within the frame work of the USA Constitution upon which the church can use or stand to suppress individual rights.


  • The Alabama Supreme Court is being urged to consider the damage done to states and the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent creation of “same-sex marriage” before it determines how the ruling applies in the state.

    Liberty Counsel, in a brief on behalf of several family groups, contends there are four significant injuries occurring.

    And the brief argues there is precedent in the U.S. for a state Supreme Court to reject a “U.S. Supreme Court mandate which is unlawful.”

    Alabama has been a flashpoint for the marriage fight. When a federal judge ordered the state to impose same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court refused, arguing it’s own interpretation of the Constitution was just as valid.

    When the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority that included two justices who essentially had publicly lobbied for same-sex marriage by performing ceremonies while the court reviewed the case, legalized same-sex marriage, the Alabama court said it would accept arguments and motions for disposition of the cases in the state.

    “There is existing precedent for a state’s highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman, Mat Staver. “The hope of our constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government.

    Curious about who’s responsible for the sabotage against the American family? Get “Takedown,” by Paul Kengor for the details.

    “A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen,” he said.

    The brief submitted by Liberty Counsel to the state court notes that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Dred Scott, which “said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens.”

    The brief also argues for the state court to protect religious liberty there. It seeks protections for the constitutional rights of Alabama probate judges, some of whom have declined to issue any marriage licenses during the fight, and Christian business owners.

    In other states, such as Oregon and Colorado, Christians have been prosecuted for holding fast to their Christian beliefs.

    “Never before in America has a religious requirement been required to hold office or own a business, and it cannot begin now,” Staver said. “To require Christians to pull out pages of their Bible in order to hold office or own a business is anti-American and it is unconstitutional, despite what any judge may say otherwise.”

    The brief notes that in his dissent from the marriage opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas warned, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our nation has long sought to protect.”

    And, it states, “Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: ‘[For] those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. … Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.’”

    Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine … robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

    The brief explains the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision “is an assault on the rule of law … on Alabamian and American democracy … on natural law … on the constitutional right of free exercise of religion.”

    “The willful act of the five lawyers in the majority is particularly egregious in light of what the same majority said only two years ago,” Liberty Counsel noted.

    There, the Washington court said: “The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the state’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests and the enforcement of marital responsibilities. The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce and the Constitution delegated no authority to the government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

    The brief said that as the court stated, the one man, one woman characteristic of marriage is “immutable.”

    The family is the fundamental unit of society, the brief explains.

    In the Wisconsin case, the brief explains that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state Supreme Court, “in a final act of defiance,” the state court “never filed the mandates” which required people to return “fugitive slaves” to their owners.

    At that time, the Wisconsin court opined, “I believe most sincerely and solemnly that the last hope of free, representative and responsible government rests upon the state sovereignties and fidelity of state officers to their double allegiance, to the state and federal government; and so believe, I cannot hesitate in performing a clear, an indispensable duty.”

    The court also declared the federal law unconstitutional.

    The Wisconsin court said, “Here is a distinct recognition of the power and duty of state judges, not to be bound by all the acts of Congress, or by the judgments and decrees of the supreme federal court, or by their interpretation of the constitution and acts of congress, but by ‘this constitution’ ‘and the laws made in pursuance thereof.’”

    Simply put, they found, a Supreme Court opinion that wasn’t founded in the Constitution was not a judgment.

    “In the nearly 157 years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s purported reversal of [the state cases], the Wisconsin Supreme Court has never filed or accepted the U.S. Supreme Court mandates.”

    The brief also urges the state court to ensure that officials are allowed to exercise their religious rights, including rejecting same-sex marriage.

    To do otherwise is a violation of the First Amendment and Religious Test Clause of the Constitution, it argued.


  • AC

    The State in the past has actually imposed its will on matters (as you so eloquently articulated) that are under the laws and guidelines of religious teaching. Because prior to 1960 virtually most if not all of the states within the United States of America, sex between two men as well as two women was viewed as illegal because such practice were thought to have violated the laws of God and that of Nature. So one has to ask his or her self: what was the force behind such laws in the 1960 with respect to same-sex-relationships? And was the American Constitution silent with respect to the basic Equal Rights of Liberty and pursuit of Happiness regarding same-sex-relationships?


  • @ Jeff
    Why not just focus on Legal areas where your understanding is outstanding and well grounded, and leave the spiritual matters to those who actually understand them?
    Don’t forget that even Bolt, the very best 100 metre athlete ever, could be a complete embarrassment if he entered himself in the high jump.
    Two simple points.

    There are three basic classes of ‘Laws’.
    1 – ‘Laws’ made by man.
    2 – Physical Laws of Nature.
    3 – Spiritual Laws of God.

    The laws of Nature are fully subject to; and in total synergy with, the laws of God.
    The Laws of Man simply represent our best attempts to create a society that is synergetic with the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of God.

    Obviously, man’s success in this regard only represent the extent to which we understand the physical and spiritual realities. So if there is a SPIRITUAL law that says that the institution of marriage is specially sanctified and is representative of a very special SPIRITUAL concept, …and if in nature we see large-scale adherence to this spiritual decree… How does the logic of mere humans determine otherwise?
    …and with what consequences?

    Second point…
    Ignorance of spiritual laws is no excuse.
    A simple review of past experiences where ‘intellectuals’ and ‘forward-thinkers’ justified such desecrations of spiritual laws (that they did not understand) should in itself be enough to warn of the inevitable consequences of this societal acceptance of the desecration of marriage.
    You probably have NO IDEA of what the hell goes on in the Bermuda triangle…but based on past history, Bushie would wager that it would NOT be a preferred route for you if you had the choice…

    …a word to the wise is sufficient.


  • Zoe

    There was a clause in the United State Constition called Imposition. That is where the state could have litigate against the federal government if it thought that the federal government had implemented a law which the state viewed illegal. But the imposition clause has since been abandoned after Reconstruction.


  • Question to YOU Dompey, Does the church have the right to imposed Religious doctrine on State Law ?


  • However the State does have a right a Constitutional Right to barred anyone including the Church from taking away a guaranteed right to the people, The supreme Court in its wisdom UNDER SCORE EQUALITY as a Supreme law justifiable crucial and important to individual well being and took Equality to the highest level of its interpretation (even) excluding moral persuasion on the grounds that religious doctrine is persuasive enough to deny anyone EQUALITY.A Good ruling which should be applauded .


  • Zoe

    Can you cite specifically where this precedent in the U.S. for a state supreme court to reject a U.S. Supreme Court mandate which it deems unlawful? Zoe, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is binding because it is the highest law in the land and the final legal arbiter on a specific grievance. And what you have stated regarding the state supreme court deeming a mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court unlawful, does even make sense from a legal standpiont. Because if a law has already been implemented you can only challenge that law through the appellate process and not by way of the state supreme court.


  • @Bush Tea

    There is not wiggle room in your rebuttal of Jeff’s article for the secular? We do live in a secular work right?


  • AC

    There is a Free Exercise Clause in the United States Constitution which prevents any religious body and not mainly the Christain Church from imposing its religious doctrine on the state.


  • Zoe July 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM #
    The Alabama Supreme Court is being urged to consider the damage done to states and the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent creation of “same-sex marriage” before it determines how the ruling applies in the state
    Liberty Counsel, in a brief on behalf of several family groups, contends there are four significant injuries occurring.
    And the brief argues there is precedent in the U.S. for a state Supreme Court to reject a “U.S. Supreme Court mandate which is unlawful.”


    What ever the Liberty Counsel argues, Counsel must bring Significant and sufficient legal proof recognizable enough and persuasive enough to show that homosexual couples have rights and privileges equal and one of the the same to those rights as heterosexual marriages by law. Notice the most imperative action which subjects homosexual couples to Equal rights under law and one that is crucial to the pursuit of happiness with an obligation to each other is marriage . which then begs the question how can homosexual couples pursue happiness and obtain the same equality as defined by law as heterosexual without marriage ,


  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    Are you suggesting that we should become a theocracy, Mr Bush Tea? Just asking, mind you. You know that you will have to effect this according to current constitutional and electoral law, don’t you?

    And what are these “inevitable consequences of the societal acceptance of the desecration of marriage”, as you so elegantly put it? Hellfire and brimstone?


  • @ Dompey
    Clearly the Church does not want to understand such ruling but insist on trampling on individual rights against a backdrop of religious teaching which the supreme court resoundingly said NO, Also the SUPREME told the church once again in no Uncertain terms that it has no right or privilege of law to upsurge or undo or tweek any one rights to suffice its religious doctrine,
    Yes indeed the church has a moral right to speak out against those unethical practices that will impact negatively on society and rightfully so, However there is also a BOLD line of Equality that is necessary and equally as right to oppose when the church seeks the need and the permission of the State To stand on Holy Ground and trampled on the rights of any individual or group.


  • A country that imposes religious/ spiritual laws on its peoples will be a country always in turmoil. Spiritual law should be practiced PRIVATELY by those who believe in it and not be imposed on those who choose not to believe. Why can’t this old JA called Bushtea and others understand this???? What you feel about your God is not necessarily shared by others! Your ancestors had their enslaver’s God beaten into them and followers like YOU can’t see that BEATING religious beliefs into people doesn’t work. Look at how it has destroyed the Black man and taught him to hate himself! People are seeing what religion and the Bible is all about. Man made God and wrote the bible, man made marriage. Wars start because countries try imposing their beliefs on those who refuse to buy into it religious or otherwise.. There should always be a separation of Church and State.


  • Jeff Cumberbatch July 12, 2015 at 9:37 AM #…..Thank you and well said!

    The problem with these religious Zealots is that they believe that everyone MUST drink from the same cup with them to become intoxicated with their mumbo jumbo belief system in order for things to work.

    Bush tea is a confused old geyser who believes he has been sent by his God to minister to all on BU.


  • The 1st Amendment of the United States Constition reads: Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And what that simply means is that the federal, state and muncipical governments cannot implement any law regarding religion which forces it citizenry to worship in a specific manner. But even though Congress is instructed by the Constitution to reframing from instituting any law regarding religion. The Congress can still implement laws with respect to the application of such religion. For example: in the religion of Satanism, the Congess can implement a law or laws regarding human and animal sacrifices which in time gone by have been part and parcel of the religion of Satanism.


  • Bush Tea July 12, 2015 at 8:33 AM #

    Ignorance of spiritual laws is no excuse.


    which brings into focus those Spirituals Laws which were nonnegotiable and irrefutable written on a template of religious doctrine by scribes and pharisees teachers and believers of law who believe the best interest of the people was being served on doctrines to suppress and frightened in the name of God and yes deputy dawg there are many which have been cast aside and place among the annals of ignorance and suppression.think on those things


  • Just imagine …The Donkey and The AC are having a conversation! ROTFL! AC and the Donkey suffer from insomnia so they might be sleep talking!


  • Bush Tea
    Your first paragraph knocked the ball out of the park.


  • @ David
    We do live in a secular world right?
    What secular world is that?
    Boss…at some point we need to take an intelligent approach to the REALITIES of life on earth. We will always have those – like AC and Dompey – who, like primary-school-level ignoramuses that they are, continue to make fools of themselves trying to discuss thing that are way above their pay-grade, IQ and imagination….”they know not that they know not”

    BUT the FACT is that this “secular’ life has been conceptualised FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. It was designed such that we CAN, INDEED …do as we wish…
    However the expectation is that we would be intelligent and wise enough to seek to do those things that ENHANCE our chances of success – both in terms of day-to-day happiness, economic progress, educational development and social harmony….and ultimately…that we would come to understand and embrace the even HIGHER aspects of having been lucky enough to have been born to experience ‘life on Earth’.

    Cuh Dear….
    every shiite that we have been doing so far have been disastrous….
    There is NO happiness… just more and more war…
    There is no economic progress…every body broke…
    There is no peace..
    …and there sure as hell is no social harmony…

    Mean it ain’t OBVIOUS that we are doing some shiite wrong…?
    …and when the ACs and the Dompeys not only dominate the conversation…but are actually the personalities RUNNING THINGS in government and other places….
    Well boss…YOU KNOW…the damn dog dead.

    This is NO SECULAR WORLD…..a bunch of dumb jackasses have promoted this fallacy now for centuries…. This world is a CRITICAL part of an elaborate SPIRITUAL exercise that required a temporary physical phase for the development and germination of a VERY special ingredient called “RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER” that could not have been created in any other manner….

    shiite man David…perspective…perspective…
    We are specks on a damn rock spinning wildly in space at unbelievable velocities among unknown billions of other entities spinning wildly in space….
    Our lives hang on a balance of millions of critical cycles and interdependencies – failure of ANY ONE of which will mean an end of life as we know it….

    This ‘life’ is clearly no end in itself – but a carefully designed and put together ‘MEANS to an END’ …and to ignore the ultimate raison d’être and focus on seeking a ‘logical purpose’ of living a few years on a damn rock flying through space…. is THAT not madness?? 🙂

    @ Jeff
    Are you suggesting that we should become a theocracy…
    Of course not… just that we think BEYOND the AC level…


  • The 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that those rights not granted to the Federal government are withheld by the States. Federal Law, through the Doctrine of Preemption, can trump State law, but only in those areas already granted to the Federal government.The question of whether the States intended to grant the Federal government authority over marriage is arguable? What is to be regretted is that this most recent decision is compared to Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 9-0 and Loving v Virginia 9-0. Unlike those unanimous decisions, the majority vote on this divided court 5-4 was provided by a justice, who it might be argued should have recused herself because of the obvious bias. Why is it that a single black robed lawyer in Washington DC can provide a vote to impose her legal/moral? beliefs on the population of the United States. But robed (of whatever color) clerics, pastors speaking in defence of moral precepts, are shouted down in the town square (media) by a vociferous and perhaps biased and self serving minority.


  • Bushie CALM DOWN you all over the place. The minute any country starts mixing state business with religion we will have failure. “This is NO SECULAR WORLD…..a bunch of dumb jackasses have promoted this fallacy now for centuries….” Can you name the Theocracies that have worked? Yet you claim that you don’t want one. MAKE UP YUH MIND MAN! How come countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark Canada are working for its citizens??? The minute any Religious dogma gets involved it RUINS EVERYTHING! Can’t you see that Religion appeals to the insane? And that the insane are prepared to go to war for their insanity??? Religion appeals to the weak minded and there are weak minded people in this world. Has your Perfect God ever solved the world’s problems??? Stop fooling yourself. It will NEVER ! Religious domination and Political domination create havoc for mankind. Time to take another route.

    Man go lie down and sip some of the Mrs’ Bush tea.


  • Printer’s devil – 10th Amendment.


  • Donald

    What do you mean by whether the states intended to grand the federal government the authority over same sex marriage? Did the Southern states desired to grant blacks the right to vote? Of course not, but the Supreme Court stepped in on the prompting from the federal government and granted blacks that right through the Civil War Amendments of the 1860’s.


  • Donald, what a lot of unlettered persons of the American Constitution do not know is that prior to the Civil War Amendments of the 1860’s and the Women Suffrage Movement of the 1920, blacks as well as women voted on the local level in the few of the liberal states up North. So Donald, the rights of women and blacks to the suffrage as was the same sex marriage couples were all state level issues until they all became issues of national importance which required a federal resolution.


  • Donald, states such a South Carolina passed laws barring blacks from enter into that state. But the 14th Amendments brought a stop to those unjust laws. The Amendment reads: and this is coming from my personal memory bank: all persons born and naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein their reside. (Here is the most important part of this amendment) No state shall make or enforce any law( paid close attention to this absolute in this amendment) which would abridged the Previleges or Immunities of a citizen of the United States. That Amendment brought an end to South Carolina injunction against blacks enter into that state, as this new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court intend to do for same sex marriage.


  • @ Bush Tea July 12, 2015 at 8:33 AM #
    There are three basic classes of ‘Laws’.
    1 – ‘Laws’ made by man.
    2 – Physical Laws of Nature.
    3 – Spiritual Laws of God.

    No problem with the first two but who exactly is laying down the “Spiritual Laws of God.” My God, your God? What if I don’t have a God? What if I am an atheist. You want to impose your God’s Spiritual laws on me and others. Is he talking directly to you and others? Is it from the Bible?

    And I say all of the above with all due respect to you and your views.


  • “…but who exactly is laying down the “Spiritual Laws of God…”
    Excellent question Nostradamus….but a VERY simple and obvious answer…

    Clearly not ‘Your God’…
    Definitely NOT “Bushie’s” God…
    …and most definitively NOT whatever those who “don’t have a God”…have…


    First thing is that Bushie DON’T have a God…. just a big-ass whacker..
    Not sure what ‘God’ you have, but if it is one of those things in a Genie Bottle PLEASE keep it away from the whacker – it may get hurt… LOL

    Nostra D,
    People have their own ‘GOD’ in much the same way that we have our own Gravity.
    We don’t HAVE any God…. God HAVE us…. we are “the sheep of his pasture” just like we are totally and involuntarily subjected to gravity, and to the need for oxygen, and the need for sunlight.
    It matters NOT what specific BELIEF you or Bushie may hold… Just like, before the concept of gravity was understood, different ‘beliefs’ as to its existence, origin, impact and effect were just that…MEANINGLESS BELIEFS. GRAVITY IS GRAVITY. GOD IS GOD.

    Those who choose ‘not to believe’; those who choose to believe shiite; those who believe Bushie; those who believe Jesus; those who believe Mohammed; those who believe AC…. are all sheep in the same pasture; and whose ‘beliefs’ are about as impactful as are those of Lowdown Hoad’s goats in influencing the overall aims and objectives of Lowdown’s business plan….

    Same thing Boss…
    … a goat named AC may feel aggrieved that Lowdown extracts milk every damn day for sale to Caswell…and kills a billy goat every now and again for stew…
    Lotta difference THAT attitude makes to the scheme of things…LOL

    If on the other hand, it was possible for some goats to come to an understanding of Hoad’s GRAND PLAN, and this plan provided opportunities for wise goats to be transformed to a different level of existence…..wuh shiite skippa…. then this creates a whole new ball game – don’t you think…? 🙂


  • @ Deputy Dawg alias bush sh,it .Why don’t you “get it” through Your thick watermelon head that ,individual Right of the land supersedes spiritual rights of an individual Furthermore given that there are differing religious sects with differing religious laws within the USA it would only make sense to Have One law written within the Constitution to protect everyone Individual Right.
    A society without proper governance to pull back or harness is a society headed for danger, The Fact being that the Supreme Court stood once again and block the influence of the Church’s decision to impede! or to harness an individual human rights which would have caused a negative rippling and cascading effect as the Church relied on its new found authority to repeal or overthrow those cases proteced under the Equal Rights Act e, g abortion or even divorce laws.Unless one is a Neanderthal living in antiquated times one would not understand the ruling a ruling of checks and balances that keeps society protected and removes power from those who if given would takes society back to the days when the power of the church dictated with an iron fist.


  • @Bush Tea

    Your point is understood by many. The challenge perhaps is the fact individual spirituality is located in different relms and therefore there will always be difference in individual perspective. This translates to tension on the collective. Perhaps it is the crucible thrown up by life experience we have to tolerate until BBE intervenes :-).


  • Bush Tea

    I don’t know where or when Bushie attended university because it becomes crystal clear that he hasn’t taken philosophy, for had he wouldn’t he have known of the theologian Thomas Aquinas Hierarchy of Laws? Aquinas, indentifies four such categories of laws and not three as Bushie fatally assumed. He wrote extensively on the:
    1) Eternal law
    2) Natural law
    3) Human law
    4) Divine law.


  • @Bush Tea

    Bushie boy, to argue religion, is to argue from a standpoint of ignorance because there no possible proof but via the metaphysical medium to validate the existence of God. So what Christians like you and me do? Well, we argue from the standpoint of morality of the New Testament as a basis to lend credence or affirmation to the existence of God; Bushie boy, it is the morality of the New Testament that the theist finds his or her true validity and the legitimacy, but beyond that the true proof of the Christain religion and all that it stand to represents falls flat under the weight of empirical scrutiny.


  • What so moral about a parent stoning the child to death if the child is homosexual
    That was an established and practiced law in the BIBLE,


  • Bush Tea

    There is an argument out there in the atheist camp which calls for God the miracle worker to reattach an amputee missing limb or limbs. The claim is that we haven’t read or heard of instances in former times, or in our present time where a preacher prayed to the Living God for the reattachment of an amputee limb or limbs.


  • AC

    I have never heard neither have I read of parents stoning their own children because their happened to be homosexuals. I have read the Old Testament, as well as the New testament vehement objection against the practice of sodomy.


  • AC

    Prior to the Leviticus Laws and Ten Commandments sodomy was morally acceptable. It was even morally acceptable to married your haft sister on the father side of the family; Abraham married his haft sister Sarah before it was a sin to do so.


  • The Federal Courts in United States as a matter of jurisdiction are restricted to “federal” questions of law. Citizenship and rights of the citizens of the United States extended/reconfirmed? by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were obviously federal legislative action. The federal question here in the homosexual group of cases, Obergefell v Hodges, is does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment REQUIRE a state to license a marriage between 2 people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of State. The overreach in this 5-4 decision is already drawing legislative, administrative and judicial pushback as compared with the commanding 9-0 decision in Loving v Virginia.


  • Donald

    Any denial of civil rights and civil liberties is matter of federal concern one would think. So therefore, if the state of Connecticut for example, validate the same sex marriage and the state of New York invalidate such union, isn’t that a denial of either the human-rights, civil-rights or the civil-liberties?


  • look dompey the bible explicity states in the old testament that if a man lies with another man

    If a man lie also with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,…. Is guilty of the sin of sodomy, this is a breach of the law in Leviticus 18:22,

    both of them have committed an abomination; he that lies, and he that is lain with, both consenting to perpetrate the abominable wickedness; which may well be called an abomination, being contrary to nature, and more than brutish, for nothing of that kind is to be found among brutes:

    they shall surely be put to death; if he that is lain with is not forced their blood shall be upon them and be slain by stoning.


  • Donald

    Do you remember when the free slave Dred Scott petition the Supreme Court for his citizenship, and the court ruled that the free-slave was mere property specified by eleven clauses in the American Constitution? So even though Scott,s petition met the federal criterion, Chief Justice Taney ruled that Dred Scott was less than human and that the Constitution viewed Scott as property.


  • St George's Dragon

    There is of course only one real religion, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All others worship false gods:


  • AC

    But where does the Bible speaks of stoning children for sodomy? Wasn’t that your original question to me AC? I know of the Leviticus laws regarding sodomy, but no way in those laws does it speaks of stoning kids which was your original question, and of which I replied that I never heard neither have I read of any such thing in the Bible.


  • AC
    It also must be noted AC that those Leviticus laws were written specifically for the Nation of Israel, and their therefore, had little or no bearing on the hedonistic nations around and about the Nation of Israel. Question: before the Leviticut laws and the Ten Commandments, what was God position as well as the Nation of Israel on homosexuality?


  • AC

    We know that God in all His divinity and royality required from man a divine standard of morality. But prior to the written Word how did Abraham, Moses and Aaron conveyed these divine precepts to the people, and what had they all taught the Nation of Israel regarding homosexuality prior to the Leviticus codes and the Ten Commandments?


  • dompey the punishment of death in the bible was done by stoning
    there is law that gave parents the consent to have their children to be . i will however give way to the specification as to whether it was prescribed to sodomy, however the permission of parents having their children stoned for acts which laws deemed immoral was permitted

    Deuteronomy 21:18–21 expands on the law:

    If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it

    however i believe that the act of permission also places the guilt on those who gave the permission.
    good nite Dompey,


  • @Jeff Cumberbatch “the angst is owed to a perception that the ruling serves only to adulterate the sanctity of traditional marriage”

    In truth traditional marriage is adulterated. PRINCIPALLY by the adulterous parties within the traditional marriages.


  • @Jeff Cumberbatch “the parties never enjoyed the “benefit of clergy…or of laity for that matter.”

    Long, long, long before the laity [that is the state]or the clergy [that is the church] ever existed men and women have been getting it together [and men and men too, and women and women]


  • @Jeff Cumberbatch “illegitimate, offspring”

    I can trust neither a church nor a state which spent hundreds of years telling men that their children were illegitimate. This was ALWAYS A BIG LIE and was done to protect the greed and crass financial interests of men.

    There was never anything good or moral truthful about the LEGAL LIE that some children were “bastards/illegitimate/the children of no man”.

    It was always about keeping money, money money in certain men’s pants…those very same men who could not keep their penises in their pants.


  • @”The truth is that marriage is not merely a religious institution, but is also a civil contractual arrangement”

    Marriage has existed as a biological imperative [the facts of life ] long before the church and state jumped in the ling and almost mash up a good spree.


  • AC

    These were some of the laws given to the Nation of Israel in its beginning, but when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments at Sinai He thereby established a better moral standard of conduct for the Nation of Israel. The passage of scripture that you’re referring was prior to the Ten Commandments AC, but I might well be wrong on this account.


  • AC

    One has also to ask his or her self: were these seemingly cruel laws dispensed by the all moral, loving and upright God, or were their a reaction to the ill-defeating conduct of the Nation of Israel?


  • Sunshine Sunny Shine

    @ Bush Tea

    You took the subject to whole new different sphere. Spirutually has its grounding in the intricate thinking of man’s perceived concept of things spirtual. It is an intrinsic element that man is yet to understand but he thinks he does base on a biblical declaration that says ”if the same spirit that raise christ from the dead dwells in you then it should quicken your mortal bodies towards expressions of the supernatural. So God is always the concept of some ole geezer message passed down throughout the histories to perpetuate recurrent beliefs. So God is really a belief but understanding the spirtuality God remains an enigma to man.


  • @”The truth is that marriage is not merely a religious institution, but is also a civil contractual arrangement’

    Your speculative view might well be true but the fact remains that the bible of the English language in which we believe and express our thoughts and is a cornerstone of life and which Jeff would have used as guide from primary school till now defines marriage as a ‘ legal union between a man and a woman’ . When that definition is changed to a legal union between two men or two women I would change my view about same sex marriage.
    I am not going to be caught up in any speculative religious debate about the concept of marriage because all have sinned—


  • Yes Balance note Your word ,(.The BIBLE) OF ENGLISH BIBLE defines legal Union between man and woman.
    Except that the State does not/or should not ‘or cannot be govern or be subjected to the laws of the Bible under the law which is written in the Constitution that being one of separation of state and church,.Therefore the State can rightfully and has the legal power to refer on its own bible (Constitutation) to defines marriage in the legal term whereby it incorporates or included the equal rights of an individual or group.
    Those who are opposing the law of the same sex marriage is avoiding the most important part of the legislation which is crucial to everyone that of Equal Rights and would prefer to object even when there rights are also being protected.


  • Dompey the passage of scripture is dealing with law, whether before or after it really does not part, My point being such laws were adopted and used as punishment.which then brings the matter closer to home one of laws that were standard and accepted practices in the bible and were eventually changed for the good of humanity .


  • @ Brother Bush

    This topic is one which after a while becomes a fight with (a) those who are so inclined because of their sexual preferences (b) those who have been involved in their youth but put away that behaviour in their old age (because they want to drink soup or are tired of wearing panties 3 sizes bigger to accommodate the labia) (c) those who genuinely? believe that it is a right and (4) the atheists.

    For some of us it is an immutable position based on an indoctrination that has made us aware by our internal communion (which some call funny feeling that wunna christians does get) and a conviction WHICH CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED.

    “15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods;”

    If I was bulling or being bult or I was rubbing my labia on another labia last night I may have some problems with accepting what is espoused in Joshua’s pronouncements.

    If however I am not a hedonist who in Caligulaian style or that attributed to Czarina Alexandra or Catherine but someone whose genes predispose me to like my own sex, then what obtained before this changing of the Law in Babylon the Great would seem to doom me to a life lived on the outskirts of “normalcy” especially when such norm condemned me for something that I am not supposed to not have any control over.

    It is the one thing that, while I do not “openly” support, de ole man has, with time, become more “accommodating” of, note that I did not say “tolerant” more so because within the extended family there are those who, while not conforming to this our “indoctrination”, have become respected, and even “loved”, in the filial way.

    Another 100 years and what happens?

    We who abhor the thought of a doggie in our nether regions might be Sir Elton’s of Bulbados, gay as the wind, and knighted for our “artistry” notwithstanding our “aberrations”

    These are human states which you being armed in your conviction, nourished by your daily communion with GOG, HE WHO CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY PROVEN by the Philistines, can remain confident that “.. in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven…”

    This too shall pass…


  • Sunshine Sunny Shine

    @ My sweet piece

    Too love when you espound. Turns me on sweety. How things wid you hon?


  • @ Pieceuhderock….
    Shiite man!!
    ..after that exposition, Bushie needs to get the whacker serviced…. 🙂


  • ” When ever I think of religion, it amazes me at the serious lack of common sense, logical and critical thinking as well as cognitive dissonance necessary to believe it.”


  • Speaking Truth to Power IS* not hate speech!

    Facts become credible FACTS, when there are warranted to the relevant degree of certainty!

    These facts re the Homosexual agenda, in all areas of their thrust, is to DESTROY the ancient, traditional family unit of Father and Mother, upon which historically, all stable societies flourished, UNTIL, they deviated from our Creators mandate for only Man/Woman, monogamous unions!


  • “To say of what IS* that it IS*, or of what it is NOT* that it is NOT* is TRUE.”
    (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1077b 26) Emphasis added.


  • @ All

    A freudian slip, I meant GOD not gog.

    @ Sunshine Sunny Shine (Suzanne? I am still searching for the other clues all these months later)

    I am still here battling the good fight cognisant that when it ends, as it must, i will be aphid food.

    How have you been? We have not spoken for a while but I have seen you hailing my Brother in the Spirit Bush Tea on one occasion with a little too much affection for my liking but that is okay, I forgive him his encroachment because his other Bush Wacking here is supreme…

    I hope that your Dad is not doing too much exploring in the Alps etc., because they have recently been having some landslides and earthquakes. Might I advise sticking to those pretend cliff walls at Disney World etc.

    @ Brother Bush Tea

    You are one of a kind, standing alone in the Pass, rumbling with Cerebus, the Donkey and its faithful twin whose name I shall not mention lest they curse me…AGAIN.

    Brother Bush, sorry do not think that I am likening you to that idiot George W, but <and so that what I am writing here is only visible to you, I am using the <>

    <<Now doan get de ole man wrong, I am told by avowed fellows of that persuasion that unlessing you have taken more than 10 doggies, you is not really a homo so…”>>



    When you is going to respond please do not forget to use de << >>


  • The U S A constitution although framed within jeadeau christain teachings separates in principle and intreprets religious doctrines on moral values that are more humanistic and without prejudice


  • Piece

    Question: Why should you me or any ruling power be allow to dictate the terms of how two sound minded and coherently thinking individuals of the same gender, ought or ought not love? The late Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Marshall, ( I am quite sure you have read plenty of his rulings on the court)? Wrote without mincing words when he said that: “Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men minds.” The entire Christian faith I would say, rebels at the notion of control men minds as well because the entire Christian faith is grounded on the principle of freewill and self-determination.


  • @ pieceuhderock
    You are one of a kind, standing alone in the Pass, rumbling with Cerebus, the Donkey and its faithful twin
    What standing alone in what Pass what….!!?? 🙂
    Bushie just here breezing and watching the exponents of “knowing not, and knowing not that they know not…” display their folly…

    Bushie was wondering about the constant braying but then we recalled that Dompey and AC are together again…
    ..No doubt yet another mule will result from this liaison….


  • AC

    How is it that the U.S. Constitution is framed around the Judaeo Christian Ethics, when the Framers of the Constitution specifically instructed the Congress not to make any law respecting and establishment of religion. Actually many of the ideas sought for by the Framers came from the Pagan philosospher Aristotle, and the two British empiricist philosophers John Locke and Jeremy Bentham.


  • Bush Tea

    No one can argue that he and he alone has the truth. Who can lay claim to such an elusive endeavour? Certainly, a man with your limited intelligence ought to still know that we all see the truth from different angles of vision. So therefore, the limited scope of your understanding prevents you from understanding that you’re actually sitting back enveloped in your own folly.


  • Dompey reread again with an understanding of the Farmers “intent ” which was one to deny the state to exercise laws or write laws which would prohibit the right of any one establishing or engaging in any practice of religion…. a constitutional right which is known as the Bill of rights which was an amendment to the USA constitutions, two years later


  • AC

    I took American Government quite a few years ago and have what I think is a pretty good understanding of the American government. The Ten Amendments to the American Constitution are called Individuals Rights which Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in writing most of them and of which the original Constitution did have. But more importantly, there is a historical understanding as to why the Framers placed within the Constitution the Free-Exercise-Clause. And the motivation behind the Free-Exercise -clause started in the 13 colonies a 150 years before the formation of the United States and the ratification of the Constitution.


  • AC

    Someone said long ago that if you want to understand an organization you have to study its laws. The same can be said for the United States of America because if you want to understand the motivation behind Constitution, you first have to study the history of the 13 colonies which I have done long ago.


  • I think one of the fundamental drawbacks of the American Constitution is its adherence to absolute laws which time has antiquated. For example: the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment has proven with time to be a national nightmare, and yet originalist still insist on its literal interpretation.


  • Sodom and Gomorrah

       Recently, on the History Channel, was aired another video in the "Histories Mysteries" series titled "Sodom and Gomorrah." The video features the ancient Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and presents information from skeptics who doubt the Bible's accuracy concerning what led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  One of the main skeptics, Dr. Carole Fontaine, a feminist theologian and faculty director at Andover Newton Theological School, states...

    “We sometimes find when we look at Bible stories that people think they know what they say. When we look more closely we sometimes find that the text is ambivalent.”

    Ambivalent? According to Dr. Fontaine, the greatest sin of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been their lack of hospitality towards guests visiting their city, and not sexual deviance (never mind the mob of queers about to break down lot’s front door and rape the guests – Genesis 19:4-9). Unbelievably, Fontaine claims that homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah may not have been the sin which brought God’s judgment.

    God Destroyed Sodom Because of Fornication and Homosexuality

    However, miss Fontaine needs to look at the entire Word of God, not just Genesis. The Bible plainly states in the New Testament, in Jude 1:7…

    “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (Greek: different, other) flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    I don’t see any mention of “hospitality” miss Fontaine, but I do see “fornication” and “going after strange flesh.” The term “going after strange flesh” is explained to us in Proverbs 7:5 and Romans 1:26-27…

    “That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.”

    “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    “Going after strange flesh” in the Bible is not necessarily homosexuality, as we are warned about the “strange” adulterous woman in Proverb 5:20; 7:5; but, the context of Jude 1:7 clearly implies homosexuality. “Going after strange flesh” means going after flesh “different” than what is rightfully ours to claim (our spouse’s body -1st Corinthians 7:4). Notice that Jude mentions both “fornication” and “going after strange flesh.”

    Obviously, Sodom’s sins were more than fornication, and certainly more than a “lack of hospitality.” The “strange” flesh simply refers to that which is forbidden by God for us to have, it is flesh outside the bounds of God’s laws; hence, the term “sexual deviance” (to deviate from what is acceptable to God).


  • Marriage as a Covenant.

    The very first description of the nature of marriage in the Bible, as consisting of leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24), reveals the Biblical understanding of marriage as a covenant relationship. This meaning of marriage as a covenant of companionship is expressed more explicitly later in Scripture in such passages as Malachi 2:14: “The Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.”1 Being a sacred covenant, human marriage serves in the Old and New Testaments as the prism through which God reveals His covenant relationship with His people and Christ with His church.

    To appreciate the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant, it is helpful to distinguish between a contract and a covenant. Paul E. Palmer offers a helpful clarification of the difference between the two: “Contracts engage the services of people; covenants engage persons. Contracts are made for a stipulated period of time; covenants are forever. Contracts can be broken, with material loss to the contracting parties; covenants cannot be broken, but if violated, they result in personal loss and broken hearts. . . . Contracts are witnessed by people with the state as guarantor; covenants are witnessed by God with God as guarantor.”2 In light of this understanding of a covenant as a permanent commitment, witnessed and guaranteed by God, let us examine the three components of the marriage covenant mentioned in Genesis 2:24: leaving, cleaving, and becoming one


  • @Zoe July 15, 2015 at 10:00 AM “The very first description of the nature of marriage in the Bible, as consisting of leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24)”

    The one flesh spoken of in Genesis 2:24 is not the matrimonial union.

    That is a serious mis-understanding of the Hebrew Scripture.

    The one flesh is the child that is born from the sexual union between a man and a woman. The child is the LITERAL one flesh of that union.


    Supreme Court had to ignore its own words to reach conclusion
    Published: 12 hours ago



    A well-known pastor says America was “punked” on homosexual “marriage,” and he is trying to rally resistance to the Supreme Court with what he believes is a “smoking gun.”

    Carl Gallups, author of “Final Warning: Understanding the Trumpet Days of Revelation,” argues the Supreme Court ruled only two years ago the right to define marriage belonged exclusively to the states.

    Then suddenly this year the justices found that contention was wrong – that the states did not have that right. Instead, the justices ruled 5-4 that the federal government has the right to redefine marriage – even to the point of throwing out the votes of millions of Americans.

    Gallups says this “nefarious” legal reasoning opens the door for legislative action by the Republican-controlled Congress.

    He said it was the case of United States v. Windsor in 2013 that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.

    There the issue was that the federal law provided that marriage was between a man and a woman, but in New York state, there was a demand to include same-sex duos in that designation. Thus, the Supreme Court threw out the federal law.

    It found “the responsibility of the states for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the state’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people.”

    But now, Gallups notes, the Supreme Court is saying in 2015′s Obergefell v. Hodges case that homosexuals have an inherent “right” to marry and the state does not have the right to determine “domestic relations.”

    Gallups says he finds it odd these same justices apparently didn’t notice this only two years ago.

    Gallups, a former law enforcement officer, told WND, “The U.S. v. Windsor case is evidence to many who are examining the redefinition of marriage in America that there is a potentially nefarious agenda afoot with this entire issue. How can it be that the same five justices, who ruled against DOMA on the basis that the definition of ‘domestic relations’ belonged to the states alone, could just two years later could completely reverse their stance and with the gay marriage ruling declare that the definition of marriage was entirely a federal matter? In a sane world – it cannot be.

    “These five justices declared in the DOMA ruling that to take the definition of marriage out of the states’ hands would be a ‘federal intrusion on state power’ and that it would be, ‘a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.’”

    He said, “The matter is clear. The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, in the words of SCOTUS itself, was unconstitutional and therefore – illegal.”

    Some legal experts agree the Supreme Court is directly contradicting its reasoning from the relatively recent time frame of only two years ago.

    Douglas Wardlow, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told WND the court’s recent imposition of “gay marriage” is “fundamentally lawless, not based on sound reasoning and isn’t good jurisprudence.”

    Wardlow, who possesses a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the bar of the District of Columbia and Minnesota, argues the court was motivated by “the end they wanted to reach and not by sound reasoning.”

    He observes, “The reasoning in the Obergefell decision says the court can determine new standards of liberty to overturn precedent and legal restrictions.”

    The court’s decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, boasts, “Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.”

    Wardlow argues Obergefell was grounded in the supposed constitutional right to express one’s identity and be granted a sense of dignity.

    “Apparently, the court is the body that can define what forms of identity are protected by Constitution,” he said.

    But Wardlow warns the decision goes beyond even just redefining a core institution like marriage. Observing how easily the court was able to contradict its own reasoning in the two years from United States v. Windsor to Obergefell v. Hodges, Wardlow says the court has done nothing less than redefine liberty itself and undermine the rule of law.

    “Liberty is now defined as the expression of identity, instead of liberty meaning freedom from forms of government control. Fundamental liberties are no longer defined by history or the traditions of the nation but are free floating concepts, concepts that the court can assess for itself,” he said.

    Wardlow says such an approach to jurisprudence could prove dangerous.

    “Just think of a fundamental right and the Supreme Court could expand it, redefine it, or shrink it. The reasoning of the decision fundamentally undermines the rule of law because rule of law depends on constancy of the law. Now, it becomes difficult for people to plan their behavior and you move toward a lawless state.”

    Paul Kengor, a professor and author of “Takedown: How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” argues Kennedy’s “commitment to a relativistic, individualistic view of everything from marriage to life to existence to meaning itself ultimately won out.”

    Kengor says Kennedy’s legal reasoning has put almost everything in the law up for grabs, “and that’s no exaggeration.”

    “Really, if you want to understand what Justice Kennedy did in the gay-marriage decision, simply look at his ‘reasoning’ in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that reaffirmed Roe in all 50 states. Kennedy wrote then: ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’”

    He said, “That explains Kennedy’s willingness to redefine marriage. If Anthony Kennedy interprets liberty in America to mean that every American possesses his or her own right to define one’s own singular concept of existence, meaning, the universe, and life itself, then why can’t Americans come up with their definitions of marriage? Really, redefining marriage is small potatoes after all that.”

    Wardlow says the rationale used to impose homosexual marriage “opens the door to a lot of different problems” because now the law seems to state, “whatever you want the world to look like, you can make it look like that.”

    Bemoaning how “a concept ultimately destructive of social order” is now at the heart of constitutional law, Wardlow says the only way the decision is likely to be reversed is with better justices.

    He argues, “It’s even difficult to make arguments to federal courts when the decision isn’t based on logic or reason or precedent, which are things lawyers traditionally use. It appears the governing standards are lawless themselves.”

    Yet Gallups argues the answer is “reining in a runaway federal court through congressional action.”

    He blasts Republican presidential candidates who are unwilling to take action to defend traditional marriage.

    “What is particularly disturbing to many, is that the vast majority of the so-called ‘conservative’ Republican candidates running for president have declared that they would not seek a constitutional amendment to properly define marriage and nullify the SCOTUS decision. Their paraphrased consensus declaration is, ‘The law is the law. SCOTUS has settled the issue.’

    “Hogwash! The SCOTUS also ‘settled’ the issue in Dred Scott, and it also ‘settled’ the issue in Roe v. Wade. Now, years later, we know the horrific consequences of both of these ‘settled law’ cases. To make matters worse, it seems that Congress is not going to intervene in this legal travesty as well. One has to wonder if Congress even knows about the legally inconsistent SCOTUS rulings that took place only two years apart. Where is the mainstream media on this travesty of constitutional law?”



  • Pulpit Commentary

    Verse 24. – Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. There is nothing in the use of such terms as father and mother, or in the fact that the sentiment is prophetic, to prevent the words from being regarded as a continuation of Adam’s speech, although, on the other hand, the statement of Christ (Matthew 19:5) does not preclude the possibility of Moses being their author; but whether uttered by the first husband (Delitzsch, Macdonald) or by the historian (Calvin, Murphy), they must be viewed as an inspired declaration of the law of marriage. Its basis (fundamental reason and predisposing cause) they affirm to be

    (1) the original relationship of man and woman, on the platform of creation; and

    (2) the marriage union effected between the first pair. Its nature they explain to be

    (1) a forsaking (on the part of the woman as well as the man) of father and mother – not filially, in respect of duty, but locally, in respect of habitation, and comparatively, in respect of affection; and

    (2) a cleaving unto his wife, in a conjugium corporis atque animce. Its result is stated in the words which follow: and they shall be one flesh (literally, into one flesh; εἰς σάρκα μίαν, Matthew 19:5, LXX.). The language points to a unity of persons, and not simply to a conjunction of bodies, or a community of interests, or even a reciprocity of affections. Malachi (Malachi 2:15) and Christ (Matthew 19:5) explain this verse as teaching the indissoluble character of marriage and condemning the practice of


  • @ Simple Simon
    Zoe is correct… Please do not encourage him ..least we suffer voluminous references in his support.
    It has nothing to do with children.

    Both Male and female are ‘incomplete’ in themselves by DESIGN.
    Properly brought together, they have the potential to become a WHOLE and COMPLETE unit.

    BTW …this is, in itself, a good reason why an unmarried man (or woman) is NOT a suitable candidate for the highest office in the land…..
    …well, that is if we are interested in good results.


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s