Prop 8 overruled by gay judge! - Page 3

Hoovie · #1 08-04-2010, 07:12 PM

Homosexuals cannot adequately interpret the constitution for Christians.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

geekette · #2 08-04-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Homosexuals cannot adequately interpret the constitution for Christians.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

John Adams also served as President under the U.S. Constitution, which contains, in Article VI, Section 3, the following language:

Quote:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I'm going to take the words of the Constitution as the law of the land over a letter that John Adams wrote in 1798 to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.

I think we head down a very slippery slope when we say we disagree with court decisions because a gay person can't rule for a Christian. Why, someone might say that a woman can't legislate for them, or an African American or a Jew, or a Mormon, or a member of the Assemblies of God...

(It should be noted that Adams was not a signatory to the Constitution.)

Hoovie · #3 08-04-2010, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekette

John Adams also served as President under the U.S. Constitution, which contains, in Article VI, Section 3, the following language:

I'm going to take the words of the Constitution as the law of the land over a letter that John Adams wrote in 1798 to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.

I think we head down a very slippery slope when we say we disagree with court decisions because a gay person can't rule for a Christian. Why, someone might say that a woman can't legislate for them, or an African American or a Jew, or a Mormon, or a member of the Assemblies of God...

(It should be noted that Adams was not a signatory to the Constitution.)

I don't think Adams or I said anything about a "test". I see no conflict in the two statements. He is simply stating that our system won't work for those who do not give place to God.

Politicians are elected by the people. Of course some judges are appointed by the politicians. I would never vote for an openly gay person, nor would I vote for someone who is known to appoint such. Nor anyone who accepts abortion as "birth control".

If others feel that way about Pentecostals or Catholic, then so be it - no problem.

Twisp · #4 08-05-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I don't think Adams or I said anything about a "test". I see no conflict in the two statements. He is simply stating that our system won't work for those who do not give place to God.

Politicians are elected by the people. Of course some judges are appointed by the politicians. I would never vote for an openly gay person, nor would I vote for someone who is known to appoint such. Nor anyone who accepts abortion as "birth control".

If others feel that way about Pentecostals or Catholic, then so be it - no problem.

That quote simply references moral and religious people, it is not exclusive to Christians only. If they are moral and religious according to their own religion, then that quote does not cover them. They are moral, therefore they can interpret the Constitution.

Socialite · #5 08-05-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I don't think Adams or I said anything about a "test". I see no conflict in the two statements. He is simply stating that our system won't work for those who do not give place to God.

Politicians are elected by the people. Of course some judges are appointed by the politicians. I would never vote for an openly gay person, nor would I vote for someone who is known to appoint such. Nor anyone who accepts abortion as "birth control".

If others feel that way about Pentecostals or Catholic, then so be it - no problem.

And again, I'd like to read the full speech to see these words in context.

If they are as they read, I disagree with John Adams! Imagine that!

I respect anyone's choice to vote for whomever they wish -- however, I think it's a little ignorant to say these are incapable of interpreting the Constitution if they aren't believers. And I've also asked you to clarify what it means to "give place to God?" Buddhists count? Muslim? How much of a believer does it take to be able to interpret the law?

Socialite · #6 08-04-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Homosexuals cannot adequately interpret the constitution for Christians.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Let's see the rest of this context. John Adams wasn't the most "religious" people, and that's why I find this quote ironic.

To suggest a human being can't intellectually interpret the Constitution because they are living in a deviant lifestyle separate of the Constitution is as bigoted a statement as it gets.