Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
In my humble opinion one could debate the legal validity upon which this political law itself springs from via justice Kennedy's ode to love for the alphabet communities in his reading of the fourteenth amendment. (John 12:43) Remembering that the time period of these three amendments 14th.-15th.-16th (reconstruction after the civil war) and then the cause for their writing (protect newly freed slaves from Southern Democrats who still denied their rights as citizens). My view is this, that there is a finely calibrated bargain at the heart of our republic; Citizens have a duty to obey the lawful and legitimate mandates of their government, including those with which they disagree. And the government has a solemn duty to the people governed to exercise due diligence, in seeing that all it's actions are LAWFUL and LEGITIMATE. But we're a nation of laws blah, blah or so we're told when the powers that be want us to shut up, but if only the moral will follow the law or are forced to, are we really? I submit that we're way past this nation of laws pretext when local governments declare sanctuary cities or whatever else they desire contrary to the existing statutory law of the land. And then the Federal legal system does little or nothing to correct these assaults against the statutory laws, that is unless of course you be one of those deemed enemies of the state classes, then you will suffer the crushing costs of litigation and media pogrom. Currently the laws of the land is what the powers say it is on any given day or in other words third world banana republic law. In 38 states where this law was voted on by the people of that state their answer was thank you but NO and in many other states the answer was NO, but a lawyer in a black robe said YES on appeal. (Galatians 1:8) The statutory law is clear stating; that if a judge may appear to hold a bias in any case they are about to hear, their course of action is to remove themselves from the case before them. (John 7:24) In California of all places the people said no by a two to one margin on proposition 8, then on appeal before a judge who jumped the line to hear this case, surprise he then ruled it unconstitutional and retired with a fat retirement and his gay partner of twenty years. (Proverbs 26:11; Deuteronomy 23:18) Consider that supreme court justice Ginsberg performed two of these secular unions prior to ruling on this political enactment that is not based on law.(Habakkuk 1:4) Bottom line; For the dark kingdom and it's minions rules mean little as winning is everything, but for a moral person it's the official rules one uses to play the game that matter most. (2 Corinthians 4:2) As Abe Lincoln said one party and it's people view this as a sin to be stopped and the other not as sin and to be spread. And then of course came the civil war with it's terrible cost of 750,000 dead Americans. (Luke 11:17) In the Lord's freedom a sheepdog standing...........warrior on
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.