POTUS another arrogant "prick"

[Darkhorse]

Case in point>>>>>>>>>
Feb. 28, 2011 11:56 AM
Associated Press


LONDON - A British court has ruled that a Christian couple cannot care for foster children because they disapprove of homosexuality.

Judges at London's Royal Courts of Justice ruled that laws protecting gays from discrimination take precedence over the couple's religious beliefs.

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65-years old, had previously fostered children in the 1990s, but what one social worker described as their "strong views" on homosexuality raised red flags with authorities in the English city of Derby when they were interviewed in 2007.

Eunice Johns said Monday that she was "extremely distressed" by the decision, which Christian groups also condemned.

But the judges ruled that Britain was "a secular state, not a theocracy."

[callmeslick]

I don't like where this is going. This decision is more than political. By implication, President Obama is saying that the idea of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman is indefensible. We have entered a world where the government has not only the authority to raise taxes, but to raze marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a moral institution.
It is considered sacred because essentially all the religions of the world consider it a divine establishment. It is stated unequivocally in our Declaration of Independence that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” America was founded on this thoroughly philosophical and yet practical idea – the idea of the divine origin of the rights of man. This is not a notion we can outgrow.
It is a smaller step than we may think from tampering with marriage to targeting people of faith with so-called hate crimes because they publicly uphold moral principles. God and any trace of divine authority have essentially been abolished from the public. And what has filled the void (for something always fills the void)? Government. It has taken on the role of God.
It is this toxic idea that is leading the government to cross the line into modifying and defacing moral law. After all, the same government that dares to redefine family can redefine faith. The same government that can declare a moral wrong to be a legal right can declare a moral right to be a legal wrong.
This isn’t hypothetical. The history of the 20th century shows that as governments try to supplant God as the source and center of law, they make religion unlawful. When the government ceases to be the defender of inalienable rights, and begins to dispense and withdraw inalienable rights, it leads to tyranny and slavery.

why is the government involved in defining marriage whatsoever? If your church wishes to define marriage as man and woman, man and man, woman and ardvaark, whatever, fine. Government should not be defining anything of a moral/religious nature. And that, my friends, is exactly the position taken by the administration. They are refusing to defend legislation which defines marriage. The only role of government is due to taxation definitions, and for that, there shouldn't be any discrimination. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be getting tax breaks for being married. Period.

[callmeslick]

Case in point>>>>>>>>>
Feb. 28, 2011 11:56 AM
Associated Press


LONDON - A British court has ruled that a Christian couple cannot care for foster children because they disapprove of homosexuality.

Judges at London's Royal Courts of Justice ruled that laws protecting gays from discrimination take precedence over the couple's religious beliefs.

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65-years old, had previously fostered children in the 1990s, but what one social worker described as their "strong views" on homosexuality raised red flags with authorities in the English city of Derby when they were interviewed in 2007.

Eunice Johns said Monday that she was "extremely distressed" by the decision, which Christian groups also condemned.

But the judges ruled that Britain was "a secular state, not a theocracy."

case in point, my ass. Just the opposite. These people were denied the benefit of government sanction due to personal beliefs which in no way inpinged on the question at hand. I share your alarm at this ruling, Darkhorse, but it is diametrically different that the orignally debated Obama adminiistration policy.

[Pudfark]

Slick....the only reason that the government is involved in marriage?
The "legal" definition..both, civil and criminal..and they chose to use word "marriage"...

Food for thought? What they should of done was use a word like "legal union" or "civil union"....
Then they could make and change the rules...
That would include? Things like for tax purposes, number of spouses, insurance and so forth...
Then simple folks wouldn't be confused about marriage and where it takes place and the "union"
and where it applies and takes place.....but that would be to easy....

Better to argue about it and get folks stirred up....it takes their attention away from more
important things.....

[Darkhorse]

Slick, this has nothing to do with anything in the legal realm. I understand the points that you are making and agree with them, but that is not what this is about. The case I made above is spot on as to where this is headed.

[callmeslick]

Then, DH, I have to politely disagree. I don't have any sense of any sanction of any single type of human behavior. I think today's SCOTUS ruling shows clearly that we are still a nation which bends over backwards to protect individual expression(for those that missed it, ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, however repugnant they may be).

[Darkhorse]

Then, DH, I have to politely disagree. I don't have any sense of any sanction of any single type of human behavior. I think today's SCOTUS ruling shows clearly that we are still a nation which bends over backwards to protect individual expression(for those that missed it, ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, however repugnant they may be).

Apples and oranges Slick