Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
theophilus

Alabama Supreme Court Rejects U. S. Supreme Court’s Marriage Opinion

Recommended Posts

One state is acting to oppose the US supreme court's ruling legalizing same sex marriage. Read the whole story here:

 

http://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/alabama-supreme-court-rejects-u-s-supreme-courts-marriage-opinion

 

We need to pray that they will stick to their decision and that other states will follow their example.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am anti-abortion in most cases, but it is legally impossible for a lower court to overrule the decision of a higher court. I honestly wish they would stop wasting all this tax payer money on giving it to lawyers, and instead use it for education. Millions of dollars to some law firm, but no money to teach young people that they don´t need to have an abortion, there are other options.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a prime example of why the states need to pull back the power that has been slowly relinquished to the feds. This is truly a state level issue, not something the federal government should even be involved in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
This is a prime example of why the states need to pull back the power that has been slowly relinquished to the feds. This is truly a state level issue, not something the federal government should even be involved in.

 

I agree. If the lower courts were consistent they would now no longer grant divorce, because the SCOTUS ruling has deemed the lower court incapable of determining what is and is not a marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
This is a prime example of why the states need to pull back the power that has been slowly relinquished to the feds. This is truly a state level issue, not something the federal government should even be involved in.

 

In this case, it would create a situation similar to slavery. The USA tried to allow states to determine their slavery status independently for decades, but there were just too many issues. If there was a slave in one state, and he escaped to a free state, the slave stated wanted the federal gov´t to require the free state to return the slave.

 

The supreme court had that in mind when they took up this case. A legally married gay couple is driving through a non-gay state and they have a car accident. There are a ton of legal issues that could arise out of that situation where ´are they married´ or ´are they not married´ would have huge consequences. The anti-gay states kinda bought this on themselves because they said not only would they not allow gay marriage, but they would not recognize gay marriages from other states. That final part would create a legal nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
anti-gay states

Being opposed to same sex marriage is not being anti-gay. Marriage was established by God as a union between a man and a woman, and there are a lot of gay people who are Christians and who agree with this. Unfortunately their views don't get much exposure in the popular news media. If you want to learn more about their viewpoint you might find this site helpful.

 

https://bornthatway.org/

Share this post


Link to post

Being opposed to same sex marriage is not being anti-gay. Marriage was established by God as a union between a man and a woman, and there are a lot of gay people who are Christians and who agree with this. Unfortunately their views don't get much exposure in the popular news media. If you want to learn more about their viewpoint you might find this site helpful.

 

https://bornthatway.org/

 

 

I second that statement. I was raised to believe that God loves all people no matter their sexual orientation or religion. It's just up to them to love and respect him back. With that being said, I treat everyone as equal no matter their certain situation. But I do oppose same sex marriage in the instant that its a Biblical law that shouldn't be condoned in any such way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I am anti-abortion in most cases, but it is legally impossible for a lower court to overrule the decision of a higher court. I honestly wish they would stop wasting all this tax payer money on giving it to lawyers, and instead use it for education. Millions of dollars to some law firm, but no money to teach young people that they don´t need to have an abortion, there are other options.

 

Exactly this, a lower court can't overrule a higher court, so in the end all they are doing is wasting peoples time and money. That money can be spent in other ways that actually help the people like infrastructure or education.

Share this post


Link to post

I really wish that were true @Beardedfellow but the fact is my home state doesn't seem like it's putting our people in their best interests. Especially with the abortion problem, not to mention the new prisons that are popping up that making our tag prices go up in the process.

Share this post


Link to post

My views on same sex marriage is what the church and the Bible say of it - marriage is a sacred union of man and woman. It did not say man and man or woman and woman, that is clear. My impression on the legality of same sex marriage is the propaganda by the influential gay people. It is noticeable that gay people are dominant in the entertainment industry whether actors or singers and over here they are close to the president. It is fortunate that the Philippines is a Catholic country and the influence of the Catholic church is greater than the influence of the influential gay people that's why even divorce is having a hard time to be enacted into a law. With same sex marriage I think it will encounter rough sailing in congress... I hope.

 

May I add that I am not against gays. In fact I have several friends and even relatives who are gay. What I am against is the homosexuality, particularly the sexual act.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care if gay people marry, that's between them and God. If the government wants to do it, that doesn't bother me. The problem with this is that now the LGBT can force churches to marry them even though their text doesn't support it. I agree completely though that the Supreme Court went above their station and created a law when they are only supposed to judge whether something is just or not. If the LGBT community wants to get married they needed to go through the proper legal courses.

Share this post


Link to post
If the government wants to do it, that doesn't bother me.

It should. God judges nations that disobey his laws and all citizens of that nation will be affected adversely, whether they supported the nation's actions or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal

      By Kevin Daley - President Donald Trump proposed an immigration deal to reopen the government Saturday, which included a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Trump’s overture to congressional Democrats comes as the Supreme Court considers whether it will intervene in ongoing litigation over the president’s attempts to rescind DACA, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who came to the U.S. as children. The administration initiated DACA’s termination in September 2017. Those maneuvers were immediately challenged in federal court. A federal district judge in California ordered the government to continue administering DACA in January 2018. At that juncture, the government broke from normal judicial process and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, instead of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices rejected that appeal, returning the case to the 9th Circuit with orders to resolve the case quickly. Over eight months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, so the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court in November 2018 and asked the justices to take their case. The government’s petition has been pending before the Court since that time. The 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding the district court’s order three days later. Challenges to the president’s attempts to rescind DACA are also pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. In the short term, Trump might command a stronger negotiating position if the justices intervene in the DACA cases, since the government can reasonably expect to prevail in the high court. Therefore, Democrats might wish to strike a deal with Trump that includes DACA protections, lest the Supreme Court affirm the president’s power to end the program unilaterally. That the justices have not yet acted on the petition does not bode well for the administration, however. The high court hears arguments from October until April and disposes of its cases by June. As a general matter, the docket for each term is finalized in the middle of January. If the Court intended to grant the administration’s request and hear the case, it likely would have done so by now. As such, the prospect of Supreme Court action on DACA looks dim as of this writing. The high court will next announce action in pending cases on Tuesday. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood

      By Kevin Daley - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds. The decision is also significant for its harsh criticism of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.  The case will now return to a federal trial court, where Planned Parenthood will have another chance to secure an injunction against Texas.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds Thursday, while stridently criticizing the abortion-provider for its rhetoric and medical practices. “Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling. The case arose after a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards codified in federal law and state regulations. Texas terminated its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood shortly thereafter, citing infractions documented in the videos. In turn, Planned Parenthood asked a federal court to restore its Medicaid funding. Thursday’s ruling — which related to a jurisdictional issue in that case — is especially striking for its numerous rebukes of Planned Parenthood. Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, delivered the opinion. Perhaps the most noteworthy of the decision’s reprimands is a graphic depiction of post-abortion fetal remains taken from a CMP video on the fourth page of the opinion. A small arm is visible in the picture. Texas cited the manner in which Planned Parenthood disposes of fetal remains as one reason for terminating their Medicaid eligibility. In another instance, the decision all but accuses Planned Parenthood of breaking federal law banning partial birth abortions. The ruling highlights a CMP video in which an administrator called Dr. Tram Nguyen said doctors at one facility could evacuate an intact fetus — thereby breaking federal law — provided they sign a form that they did not “intend” to do so. Such procedures allow researchers to recover organs like the thymus or the liver. Later in the opinion, the panel chides Planned Parenthood for failing to engage with Nguyen’s comments in court filings. “The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance of the discussions contained in the videos is curiously silent,” the decision reads. Planned Parenthood has denied that they intentionally alter abortion procedures for such purposes. The panel also dismissed Planned Parenthood’s claim that the CMP videos were “deceptively edited,” a soundbite that redounded across the press after the tapes first appeared. “The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” a footnote in the decision reads. “And [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” Finally the panel accused the judiciary of politicking on abortion cases. Ordinarily, providers like Planned Parenthood must challenge Medicaid termination decisions in an administrative forum and state court before seeking a federal court’s intervention. By allowing Planned Parenthood to skip directly to federal court — as the trial court did here — the 5th Circuit said that judges are engaging in ideological favoritism. “Had [Texas] terminated the Medicaid provider agreements of any other type of health care provider, the incongruity of allowing that provider to use patient litigation proxies to avoid administrative review and [reach] federal court would be obvious and unacceptable,” the ruling reads. The decision comes as pro-life activists gather in Washington in advance of Friday’s March for Life. The question before the 5th Circuit did not relate to abortion directly: after Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, the abortion-provider sued, claiming the federal Medicaid statute allowed them to do so. A federal district judge agreed, allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The 5th Circuit had to decide whether that decision was correct. The federal appeals courts are divided over the answer to that question. Though the Supreme Court generally intervenes when the circuits disagree over the same question of law, the justices denied review in a related controversy from Kansas in December 2018, drawing a vigorous dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch which accused the Court of playing politics. In that instance, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the Court’s liberal bloc, effectively preserving a pro-Planned Parenthood decision in the lower court. The 5th Circuit’s Thursday decision concluded that they are bound by precedent to find that Planned Parenthood can proceed with its lawsuit in federal court under the Medicaid statute, though Jones wrote a concurrence to her own majority opinion urging the full 5th Circuit to revisit that question. However, the 5th Circuit gave Texas a partial victory, finding that the trial court assessed Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction under the wrong standard. The panel lifted the injunction, and ordered the lower court judge to reconsider Planned Parenthood’s request under a different standard which is more accommodating of Texas. As such, the state has a much better chance of prevailing when the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings. Texas awards approximately $3.4 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates through Medicaid annually. The decision notes this is a “smidgen” of the revenue Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates generate each year, which runs over $57 million. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA

      By Kevin Daley - The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on Friday. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Those moves were immediately challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the government to continue administering the program on Jan. 9, 2018. The Department of Justice broke with normal judicial procedure and asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, bypassing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high court rejected that petition in February 2018, but ordered the 9th Circuit to “proceed expeditiously” in its review of Alsup’s decision. After months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department returned to the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, 2018 and again asked the justices to take their case. Three days later on Nov. 8, the 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding Alsup’s order. “More than ten months later, the court of appeals’ judgment is here and the Court is presented the opportunity it anticipated in February,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco — the government’s Supreme Court lawyer — wrote in court papers. “The Court should now grant At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on Friday. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Those moves were immediately challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the government to continue administering the program on Jan. 9, 2018. The Department of Justice broke with normal judicial procedure and asked the Supreme Court to… Review Overview 0 User Rating: Be the first one ! and resolve this important dispute this term.” Other challenges to DACA’s repeal are pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. The Trump administration urged the justices to take its case because the 9th Circuit’s ruling conflicts with a prior decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. Like DACA, DAPA is an Obama-era policy which provides benefits to illegal aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. When multiple appeals courts disagree over the same question of federal law, the high court is much more likely to step in. The government also said that it will be forced to abide widespread disregard for immigration laws if the Supreme Court rejects its petition. “The district court’s nationwide injunction commands the government to preserve a policy that affirmatively sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by 700,00 aliens who have no lawful immigration status and no right to the policy’s continuation,” Francisco told the justices in court filings. “Absent this Court’s intervention, the government will be required to maintain the policy nationwide for years after DHS and the Attorney General determined that it should end.” Some Republican lawmakers have floated the prospect of enacting DACA protections as part of a grand bargain to implement comprehensive immigration reform and reopen the government. Vice President Mike Pence said that the White House will not consider a deal which includes DACA until the Supreme Court decides on its legality during a gaggle with reporters on Thursday afternoon. The justices could announce a decision to take the case as soon as Friday afternoon. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Federal Court Rules Masterpiece Cakeshop Baker Can Sue Colorado for 'Anti-Religious Bias'

      A federal court has ruled that Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips may continue to sue the state in a claim that says the state had an “anti-religious bias” against him. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Here Are The Obama-Era Officials Allegedly Behind The Alabama False Flag Campaign

      By Chris White - Two Obama-era officials were instrumental in the false flag operation in Alabama ahead of the special election in 2017  One of the Obama-era officials behind the misinformation campaign in Alabama finally opens up about his group’s role in the caper  Two  of the people involved in the social media misinformation campaign in Alabama are denying their roles in the operation, reports show A trove of reports show that two Obama-era officials are partially responsible for a misinformation campaign designed to derail Republican Roy Moore’s senatorial campaign in Alabama. Former President Barack Obama campaign organizer, Mickey Dickerson, was instrumental in a disinformation campaign targeting Moore, reports show. He was not alone. Evan Coren, who has worked for the National Archives unit since Obama’s first term, also targeted the Republican’s campaign. Coren, for his part, is a progressive activist who handles classified documents for the Department of Energy. He has not responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the nature of the campaign, which was designed to fool conservatives into believing Moore intended to reimpose prohibition. Coren and other operatives created a “Dry Alabama” Facebook page with a blunt message attached: Alcohol is evil and should be prohibited, The New York Times reported Monday, citing sources. The page included images of car wrecks and ruined families, the report notes. Its contents were targeted at business conservatives who are inclined to oppose prohibition. Two wealthy Virginia donors who wanted to defeat Moore funded the project, according to a person who worked on the project and who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Dry Alabama project was one of two $100,000 campaigns designed to help Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, who barely won the 2017 special election. Jones has previously stated that his campaign was unaware of the project and is also calling for an investigation into who is behind the antics. Political analysts believe allegations that Moore sexually assaulted underage women three decades earlier likely played a larger part in his loss. Coren’s false flag operation happened alongside a similar campaign by Dickerson, a former Obama official known for fixing the government’s notoriously glitchy Obamacare website. Operatives with New Knowledge, a group affiliated with Dickerson, created thousands of Twitter accounts posing as Russian bots to boost the election-year chances of Jones – the accounts began following Moore’s Twitter account in October 2017. The project created a slew of Facebook accounts as well that were designed to troll conservatives into opposing Moore. But the misinformation project attracted attention from local and national media, falsely suggesting Russia was backing Moore’s candidacy. The Montgomery Advertiser, for one, was the first to cover the story using the Russian-bot angle. National media outlets quickly followed suit. “Roy Moore flooded with fake Russian Twitter followers,” read the headline on a New York Post story, which cited the Advertiser. WaPo focused its reporting on that fact that Moore blamed Democrats for the fake accounts. Other major national outlets picked up on the story shortly thereafter, with many pundits mocking Moore for blaming Democratic operatives. The cost of the effort, which was funded by liberal billionaire Reid Hoffman, totaled $100,000 — the identical amount Facebook says the Russian Internet Research Agency spent trolling people on social media leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Dickerson, who has not responded to TheDCNF’s repeated requests for comment about the campaign, finally responded to reporters on Monday. “I received the report in early 2018, which is when I first learned about the false flag and write-in tactics,” Dickerson said in a press statement, referring to a 12-page report from New Knowledge detailing crucial elements of the project. Jonathon Morgan, head of New Knowledge, denies knowledge of most of the activities described in the Project Birmingham document. He also denies Dickerson’s claim that New Knowledge authored the report. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Here Are The Obama-Era Officials Allegedly Behind The Alabama False Flag Campaign is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.