Quote# 113836

Justice for All

In general, Christians don’t expect non-believers to live according to biblical morals, and they want all American citizens to have their rights protected. There are some extremists in every group, but Christians do not want to impose their morals on others. However, neither do they want what they consider to be immorality imposed on them. The recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage did just that, even though its most serious violation of America was about much more. It was an unconstitutional decision, and if allowed to stand, brings into question whether we are still a Constitutional Republic, or a nation of laws.

The Constitution is clear that any authority not specifically given to the Federal Government is reserved to the states and the people. Nowhere is the Federal Government given authority to impose such a social agenda. Many Americans seem to assume that because the Federal Government is bigger, it has authority over the states. The opposite is actually true if we are still basing our government on the Constitution. The states have authority over the Federal Government in everything that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as being given to the Federal Government. Any other authority it takes does not have legal legitimacy.

Thomas Jefferson’s loudest and most vehement warnings were about “judicial tyranny,” which he warned would become exactly like what the Supreme Court, and many of the Federal Courts, are now imposing on America. These rulings are unlawful and unconstitutional. The justices that blatantly violated their oath to defend the Constitution by voting for something like this should be impeached.

California’s vote for Proposition Eight in 2008 was the constitutional way to handle such issues—by the states and by the people. A state does have the right to have same-sex marriage or not. The State of California, and the people, decided how they wanted this issue settled in their state. They voted not to have same-sex marriage. A single Federal Court judge, who was himself exposed as being a practicing homosexual at the time of his decision, overturned the will of millions of people and the State of California. That is what Jefferson called “judicial tyranny.” It is unlawful and unconstitutional.

This judge should have certainly been impeached for such a violation of the Constitution, but no one did a thing because we do not have leaders who keep their oath of office. Those who did nothing should be impeached as well for not obeying their oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

So should the President and his previous Attorney General be impeached for saying that they would not enforce laws they did not agree with because they took an oath to uphold the laws of the land? Absolutely. Their brazen contempt for the Constitution and the laws that were lawfully passed by Congress and signed by a President was a blatant violation of their oath of office, and so they should have been removed from office.

Not to defend the laws and the Constitution only releases further lawlessness in the land. So, those who did nothing in the face of this are just as guilty. If the President does not have to obey laws he does not agree with, why should anyone else?

So what can we do? It is up to the people, the ultimate authority, to impeach those who violate their oaths of office, to remove them from office, and indict those who have so betrayed their country.

Rick Joyner, The Oak Initiative 23 Comments [10/24/2015 9:42:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Malingspann

"Christians do not want to impose their morals on others"

Then explain Kim Davis!

10/24/2015 9:47:59 AM

whitewater55

Simple answer, Rick - if you don't support same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. See how easy that is?
Then no one imposes their will over yours or yours over theirs.

10/24/2015 10:29:39 AM

NotaReptile

If you don't want to impose your religious restrictions, then fucking don't do it jackass!

Its like saying you don't want to stab people, while stabbing people.

10/24/2015 11:25:03 AM

Strangefruit

The laws banning same sex marriage were found to be in violation of the 14th amendment. That makes it a federal issue.

10/24/2015 11:31:03 AM

John

Many Americans seem to assume that because the Federal Government is bigger, it has authority over the states.

Perhaps. But those who've actually read the Constitution know that the Federal government has authority over the states because of the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It's true that the former Confederacy was more or less coerced into ratifying it after the Civil War as a condition of re-entering the union as voting citizens of a Congress-represented state rather than remaining a conquered territory like Guam and have resented it ever since, but ratify it they did.

They voted not to have same-sex marriage.

Which was found to be an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause. If they voted to override the Federal government's Second Amendment and confiscate everyone's guns, would that be OK with you, too? Since you are such an expert on the Constitution, you should know that many of the constitution amendments deal with what voters can't do.

10/24/2015 11:38:15 AM

Kanna

Not imposing your morals on others? Irony meter just blew up and ran out of the room screaming. Rick, nobody is going to force you into a same sex marriage. You can elect people in your community and your state that will outlaw marriage rights, but guess what - it'll still be illegal. The supremes have spoken, as they have through the two-plus centuries since the founding of this nation. Judicial tyranny my aunt Fanny, that's what they've always done, and there have always been crybabies who don't like their verdicts. Suck it up.

10/24/2015 12:00:48 PM

freako104

Lying for the lord

10/24/2015 1:42:16 PM



Botton line, Rick - it's over, you lost; suck shit, cunt.

10/24/2015 2:04:16 PM

Old Viking

Surprise, Rick. Human rights are not decided by popular vote. So guess which branch of the government decides whether or not a law is Constitutional.

10/24/2015 3:26:19 PM

the_ignored

Christians do not want to impose their morals on others

www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/23/florida_anti_gay_bill_would_let_doctors_and_hospices_refuse_to_serve_gays.html

10/24/2015 3:51:56 PM

Karana

You don't have to get married to someone of the same sex. So don't. No rights of yours have been affected.

10/24/2015 5:57:38 PM

Canadiest

You're well over a decade late and attacking the wrong people, kinda the conservative motto that.

10/25/2015 4:41:16 AM



So long as they don't marry a person of the same sex, what's the problem? Who's imposing whom?

10/25/2015 8:04:44 AM

Hasan Prishtina

Thomas Jefferson’s loudest and most vehement warnings were about “judicial tyranny,” which he warned would become exactly like what the Supreme Court, and many of the Federal Courts, are now imposing on America.

You seem to forget that it was Thomas Jefferson who had a very big hand in creating the very court system you blame for doing things you don't like. Well, you're welcome to run for office, get 66 senators - many of whom approved the members of the Supreme Court and Cabinet - to agree with you, and do what you want. Forgive me if I don't make a contribution.

10/25/2015 8:33:32 AM

Swede

The recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage did nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court just found that refusing people to marry based on gender is unconstitutional. It has no impact on your life whatsoever, it only concerns the ones who are in same-sex relationships and want to marry the love of their life.

Isn't there something in the Constitution about equal treatment?

The Judicial Tyranny was the prohibition of same-sex marriage, stupid. DOMA and Prop 8 were both unlawful and unconstitutional. A state does not have the right not to have same-sex marriage, any more than it doesn't have the right to not have interracial marriage. Judicial Tyranny is the many refusing rights to the few.

Don't like same-sex marriages? Don't enter into one. Easy-peasy.

10/25/2015 8:49:13 AM

Alencon

It is the responsibility of the judiciary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority was a major concern for the founding fathers. An independent judiciary was their solution.

So, making gay marriage illegal is not imposing morals but making it legal is imposing morals? Let's see, the former adversely affects gays and the second adversely affects no one.

Methinks you have it backwards.

10/25/2015 9:47:54 AM

Anon-e-moose

"In general, Christians don’t expect non-believers to live according to biblical morals"

And considering Josh Buggar, that's why non-believers don't expect Christains to live according to biblical morals.

At least said non-believers don't preach about what others shouldn't be doing, and that's the difference.

Kim Il-Davis is just the cherry on the fundie Charistain-destroying cake. Oh, and 10th & 14th Amendments; also Romans 13:1-5, (P)Rick. Deal with it.

10/25/2015 11:52:46 AM

Doubting Thomas

Christians don’t expect non-believers to live according to biblical morals, and they want all American citizens to have their rights protected. There are some extremists in every group, but Christians do not want to impose their morals on others.

Ha ha, yeah right. Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

However, neither do they want what they consider to be immorality imposed on them.

Good thing nobody's forcing you to get married to a gay guy.

The Constitution is clear that any authority not specifically given to the Federal Government is reserved to the states and the people.

You know what else it says? Everyone will have equal protection under the law.

These rulings are unlawful and unconstitutional.

Then file a lawsuit and have the decision overturned.

California’s vote for Proposition Eight in 2008 was the constitutional way to handle such issues—by the states and by the people.

OK, what if most people in the country voted to make Christianity illegal?

It is up to the people, the ultimate authority, to impeach those who violate their oaths of office, to remove them from office, and indict those who have so betrayed their country.

Yeah good luck with that.

10/25/2015 1:51:11 PM

Mathius_dragoon

I find it hilarious when these people say the Supreme Court is doing something unconstitutional.

Quick question dumbass, who exactly determines the constitutionality of an issue?

I'd give him three guesses but I doubt he'd get it even then.

10/25/2015 10:00:30 PM

rubber chicken

The apparent fact that Rick Joyner is being forced to marry somebody of the same gender doesn't really bother me, but I do feel sorry for his new husband.

10/25/2015 10:23:20 PM

Dr. Razark

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment says you're wrong.

10/26/2015 8:19:40 AM

Ebon

Stop lying about the constitution. Unlike the conservatives who claim to venerate it, liberals have generally read the damn thing. And a judicial decision is lawful by definition.

10/29/2015 11:59:49 PM

Goomy pls

It's really a rights issue. They put slavery up to a vote too, y'kno.

11/4/2015 12:18:56 PM

1 | top: comments page