Letters to the editor of a newspaper can be notoriously inane and incoherent, but this is one of the most ridiculous ones I’ve ever read. Every paragraph is just a combination of words that makes no sense whatsoever and leaves you tilting your head to the side like your dog does when he’s confused.
The harshness of logic and common sense is a powerful thing, and coupled with morality supersedes political correctness.
Homosexuality, in all due respect, is a lifestyle because, since it is being taught in our schools in a way of indoctrination, and tolerance to its ways cements the common sense understanding that homosexuality is a lifestyle.
No, I’m afraid that’s nonsense. When a law is challenged, the court must determine whether it is constitutional or not. And I have no idea what “serve the letter of the laws” might mean. I doubt he does either. This is like a game of madlibs at this point.
When the courts told the states that their ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, they then legislated a law without proper representation and approval, which made the judge’s ruling unconstitutional and unlawful.
It is not the judge’s prerogative to legislate or enact a law that is not legislated by the state or enacted through a referendum voted on by the people. A judge may only serve the letter of the laws enacted by the legislative branch of government, with executive approval, and this includes referendums.
When a man or woman takes an oath on the Bible to become a judge, they are also promising God not to endorse a sin, in this case homosexuality. A man is made for a woman and woman for a man to be appropriately yoked to each to become one flesh, creating a family and an inheritance.
Once again, nonsense. First of all, there is no requirement that anyone swear any oath on a Bible or on any other book for that matter. And by this guy’s “reasoning” — and I use the term very loosely — the entire First Amendment would be gone. It is, after all, a sin to worship other gods according to the Bible and yet the very first clauses of the Bill of Rights guarantee the right to do so. Any judge who upholds that right is therefore “endorsing a sin.”
There is a separation of church and state, and the purpose of it is to protect the church and its people from the state and, in this case, federal judges and the government’s imposition of its will upon Judeo-Christian doctrines and beliefs.
Welcome to Christian theocracy. Sorry, the Constitution requires quite the opposite.