The Coup D'etat is in progress. Republican's Full Assault On Pres. Obama

Boehner Calls Upon Supreme Court To Uphold Discrimination

by Nathaniel Downes

With the polls turning against him, and the Republican base lacking the enthusiasm needed to maintain Republican control of the house, Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that he will have the House of Representatives legal council file a petition to have the case Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services argued before the court this fall just before the election. In the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary, Boehner is attempting to have four prior decisions overturned in order to maintain his authority to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them any federal benefits of wedlock. As one of those decisions was handled by the very strict First Circuit Appellate court, and history demonstrates that the Supreme Court rarely disagrees with this circuit, this is a clear attempt by the Speaker to politicize the debate and attempt to induce excitement into their base using their classic strategy of "God, Gays and Guns."     

The original decision, that the Defense of Marriage Act, was a violation of the Constitution, has been upheld throughout the legal chain that had led it to this point. At all points, the Republicans have been determined to spend vast sums of tax dollars attempting to overturn that decision. By his usurping the traditional legal process, which would have had this appearing before the Supreme Court in 2013, he reveals that the strategy for this is not about defending it at all, it is all about pandering to a select group of the Republican base just before the elections this November.

The Courts decision would not come out until well after the election, by which point Boehner hopes to have secured both houses of Congress as well as to place the parties rubber stamp into the Presidency. At that point they can usurp the courts at their leisure, regardless of the outcome. The naked political posturing displayed by Boehner is beneath the office which he is holding. He should be ashamed of himself, but likely is not.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

My Thoughts:  This action by Speaker Boehner and the upcoming vote to hold AG Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress are orchestrated maneuvers to take the focus of the election away from the economic problems that still effect us, the Republicans obstruction of all the efforts by Pres. Obama to speed up the recovery and an underlying motive to prove that  a black president can't be trusted, he is as corrupt as all black males. You hear the words "He's the most corrupt president we have ever had in America."  "He has done nothing in the first two years when he had control of both houses." Even though in 2010 his immigration bill was passed by the House and by 55 votes in the senate, the minority Republicans filibustered the bill which caused it to fail in a procedural process, even with the majority voting in favor. In 2011 his jobs bill stalled in the Republican controlled House of Representative. Speaker Boehner would not even bring it to the floor to vote on it. The Senate Democrats had to pick it apart and try to get a few of the items that were very urgent through both houses, with only a few of the bill passing both with major modifications that weakened them.

The Meaning of Marriage; by law and religion

More religious right-wing-nuts that don't understand our constitution and that there is a separation of church and state regarding public law. "Marriage" is a legal entity created by the state by granting the licensing of two individuals to be treated legally as a single entity for the purpose legal contracts, property ownership, making decisions regarding the other individual, tax issues, inheritance, and so on. It has nothing to do with a religious definition of marriage.

Religious marriage is a ritual or act that conforms to whatever faith tenet they have, be it Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever... That is their right to perform such rituals in the most holy of manner. But these are only for their purpose of marriage. They are not forced to perform any marriage that does not conform to the requirements of their ritual and tenets. So there is no threat or demand upon them to violate whatever ban or restriction they may impose upon their own followers. However, they have no authority to dictate that others must conform to their rituals and tenets in order to have a legally recognized marriage licensed by the state. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that they are granted the sole authority to define marriage and that all citizens must conform to whatever they state as a legal marriage.

Jim Garlow, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and all the other wacko self-righteous preachers and politicians should understand that their religious beliefs have no standing in the legal and constitutional rights of others. We are a country that all citizens have equal access to and protection of the law. This includes the equal standing of marriage within the context of public law.

What these Christian activists are stating is that they are the arbiter of civil law and their hate and homophobia must be the law of the land. Why? Because they claim they have the authority and power granted by God, so say them. Of course no one has recorded a call from God or a certified document by God that gives such power and rights to them.

These people are ugly hateful people who do nothing but milk huge sums of money from followers for their own selfish pleasures.

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Author: John Eastburn Boswell (March 20, 1947 – December 24, 1994) was a prominent historian and a professor at Yale University. Many of Boswell's studies focused on the issue of homosexuality and religion, specifically homosexuality and Christianity.

This is a very short digest of his book:

The Marriage of Likeness : Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

Why is Rick Santorum Pining for the Pilgrim/Theocrat days?

American history regarding Church and State.



This is a great show by Thom Hartmann.

Here is Rick Santorum on CNN regarding his prior statements about gays:

Please note that he makes the claim that religious sins or moral rules should not be in public policy, then he states that because the Catholic Church states that homosexuality and gay marriage is immoral and a sin, that public policy should prohibit them from marring. Complete contradiction in statements. So which is the truth?
 

Here is Rick Santorum attacking Ron Paul about Paul's idea that each state should determine what marriage is, even though he believe that marriage is between a single man and a single woman.



Rick Santorum attacks scientists as immoral people:
Stop federal funding of scientific research that may save lives or gain new knowledge about the universe and the world we live in. It's OK if there is private funding, but not tax money because some people find it objectionable....



This guy is completely nuts and wants to live in a period 400 years ago.

Santorum would reverse Supreme Court if they legalize Gay Marriages

Republican Candidate Rick Santorum Speaks about reversing any Supreme Court ruling that may grant equality under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. He thinks citizens should have a right to vote on who gets what civil rights and equal protection under the constitution.

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday morning he would try to overturn any Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage if he became president.

Santorum was asked by Meet The Press host David Gregory about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional and whether he would seek any change if the highest court ruled in favor of the LGBT community.

“I would do the same thing I would with Roe v Wade, which I would seek to try and overturn it,” he said. “I think judicial tyranny is a serious issue in this race and this country. And we need judges who respect the people’s voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process.”

Santorum earlier this week slammed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, calling it “another in a long line of radical activist rulings by this rogue circuit.” 

Unfortunately for Santorum, his effort would be futile. No president can overturn any Supreme Court decision.

WATCH: Video from NBC, which was broadcast on February 12, 2012.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

My Thoughts, 

Now think about this, the conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court. Should they agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that marriage is a civil liberty and must treat all citizens equal under the 14th Amendment. To then attempt to reverse the Supreme Court would be to pass a Constitutional Amendment by getting both Houses of Congress to pass it by 2/3 vote and then by two thirds of all the states must ratify the amendment. That is a difficult thing to accomplish.

So Santorum would be very busy in the White House, he has proposed a constitutional amendment to define person-hood at the time a human egg cell is fertilized by a male sperm. This would make any abortion murder and the use of any contraception that would prevent a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus, thus being a criminal act of murder. To include miscarriages, and after intercourse when an egg my become fertilized, but expelled before it can attach to the uterus. So most forms of contraception would be illegal.

So much for civil liberties that were supposed to be guaranteed by our constitution.