WORDatTheNet

Home » Habakkuk 2 » Constitution Aggravates Sodomy

Constitution Aggravates Sodomy


Out of the thirteen (13) states in the US, which had legalized sodomy, namely;   California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware,  Maine, Maryland,  Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the first three (3) have in common as aggravating circumstance in sodomy.

Coming Soon: Judgement on the Constitution and the Supreme Court

Coming Soon: Judgement on the Constitution and the Supreme Court. http://www.wordatthenet.com

US federal constitution and the constitution of the rest of the above states make no reference to God, but California, Iowa and Massachusetts “generally use an invocatio of “God the Almighty” or the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” in their respective constitution.”(Wikipedia).

What is the implication of invoking God in the basic law or constitution of the land? The danger is that: In the event inhabitants are committing acts against God’s prohibition, they deemed made use of the name of God in vain, in the constitution.

The result is very catastrophic. The Word is emphatic on this. If Israelites, the chosen people, were punished for not obeying the commandments, how much more for non-israelites, who initially invoke His Name in the basic law but later expressly set-aside The Name in their legislated laws, court decisions and practices.

Nobody has a license to use the name of God in vain. Not even the US Congress.

For these three states, Wikipedia also reports:

For same-sex marriage in California:

Same-sex marriages are legal in the U.S. state of California. The state first began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008, as the result of the Supreme Court of California ruling in In re Marriage Cases, which found that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state’s constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 (though existing same-sex marriages continued to be valid) due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the United States Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

On August 4, 2010, United States District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

For same-sex marriage in Iowa:

Same-sex marriage in Iowa, a U.S. state, became legal following a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court on April 3, 2009. Marriage license became available to same-sex couples on April 27.

In 2005, six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa filed a lawsuit in Polk County. In 2007, the Polk County District Court ruled in favor of the couples in Varnum v. Brien. On April 3, 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, making Iowa the third U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.

For same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Common in the above is the superficial issue on unconstitutionality of barring same-sex marriage. The Court’s decision  anchored on equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. It however apparently failed to see that the constitution it used as basis for the judgement is invoking the name of God.

With all due respect, on deeper analysis, unbiased mind will consider that the most basic issue, in fact, is between the constitutional equal protection and due process clauses versus God himself. The Court rendered its judgment, then they will be judged based on the words that they have written in their Decision.

Foregoing premises considered, the constitution of three states logically serves as aggravating circumstance in the judgment against sodomy, as inhabitants thereof had misused/abused, in essence, The Name of God in their respective constitution.

Click to The Oral Sex Theory to have a comprehensive understanding.

Related articles:

>>>To Home Page to also proceed to The Forum

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. […] Filipino lesbians, homosexuals, including sexual perverts and pornographers must therefore thank President Benigno Aquino III for […]

  2. […] Constitution Aggravates Sodomy […]

  3. […] Constitution Aggravates Sodomy […]

  4. […] Constitution Aggravates Sodomy […]

  5. […] Constitution Aggravates Sodomy […]

  6. […] Constitution Aggravates Sodomy […]

  7. […] Constitution Aggravates Sodomy […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Archives

Categories

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 195 other followers

%d bloggers like this: