SAME SEX MARRIAGE THE KISS OF DEATH FOR OBAMA?

http://codyjudy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/breaking-news-how-could-same-sex.html
BREAKING NEWS: HOW COULD SAME SEX MARRIAGE BE THE KISS OF DEATH FOR OBAMA'S W.H. OCCUPANCY IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?
Among the hardest conundrums for Prophets and People alike to understand, though they recognize it in front of their own tenants of faith in extremist example that murder is wrong, but killing in defense of ones self, family, or even your Country's defense in the line of duty is right, is that with every action under the sun one can be justified by God's Mercy and the other be damned. So it is with the 'natures' of men that God has given them and for us all to seek to understand; for unrighteous judgments are among the greatest stumbling blocks of mankind's history within all the generations of time. 

DIFFERENT RELIGIONS and BELIEFS

Yesterday our Nation faced a crossroads of epic proportions in that the United States Supreme Court tread upon the State's Rights of the Tenth Amendment to protect the Liberty of the 14th Amendment in the interest of Liberty. For that word I was moved with joy and celebration in the actions of the Court. It was in the interest of Liberty that the Lord sought to recover Israel through his Prophet Moses from the chains of Egypt's Pharaoh and in the next instant begin to weed out those whose progress was 'stopped' because of their lack of Faith in the actions of suffering those to die who would not look upon the 'idol' to be saved from the serpents sting Moses held up, choosing to die instead in their "conservatism", as well those who wondered in the 'conservative' desert until the generation whose Faith had not been sufficient had passed away who were forbidden to enter into the Promised Land. Any who would not say that the Lord in some instances is 'progressive' and in some instances is 'conservative' is really missing the examples of this Story in History.

I sense people wanting a more modern day story. Ok, here's one I am familiar with in the United States of America among a people who are a very small minority but are no less famous to the world. Why would a man of devout love for God whose most famous work he never purported to author but to translate in The Book of Mormon (B.O.M) institute in the religion of Mormonism "Polygamy" that has come to be known as one of its most famous tenants after seeing this verse found in B.O.M. Jacob Ch. 3 vs. 5,9 
" Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. v.9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers."

Joseph Smith Jr., the translator of this verse is recognized as having had 40 wives according to a story published in the New York Times Nov. 10 2014. This is an example of what people get hung up on in a cross over of doctrine simply understood to be the Lord's wisdom of giving more to those who are ready, and taking some from those who are not ready. We all know as Christian's Joseph Smith was not the first to be called to take on more than one wife or concubine and that many large "P" prophets were given the direction in the Old Testament including Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. All precious sons of the Lord and those whom he called as being men after his own heart.

The Governor of Utah Gary R. Herbert wrote on his Facebook Page yesterday June 26th,2015 "Marriage, as defined by the people of Utah, has been redefined, first by the federal courts and today the outcome of that decision has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am disappointed with the decision by the court to usurp state authority and overrule the voice of the people of Utah as demonstrated by legislation with regard to marriage. I am also very concerned with the overwhelming trend to diminish state autonomy. I believe states should have the right to determine their own laws regarding marriage. Clearly, the majority of the justices disagree and their decision provides finality with respect to the law."

The rich history among the Native Americans marriage between what was termed "Two-Spirited" people were performed among other things as a sign of peace, protection, and and harmony from other tribes aggression.

The Bible as a standard many people refer to in diverse Christian Faiths also recognized those who were of a cross over between male and female with an attraction of same sex called "Eunuch". These were a class of emasculated men attached to the Courts of eastern rulers. They were employed to watch over the harems, and also were often given positions as trusted officials. See Bible 2 Kings 20:18;Isa 39:7 & 56:4; Jer. 38:7-13 & 41:16; Matt. 19:12; Acts 8:27-38. Let me just quote Matthew 19:12 as it recognizes that the differing natures of men can come from birth which many who call themselves Christians have not accepted yet even though it is in the New Testament and they often dismiss the Old Testament as invalid.
Mathew 19:12 " "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom for heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE UPSET ABOUT THE SCOTUS DECISIONS TO ALLOW MARRIAGES TO ANY CITIZEN? 

The dissenting Minority opinions of the SCOTUS came from Justices Roberts,Scalia,Alito,and Thomas. The ratifying opinions of the Majority came from Sotomeyer, Kagan, Ginsburg,Breyer, and Kennedy. From the NY Times Article by Adam Liptack June 26th, 2015 "Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide", some poignant parts of the opinions are made from both sides.

Probably the biggest fear I've seen expressed on social media's is that many Christians view this in a way that somehow this decision would "force" varying religions to actually perform same-sex marriages within their Churches irrespective of the opposing doctrine of the particular religion. I do not see that being the case at all in America. As long as the Government provides the option of a justice-of-the-peace down at the County Court house to perform marriages, I do not see any successful law suit coming against any particular church or religion that its own particular religious doctrines or creeds as well Leaders need to fear lest that Liberty also protected by the Constitution be lost. I do not think the Government can force a particular Religion to perform a marriage in the Church anymore than I could see the Government forcing Baptist to be Baptized in Mormon Temples, or Catholics who choose to sprinkle being forced to be dunked.

The assumption that any particular religion could now be sued for not performing the will of an individual negates freedom of religion and more importantly the reason there are so many differing religions all respected in America. Rather I see this 'pretended fear' as a way to simply assert a position, which now has been exposed for what it was; a farce. I have yet to see a Scripture that says in the Bible, if that's where Christians want to go, I'll go there even if the Justices feel restricted of their own rights, that "marriages" in the first place between a man and a women must be performed in a Government Institution. For the most part, I see in the canonical text "Marriages" as originating from being performed in a Church. 

Has it not been by the Christians, we call elected Leaders, that marriages wound up as a performance of a Government Institution in the first place here in America? Of course it was. If Government had instituted the requirement for Civil Unions only in Government Buildings for Tax Purposes regardless of sex, and Marriages had been kept out of the Government by those going to Church and voting for such, would there be "Marriages" being performed between two of the same sex? The answer to that question is "No". So where is this "un-righteous judgement" coming from that would deny Citizens equality of the same Liberty referred to in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? I say it doesn't have a leg to stand on. 

The Court can only rule upon Cases brought to it. The Court can't for instance say, ""Civil Unions" should be performed in the Government Eye, and "Marriages" should be performed in the Church Leg." Now the Legislative Branches could have said that and passed laws in that direction. As it has been the Case, your Legislatures refused to do that because they didn't want to do it themselves between their own spouses of the opposite sex. They wanted a combination to exist and in that combination a 'tradition' and 'norm' of imposing 'marriage' outlines and now you might say the chicken come home to roost for all Citizens.

Page 44 of the Dissenting Opinion from Justice Roberts said: "But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)."

I think a quick reminder of the 14th Amendment is important here so let me quote that and think about it in the regard that it applies to you in your circumstances as a Citizen, because if it can't be thought of that way, it serves no purpose whatsoever in the first place: plus I don't think even Government Leaders read the Constitution enough.
United States Constitution Amendment 14 Section I.:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 protections of the laws."

Now if marriage is not a privilege, there would be no age restriction among the states to it. If "Liberty" was not among the characteristics of circumstances in Marriage and were not defined as ones choice to create unions in intercourse, prearranged marriages would still be the 'norm' and would be enforced regardless of an individuals' 'desire' or 'feelings'. Parents would be making the choice to whom their children would marry, rather than their children making that choice.

From Page 33 of the decision: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Thus, I see Justice John Roberts assertion on page 68 opposing Justice Kennedy and the four justices who ruled that liberty and privileges include marriage under being a Citizen of the United States: ["Celebrate the decision if you favor it, he says in the concluding lines of the dissent [ON PAGE 68]. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”], not to be based in the reality of Liberty and Citizenship 'privileges' as if there are none that don't have to do with being prosecuted. 
Read other Post Cody Robert Judy has written on the Same Sex Marriage Issue here here and here

IN TOTALITY OF THE DECISION WE SEE A WIN FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN NATION

The rights we have as individual Citizens has indeed made the United States of America one of the richest Country's of the world, some might say the envy of the world when it comes to the protections of ones life, liberty, and property. Of course there are other country's who have moved in that direction, but the Case for the United States can hardly be excluded in their own decisions of modern history to balance both conservatism and progressive-ism in a balance of Justice.

We are witness to "Old Judgments" as well as "New Judgments". We are witness to "New Judgments" being right replacing old judgments that were wrong all along. We are also witness to Old Judgments being right yesterday, today, and tomorrow just as Jesus Christ has claimed all along. Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Hebrews 13:4 Reminds Also: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: ", meaning be true to your oaths that you take with your partners in marriage regardless of gender.

The "Individual's Rights" are an essential part of respecting my own rights as a Presidential Candidate in my petition to the United States Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 14-9396, that contends my rights to run a fair race for President with the qualifications enumerated within the Constitution's bounds that the Office of the President devolve upon none other than a 'natural born Citizen', have been infringed by Obama and the DNC through their representatives also named in the action. 

I have declared damages to my Campaign and Person that the 14th Amendment was not created nor did it diminish the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. that only a 'natural born Citizen' can be President, unless he was a 'Citizen' at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This gives great cause in exposing wither the Justices who decided in favor of Same-Sex Unions are true to their own words of respect towards "individuals" in "equality" and "liberty" under the Constitution's demands for the Office of the President. 

Many court opinions state that if or when two aspects of the Constitution are in conflict, both must be given diligence. What that means is that 'natural born Citizen' can not be dismissed or diluted to the course of the qualifications for Representatives or Senators which is "Citizen". You can not do that. The 14th Amendment includes 'Citizens' to be anyone who is born reflecting only one aspect of 'natural born Citizen' which means "Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents" according to the Minor v. Happersett Case I have depended upon for relevance and precedent.

In that opinion it is stated,"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"- meaning to the other circumstances of Citizen there are doubts that they were not meant to be qualified to be President or Vice President, as the requirement of 'natural born Citizen' exist unique for both offices. This has been dramatized by the Legislatures eight failed attempts to change the definition since 2003.

The fact that these have failed is a witness to the Court my definition asserted since 2008 against McCain and Obama is right, but it remains a question the Court has not taken up from two Presidential Candidates; one opposed to the other's lack of eligibility or state of ineligibility. 

It is also a challenge to the dissenting Justices of the Court's recent opinion that this is not found in the Constitution, for it truly is with much greater emphasis then that of Marriage. Article II, Section I, Clause 5 states even the time frame for which 'natural born Citizen' is required and that is after those who were "Citizens" at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'
Art. II, Sect. 1, Clause 5 - "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE NEWS UPDATE
JUNE 18th, 2015 the United States Supreme Court held a Conference on my case and placed it in the "Pending Motions List" of the Court which meant my Case was not denied until the pending motions were taken care of. At issue was the informa pauperis status that I had claimed and the Court Denied. 
READ MORE
http://codyjudy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/breaking-news-how-could-same-sex.html