tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738269.post2344069486859712227..comments2023-10-02T05:33:15.293-05:00Comments on The Contemporary Calvinist: Russell Moore vs. Roy Moore: Whose law?Lee Sheltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11254842261338255019noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738269.post-73394147834116975862015-02-19T08:29:55.299-06:002015-02-19T08:29:55.299-06:00I agree with what you said about the word "ba...I agree with what you said about the word "ban." I only used it because that's the word Judge Granade used in her ruling.Lee Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11254842261338255019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738269.post-11304852888616305062015-02-19T08:06:53.486-06:002015-02-19T08:06:53.486-06:00I would think that Judge Moore was adhering to the...I would think that Judge Moore was adhering to the 10th Amendment by following State law rather than a non-existent Federal law that requires a particular definition of marriage.<br /><br />By the way, you mentioned "the constitutional ban on same-sex 'marriage' remained intact." It is incorrect to classify a definition of marriage as a ban on one false version of marriage. A definition excludes everything outside the definition. If the definition of marriage is a "ban" on anything, it is a ban on <i>everything</i> not covered by the definition. It is a ban on marrying yourself, cats, roller coasters, or multiple partners as well. (By the way, the "self", "cats", and "roller coasters" thing isn't made up. It has been tried.) I'm tired of people telling me that "'3+1=4' is a ban on 5!" No, if it's a ban, it's a ban on every other number <i>but</i> 4.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.com