Judge Illegally Forcing State to Allow Homosexual Couples to Adopt Children

The rise of open sodomy in America is just more evidence that we are under the judgment of God. The perverting of marriage to include those who engage in sodomy and allowing sodomites to adopt children is even a more blatant mark of judgment upon America, and now a federal judge is illegally ruling that Mississippi must allow those engaged in sexual deviancy to adopt children.

On Thursday, Mississippi Today reported:

A federal judge has struck down Mississippi’s ban on same-sex adoption.

Trending: Young Autistic Boy Screams for Help as Bullies Nail Wooden Plank to His Head

U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III made the ruling late Thursday afternoon, stating that the state’s ban violates the equal-protection clause of the federal Constitution. Mississippi’s ban had been in effect since 2000.

take our poll - story continues below

Who are the happiest people?

  • Who are the happiest people?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The complaint, which was brought by Donna Phillips, Janet Smith, Kathryn Garner, Susan Hrostowski, Jessica Harbuck, Brittany Rowell, Tinora Sweeten-Lunsford, Kari Lunsford, The Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council, cited opinions of the Supreme Court that determined, “discrimination against children because their parents happen to be gay is blatantly unconstitutional.”

The first problem in all of this is that the federal judge has been given no authority in the very Constitution he cites to even hear this matter as it is contained within the state and is part of the Tenth Amendment’s provisions.

According to Article III, §2, clause 1, federal courts have been delegated authority to hear only these cases:

  • Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
  • Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and
  • Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

gay adoptionSecond, his pitiful appeal to the Fourteenth Amendment is a massive problem. The Fourteenth Amendment states:

“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 protection of the law.”

In commenting on the issue of redefining marriage, Publius Huldah writes, “Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality.” So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage? Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them. And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty“, in §1 and said it means “privacy,” and “privacy” means you can kill your baby.”

Indeed, but apparently the federal government doesn’t apply that consistently when they are looking at your metadata, or illegally spying on you, do they?

The Fourteenth Amendment was not written to redefine liberty or behavior. Illinois Republican Congressman John Farnsworth said March 31, 1871:

“The reason for the adoption [of the 14th Amendment]…was because of…discriminating…legislation of those States…by which they were punishing one class of men under different laws from another class.”

While the Fourteenth Amendment was not written as a backdoor into states’ rights, that is exactly what it has become today because judges don’t go back and gain the understanding of original intent.

Finally, the opinions of the Supreme Court in stating it is unconstitutional to discriminate against children on the basis of their parents’ sexual deviancy is absolute non-sense. Children are not being “discriminated against.” They are being protected from sexual deviants! And don’t talk to me about “love” going on between sodomites unless you are willing to acknowledge what these people are engaging in. They are engaging in things that both the Bible and our forefathers believed were worthy of death.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if anti-sodomy laws were upheld, there would be no talk of redefining marriage and, consequently, there would be no discussion of sodomites adopting children.

But hey, “enlightened” America knows better than God and their forefathers, right? How’s that working out for you America? Now, our children are paying the price (Exodus 20:5-6; Numbers 14:18) for our abandonment of God and His Law. America, we have not dealt with the crime of sodomy and now sodomites are going after our children in a similar manner that they are engaging in in Canada.

It seems to me that the people of Mississippi must ignore this judge’s ruling and follow their own state law, which upholds God’s Law.


Reposted with Permission from Freedom Outpost.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend