Alabama Governor at Odds with Own Pastor’s Sermon Opposing ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

BentleyMONTGOMERY, Ala. — A recent sermon delivered by the pastor of Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley reveals that Bentley’s recent decision to follow a federal court ruling striking down the state’s Sanctity of Marriage Act as being unconstitutional is at odds with his church’s teachings on obeying God rather than men.

“Here’s what I said to our governor yesterday,” Gil McKee, pastor of First Baptist Church Tuscaloosa, told the congregation on Feb. 8. “‘Governor, I don’t care if all 49 states go for this same-sex marriage business, let’s be different in the state of Alabama. Let’s do what we know is the right thing to do. If you’ll just step up and lead out in this thing, if you’ll give the word to our chief justice to call all our probate judges … and say, ‘Don’t you issue one single license until the federal government does their thing and until we decide whether we’re going to follow that or not; don’t issue one of them,’ I’m telling you the people of this state would rally behind that.”

But as previously reported, Bentley told Politico on Friday while attending a meeting of the National Governor’s Association in Washington, D.C. that he believes he must obey the courts even if he disagrees with them personally.

“[I would] never do anything to disobey a federal court ruling,” he told the outlet when asked about last month’s same-sex “marriage” decision, which Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has called on others to fight.

“We are a nation under laws,” Bentley said. “We may not always agree with them, but we obey them.”

The governor, who is a longtime member of the church and once served as a deacon and Sunday school teacher, additionally told AlabamaNews that while he and Moore have the same convictions, they differ when it comes to compliance with federal court rulings.

“I don’t want Alabama portrayed in a negative light because when it’s portrayed in a negative light, it doesn’t help me to recruit jobs in Alabama,” he said. “So I’m hurting families when I can’t help people get a job in this state.”

  • Connect with Christian News

 

“I want to do everything I can to make sure the people across the country, the people across the world, realize that Alabama is a different state,” Bentley stated. “And I will obey the law and that’s what I’m going to do.”

However, McKee explained in his sermon that he had advised Bentley that it is the Christian’s duty to obey God rather than men, just as God’s people did in Scripture.

“There’s nothing grey about this issue—not if you’re going to go with what God says, and God has made it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, period, and that settles it,” he stated. “The issue is, are we going to go with God, or are we going to go with somebody else?”

He provided the example of Daniel, a ruler in the Babylon government under Nebuchadnezzar, who chose to defy an official decree rather than betray God.

“[Daniel] ended up in a high place, and all of a sudden the king comes up with this law that says, ‘You will do this. You will not pray to anyone other than this statue’—this golden statue of himself,” McKee explained, then alluded to Bentley’s reasoning. “Well, Daniel didn’t have to spend days wondering, ‘Oh, should I do that? Should I not? Is that going to affect my place here? Is that going to affect whether people are going to come in with business to the state?'”

“No, he already knew. He knew that he would only pray to God,” he continued. “So what did he do? He defied that mandate. He just kept praying to God. He wouldn’t bow down and pray to that statue.”

McKee then told the congregation that in return “God rallied behind Daniel” because he did what was right.

He called upon the Christians in Alabama government to likewise do what is right in the eyes of God when it comes to same-sex “marriage.”

“Rich Wingo, the rest of the legislature, Gov. Bentley, Chief Justice Moore, the rest of you folk, Luther Strange—as one citizen of this state, I am asking you as confessing committed Christian men to do the right thing no matter what the consequences,” McKee declared. “Do it.”

“Somebody said, ‘What’s the right thing?’ The right thing is you stay with God’s definition of marriage, and if they drag us to court, if they drag us to jail, if they drag us to D.C., come on and drag us,” he continued. “Because I can tell you as Peter and John said, ‘I will obey God rather than men.'”

He later exhorted the congregation to contact the governor and other government officials in Alabama, and urge them to honor God.

Two years ago, First Baptist Church Tuscaloosa adopted a declaration that includes its commitment to defending biblical marriage.

“First Baptist Church Tuscaloosa will continue to uphold and support the biblical institution of marriage,” it reads in part. “In an effort to restore a sound, biblical, and healthy marriage culture, First Baptist Church Tuscaloosa will refuse to redefine marriage or recognize and/or perform same-sex or multiple partner marriages.”

McKee told Christian News Network on Monday that the leadership of  the church has been “praying for God to give [Bentley] courage” to resist the pressure from the world and “do what is right in God’s eyes.”

“My encouragement to him two weeks ago was to not only get on board with Judge Moore, but to instruct him as our governor to tell our probate judges not to abide by this one federal judge,” he explained. “And obviously he had not taken that counsel at that time from me or anybody else.”

But McKee also said that the situation has presented “new waters” and that he is handling the matter with Bentley to the best of his ability.

“I’m trying to do everything I can do to encourage and to help him understand the support he would have biblically, [and also] the support he would have from the people in this state,” he said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Paul Hiett

    This world needs more people like Bentley, men who know that beliefs should never trump rights.

    • Will Keeler

      Paul, should it be a civil right for five people (3 women and 2 men) to all marry each other? Why or why not?

      • Paul Hiett

        I do not believe it should be, but not for the reasons you think. There are too many legal issues that creates, and then further encourages the marry for citizenship/money problems. Two people who love each other, regardless of race or gender, should be allowed to marry.

        • Will Keeler

          Well it sounds like you’re being intolerant towards those holding different opinions than yours. That IS the definition of a “bigot.”
          Paul, who do you think you are to deny somebody LOVE because it doesn’t fit into YOUR belief system?

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard this one before…which means I’m bigoted
            against pedophiles and animal lovers and pet rock lovers, blah blah blah.

            It’s not a valid argument, and never has been.

          • Will Keeler

            Yeah, yeah, because you say something is not valid, then it becomes not vaild blah blah.
            Here’s a the real question, Paul – Where does YOUR righteousness come from?

          • Paul Hiett

            Is it “righteousness” to stand up for equality for another human being?

            Here’s a better question. Why do you follow a book so full of intolerance?

          • Will Keeler

            Don’t show me your skirt, Paul. Answer the question – Where does your righteousness come from? And then, I will most certainly answer your question.

          • Paul Hiett

            From being raised in a society that has shaped my behavior, and educated me. Righteousness, morality, ethics…they don’t spring from some mythical creature in the sky. They are determined by the societies and communities we dwell in…we are simply a product of our upbringing and environment.

            It wasn’t long ago that we owned slaves in this country, and it was considered moral and ethical. I don’t suppose you agree now?

            So then, clearly, morals and ethics change amongst our communities as different ideologies are adapted. You, obviously, like to stand on your Bible and look down at everyone else, so don’t worry, I won’t bother asking where your “righteousness” comes from.

          • Will Keeler

            Oh, so society made you righteous… You mean the Christian society you were raised in? You mean the one you want to destroy?

            You asked: Is it righteousness to stand up for equality for another human being? My answer is: No, not if that stance will ultimately send them to destruction.

            You asked: Why do I follow a book so full of intolerance? Actually, God is very tolerant. Otherwise your rebellion against Him would have been squashed long ago. Yet, because of His tolerance, you are able to go on sinning. More importantly, I follow God’s word because it is not up to God to conform to my word- It is up to us to conform to His word, something you are obviously having trouble with.

          • Paul Hiett

            God’s tolerance? That same loving, caring “God” that would send me to Hell and suffer for all eternity for the simple crime of not believing in him? Yeah, that’s the clear definition of “tolerance”…

            No, not the Christian society, the “free” society. The society that allowed me to think for myself, to learn, to educate myself, and observe and make my own opinions. I don’t need a religion to tell me that murder and rape and stealing is bad. I also don’t need a religion to tell me who to love or hate.

            I’m sorry if you feel that the beliefs of others are not something you’d stand up for. We are, most certainly, on opposite sides on that one.

          • Will Keeler

            Yeah that God. You know the one who sent His only son to suffer for your sins. Yep, that one, the one who you reject but He still shows you His grace and mercy. That one.

            Here’s something to think about while you’re rejecting God.

            “…because they (YOU) did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them (YOU) a POWERFUL DELUSION so that they (YOU) will BELIEVE THE LIE, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

            Continue with your sinful ways, Paul. Take pleasure in wickedness. Believe the lie. Someday your strength will leave you and God’s grace will also leave you. That is what hell is – a place without God’s grace.

          • Paul Hiett

            You do realize that your denomination is but one of 42,000 of Christianity, and that there are over 4200 religions in the world? The odds of you getting it “right” are astronomical…and even with the known religions the truth may be something entirely unknown.

            Sorry, I simply don’t share your idea that you somehow figured it all out and everyone else is wrong.

          • Will Keeler

            Oh, here we go with the 42,000+ number again… Do you believe Jesus, Paul? Yes or No.

          • Paul Hiett

            Obviously not…I believe in no deity, but i recognize a rhetorical question when posed.

            I know the argument…”all you have to do is believe in Jesus…” and yet, there are many denominations who disagree with you. Then you’ll retort with “then they’re not real Christians…”, and truthfully, they’d simply say the same thing. And since you have no more validity than they do, whom do I believe? This is the problem with religion…all of them have the same infinitesimally small chance of being “right”, but ya’ll murder each other over it still.

          • Will Keeler

            Paul, you reject the Lord and “For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Condemned for rejecting the living God…

          • Paul Hiett

            Yours is but one opinion amongst thousands. Heaven is as likely to exist as is Valhalla, but I doubt you’ll understand why.

            I reject any belief in a deity of any kinda.

          • Will Keeler

            You can accept or reject anything you like. That is your choice. Remember this: “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

            You really better hope that Jesus Christ is a liar.

          • MisterPine

            So God’s “free gift” of grace isn’t much of a “gift” then, if by refusing it you are sent to everlasting fire.

          • Will Keeler

            Mister Pine,
            You (and me) are going to everlasting fire regardless of what we do, save believing in Jesus Christ. All people will go there: Straight, gay, black, white – everyone is going to the grave. God’s “gift” is salvation from that reality. Take it or leave it. The choice is yours…

          • MisterPine

            Sorry, that is your own paranoid revenge fantasy, not mine.

          • Will Keeler

            Sorry, this is God’s creation, not yours or mine.

          • MisterPine

            Opinion, not fact.

          • Will Keeler

            Fact, not opinion.

          • MisterPine

            If it’s fact, then prove it. Hint: a Bible is not proof.

          • wandakate

            People always want proof of GOD when He can’t be seen personally. Prove that there is no GOD, how bout that?
            Can you see the wind? I wrote this in another comment to somebody, the wind can’t be seen but it can be felt. And JESUS is the same, we don’t see him but we know he’s there. We don’t see GOD but we know he’s there nonetheless. He lives within us and we feel Him there powerfully and the HOLY SPIRIT lets us know what is right and what is wrong. He leads us into all truth.

          • wandakate

            GOD’s free gift of salvation is based on our choice. IF we want it. We must seek and we will find, we must asked and it will be given unto us. We must realize that we are born sinners. ONLY by the grace of GOD will we be saved, by His mercy for us. BUT, we have to accept it. We “must” after we realize we are sinners and can’t save ourselves then we confess our sins to Him. We then repent of them (sincerely) and finally we forsake them and don’t return to them. He in turn accepts our confession, our repentance and watches to see if we return or not. He will come into our hearts and live there spiritually speaking and we will know that He is there. He will “give” to us as His free gift the HOLY SPIRIT, and that will lead us into all truth so we will be able to discern right from wrong and please the LORD. We will be saved and at that point in time we will want to obey Him and do good deeds/works. We are saved by grace by our faith and we are judged by our works. It’s a simple process, not complicated.

          • Crono478

            Paul, I just noticed that you spent pretty much all day discussing and arguing with many of us when it comes to topics such as SSM. You don’t have much things to do each day?

          • wandakate

            You know what? You are the one that has it all wrong. WHY? Because it’s not about a denomination or a religion per se, what it’s about is a RELATIONSHIP with JESUS CHRIST. All of these worldly religions or denominations don’t matter one iota. Do we know JESUS as our own SAVIOR? That is the bottom line, the key to our eternal salvation. Do we pray, do we obey Him. Have we confessed our sins, repented of them and then finally forsaken them? If we have we are saved, we not, we are doomed and will spend our eternity (forever) in hell. It’s that simple. The fact that one person is a Catholic and the other is a Methodist or whatever has no bearing on one’s salvation. It’s all about JESUS and the repentance of our sins which are the transgression of the law and they separate us from Him forever. So, when you get that right, then you know the truth that will set you free.

          • wandakate

            HELL is “total” separation for GOD or anyone or anything good. It’s not a burning fire forever, it’s just misery. BUT, what people fail to understand is this…GOD doesn’t send anyone to hell, they send themselves by the way they live this life. Believe on the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST as you will be saved and your house.
            ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD. Heaven is the abode of GOD, hell is the abode of satan, and it’s our own choice where we spend our spiritual eternity.

          • Gary

            God is not tolerant of you.

          • Badkey

            But you don’t speak for god, Gary.

          • Gary

            I’m paraphrasing what I read in the Bible.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You really should take a few minutes to better understand the meaning of the word “bigot”.

            Citing the legal issues surrounding marriage between more than 2 people is not a sign of “bigotry”.

          • Will Keeler

            Thoughts,
            I can cite legal issues around same-sex marriage… Is that a form of bigotry?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Not at all.

            “Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”

            Citing legal issues around same-gender marriage is not intolerance toward those who share a different opinion.

            What would your legal issues be regarding same-gender marriage?

          • Will Keeler

            What legal issues?
            Ok, when someone’s personally held (different) beliefs prohibit them from endorsing state-marriages, the state can LEGALLY force them (intolerance) to endorse these civil unions. That becomes a legal issue.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “the state can LEGALLY force them (intolerance) to endorse these civil unions. ”

            The state has no such power. Where did you come up with the idea that the state can force someone to endorse same-gender marriage?

            Other than that one issue, which is untrue, what are the balance of your “legal issues” regarding same-gender marriage?

          • Will Keeler

            Where did I come up with the idea that the state can force someone to endorse state marriages? Right here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Since no one is “forced” to own a business, and no one can be “forced” to offer certain products, no one can be “forced to endorse same-gender marriage.

            You said you could cite legal issues regarding same-gender marriage. The issue above is not about same-gender marriage. It is about ant-discrimination laws. They are separate issues. As an example: Same-gender marriage is legal in Oklahoma. Sexuality is not covered in the anti-discrimination laws in Oklahoma. As a result, even those same-gender marriage is legal, a baker would NOT be violating the law by refusing to bake a cake for a same-gender wedding celebration.

            So, back to your legal issues regarding same-gender marriage. What would those be?

          • Will Keeler

            Wrong. People are “forced” to have a job, or else they don’t eat. People are “forced” to offer certain products, because that is their livelihood, they cannot just change that overnight. And yes, people are “forced” to endorse shame-gender marriages by “forcing” them to make products for the wedding. You must be some sort of State employee…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “People are “forced” to have a job, or else they don’t eat. ”

            If that were true then everyone who isn’t employed would be starving. They are not. Your statement is false.

            “People are “forced” to offer certain products, because that is their livelihood, they cannot just change that overnight.”

            A florist is not “forced” to offer flowers for weddings. A baker is not “forced” to offer cakes for weddings. In both cases sales could still be made and livelihoods provided. Your statement is false.

            “And yes, people are “forced” to endorse shame-gender marriages by “forcing” them to make products for the wedding”

            So if a baker makes a cake for an engagement party, and the couple engages in sexual relations even though they aren’t yet married, is the baker “endorsing” premarital sexual relations?

            If a florist provides flowers for a baby shower and the mother is unmarried, is the florist “endorsing” out of wedlock births?

            If a baker makes a cake for a couple where either of them have been divorced for reasons other adultery, is the baker “endorsing” divorce?

            Providing a service for something does not amount to endorsing it. The baker is free to put up signs in the window of the shop that say: “I do not endorse same-gender marriage”. She is free to put of signs that say: “Same gender marriage is wrong”. She is free to hold a press conference to let everyone know that even though she is abiding by the law, she does not endorse same-gender marriage.

            In sum, no, a service provider is not “forced” to endorse anything they don’t care to nor is a business “forced” to provide any particular service as a part of their business offerings.

            Now, back to your legal issues regarding same-gender marriage. What would those be?

          • MAC

            thoughtsfromflorida What do you mean “The state has no such power” to force someone to endorse sodomite marriages? Have you not read the news on the numerous businesses (florists, bakeries, wedding chapels) sued for NOT accepting sodomite marriages, thus refusing to make wedding cakes or flowers for sodomite marriages, or marry them in their wedding chapel because of their religious [Christian] faith? [according to the law they MUST do so or be sued] This is putting them out of business and/or bankrupting them, even though others have offered to provide the services for these “couples” FREE! Now, is that the state LEGALLY forcing them to endorse their sodomite lifestyle? Absolutely! And is wrong. Those people are being force to deny their faith by the STATE! And sodomites are making a point of singling out businesses that they KNOW would object on their religious [Christian] faith.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “What do you mean”

            I mean exactly what I said. This idea that creating a product for an event somehow translates into a person “endorsing” that event is simply bogus. People or free to endorse or not endorse anything they care to. A business is free to put up signs in their window saying they don’t endorse same-gender marriage. They are free to put up signs saying that same-gender marriage is wrong. They are free to no longer offer services which are against their beliefs. They are free to close their business. They are not “forced” to “endorse” anything.

            “And sodomites are making a point of singling out businesses that they KNOW would object on their religious [Christian] faith.”

            Proof?

          • MAC

            Forcing a person to create a product or provide the services, etc. to another against their Christian faith is making them “endorse”. Maybe you need to look up the word endorse and also look at the synonyms, which mean the same thing. The state is forcing people to go against their
            Christian faith and participate, i.e. endorse, in making their products, services, etc. to
            sodomite couples in Oregon, Colorado, New
            Mexico, Washington:

            http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/03/christian-bakers-face-government-wrath-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay/

            Colorado:

            http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

            http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

            The 1st Amendment came before Colorado state law
            and since the SCOTUS has determined that the Bill of Rights include states,
            therefore, it would stand to reason that the 1st Amendment comes before the
            state law. However, Colorado has religious protection laws and they are being
            violated.

            Also, Colorado has violated their own Constitution
            by their “non-discrimination” law.

            Colorado Constitution:

            Section 3. Inalienable
            rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and
            inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and
            defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting
            property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

            Section 4. Religious
            freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
            worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no
            person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on
            account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience
            hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations,
            excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good
            order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or
            support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against
            his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious
            denomination or mode of worship.

            Oregon:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/

            Idaho:

            http://national.deseretnews.com/article/2579/two-christian-ministers-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho-sue-their-city-over-new-law.html

            Nevada, wedding chapel has to allow accommodation
            though can have another officiate the ceremony –they are still “forced” to
            participate as a form of endorsement:

            http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/oct/28/can-nevada-wedding-chapels-refuse-same-sex-couples/

            Washington:

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/23/florist-sued-for-refusing-service-to-gay-couple-pens-defiant-letter-rejecting-states-settlement-and-her-attorney-reveals-whats-next/

            Barronelle Stutzman declined because of her faith
            yet these men, as previous clients, sued and are quite willingfor her to lose
            her business, means of making a living and possibly her home all because she
            stands on her Christian faith instead of respecting her faith and going
            elsewhere for their flowers. Their beliefs are being forced on her and she is
            being denied her religious beliefs.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/19/judge-rules-that-elderly-christian-florist-violated-the-law-by-refusing-flowers-for-a-gay-wedding-and-it-could-cost-her-dearly/

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Forcing a person to create a product or provide the services, etc. to another against their Christian faith is making them “endorse””

            No one is “forced” to do that. Opening a business is a CHOICE. What products your business offers is a CHOICE. There is no “forcing”.

            “Maybe you need to look up the word endorse”

            “Endorse: 1. to approve, support, or sustain:”

            Perhaps it is you who needs to gain a better understanding of the word “endorse”. Baking a cake for a wedding reception does not amount to approving, support, or sustaining the act of same gender marriage. Should anyone be confused on the matter, the baker is completely free to put up big signs in the window which state: “I do not endorse same-gender marriage” or “I think same-gender marriage is a sin” or “I think same-gender marriage is wrong” or “I do not accept same-gender marriage”, and be completely within the bounds of the law.

            “Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

            So that section of the constitution clearly shows that laws not allowing two citizens of the same gender to enjoy their lives and liberties and seeking their happiness, by restricting access to a right offered by the state, are a violation of the Colorado constitution. Thanks for the supporting information.

            “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination”

            Being a baker is not a “religious profession”, nor is baking a cake a form of religious “worship”. So no violation there.

            “or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state.”

            The state has determined that anti-discrimination laws enhance the “good order, peace or safety of the state”. Thus they do not violate the Colorado constitution.

            “because she stands on her Christian faith”

            No, the reason was that she violated the laws of Colorado.

            “instead of respecting her faith and going elsewhere for their flowers.”

            So do you believe that Christians should be above the law? Do you think Christians should not be held accountable to the law? Do you believe that if a baker turned away an interracial couple by citing her deeply held religious beliefs that the races should not mix, should not be held accountable for breaking the law?

            “Their sin and beliefs are being forced on her”

            No, they are being “forced”. She is free to no longer operate a business of pubic accommodation and free to no longer offer products that would result in her doing something that is against her beliefs. She is not being “forced” to do anything.

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that religious freedom means that citizens are allowed to apply their beliefs in any place, at any time, and in any way they care to. Such a belief is wrong. Religious expression is restricted in many ways. Further, numerous court rulings have established that the religious beliefs of business owners are not sufficient reason for allowing business owners to violate anti-discrimination laws.

            Further, you have stated in another post that members of the judiciary who overturn laws which were put into place by the “will of the people” is wrong and makes the judge “activist/liberal”. You view a law put into place by the “will of the people” as being inviolable. Since anti-discrimination were put into place by either the “will of the people” or the elected representatives of the people, wouldn’t ruling against those laws based upon constitutional protections be wrong and make a judge “activist/liberal”?

            Or is the judiciary only wrong and activist/liberal when they rule against a law you support, but not when they rule against you don’t support? If so, that is commonly referred to as hypocritical.

          • wandakate

            That is irrelevant whether Paul believes it or I believe it or you believe it, what is IMPORTANT is does JESUS believe in it? Since He has been appointed by GOD the FATHER to make all of the final decisions then it’s Him that we need to be concerned about and not the opinions of anybody else, as their opinion doesn’t matter in the end. The belief system we are currently under is of man and not GOD. GOD gives us life and GOD takes it away.

        • wandakate

          People have the right to make their own choices and they do that all the time. GOD had the right to create heaven and hell. One for the people who do His will and obey and do the right thing, the other created for those who disobey Him and do the wrong thing. He is the one that will be the judge. Man isn’t going to be judging in the end, it will be JESUS. So we need to chose wisely.

      • Edgar Halcyon

        Why is it that low-IQ bigots always bring their fantasies about multiple partners, siblings, animals and kitchen appliances into the conversation about a group of people seeking the equality to form a legal relationship with ONE other person?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Because they have nothing else.

        • ijustgottasay

          Because it is a slippery slope that liberals don’t want to admit exists. If we allow homosexuals the right to marry, everyone else with a different sexual orientation will demand the rights to marry and will win their cases based on the cases of homosexuals. Consent from both parties will be all it takes. People who justify homosexuality will have no problems justifying any other sexual relationship as long as both parties are consenting and no one is “harmed.” People are already in support of a set of twin brothers who are in a relationship together because it is consensual and there is no chance for an inbred baby. If you can justify one sexual relationship based on certain criteria, it is very easy to justify another sexual relationship based on the same criteria. Anyone with half a brain can see the slippery slope.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, not at all. Gay marriage is nothing like those other examples. Kids, rocks, and animals cannot give consent, nor are of legal age to do so (in the case of children). Therefore, those examples fail miserably.

            Polygamy opens the door to legal abuse of our systems, and therefor cannot be legalized, but not for morality issues.

          • Will Keeler

            Not true, Paul. According to gay-union supporters, the ONLY requirements for “marriage” is love and consent. That’s it. If you have two, twin brothers who have “meaningful” consent, then you CAN NOT deny their love, Paul.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “According to gay-union supporters, the ONLY requirements for “marriage” is love and consent. ”

            Really? What gay union supporters have said that?

          • Will Keeler

            I’ve spoken to plenty who have said that. More to the point, what discriminatory filters would you like to place on “love”??? Only two people? No family members?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I’ve spoken to plenty who have said that.”

            So you can’t actually cite anyone who has made that argument. You have just “spoken to plenty”. Got it.

            “More to the point, what discriminatory filters would you like to place on “love”???”

            None. Who one loves is not subject to restriction. Certain actions, however, are.

          • Will Keeler

            “Certain action, however, are.” Ok what other discriminatory filters would YOU like to place on marriage?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Ok what other discriminatory filters would YOU like to place on marriage?”

            I didn’t state that I wanted to place any discriminatory filters on marriage, therefore I can’t place “other” ones.

          • Will Keeler

            “I didn’t state that I wanted to place any discriminatory filters on marriage, therefore I can’t place “other” ones”

            Ok, so you are fine with incestuous marriages? How about multi-partner, or polygamous marriages? Are they OK too?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Incestuous marriage is already allowed in the US – it’s simply a matter of the closeness of the incest.

            Regarding allowing more than 2 people to enter into marriage, I think that there are a number of very complex legal issues involved that would require close examination. I have not examined those issues deeply enough to have an opinion one way or the other.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If we allow homosexuals the right to marry, everyone else with a different sexual orientation will demand the rights to marry ”

            For example?

            “and will win their cases based on the cases of homosexuals.”

            The basis for allowing same-gender marriage is that the state is unable to provide any rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for restricting marriage based upon gender. How would that be relevant to other forms of marriage?

            “People who justify homosexuality will have no problems justifying any other sexual relationship as long as both parties are consenting and no one is “harmed.””

            For example?

            “If you can justify one sexual relationship based on certain criteria, it is very easy to justify another sexual relationship based on the same criteria.”

            Sexual relations are not the issue under discussion. Access to the civil right of marriage is the issue under discussion. Your “slippery slope” argument is an example of a last gasp effort by some to attempt to influence people in a way that is unsupportable by the facts.

          • ijustgottasay

            If you don’t mind a long read, this sums it up nicely:

            http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest

            The “harm” I was referring to in reference to a consensual relationship that causes no harm is in reference to babies born of invest with birth defects. A set of homosexual twins in a relationship cannot possibly reproduce, so cannot harm a baby in that way.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            How would it be harmful if they were allowed to enter into civil marriage?

            I read the article. It is flawed. It is based on the idea that if one change is made to marriage, then all changes must be allowed. That is without merit. There is no legal rationale that would go: “Well two people of the same gender can get married, so why not 4, or rocks, or siblings?”

            Each restriction on marriage stands on its own. Should two brothers want to enter into civil marriage and challenge the laws regarding that, then it will be up to state to prove that such restrictions are rational, compelling, and legally valid. Since the restrictions are on siblings. There would be no basis in a court case to say: “The reason siblings should be allowed to marry is because we let two people of the same gender who are not siblings marry”. They are distinct issues.

            The ability to challenge laws regarding sibling marriage has always existed. It is not related to the issue of same-gender marriage.

            The “well if this happens then all these other things will inevitably happen” is nothing more than a straw man argument which indicates the lack of any other arguments.

          • ijustgottasay

            Well, I disagree with you. Thanks to Granade, there is no real definition of marriage in Alabama and that’s where the problem lies. Anyone can find a loophole and make a compelling case for anything now. Our whole system of government seems to revolve around finding loopholes in the constitution to justify anything. I can see a clever attorney finding a loophole in Alabama’s marriage laws to fit in any other type of marriage.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ” Thanks to Granade, there is no real definition of marriage in Alabama”

            Sure there is: Two, consenting, non-closely-related adults. It’s the same definition that is has been for years. The only difference now is that there is no other law which restricts marriage to only those of opposite gender. The reason that law was created was that the wording of marriage law at the time did not exclude same-gender couples.

        • Will Keeler

          Edgar,
          You propose changing the definition of a word to fit your “love.” Soon, others will change the definition of that same word to fit their “love.” If you attempt to deny their “love” based on your beliefs, that will make you the bigot.

          • Edgar Halcyon

            Oh Will, I will type this s l o w l y, so that you can understand. We are not talking about “love” or its definition. We are talking about a group of oppressed people, whom you obviously despise (self-loathing ?), seeking EQUAL rights with other COUPLES.
            Thank you for reminding me of Gene Wilder’s great line in Young Frankenstein.

          • Will Keeler

            Oh Edgar, I will type this s l o w l y, so that you can understand. You ARE talking about taking the definition of the word “MARRIAGE” and changing it to meet YOUR needs.
            Thank you for reminding me of the BIBLE’s great line: “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You ARE talking about taking the definition of the word “MARRIAGE” and changing it to meet YOUR needs. ”

            Just like the Lovings did. Do you have an issue with that?

          • Will Keeler

            Nowhere did God ever say that marriage was between one race. I do not accept that reply. God clearly states that He favors a union between a man and a woman – doesn’t say anything about interracial marriages.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Nowhere did God ever say that marriage was between one race. ”

            No where did God say that two people of the same gender should not be allowed to enter into civil marriage. That lack of direct admonition, however, has not kept people from saying that they interpret the Bible in that way, just as MANY people said that the Bible was clear that the races should not mix.

            Regardless, the definition of marriage in many states was two people of the same race. The Lovings challenged that definition and won. As a result, the definition of marriage was changed. It was changed to meet their needs. Something which you have indicated you are against. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you did not favor changing laws which prohibited interracial marriage.

            Or, is it acceptable to change the definition if you agree with the change, but not acceptable if you don’t?

          • Will Keeler

            ” where did God say that two people of the same gender should not be allowed to enter into civil marriage.”

            Oh, so now it’s a “civil marriage” and not just “marriage”?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Marriage is used in different ways in our society. There is the religious rite of marriage and civil marriage which creates legal standing for the couple. Where you not aware of that?

            I’ll ask again, since deflection is something you rely on heavily:

            is it acceptable to change the definition if you agree with the change, but not acceptable if you don’t?

      • Badkey

        Why change the subject?

        It shows that you have no rational argument against gay marriage.

    • Gary

      Freedom of religion actually is in the Constitution. ssm is no where to be found in the Constitution. It is not a right.

      • Badkey

        Still angry that your choice to follow mythology ain’t special anymore, Gary?

        After all, it is just a choice.

        • Gary

          But it is special. It is protected by the US Constitution. Which cannot be said for homosexual behavior.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Dang. Good. Point.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not really. There’s nothing special about Christianity in the Constitution. ALL religions have the same protection, not just yours.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I was referring to his second point, Silly. Unless you are now calling homosexual behavior a religion? Come to think of it… 🙂

        • Gary

          But it is special. It is protected by the US Constitution. Which cannot be said for homosexual behavior.

      • ElRay

        Haven’t read The Constitution lately have you? (1) People retain all rights not granted to the government. (2) The 1st Amendment prevents one groups religious beliefs being foisted on others and (3) The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment of all citizens.

        • Gary

          Really? So you have any right you want?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            If it’s not illegal, then yes.

          • Gary

            Do you believe all rights come from the government?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I believe that the government denies you the right to impose your religious beliefs on me. I believe that the right for me to live my life as I see fit as long as I don’t break any laws in no way affects your religious freedom.

          • Gary

            I disagree.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            You’re allowed to disagree — you’re just not allowed to do anything about it :-).

          • Gary

            Don’t be too sure.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I’m pretty sure. I’m also pretty sure that you’re an old man and I’m not afraid of the elderly, so do your worst.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            As a starting point, yes. Then the state is able to restrict rights provided that it can provide rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for doing so. But, yes, as citizens are rights are a given.

            The state has been unable to provide any rational, compelling, or legally valid reasons for restricting access to civil marriage based solely upon gender.

          • Gary

            The reasons for maintaining heterosexual-only marriage are not being considered by the courts. That is why they are ruling in favor of the queers.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            They considered the reasons for maintaining “heterosexual-only marriage” that were put forth, and decided that your side had no evidence to back your fallacious claims.

  • TheBBP

    Praise God that his Pastor is still standing firmly in The Word.

    • Paul Hiett

      This man simply recognized that this nation, while predominantly Christian, is not a nation ruled by Christianity. We are a multi-cultural country filled with people of all walks of life, of all faiths…no one religious belief should ever trump the rights and beliefs of others.

      • Will Keeler

        Paul, if what you say is true, then why do YOU get to deny LOVE between people because of YOUR beliefs?

        • Paul Hiett

          Worst. Strawman. Ever.

          • Will Keeler

            Said the guy who couldn’t answer a simple question.

          • Brad Ledbetter

            Um, Paul’s comment/reply actually is endorsing love between others rather than beliefs denying them that love.

          • Will Keeler

            Again… Paul believes he can deny the love between incestuous couples because their love doesn’t fit into his belief system.

          • Cyril Tangham

            do you endorse love between your son and his mother?

          • InHisGrip

            Absolutely not. Just like I don’t endorse two dudes or two chicks marrying each other.

          • DannyDino

            Offensive and hateful metaphor, T.

        • MisterPine

          …wait, WHAT?

          I’m trying to follow what you’re saying closely, but where did Paul deny love to anyone? Isn’t it the anti-gay bigots who are doing that?

          • Will Keeler

            Paul believes he can deny the love between incestuous couples because their love doesn’t fit into his belief system.

          • Mark Tillman

            “Incest” doesn’t have duddly squat to do with this discussion. Look up what “incest” actually means, Will. Love in Christ…

          • Will Keeler

            Thanks for the reply, Mark.
            In this case, incest is applied only as a deviant from the definition of marriage, like same-sex “marriage” is a deviant from marriage. Also, incest questions the validity of “love” being the defining requirement for marriage, and therefore it’s recognition as being equal, which it is not.
            More importantly though, Mark, the litmus test is here is if you believe Jesus Christ died for mankind’s sin, which I do. Do you believe that as well?

          • DannyDino

            Offensive and vulgar assertions about gay people, though i doubt ‘flagging’ this comment will get it removed.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            so true, and what people don’t get is these pastors use mis interpretations of man and woman only that the bible did not say..but people choose to believe that, but it doesn’t matter equality is here and religion needs to be a choice you make and kept to yourself not forced onto to us in laws, because we are not a theocracy

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          What “love” is it you are suggesting Paul is denying based upon his beliefs?

          • Will Keeler

            Again – Paul believes he can deny the love between incestuous couples because their love doesn’t fit into his belief system.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’ve never seen where Paul said that. Please cite where Paul said that “he can deny the love between incestuous couples because their love doesn’t fit into his belief system”.

        • Cyril Tangham

          will you endorse LOVE betweent your wife and your son?
          Will you endorse LOVE between you son and your daughter?

    • wandakate

      Matthew 5:1-12 and towards the end of that passage it tells that who else the blessed will be. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. YES, prophets that were before us were persecuted, what makes us think we won’t be? This pastor is a rarity indeed. Very few pastors will stand on TRUTH, will continue to OBEY and abide in the word. Most are telling you what you want to hear to increase their salaries and their attendance, but who are going against what GOD has ordained ONE MAN WITH ONE WOMAN, period. Good for this pastor on that issue.

      • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

        you are an ignorant bigot hiding behind religion to justify your ugly, bigoted hatred and discrimition..we have a constitution and we all have to abide by that like it or not..that pastor is very wrong and so are you..we don’t have tyrannical bible law get it?

        • wandakate

          People such as you don’t deserve an answer b/c you wouldn’t be able to make any sense out of it anyway.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            lol you are very funny and so amazingly ignorant..lol ..ever heard of the constitution? ssm has to be legal, because to deny them is a violation of the 14th amendment read up on it and why we have separation of church and state. what part of we don’t have bible law do you not understand? better yet take a civics course and one on the constitution that explains it to you on your low level

          • wandakate

            YOU are talking about the laws of “man” and not the laws of GOD…GOD is the one that you will have to account to on that day of judgment. You won’t be answering to the POTUS, you won’t answer to all these elitist, you won’t be answering to anybody else except JESUS. You may not like that, but it won’t matter b/c you won’t have a choice. So, I’ll go with GOD and follow Him as best I can and the rest will fall by the wayside. This president wants to do away with the constitution or did you not know that? The Bible is the guideline for the past, the present and the future…

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            that’s right we have laws of man not stone age bible law plus all the things the bible said happened scientists proved it is all hogwash fairy tales..believe in your fairy tales all you want, but don’t try to force it on us all you will lose if we have a theocracy and constitution gone..there will be a revolution I promise and you fundie extremists are the ones that will lose..one day like you so believe we all have to answer on judgement day..you people will be the first to be judged, but you don’t think so, because you don’t even know your bible that’s full of contradictions and evil..thats right I said evil..they used religion to justify jim crow laws and slavery and not granting womens rights..you don’t know history or your bible if you believe otherwise

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            your an ignorant, evil false prophet abomination that will be judged by god for your judgment sins

          • wandakate

            You can save your breath and tell all of that to JESUS the day you stand before Him for judgment…

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            your a retard

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            oh shutup and pray to your imaginary sky fairy

          • wandakate

            I don’t believe in fairy tales and there is no imaginary sky fairy.
            Maybe you’ll think about all of this when you go to where you’re going way down below. Fact is, you’ll have plenty of time to think about it as you won’t be going anywhere after you get there. It’s a one way trip.

          • wandakate

            REALLY? You can think what you wish…We all will stand before GOD, and it looks like your doing some judging here yourself which you will be accountable for.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            and god if there is one will send you straight to hell for tryng to keep others equality away dumb ass

          • DannyDino

            Wanda, while I and many DO appreciate you being God and Christ’s (self-appointed ) spokesperson, you do NOT speak for ALL Christians, nor likely MOST American Christians, despite you holding that pretend red hotline to and from God. Any school-age ten year-old child could remind you, teacher, that we have a long and determined national expectation of that darn thick wall of separation, and I’ll give you one gold star if you can complete that quote by Thomas Jefferson, and another gold star, if you can fairly and reasonably explain in the most simple of language what it means. Pick up your pencils, and BEGIN:

          • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

            Actually you do not have a separation of church and state. It is called a 501(c)3 and the majority of the churches have one. It grants them major tax exemptions if they promise not to make any political statements from their pulpits. Also your trusted Constitution is coming to an end and your trustworthy government is shredding the current one while drafting a new one that promotes socialism, liberality and communism.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            I hope that does not happen..communism never works out, but I am not against the ssm thing, because it doesn’t affect anyone in my opinion..and as long as pastors and ministers are free not to do it if they don’t want to

          • wandakate

            I am a retired school teacher and don’t have a “low level” thank you. That’s just your opinion of which you have no knowledge of anything academic. You like to throw your weight around and act big and tough and run your foul mouth. People like you don’t know any better. Why are you on this sight? Don’t you have any video games to play? Are you that bored?

          • DannyDino

            A teacher? Like, a REAL teacher, with an education and expected credentials? Tell us, Wanda, how are YOU not ‘throwing YOUR weight around” and ‘acting big’ and ‘running your mouth’?!?!? You falsely and oddly call out bad behavior in others, yet, Pharisee-like, as Wanda seems consistently to be, does the WORSE and MORE hateful and abuse said towards others. YOU just stated that gays are hell-bound, but I suppose that is then some nice and friendly hug from a teacher? Sad, very sad thing to read, that someone allowed you to spew your hateful and harmful abusive bigoted words around, and then hypocritically don’t recognize smartly, that wanda’s doing the exact same act of hyper-criticism and meanness, THROWING HER supposed weight around. Those poor, poor children who had to deal with a bigot out of her white robe she doesn’t even keep at home. Webster’s, read -up on it ; “Hypocrite”

          • wandakate

            Just speaking the “TRUTH” which people don’t want to hear. Bible says in the end of time they will heap up for themselves teachers that will give them soothing talk and comfort their itching ears. They will not want the truth. Satan has them blinded to it and they don’t know right from wrong. They live in the lust of the flesh. So very sad, I think worse than being a hypocrite, which you have accused me of, but you don’t know that. That is the way you are perceiving what I have written. And as you can see here the name is Wandakate, NOT Wanda.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            your a horrible bigot hiding behind religion to justify it..your an abomination and will be sent to hell and god will punish you for your judgement sins horribly

      • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

        you need to shutup and keep your religious lies to yourself just like that out of it old man..you need to mind your own business and leave them alone since their equality in no way affects you..sorry that your such a miserable human being that hides behind ignorant, evil religion to justify your hatred, intolerance, discrimination and bigotry

        • wandakate

          People have a free will to make their own individual choices and if it’s their desire to spend their eternity in hell then that is certainly their choice isn’t it? I don’t have any religious lies. And I’m not miserable at all. It sounds like to me you’re the miserable person, the most miserable on this site, as your comments are the nastiest ones. Does that make you happy and proud of yourself?
          I don’t hate anybody, I’m not intolerant of anyone either, and you are judging and will be judged for your judging as we all will be held accountable for all of our sins.

          • DannyDino

            Again, a person of Christian faith who FAILS to recognize and accept that she neither speaks for God or Christ, NOR does she fathom the expected ‘wall of separation between church and state’, which does not fit her own personal faith wishes. It is NOT either a given that a ‘Christian’ denounces gays, gay relationships or gay marriage, and there are over FOUR MILLION AMERICAN Presbyterians and Episcopalians who neither denounce gay people, NOR deny gay couples their IN-HOUSE, in church, religious marriage ceremonies. AND, more upsetting i’m sure, millions more FELLOW CHRISTIANS YOU ASSUME AND PRESUME TO THINK AND SPEAK FOR, do NOT denounce gay people nor state they will ‘be in hell for all eternity”, as you so sadly repeat, like a slow and mean child. And if I am in hell for all eternity, I imagine Jesus has called up Satan, and is setting up a cot for you to stay on, right next to me. Jesus said nothin’, wanda, in condemnation of gay people, but He DID say a hell of a lot of repeated condemnation for hateful and harmful, judgmental Pharisee-like words and behavior.

          • wandakate

            I am a published writer and very busy, but I will take a second here to reply. Apparently you don’t know much if anything about GOD or the words of His book.
            Let’s take a look at what GOD said, and not what you accuse ME of saying…NOT my words, but HIS words…
            New Testament…1 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 9-10…KNOW YE NOT THAT THE UNRIGHTEOUS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. BE NOT DECEIVED: NEITHER FORNICATORS, NOR IDOLATERS, NOR ADULTERERS, NOR THE EFFEMINATE (homosexuals), NOR ABUSERS OF THEMSEELVES WITH MANKIND WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM. (THEY ARE PERVERTS AND HOMOSEXUALS). NOR THIEVES, NOT THE COVETOUS, NOR DRUNKARDS, NOR REVILERS, NOR EXTORTIONERS, SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!
            In the NEW Testament, chapter 5 verses 3-6 in the book of Ephesians it tells us this…BUT FORNICATION, AND ALL UNCLEANNESS, OR COVETOUSNESS, LET IT NOT BE ONCE NAMED AMOUNG YOU, AS BECOMETH SAINTS; NEITHER FILTHINESS, NOR FOLLISH TALKING, NOR JESTING, WHICH ARE NOT CONVENIENT; BUT RATHER GIVING OF THANKS. FOR THIS YOU KNOW, THAT NO WHOREMONGER, NOR UNCLEAN PERSON, NOR COVETOUS MAN, WHO IS AN IDOLATER, HAS ANY INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST AND OF GOD.
            In the book of Galatians (NEW testament also) chapter 5 verse 19-20…NOT THE WORKS OF THE FLESH ARE MANIFEST, WHICH ARE THESE; ADULTERY, FORNICATION, UNCLEANNESS, LASCIVIOUSNESS. idolatry, WITCHCRAFT, HATRED, VARIANCE, EMULATIONS, WRATH, STRIFE, SEDITIONS, HERESIES. ENVYINGS, MURDERS, DRUNKENNESS, REVELLINGS, AND SUCH LIKE: OF THE WHICH I TOLD YOU BEFORE, AS I HAVE ALSO TOLD YOU IN TIME PAST, THAT THEY WHICH “DO” THESE THINGS “SHALL NOT” INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
            Everything I have written thus far has come from the scriptures and not from myself. If you don’t know the scriptures then you won’t know what GOD expects and doesn’t expect, but apparently you don’t seem to care about that one way or the other. NONE of these people listed above will be in HEAVEN…They need to confess, repent, and forsake their SINS first.

      • DannyDino

        Tough that, now nearly a year in, your careful and Christ-like posturing amounts to nothing. Read up on that darn ‘wall of separation between church and state’, and then get back to me.

    • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

      this is exactly why people like you and the narrow minded, bigoted pastor..exactly the reason why people are leaving hateful churches like yours and going to ones that accept everyone, or leaving religion altogether..one day..people like you will be so ignored and left out in the cold for your intolerant, un acceptance.. most of the usa is in support of gay equality and that tide will not change..it will increase more every year..so good lucky with your hatred, intolerance, and bigotry hiding behind religion

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    When he took the vow of office he swore to uphold the law. He is not governor of the Christians of Alabama, he is the governor of the people of Alabama. If he doesn’t want to fulfill his sworn duty he should resign.

  • LITTLEBIT

    amen I from Alabama I would stand behind him

  • Frank

    Bentley the apostate gets told by a Christian to Jesus up.

    • Paul Hiett

      So as long as a law does not give any rights to Muslims, Jews, gays, atheists, Taoists, Hindus, etc, it’s a good law?

      • Will Keeler

        I love how you throw “gays” in there with religions (or atheism) like it is some sort of belief system…

        • Paul Hiett

          You missed the point, due to your poor reading comprehension skills. I was alluding to those groups of people Christians believe will go to Hell.

          • Will Keeler

            Wrong again Paul. Jews aren’t going to hell because of their lack of belief in Jesus. They have their own law with God.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…are you now suggesting that two religions are “right”????

            That’s friggin hilarious. You really haven’t read the Bible, have you?

          • Will Keeler

            I have Paul. I understand it well. Obviously, you don’t…

          • Paul Hiett

            What then does Jesus say about getting to Heaven?

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, I didn’t think you’d go down that path any further. You clearly have not read much of the Bible.

          • Will Keeler

            Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father but through me. Including Jews.

          • Paul Hiett

            Bingo, see…not so hard to admit when you’re wrong.

          • Will Keeler

            Yep, you should give it a try sometime…

          • Paul Hiett

            Next time I am, I will.

          • Will Keeler

            Ok, let’s try. Is Jesus Christ the way, the truth, and the life? yes or no.

          • Paul Hiett

            I do not believe so…you can’t even prove Jesus was a real man, much less a son of a god, so why ask me such a factually unsupported question?

          • Will Keeler

            It’s very well established that Jesus was a real, historical person.

            Since this is going no where, I’ll leave it at this. I apologize to you, Paul. I have not done a good job sharing how much Jesus Christ loves you as a person. Please forgive me for this. Jesus does love you and He is waiting for you to ask Him into your heart. I hope someday you will choose to invite him into your home.

          • ijustgottasay

            You are wrong on that. Jewish people rejected Christ and had Him crucified. He was the ultimate sacrifice for sins. Animal sacrifices are no longer required. On top of that, Jesus is the mediator between us and God. Back in Bible times, only the high priest was allowed in Holy of Holies where God was present. Now we have a direct line to God through His son Jesus Christ.

            The whole Jewish religion is a farce now. Any rituals or sacrifices, or whatever they do now to atone for sin is not acceptable to God. God made a new law and a new covenant with Jesus and the old ways of atoning of sin are no longer relevant. There is no point in Jesus dying on the cross if Jewish rituals and sacrifices are still accepted by God. Yes, we should still celebrate Holy Days, but anything Jewish people do to atone for sin is not going to work. They too must accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and stop rejecting Him.

          • Will Keeler

            Yes, I was wrong. Thank you for the correction. Peace be with you, my brother (or sister) in Christ.

          • ijustgottasay

            Peace be with you too. =)

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Now we have a direct line to God through His son Jesus Christ.”

            And the Mormons have one through the president of the Mormon church. Maybe it’s a party line.

          • ijustgottasay

            Cute. =)

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Thanks

        • PA Psychologist

          Will, actually you make a good point but not the one you think you are making. Religious faith is a belief and a choice. All believers, choose their beliefs and how to honor those beliefs. No one objects to believers to hold their view, just not to impose them on others. Psychological research fully supports that being gay or lesbian is not a choice, that only living authentically is the choice.

          • Frank

            Psychologists are sugar water.

          • Will Keeler

            “No one objects to believers to hold their view, just not to impose them on others.” Like homos are doing? Imposing their VIEWS that marriage can be between anyone, not just one woman and one man.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Imposing their VIEWS that marriage can be between anyone, not just one woman and one man.

            First, homosexuals do not put forth that view, so that is first lie we need to get rid of.

            Second, there is a key difference between the position of those who support same-gender marriage and those who oppose it.

            The opposition wants to have in place laws which harm some citizens.

            The pro group wants to eliminate laws which harm those citizens, while leaving in place laws which allow remaining citizens to enter into marriage as they see fit.

            So, no, nothing like “homos are doing”.

            Same gender marriage being legal does not require that anyone change their views on anything.

      • Frank

        Apples, oranges and green slime.

  • Mary Waterton

    Governor Robert Bentley is two-faced like most politicians in high office. Judas was two-faced. Ananias & Saphira were two-faced. God hates two-faced Christians.

    Equally offensive, he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution! The same men who wrote the Constitution outlawed sodomy, so clearly sodomy is not a fundamental right. The courts do not have the right to legislate from the bench. The courts are violating the Constitution. It’s the sworn duty of men like Robert Bentley to oppose them.

    • Paul Hiett

      Those “same men” owned slaves. So clearly, freedom is not a fundamental right.

      See how this works?

      • Mary Waterton

        Homosexuals are not a newly discovered race. It’s an immoral lifestyle choice.

        See how it works?

        • Paul Hiett

          I see…so what you’re saying is that you find men attractive as well as women, but each day just make a choice to be straight?

          That IS what you’re claiming when you say sexual orientation is a choice. Didn’t think this one through, did you?

          • Will Keeler

            We all want to sin everyday. For some of us sin is having multiple sexual partners for some of us sin is having a same-sex partner. I believe fornicators are just as sinful as homos. And for full disclosure, I place myself in the first group.

          • Paul Hiett

            Will, do you find men at all sexually appealing? And no, I’m not being perverse or insulting…

          • Gary

            Are feelings, or desires protected by law?

          • Paul Hiett

            Neither you, nor Will, would apparently understand the point.

          • Gary

            I understand the point. The point is that you want to be the one who defines morality, and constitutionality. And I won’t let you.

          • Paul Hiett

            You have no ability to stop those who make the laws in this country.

          • Gary

            I might not be able to stop them from making bad laws, but I might be able to make them regret doing so.

          • Paul Hiett

            I doubt you have the ability to do anything. A lot of bluster, nothing more.

          • Gary

            We’ll see.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “but I might be able to make them regret doing so.”

            How would you go about doing that, Gary?

          • Gary

            I don’t want to say.

        • MisterPine

          So you never had a childhood crush, then. You decided to be attracted to some other kid.

          The monstrous crap some of you people are believing in scares the daylights out of me.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “The courts do not have the right to legislate from the bench. ”

      Nor are they.

  • D Sims

    Bottom line we must obey the laws of the land at all cost, unless they are hostile to the higher law. Then the decision becomes simple and easily obeyed without hesitation.
    Galatians 1:10
    For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

  • Gary

    From this article, it seems that Bentley is not currently a deacon or teacher at First Baptist of Tuscaloosa. That is good. The pastor seems to be standing for what is right. And that is good. If Bentley maintains the position that he will uphold immoral laws, then I would urge the church to place him on probation for 30 days. If he still insists on supporting ssm, after that, then terminate his membership. That would be one way of holding him accountable. He might not care if his membership is terminated, but it is still a step the church should take.

  • Peter Leh

    the SBC…. against equal protection since 1845. so much for the 1995 apology.

  • Peter Leh

    the southern states seceded and formed a country based on the prohibition
    of equal protection. the same prohibition that continues today…. this
    is not a repeat of but a continuation of the south being on the wrong
    side of history.

    • Gary

      There is no reason that perverted behavior should be protected, or considered equal to non-perverted behavior. There is no Constitutional right to homosexual behavior.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Sure there is Gary. Rights are assumed. It is restrictions that must be justified. There is no constitutional justification for restrictions on homosexual behavior.

        • Gary

          The restrictions on marriage are justified by morality. It is wicked, immoral people like you who are causing all of the problems in America.

          • Paul Hiett

            And this, folks, is why Gary is irrelevant in the year 2015.

          • Gary

            Morality is not irrelevant. The argument is over who decides what is right and wrong. And I’m not going to let you be the decider.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m not the decider, never have been, and barring me going to law school and getting elected to a judiciary position, I never will be. I can vote on laws, but that’s about the extent of it. Fortunately, you can’t decide either. Regardless, it’s not your religious viewpoints that decide law.

          • Gary

            Judges don’t get to define morality either. They either recognize God as the definer, or they rebel against God

          • Paul Hiett

            Society defines morality, not your book. I’m sorry if you’re too narrow minded to realize that there are other religions and other opinions that are just as valid as yours, but it’s not my fault you don’t have the same higher education as me.

          • Gary

            Why does society have the authority to define morality? All opinions are valid? Can you prove that?

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes Gary, all opinions are valid. Not all opinions get to become law. It used to be morally accepted to own slaves. Would you say it is now moral to own slaves?

            Obviously not…it’s a rhetorical question. Since we now consider it moral to NOT own people, where does that morality come from since the Bible clearly condones slavery? It comes, Gary, from our own society.

          • Gary

            Oh, well if all opinions are valid, then why are we arguing? Everyone is right if all opinions are valid.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “What behaviors of citizens (not the government) are restricted by the Constitution? ”

            None.

            “The restrictions on marriage are justified by morality.”

            We don’t determine a citizen’s access to rights based upon a particular view of what is moral and what is not. It’s unfortunate that you have little respect for our constitutional republic and the protections provided by our constitution. You apparently dislike the American form of government, freedom, liberty, and equality.

          • Gary

            The form of government is all right. But people like you want to abuse it in order to do the evil you would like to do. You have to be restrained by the law. Since you are wicked, you cannot be allowed to do as you please.

    • Gary

      There is no reason that perverted behavior should be protected, or considered equal to non-perverted behavior. There is no Constitutional right to homosexual behavior.

  • Badkey

    The man recognizes the difference between civil law and his faith. Smart man.

    Good for him.

    • Gary

      We all understand those differences. But Bentley is raising civil law above God’s law. He respects federal judges more than he respects God. That is wrong.

      • Paul Hiett

        No, it’s what we call “legal” in this country. Your “god’s law” means nothing here on earth.

        • Gary

          I disagree.

          • Paul Hiett

            You can disagree all you want, but I challenge you to break mans law in favor of a religious law and see if you don’t go to jail.

          • Gary

            I already have. Many times. And I’m not in jail.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sure you do Gary. Why don’t you go break a big one, like stoning an adulterer. That’s against man’s law, and in accordance with God’s law.

            Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is.

  • Harry Oh!

    If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, then why not 3 people, siblings, anybody or anything? Marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and societal stability is the only thing preventing moral perversion resulting in cultural disintegration.

    • Badkey

      Why change the subject? Is it that you can put forward no rational legal argument against gay marriage?

      Marriage requires no procreation. Procreation requires no marriage.

      Stable gay households lend to societal stability just as any other.

      Please cite tangible examples of this disintegration.

    • Badkey

      Why change the subject? Is it that you can put forward no rational legal argument against gay marriage?

      Marriage requires no procreation. Procreation requires no marriage.

      Stable gay households lend to societal stability just as any other.

      Please cite tangible examples of this disintegration.

    • Paul Hiett

      So Christians get to decide for the rest of the world what is “right” and “moral”.

      Tell me, what gives you the power to judge the rest of the world like that?

      • Gary

        God has the authority to decide what is right and wrong for everyone. You want to be the one who decides it, but you cannot be.

        • Paul Hiett

          That’s only your opinion. Fortunately, in this country, we don’t base our laws off of your religious opinion.

          • Gary

            It is much more than just my opinion. You want the laws to allow you to do what you want, while it restricts those you hate. We are not going to allow it to work that way. Even if we have to have a revolution.

          • Paul Hiett

            Don’t see you getting much support for that ‘revolution’ of yours.

          • Gary

            You’d be surprised.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not really…I know there are ISIS type people like you out there. The WBC is proof of that, but folks like you are so few and inconsequential, that we simply laugh and shake our heads at your outdated ideology.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Oh Gary — PLEASE start a revolution. I want to see you get tasered on the news so badly!

      • Harry Oh!

        The guy who made you and me, Jesus Christ. For you to deny his existence is akin to sawing off the branch of a tree you happen to be sitting on. Someday you’ll find out what that means.

        • Badkey

          That is your religion.

          It is not US law.

        • Paul Hiett

          Do you understand what a “belief” is?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “If sexual love becomes the primary purpose”

      Sexual love is being made the primary purpose by allowing same-gender marriage, which renders your questions meaningless.

      “Marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and societal stability”

      That is not the purpose of marriage. If it were, then procreation would be a requirement. It is not. The purpose of civil marriage is to establish legal standing for the couple. Nothing more.

      • ijustgottasay

        God’s first commandment was to be fruitful and multiply.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Actually, the first commandment was to have no gods other than the Christian god.

          Regardless, allowing same-gender marriage does not impact the ability of of people to multiply.

          • ijustgottasay

            I am not talking about the Ten Commandments. I am talking about God’s commandment to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That was a commandment, not a suggestion and certainly came long before the Ten Commandments.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well the good news is, people are still able to procreate. Allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage does not affect the ability to procreate.

          • ijustgottasay

            Sure, they can procreate by unnatural means, like artificial insemination. Here comes the part where you say heterosexuals do the same thing when they are barren. =)

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Here comes the part where you say heterosexuals do the same thing when they are barren.”

            Correct. In addition, allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage does not affect the ability to heterosexuals to procreate by natural means. The “Adam and Eve” combinations will still be free to multiply all they care to.

        • Guest

          I am not talking about the Ten Commandments. I am talking about God’s commandment for Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. It was a commandment, not a suggestion!

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Bentley, in his role as Governor, must comply with the laws of our nation, regardless of his religious beliefs. To suggest that the Governor of a state should defy any ruling from a Federal court just because the ruling provides for the legality of something that is contrary to the Christian belief system is without merit in our nation.

    Should also close all the liquor stores? Should he close all non-Christian churches? Should he make it illegal to take the Christian god’s name in vain?

    • Gary

      Do the federal courts make laws? They are not supposed to. The Constitution does not grant them that authority.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “Do the federal courts make laws?”

        No, they don’t.

        “They are not supposed to. The Constitution does not grant them that authority.”

        Agreed.

        Do you believe that the federal courts have made law? If so, what laws do you believe they have made?

  • Gary

    ssm would not be an issue IF the federal judges were moral people. If they were moral, they would never rule in favor of the queers. There is no constitutional reason why ssm has to be legal, which means there is no constitutional reason for the judges to rule in favor of ssm. They are supporting ssm only because they are immoral people.

    • Paul Hiett

      Oh look, how cute, another fundie who thinks his religion is right and everyone else is wrong.

      • Gary

        Explain why your beliefs are right.

        • Paul Hiett

          I don’t know if my belief is right…that’s why it’s just a belief. Same as yours. You don’t know if the Bible is true anymore than a Muslim knows if the Koran is true.

          The difference is, I don’t try and force others to live based on my belief.

          • Gary

            If you don’t know your beliefs are right, then why are you telling Christians their beliefs are wrong? And YES YOU DO try to force others to live based on your beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            You don’t know if yours are right either Gary, a point you seem to be missing.

          • Gary

            But I do.

          • Paul Hiett

            You don’t, but you’re too ignorant to understand why.

          • Gary

            I do. And it is YOU who is too ignorant to understand why.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry Gary, but until you can prove God exists, your religion is just as wrong/right as any other out there.

          • Gary

            God’s existence has already been proven. Over and over. Obviously, you have not been paying attention. You are an ignoramous.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…by all means, point to this “proof”.

          • Will Keeler

            Truth is Paul, you don’t know what your truth is. You don’t know what you believe in. Your foundation has no cornerstone. Your house is built upon sand.

          • Badkey

            Truth can be proven.

            PROVE YOUR MYTHOLOGY.

          • Paul Hiett

            I believe there are no gods at all. I believe the universe to be in an expanding state, probably from the big bang, if that happened. I accept that we don’t know for sure what happened, but I applaud science for presenting the evidence and giving us their opinions. That’s the beauty of science…we can change our opinions as new facts come to light.

            Religion, on the other hand, refuses to accept change, even in the face of facts. That’s quite detrimental to the progression of humanity, to be frank.

          • ijustgottasay

            Good ole’ science. Just make it up as we go along. At least the Bible is consistent.

          • wandakate

            Not only is the Bible consistent but GOD “never” changes. He said, “I am the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I the LORD do not change”. GOD didn’t change His word, and neither should we.

          • ijustgottasay

            Agreed. I have faith in something that doesn’t change. Science changes all the time, yet people still put so much faith in it. It is a religion in its own right.

          • wandakate

            Science, a man made religion perhaps, like sports and money and all the other things that people like to worship. Only GOD deserves our worship, not man, money, science, or sports…We have many gods come before GOD, and for that there will be serious consequences.

          • ijustgottasay

            Very true! I live in the south where football is so huge that it seems like idol worship. I have heard of people getting divorced over a football game because their house was divided on teams. I absolutely despise football and when I am asked who I root for, I say, “Neither. I don’t care.” So stupid.

          • wandakate

            I will join you in “I DON”T CARE”…That among other things as I said before are the “gods of this evil world”! People are in love with and addicted to many things…too many to mention but even things like their cigarettes, booze, drugs, prescription medicine, soap operas even. Things that people swear they can’t live without. When the poop hits the fan and they don’t have “any” of these things anymore including football, this is going to be the craziest world you and I have ever lived in, bar none.
            Can you imagine none of this vises around for people to get ahold of? The withdrawal symptoms will be horrendous. There will be an astronomical amount of people committing suicide, and killing people and doing many other things that are just unimaginable. Some will go crazy without their morning coffee. I can visualize a world of crazy grumpy people out there. So, right now it’s best not to be addicted to any of these things and just focus on keeping our eyes on JESUS, the finisher of our faith.

          • wandakate

            The house built on sand will fall down, thus no foundation on solid ground so it can’t hold up. On CHRIST, the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand, all other ground is sinking sand…

          • Gary

            You, and I, and the universe are all proof of God’s existence. None of it would exist if God had not created it.

          • Paul Hiett

            So the existence of something is proof that God created it.

            I find that so hilariously ignorant, I don’t know what’s more funny…the fact that you believe it, or the fact that you have no clue what you’re talking about.

          • Gary

            I know exactly what I am talking about. But it seems you think things can either create themselves, or come to exist without being caused. Both of which are impossible.

          • Badkey

            You’re proof Allah did it all.

            Only a monster could create something like you.

          • wandakate

            And by this nice kind statement of yours it just proves what a wonderful person you have turned out to be…

          • wandakate

            Thank you! And He breathed the breath of life into Adam, and Adam became a living “SOUL”. That is the same as a being, a human or a person. As in “the soul that sinneth, it shall die”. Or as in I don’t see a soul in the place. You walk into a house, there is no one there, not a “soul” in the place. GOD created us souls, here we are. When we die that same spirit (the breath of life) exits the soul (the human body) and returns to GOD that gave it.

          • wandakate

            However putting people down and calling them names does not edify the spirit of GOD. We are to build up and not put down. Not all people are where other people are. Many out there are lost and they are in need of a savior to lead them and guide them into all truth. Being kind to sinners is better than rebuking them and being nasty. We win souls (people) to the LORD by being nice and kind, not by being nasty or rude…Just food for thought here.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            stay in fantasyand

          • wandakate

            Your answer makes no sense. It’s obvious by it that you don’t have a clue to any of this. You get more flies with sugar remember?
            You never get anything or anywhere by being nasty. Not productive. If I need to stay in fantasyland that’s not too bad. I would rather be there than in hell.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            you will be sent to hell on judgement day along with the pastor and others that try to persecute and oppress that is totally against Jesus as well as karma on this earth..you get what you give..for every action there is a reaction and keep it up the more you hurl hatred and oppression and discrimination towards gay people the more massive support there will be for gay people more than there already is..but keep on being hateful and miserable sooner or later you will pay for your hateful unchristian homophobia

          • wandakate

            And when do you plan to be judged about your judgmental attitude? You just love to throw stones, as if you’re the “perfect” one. You’re accusing me of being hateful and miserable and even telling me I’ll be in hell too. What ordacity you do have. YOU DON’T KNOW THAT! YOU ARE NOT JESUS AND YOU ARE NOT THE JUDGE OF ANYONE…I’ve been a giver all my life and the LORD loves a cheerful giver. You like to condemn and judge people…you need to look in the mirror.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            and who died and made you god to sit in judgement of them?

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            i don’t and you know it..but your the one that wants to keep oppressing gay people and you will pay for it on this earth and the next life..but I don’t expect you to believe it with your supremacy attitude that is very sinful! I bet you think its great gay people can be turned away in stores, denied housing and employment..don’t believe it? do the research it is very true

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            its been disproven you createn with many scientific fact

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            your an idiot, because it has been proven many times we evolved from caveman not created by an imaginary sky daddy..sorry to burst your bubble ..but you go ahead and stay in fantasyland..just don’t try to convince other more rational intelligent people

          • wandakate

            Paul, look around you…Do you “see” the wind? NO, you may feel the wind blowing and see the trees swaying back and forth and get chilly or cold b/c of the wind but you do not actually “see” the wind. GOD is the same. We “do not” see GOD, however we are aware that He is there nonetheless. He is a force, a feeling that we feel inside of us. No we don’t see GOD. GOD cant be seen as GOD is a “spiritual being”, however JESUS could be seen when He walked the earth. We go by our faith which is a great powerful thing like a guiding light for us that leads us into all truth.
            Your breath is another proof that GOD is real. He gave you the breath of life the moment you were born into this world and you are a living breathing example of GOD which makes you mighty special. BUT, when GOD takes that breath away from you at that time you will cease to exist in this life. He alone holds your life in the palm of His hands so to speak and without that “gift” that He has provided to you, you won’t be here…and that’s the TRUTH.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            they cant and they believe there false prophet pastor..if he said jump off a cliff they would lol…poor things cant help it there spoon fed hate from the pulpit and taught to them until they believe the lies

          • wandakate

            If you are breathing then GOD is real. He’s the one who gave you the breath in the first place. The breath of life enters the body of the newborn and it leaves at death of the person.
            GOD isn’t going to be seen Paul, as He is like the wind.
            We don’t see the wind do we? No, but we know that it’s there, because we can feel the wind. It’s the same with GOD, we don’t see Him but we know he’s there. Everything has to have a maker. The world didn’t just happen one day. Everybody makes something. The potter makes the clay, the baker makes the cakes and pies, the chef makes a gourmet meal, the momma dog and daddy dog makes the baby puppies. The artist makes a beautiful painting, and the carpenter builds (makes) a nice house. Everything has to be created and made. GOD made the heavens and the earth and created a man named Adam and a woman named Eve.
            You may not believe all that, but you are mistaken, and it’s all true…

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            no it isn’t..and you cant prove he is real..so keep your fairy tale sky daddy to yourself and shutup

          • wandakate

            How about if you prove to us that GOD does not exist and then we can strive to prove to you that He does?

          • wandakate

            You both sounds like a couple of little kids that wants his own way and can’t have it and is pitching a fit. Round and round you both go. If you are two grown men then why won’t the two of you act like it? This is childish. You’re ignorant, no I am not, you are, uhun, I’m not either, yeah you are cause I said you are, no you don’t know what you’re saying, I am not ignorant, it’s you. blab blab balb…

          • Frank

            When you meet God personally as well as see true miracles happen and see conclusively the Bible proven correct 100% of the time there is no question or doubt the Christian beliefs are right and all others are wrong.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so you’ve personally met God have you?

          • wandakate

            Apparently you haven’t, but yes every Christian that has received the gift from GOD of the HOLY SPIRIT has actually met GOD. He lives inside of us by His spirit. He guides us to right choices and leads the way. He helps us to stay on the narrow road to righteousness. He calms us down in the storms. He leads us along life’s way. He gives us peace that surpasses all understanding…I hope you meet GOD Paul.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            well you keep talking to your imaginary fairy tale..not all of us believe in that bullshit ancient book of lies that was to keep people in line and has no business in sociopolitical ..or better yet seek a theraptist to find out why you want a minority to be kept unequal

          • Frank

            Yes.

          • wandakate

            Every real Christian that has been “born again” spiritually has met GOD. He comes and lives inside the person who has confessed their sins, repented of them, and forsaken them. If you’re wondering about that or if it really happens, you could try it and find out. JESUS is always happy when another person gives up their sins and follows Him.

          • Badkey

            Live how you wish, Gary.

            Just don’t expect to be treated any differently than anyone else, regardless of what mythology you profess to follow.

          • Gary

            I will. And I have never asked to be treated differently than anyone else.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            No, you’ve only asked that other people be treated differently because of your religion.

          • Badkey

            Gary doesn’t like not being special.

          • Gary

            I have not. I have asked for the laws to apply to everyone equally.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well good news, Gary, in the states which allow two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage, they do!

            You are getting exactly what you want!!!

          • Gary

            I don’t want the laws about marriage to change. They are fine the way they have been for many years. And fair to everyone.

          • Paul Hiett

            Before or after allowing interracial marriages?

          • Gary

            I have no objection to interracial marriage. For others.

          • Badkey

            Again, you want to be special.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well, Gary, if two consenting, non-closely-related adults of opposite gender are able to enter into marriage and two consenting, non-closely-related adults of the same gender are not allowed to enter into marriage, that is not fair.

            I’m sorry if you don’t laws about marriage to change. But, they are. And they will be exactly as you want them to be: they will “apply to everyone equally”, which they were not before.

          • KenS

            You know what? You can make them able to have their legal status for tax purposes all you want, just do not call it a Marriage (Holy Matrimony) there is nothing holy about it, and don’t require business that went into business for the original definition of marriages not the new definition to cater or do that business, because that was not the business they went into, they should be grandfathered to the business type of business before you changed the definition.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I don’t call it marriage. The state does. If you have an issue with that, bring it up with the state.

            Civil marriage has never been the same as holy matrimony. Holy matrimony is a function of a religious rite.

            “they should be grandfathered to the business type of business before you changed the definition.”

            Nothing to do with same-gender marriage. Those are issues of anti-discrimination laws. They are distinct from same-gender marriage.

          • ijustgottasay

            Yes, but even if it is made legal, there will still be nothing holy about it. It may be legal in man’s eyes, but it will still be wrong in God’s eyes and will not be a marriage that He approves of.

          • KenS

            That is the point I was making and why I said that it should not be called marriage and that business owners that have traditionally provided services for marriages should not have to cater to this new ceremony…

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            shutup hateful bigot..it doesn’t affect you..never will so shut the hell up

          • ijustgottasay

            I have the same right to my opinion as anyone else. If you don’t like it, too bad. Calling people names and telling people to “shut the hell up” makes you look immature and ignorant. Also, would it have hurt to come up with a better screen name, or were you (so obviously) in such a hurry to create an account, so you could call out the “hateful bigots” on here, that you went with the default name it gave you? You might have done better to simply hide behind a guest username like everyone else does who wants to call people names and tell them to shut up.

          • ijustgottasay

            What *I* meant was it doesn’t matter what it is called, or not called, it will not be holy. They can call it holy matrimony, but it does not make it holy. In the end, even if it is made legal in all 50 states, which it probably will be, even with Alabama fighting so hard against it, it will still be wrong in God’s eyes.

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            keep your sky fairy to yourself..we don’t want to hear your old ugly out of date bigotry ..miserable person..and you make up lies with twisted, misinterpreted scriptures..the ministers know its mis interpreted to keep yall in line lol

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            shutup bigot

          • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

            it doesn’t affect you silly man

          • Paul Hiett

            You mean you have asked for Christian laws to apply to everyone.

            At least be honest.

          • Gary

            Moral laws. Laws can be moral. And should be.

          • wandakate

            What are the MORAL LAWS of GOD? They were known also as the Royal Laws. They are the BIG 10 Commandments. They were “never” done away with at the cross. Most Christians think they are obsolete, but they are still as relevant today as they ever were in centuries past. GOD did not tell us that He changed His mind on any of them. JESUS obeyed the FATHER GOD. JESUS said, “IF you love me, keep my commandments”. Man was the one that did away with what GOD wanted. Either we follow GOD and obey His laws and His will to the end and persevere because of our faith, or we don’t, it’s pretty simple. Christians need to look over the BIG 10 and examine themselves fully to see if they are remembering GOD’s laws. They were not written only to the Jews, they were written to all mankind until the end of time. JESUS even said that we would honor and come to worship before GOD on the Sabbath Day in the new heaven and the new earth. So, if they were all done away with at the cross then why would JESUS tell us that. He also said, “Pray that your flight be not in the winter or on the Sabbath day. If the Sabbath and the rest were done away with then why would He have made that statement? Some soul searching is needed to be absolutely sure that we are following GOD and not mortal man.

          • Badkey

            And they do.

          • wandakate

            Because they go by man’s rules and laws and not GOD’s, which are two different sets of rules. GOD said to obey His BIG 10 commandments and people don’t like that. They seal their own fate. Judgment day will come and JESUS will be their judge and they will stand up before Him one on one. But by that time, it will be too late for them to repent and change their ways…

      • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

        lol exactly Paul..see how they are? they love to be hateful , intolerant bigots, but think it is okay, because they go to church on sundays..wrong!!

    • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

      yes there is study and read the constitution and especially the 1st and 14th amendment..and also get educated why and how this country was founded and why there is separation of church and state…yet he who is without sin cast the first stone.judge not lest you be judged

      • wandakate

        He that reads the word has not accomplished much, but he that heeds the word and studies to show himself approved is the one who has learned much. We are to read, study and heed or we have accomplished nothing!

      • Daigh

        “Judge not lest you be judged”
        Twist not Scripture lest you be like Satan.

        • Cyril Tangham

          Why do we have lawyers?
          Why do we have judges?

    • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

      we have a constitution not a tyrannical theocracy idiot..your such a miserable unhappy person it so obvious..crawl back under your rock..if we had a theocracy a revolution would happen so fast..we all get judged in the end..and ones fighting equality will be the first to be sent to hell mark my words if you don’t start getting compassion for gay people u will be sent to hell fast along with that pastor

      • wandakate

        That’s not what wrote in His book. It’s not what JESUS said either. He said they will “never” see the Kingdom of GOD, never will. They will join satan, the false prophet, all the demons, and all the sinners down in hell.
        They “MUST” confess, repent and forsake that sins as well as any other sins and there isn’t going to be any sin in heaven…If you think I am mistaken try reading the Holy Bible and find out that I am right in stating it as it will be and not as you think it will be. We can love the sinner but we are to hate the sin, just like GOD does.

        • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

          oh shutup you miserable out of it bigot hiding behind religion.go crawl back under your rock ahole

          • wandakate

            FYI I’m NOT hiding behind any religion…and I sold the rock to the highest bidder years ago, so you’re way off.
            There doesn’t seem to be any hope for people like you that are so stubborn they can’t see the forest for the trees…

    • disqus_ZqMvu75FJT

      and your an immoral, hateful, miserable, ignornant bigot..your sad

  • Tom

    Another preacher that thinks he lives in a theocracy. It may have worked in the Bible but I doubt that preacher would agree to a term in prison to uphold his beliefs. It is very easy to tell someone else to break the law.

    • Gary

      Having laws that are moral does not make a theocracy.

      • Paul Hiett

        And where you do think the morality comes from?

        • Gary

          Morality comes from God. That is the only source it can come from. People do not have the authority to define good and evil.

          • Paul Hiett

            And that, Gary, is what makes up a theocracy.

          • Gary

            Then the USA has always been a theocracy. There have always been laws in this country that were based on morality as defined by God. In more recent years, some of those laws have been replaced by laws that are not based on God’s moral law.

          • Paul Hiett

            No Gary, the US is not a theocracy. We don’t put one religion over another to rule the nation. In fact, religion is not a part of how we rule at all. No religion is better than another religion, based on the laws of this country.

          • Gary

            Most laws are based on someone’s view of right and wrong. Morality is a religious concept.

          • Paul Hiett

            Right, because, you know, Christianity created morality long before Christianity was around. In fact, morality didn’t exist in the world until Christianity created it!

            What a dark time that was in our world, right?

          • Gary

            Wow. You really are ignorant of history. And reality.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Yes, Paul Hiett, because you know that nothing bad has ever happened since the dawn of Christianity. Certainly no crusades, or witch hunts, and definitely not torturing heretics. These things never happened!

          • Paul Hiett

            Exactly, Christianity has been a blessing on this earth ever since man first stepped foot outside of the Garden of Eden.

            Right, Gary?

          • Gary

            Christianity did not exist 6,000 years ago. But its Founder did.

          • Paul Hiett

            Holy crap, are you a YEC?

          • Badkey

            Our constitution gives me the right to shred your god in favor of another, in DIRECT violation of one of your “Big Ten”.

            If we’re a christian theocracy, how is that possible, Gary.

          • Gary

            I never said we are a theocracy. No yet.

          • Badkey

            Nor will we be regardless of what your mythology says.

          • Gary

            You are wrong about that. And about most everything else.

          • Badkey

            He knows.

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    This pastor is over-stepping. They should take away his tax exempt status for trying to affect public policy.

    • Gary

      Take the tax exemption from all religions. But if you do, you will see Christians much more involved in politics and setting public policy than they are now.

      • Paul Hiett

        More involved? ROFL…

        • Gary

          Yes.

      • MattFCharlestonSC

        I’m not really sure how it works anyways. The way I just read it, it looks like it’s only for campaigns.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “But if you do, you will see Christians much more involved in politics and setting public policy than they are now.”

        How many non-Christians are currently in politics and involved in setting public policy?

        Oh, wait, you mean Christians who agree with YOUR views on Christianity.

        • Gary

          You don’t understand what a Christian is. People who support evil are not Christians, even if they claim they are.

          • Badkey

            Again with the “no true Scotsman fallacy”, Gary!

            Oh… you’re so precious!!!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            According to you.

      • Badkey

        Poor Gary… for over 200 years, he and his were treated special in America… and now they’re being treated like everybody else.

        Oh, the horror!

  • Martin Rizley

    Praise God for Pastor McKee. He not only understands our Constitutional republican form of government and the implications of the first, ninth,and tenth amendments of our Constitution; he also understand the Bible’s teaching on the limits of obedience to the state. The state does not have limited power to decree whatever it wants to decree and to expect the people to follow. Laws which outlaw Christianity and the free and unhindered proclamation of biblical truth– including the biblical truth concerning Genesis 2 (God’s institution of marriage) and the seventh commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (which really forbids all illicit sexual activity between persons outside of the covenant of God-ordained marriage) are laws which true Christians can never obey. Laws mandating the citizenry to recognize an illicit sexual relationship between two men as a marriage and to treat it as such, on threat of civil penalty, are unjust and unrighteous laws which Christian people can never accept or submit to, no matter what the consequences– fines, imprisonment, or death. Why? Because the government’s authority stops when it treads on God’s prior and superior authority; at that point, when a government proclaims itself to be “Lord” of the public square (as Caesar did in the Roman empire) the only possible response for Christians is, “We must obey God rather than men. . .and if we perish, we perish.”

    • Paul Hiett

      Once again, Christianity is NOT our law system here in America. Why can’t you understand this?

      • Gary

        Why can’t you understand that laws should be moral?

        • Badkey

          Then you would support Sharia Law? Muslims think it’s moral.

          What makes you different from them?

          • Paul Hiett

            Arrogance and ignorance…a dangerous combination.

          • Gary

            I am a Christian, not a muslim. There is a difference.

          • Badkey

            The only difference: degree of violence.

            Nothing else.

          • Paul Hiett

            Only because we have laws preventing their violence. If left to his Christian beliefs, Gary would have us hanging gay people in the streets.

          • Gary

            That is a lie. And a very ignorant statement.

          • Badkey

            One mythology is as real as the next Gary.

            And in America, they are ALL equal… with none having bearing on civil law.

        • Paul Hiett

          And why can’t you understand that no one religion gets to decide how the rest of the country lives?

          • Gary

            Sure it does. Laws against murder, theft, rape, etc are based on one view of morality.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you just claim that murder, theft, and rape are morals exclusive to Christianity?

            Oh please, PLEASE say you did!!!!

          • Badkey

            Gary’s anger makes him a bit stupid at times.

          • Gary

            No. I claimed that they are immoral. But they are immoral in Christianity. Some other religions too I suppose.

          • Paul Hiett

            Those “morals” have been around in every society in the world, long before Christianity was even a blip on the radar.

            That’s friggin hilarious. You actually think Christianity created morality. Wow.

          • Badkey

            A man who needs a rule book for life, especially one written by other men, is a very dangerous human being.

          • Gary

            A man who thinks he can define morality himself *(you) Is much more dangerous.

          • Badkey

            I FEEL it’s wrong… it’s called empathy, something you know nothing about.

            You’re vile at your core, Gary, and the world should be protected from you.

          • Gary

            Prove it. Prove I am vile. Bet you can’t.

          • Badkey

            You want to execute gay citizens.

            You hold moral views because some other dudes you don’t know put ’em in a book for you. You can’t determine it on your own.

            That’s enough.

          • Gary

            That is not enough. it is not proof that I am vile. Just your opinion.

          • Badkey

            LOL!!!

            All you EVER give is your opinion, like your views on morality?

            You’re such a hypocrite, Gary!

          • Gary

            My views on morality come from the Bible, not from me. Your views on morality come from you. They are nothing but your opinions and have no validity. That is why you cannot prove that anyone is immoral.

          • Gary

            Feelings do NOT define morality. You simpleton.

          • Badkey

            I don’t need other men to define morality for me.

            That makes me a better man than you.

          • Gary

            Other men don’t define morality either. Morality is defined by God only.

          • Gary

            Sure. Murder has been immoral at least since the Creation.

          • Badkey

            Yes, the view of islam, hinduism, native american myth, buddhism, taoism, pastafarianism…

            Your mythology is not needed.

      • Martin Rizley

        In one sense, your statement is accurate, in another sense it is misleading. Christianity is NOT our law system in the sense that our federal government is not permitted to pass a law establishing religion in the sense in which European countries had established religions– that is, European countries had state churches, with particular Christian creeds and laws mandating that the citizens support these church/creeds through taxation, etc. Our founders were determined to prevent that from happening, and that is part of what the first amendment is all about. On the other, our country was founded on principles that reflect a generally Judeo-Christian worldview more than a humanistic or atheistic worldview. For example, our founders believed that human governments are not free to pass any laws they please, because they derive their legitimate authority to govern from a higher source, the Creator of all men, who has endowed all men with certain unalienable rights which governments exist to secure, but of which they are not the source. They believed that just civil laws must take into account the self-evident design of the Creator in the natural world– which they called “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” They also believed that the central has certain well-defined and few powers, and that whatever is not specifically delegated to the central government is a matter for state’s to decide. So if the people in a state are convinced that the self-evident design of nature (“the laws of nature and nature’s God”) points to the heterosexual union of a man and a woman as the proper foundation for statutory marriage laws, that is for the people in that state to decide, based on a consensus judgment of the people in the state.

        In other words, our law system here in America is by no means based on secular humanism, atheism or scientism (the view that social scientists must tell everyone else what patterns of living are bad or beneficial to society, and have the authority to impose their will on everybody because of their scientific credentials). Our law system is based on the idea of limited and delegated powers belonging to the federal government, non-specified powers belonging to the people and the states, and “natural law,” discernible to reason and common sense by a consensus of the people, as the foundation of our civil code. All this is consistent with a Christian worldview, but not with an atheistic worldview, which tends to the believe the masses are too ignorant for self-government, so an intellectual elite must run the world by dictatorial force based on scientific research and a highly centralize bureaucratic system that pays no acknowledge to “the laws of nature and nature’s God” being foundational to anything.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “Our law system is based on the idea of limited and delegated powers belonging to the federal government, non-specified powers belonging to the people and the states, and “natural law,” discernible to reason and common sense by a consensus of the people, as the foundation of our civil code. ”

          You were doing so well until you got to “natural law”, then your train went off the tracks. What is “natural law”? How is it determined? Who defines it?

          “All this is consistent with a Christian worldview”

          You mean the worldview that people are not to worship any god other than the Christian god? That people are not allowed to have free speech? That freedom of association is prohibited? How, exactly, is the Christian worldview consistent with our constitution, freedoms, liberty, equality? If anything, the Christian worldview is contrary to the protections provided by the constitution.

          • Martin Rizley

            Are you being disingenuous with me when you say, “what is natural law?” or are you really ignorant of the cultural and philosophical roots of our Constitutional system to such a degree that you know nothing about “natural law” and what men like John Locke (whose thinking greatly influenced the formation of our national system) said about natural law? The short answer is “natural law” is identical to what the founding fathers called “the laws of nature and nature’s God;” it is that law which precedes all human law, being written into the order of nature by the Creator and discerned by rational human beings through reflection on the order that God has established. In matters which the Constitution has not delegated decision-making authority to our federal government, citizens of the various states, determine through the exercise of rational judgment and common consensus what the content of natural law is, and base their state laws upon that shared or mutual understanding. That is government “of the people.”

            Christ does not will that civil governments in this present age dictate matters of worship– I don’t know where you get that idea. If anything, Christ limits the state’s proper sphere for exercising punitive authority to temporal matters concerning a man’s relationship wotj his neighbor when he says, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Jesus thereby teaches that there are some matters concerning a man’s duty to God with which Caesar (the state) should not concern himself at all. Among those are matters concerning worship. The state should not interpose itself as a judge between the human soul and God in matters of worship. That is a matter for God alone to judge; for that is the will of Christ– that the state leave off judging such matters. The state is to occupy itself with “horizontal” issues concerning a man’s relationship to his neighbor, and that exclusively. Thus, Christ himself promotes the idea that the state should not coerce people into embracing a particular form of worship. That is not a matter of state interest, for God is the sole judge in these matters. In this, the teaching of Christ and our own Constitution agree.

            In sum, Jesus teaches plainly that God is the proper judge in religious matters concerning a man’s duty to God. He alone is competent to execute justice in matters related to the vertical realm of a man’s relationship to God.
            On the other hand, the state is competent to judge matters concerning a person’s just dealings with his neighbor on a horizontal level— as long as the state recognizes God as the Giver of unalienable human rights and respects the prior claims of natural law as superior to and foundational to its own dictates.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “On the other hand, the state is competent to judge matters concerning a person’s just dealings with his neighbor on a horizontal level— as long as the state recognizes God as the Giver of unalienable human rights and respects the prior claims of natural law as superior to and foundational to its own dictates.”

            So, if the state should respect the prior claims of natural law (i.e. the laws of the Bible) are superior to and foundational to its own dictates, then the only way to accomplish that would be to change our secular constitutional republic into a Christian Theocracy. Is that what you would prefer?

            Despite what is contained in the DoI, or the personal writings of various historical figures, when the constitution was written, the authors wisely chose to leave religion out of it completely, making no mention of any god nor the need to acquiesce to the laws of any god. So, to suggest that our laws should be based upon these so-called “natural laws” is without merit.

          • Martin Rizley

            This theory of the Constitution being a ‘godless document’ is totally without merit; it has been crafted by Communists teaching in our universities as a means of deceiving college students into accepting their twisted understanding of the first amendment (promoted by organizations like the ACLU) which says that the first amendment demands the complete purging of religious values from our laws and the complete ‘secularizing’ of the public square (removal of religious symbols like the Ten Commandments).

            This “godless document” view of the Constitution is really rooted in a post-modern approach to hermeneutics, which says that an historical documents means only “what it means to me,” without any reference to authorial intent. It is really crazy to interpret any historical text without reference to the historical, cultural, philosophical and linguistic and context in which it was written. The very word “text” comes from the Latin word “textum” meaning woven, which indicates that a text is like a piece of fabric “woven into” the larger fabric of a particular historical, cultural, and linguistic context, and in must be interpreted in connect with, not torn away from, that context to be interpreted accurately and correctly. Thus, when the Ninth Amendment speaks of rights that are not “enumerated” that the people retain, the context for understanding what is meant by “non-enumerated” unalienable rights is the teaching found in the Declaration of Independence that rights are given by God as “natural rights,” rooted in the design of creation, and discernible to human reason. It implies the whole concept that rights are God-given, not state-created. So God is most certainly “in” the Constitution implicitly when one interprets the constitution properly in its historical, literary, philosophical, linguistic and cultural context. The Constitution and the Declaration shed light on each other and are to be interpreted together. That is why Volume 1 of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States includes the Declaration of Independence along with the Constitution to be one of the “Organic Laws of the United States”– that is, one of our country’s foundational documents that define our governmental system.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “This theory of the Constitution being a ‘godless document’ is totally without merit”

            Please cite where God is mentioned in the constitution.

            “the context for understanding what is meant by “non-enumerated” unalienable rights is the teaching found in the Declaration of Independence that rights are given by God as “natural rights,” rooted in the design of creation, and discernible to human reason.”

            While you are certainly free to interpret it that way, the actual meaning is that the constitution was not meant to be a document which contained an encompassing list of the rights of citizens.

            “The purpose of the first amendment was not to create a legal system purged of all religiously informed values which the people share by consensus”

            Nor has it been used in that way. People are free to hold to whatever values they care to and to cite whatever basis they care to for those values.

            “But religiously informed values shared by the people in common through recognition of self-evident natural laws written into the “order of things,” and recognized by reason and common sense– even by people who hold to different confessions of faith–, are not forbidden by the first amendment”

            Agreed.

            “for our system of government is in fact based on the recognition that our rights come from God”

            No, it is not. Our system of government is based upon the content of the constitution. Regardless of the reasons provided for declaring out independence (which make no mention of “God” nor the Christian god), or the personal views of people of that time, the constitution is what is it is and its contents are what they are.

            “ought to be considered as foundational to our civil code.”

            You are certainly entitled to your views, but the rights of citizens of the US are not based upon religious beliefs.

          • Martin Rizley

            When you say that “the constitution was not meant to be a document which contained an encompassing list of the rights of citizens” you are missing the whole point as to why it is not meant to contain such list. The answer is, because the founders did not believe such a list was necessary, given the “self-evident” character of God-given unalienable rights. It is the height of absurdity, really, to say that God is absent from the Constitution because He is not mentioned explicitly except at the end. Who told you that the founders intended the Constitution to be “ripped out” of the historical context which alone gives it an objective meaning and reveals to us the author’s intent? The very fact that something is not explicit does not mean it is not mentioned “implicitly” or is to be ignored– that is the whole point of the ninth amendment; creatures endowed with the power of reason by their Creator do not need an exhaustive list of all unalienable rights, because these are self-evident to right reason reflecting on the God-designed order of things.

            Your way of reasoning is like saying that a house must not have a foundation because it is not visible to the naked eye. It may not be visible, but it is most certainly there, implied by the very existence of the house. The Constitution would not exist except for the belief that the king of England had violated “the laws of nature and nature’s God” which precede all human laws. God is written all over the Constitution, in that sense.

            Religious people who argue that marriage laws ought to reflect the heterosexual design of human beings because this is self-evidently beneficial to society and children, whose interests must be considered by the whole of society, are arguing in exactly the way our fathers intended legislators to argue– by appealing to common sense and reason. But Communists cannot stand the idea of self-government by the ignorant masses; so they believe that scientific elites have an inherent right to dictate, based on their scientific credentials and the social research studies, what our values, our ethical standards, our social structure will be as a society. That is not government “of the people,” but government by an intellectual and ‘scientific’ oligarchy, a form of government known as ‘scientism.’ The founders most certainly did not establish such a government, nor did they intend for all discussion of the self-evident design of the creation to be missing from our halls of legislature and courts of law. But Communists have pulled the wool over many people’s eyes. It is to be lamented how the patently clear meaning of our founding documents has been twisted by cultural Marxists re-writing history to suggest that discussions of divine design in the created order have no place in the legislative process– owing to the first amendment. The first amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a state church or creed, thereby creating a ‘sectarian’ federal government. It does not sweep the public square clean of all discussions of self-evident divine design in the natural order as the foundation of our civil laws. That is a lie atheists have invented.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is the height of absurdity, really, to say that God is absent from the Constitution because he is not mentioned explicitly.”

            Since God is not mentioned in the constitution, it would seem that it would be the height of absurdity to say that God is in the constitution.

            “The very fact that something is not explicit does not mean it is not mentioned “implicitly” or is to be ignored– that is the whole point of the ninth amendment”

            If it is self-evident, why was the ninth amendment necessary? If they meant for those to be based upon the Christian god, why didn’t they specifically say so? Nothing was stopping them. Oh, wait, maybe it was because they had seen what happened in England when the Church of England served as the basis for civil law and they wanted to make certain that did not happen in the US.

            “Religious people who argue that marriage laws ought to reflect the heterosexual design of human beings because this is self-evidently beneficial to society and children, whose interests must be considered by the society, are arguing in exactly the way our fathers intended legislators to argue– by appealing to common sense and reason”

            Since allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage is unrelated to the legality of who is allowed to raise children, that argument regarding same-gender marriage is based neither on sense nor reason, as the issues are unrelated.

            “The founders most certainly did not establish such a government, nor did they exclude discussion of the self-evident design of the creation to be missing from our halls of legislature and courts of law.”

            Agreed. They did, however, exclude the ability of the majority to vote away the rights of the minority.

            “It does not sweep the public square clean of all discussions of self-evident divine design in the natural order as the foundation of our civil laws.”

            Agreed. People are free to discuss whatever they care to and to put forth any arguments they care to. But, at the end of the day, the religious belief of SOME people, or even a majority, is not a sufficient reason, it and of itself, to deny citizens access to a right offered by the state.

          • Martin Rizley

            I refer you to the ruling of the sixth circuit Court of Appeals as to why there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, anymore than there is a constitutional right to polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage (for bisexuals), incestuous marriage (for family members who want to marry), etc. , etc.

            Statutory law concerning marriage– being an issue involving the self-evident prior claims of natural law–, is an issue the tenth amendment leaves to the states to decide. The redefinition of marriage contrary to thousands of years of historical, legal, and cultural precedent, is not one of the delegated powers given to our federal government, but it is a matter left to the various states, especially since Western Civilization consistently across many generations, centuries, languages, and cultures has universally understood marriage to consist of the union of the male and the female. Although not all marriages lead to procreation, heterosexual relationships are the only relationships that naturally lead to procreation, and marriage has been and continues to be a societal means for promoting responsible procreation through an institution that binds two adults together for life in a relationship to each other and to the children they procreate– an arrangement that benefits society and accounts for our government’s interest in marriage, in the first place. Society has never been under any obligation to recognize any other type of sexual relationship, whether homosexual, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous,etc., as entitled to social recognition or the bestowal of social benefits by means of statutory marriage laws; and society is not now under any new obligation by virtue of common sense, reason, or our Constitution to alter historical precedent in this matter. I have no more time today to debate this issue with you today. I refer you the ruling of the Sixth Circuit court of appeals and the ruling by Judge Moore of Alabama that accurately points out the Constitutional issues at stake here.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I refer you to the ruling of every other district court that has ruled on this issue.

            I would also suggest that you familiarize yourself with the 14th amendment, which empowers the federal judiciary to strike down state laws which are found to violate the protections provided by the federal constitution.

            “marriage has been and continues to be a societal means for promoting responsible procreation through an institution that binds two adults together for life in a relationship to each other and to the children they procreate

            Being married does not promote “responsible procreation”. Nor does marriage bind “two adults together for life”, nor does marriage bind a person to the children they procreate. That is plainly clear by looking at divorce and single parents. So, again, those are not valid arguments regarding the legality of same-gender marriage.

            “Society has never been under any obligation to recognize any other type of sexual relationship”

            Legalizing two citizens of the same gender entering into marriage is not about a sexual relationship. Marriage requires no sexual relationship.

            “or our Constitution to alter historical precedent in this matter.”

            The vast majority of courts disagree with you on that. Of course, you are entitled to your view, just as those who opposed interracial marriage using the same arguments were entitled to theirs.

            “ruling by Judge Moore of Alabama that accurately points out the Constitutional issues at stake here.”

            What ruling was that?

    • Gary

      Amen. Well said.

    • Badkey

      Come on! Your mythology is NOT our civil law!

      • Gary

        Many of the laws of the US are based on The Bible.

        • Badkey

          And they can be found in islam. Hinduism. Pastafarianism. Scientology. The mythology of the Greeks, Romans, Native Americans.

          What is your point.

          My constitution guarantees me the right to violate one of the greatest of your “Big 10”. How did that ever happen?

          • Gary

            Violate any or all of God’s laws. But don’t expect to get away with it.

          • Badkey

            I will.

            And it is my RIGHT to violate one of the biggest.

            How did you let that happen?

          • Gary

            I didn’t let it happen. You will answer to God soon. 🙂

          • Badkey

            So, you WOULD force America to be a chrisitan theocracy if you could?

            And no… scary mythology won’t harm me, Gary, no matter how deluded you are.

          • Gary

            Jesus will do the forcing when He returns.

          • Badkey

            Uh huh… sure… just like hey said 2,000 years ago.

          • Paul Hiett

            I wish he’d hold his breath til Jesus comes back…

          • ijustgottasay

            If you are talking about freedom of religion and the choice to choose another religion other than Christianity as going against the commandment to not worship any other gods…God gave us free will to do those things, but we will have to answer for those things.

          • ijustgottasay

            Gary, we all violate God’s laws every day and “will get away with it” because Jesus paid the ultimate price for our sins. I know these people are clearly non-believers, but if they did open their hearts someday and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, their sins will be forgiven as well. Just pray for the lost so that they will open their hearts before it is too late. That’s all we can do. We can share the Gospel, but if people have hardened their hearts to receive it, only then can the Holy Spirit intervene to help open their hearts.

            So many people know the Gospel, but have chosen to reject it. Some will be saved before it is too late, but so many will not. The Bible talks about the great tribulation and people refusing to repent and blaspheming the name of God in the end of the world. So many are arrogant and stubborn and have made gods of themselves and will deny God until they find themselves in eternal torment.

      • Martin Rizley

        I assume that by “my mythology” you are referring to my belief in the Christian faith, which an atheist would regard as mythology. To that I reply that one must understand positively what the first amendment is all about. It is true that our form of government is not “Christian” in the sense that our federal government is permitted to pass laws “establishing religion” in the European sense– that is, establishing state churches, with particular Christian creeds and laws supported by the central government and maintained through taxation, etc. Our founders were adamant in rejecting that European model, and that is part of what the first amendment is all about.

        On the other, our country was founded on principles that reflect a generally Judeo-Christian worldview more than a humanistic or atheistic worldview. For example, our founders believed that human governments are not free to pass any laws they please, because all governments derive their legitimate authority to govern from a higher source, namely, the Creator of all men, who has endowed all men with certain unalienable rights which governments exist to secure, but which they do not create for or bestow on the people. They believed that just civil laws must take into account the self-evident design of the Creator revealed in the natural world– which they called “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” They also believed that the federal government has certain limited and defined powers, and that whatever is not specifically delegated to the central government is a matter for each of the states to decide. So if the people in a state decide through consensus that the self-evident design of nature (“the laws of nature and nature’s God”) points to the heterosexual union of a man and a woman as the only proper foundation for statutory marriage laws– because of the effect of such laws in promoting responsible procreation and providing optimally for the needs of children– that is for the people in that state to decide, based on a consensus judgment of the people in the state.

        In other words, our law system here in America is by no means based on secular humanism, atheism or scientism (the view that social scientists have a right to be regarded as “infallible oracles” in what they tell everyone else about the bad or beneficial effects of socially deviant lifestyle patterns, and the inherent authority to impose their will dictatorially on society because of their scientific credentials). Our law system is based on the idea of limited and defined powers belonging to the federal government, numerous and undefined powers belonging to the people and the states, and “natural law,” discernible to reason and common sense by a consensus of the people, as the foundation of our civil code. All this is consistent with a Christian worldview, but not with an atheistic worldview, which tends to the believe the masses are so incapable of self-government, an intellectual elite must run the world by dictatorial force based on scientific research and a highly centralized bureaucratic system that is accountable to no higher power and pays no attention to “the laws of nature and nature’s God” as the foundation of anything. So our form of government is “de facto” Judeo-Christian in character (as opposed to humanistic, atheistic, Muslim, or anything else) but it is “de jure” non-sectarian in terms of the formal relationship that our federal government has to any church or creed.

  • Will Keeler

    Fellow Christians – We must remember that the gate is WIDE and the road to destruction is broad. That means there will be lots and lots of people who follow the road to destruction. As you can see by the support for shame-sex marriages, these words are as true now as they were then.
    This is all part of God’s will. These folks have rejected God’s truth and exchanged it for a lie. As a result, God has sent them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie and take pleasure in their unrighteousness.
    Telling people who are under this powerful delusion that they are wrong WILL NOT LIFT THE VEIL from their eyes. So don’t even try. The only thing that can save them is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Share His love with them – don’t tell them they are wrong. Extend His grace to them. Share your testimony of His love with them – don’t try to shame them. Yes, they are wrong and shameful but OUR logic is not enough to tear THEIR veil. Only the grace of God can save them.

    • Paul Hiett

      Then enjoy the suffering we’ll all have at the end of time you’re so sure we’ll get…and until then, why not simply live and let live?

      Gay marriage does nothing to you, obviously, so why work so hard to make sure it stays illegal?

      • Will Keeler

        First, you can’t say gay marriage does nothing to me. You don’t know me at all, so you can’t make that claim. Second, I said share the love of Christ and extend His grace, I didn’t say anything about keeping gay-marriages illegal. Honestly, we are moving into a new era, for better or worse. Soon there will be Church Marriages and State Marriages. The two will become clearly defined by society.

        • Paul Hiett

          So tell us what direct affect SSM has on you?

          • Will Keeler

            It is a personal assault on my widely-held belief that marriage is a holy union of 1 man and 1 woman. Also, there is personal family issues that I choose not to share on a public board.

          • Paul Hiett

            So all it does is affect your opinion. That’s quaint.

            As for your family situation, either declare your issue or consider it null and void. SSM does not directly affect you at all.

          • Badkey

            Meaningless.

            You’re not free from offense if your beliefs harm others.

            What TANGIBLE, MEASURABLE harm is there?

            What change to any marriage between a man and woman is there?

            The personal and family issues are your issue… likely your fault.

          • Will Keeler

            What tangible, measurable harm is there if two brothers have meaningful consent and choose to marry each other?
            What tangible, measurable harm is there if a daughter meaningfully consents to marry her father?

          • Badkey

            Ah, changing the subject…. a favorite tactic of losers.

            If you can’t argue against gay marriage without changing the subject it’s an admission that you have no rational legal argument against gay marriage.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is a personal assault on my widely-held belief that marriage is a holy union of 1 man and 1 woman.”

            That is not a statement of how it affects you – that is a statement on how you view it. How does it affect you?

          • Gary

            ssm makes it much more likely Christians will be harassed by the government into approving of homosexuality. We have already seen that happen with bakers and florists and photographers.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one has been harassed at all. Some people chose to break the law, and that’s their fault. SSM did not cause them to break the law, it was their belief in an intolerant religion that caused that.

          • Gary

            You are delusional.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, I’m factual, but I don’t think you’d understand what that means.

            Businesses can’t discriminate based on certain criteria. Those laws exist to protect EVERYONE, not just Christians. If you make the conscientious choice to break the law, that’s your fault.

          • Gary

            If ssm did not exist in Washington, there would have been no law to break. ssm was used to punish the florist for not accepting homosexuals and ssm.

          • Badkey

            If public accommodations laws did not exist in Washington or the US, there would have been no law to break. Discrimination under state public accommodations laws, identical to the ones fundies have, was used to punish the florist for not following the law.

            You are not special anymore. You are treated just like all other citizens.

          • Paul Hiett

            But SSM does exist, and the law states that sexual orientation is a protected status. Just like race, gender, and religious belief. That’s the law. A business owner can either choose to respect the laws of commerce, or suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

            SSM had nothing to do with her choice to break the law.

          • Gary

            That is just a lie. You are a liar. ssm has much to do with her prosecution.

          • Badkey

            So does your religion. After all, if it hadn’t been given public accommodations special rights, neither would sexual orientation.

            Blame yourself.

            You’re just not special anymore.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, I didn’t think you would have a valid counter point.

          • Gary

            I made the counterpoint earlier. You either did not read it, or did not get it.

          • Badkey

            No, sugar, that would be public accommodations laws just like you fundies get.

            Such hypocrisy should hurt.

            You’re just upset that you’re not special anymore. It’s nothing more than that.

    • Gary

      God can save anyone He wants. However, I don’t expect He will want to save any of the ssm supporters.

      • Badkey

        You often tell me your “all loving” sky monster hates me.

        Funny… he made me this way.

        • Will Keeler

          He gave you free will. With that free will, You chose to reject Him. For that, He will reject you in the end. No big deal…

          • Badkey

            He gave me nothing.

            You grovel before a monster.

          • Will Keeler

            Badkey, He gave you everything, but you say He gave you nothing.
            When your judgement comes, you will see those words again.

          • Badkey

            Spoooooooooky mythology is spooooooooooky!!!

          • Paul Hiett

            I wonder if you have any idea about the number of other gods you are freely choosing to reject. Better hope you picked the right one.

        • Gary

          YOu can’t blame God for what you are.

          • Badkey

            I just did.

            It could change it any time it wished.

            It dos not.

            If it is going to burn me in a lake of fire it is:

            A: not all powerful
            B: not all loving

            Can’t have it both ways.

          • Gary

            I have never told you God is “all loving”, or that He loves you.

          • Badkey

            Then it is a sky monster you grovel before out of fear.

            Glad we got that out of the way.

          • Gary

            Your knee will bow to Him soon. Not voluntarily of course. But you will still bow.

          • Badkey

            Uh-huh… and yours will bow to Allah… just ask a muslim. Every bit as credible as you, Gary.

      • Will Keeler

        We must continue to be living testimonies to the greatness of God’s love. We must catch those who have fallen off the cliff of sinfulness. In the past, morality would try to keep people away from the edge, now the best we can do is help people up after they have fallen.

        • Gary

          I really have no interest in helping the perversion pimps.

        • Badkey

          And you must continue to live in a nation not ruled by your chosen mythology.

          • Will Keeler

            Badkey, I’m not of this world any ways. You can have it. It is your world and Your king rules it.
            John 17:15
            “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

          • Badkey

            You are of this world. As a US citizen, you’re subject to the same laws I am.

            Your mythology don’t change that.

          • Will Keeler

            Ahh yes, I am a law-abiding US citizen. Someday though, maybe sooner maybe later, my Father will call me home to be with Him. You don’t believe that and I’m OK with you having your own views.
            .

          • Paul Hiett

            Maybe.

            And btw, we’re ok with you having your beliefs too. We just put our foot down when you try and use your beliefs to force others to live the same way.

          • Gary

            How did the florist who did not want to sell flowers for a ssm try to force others to live the way she does.?

          • Paul Hiett

            That has nothing to do with SSM. She broke the law. The law says a business cannot discriminate against race, gender, religious belief, or sexual orientation. She chose to break the law.

            Why this is so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

          • Gary

            It was demanded, by the state of Washington, that she provide flowers for a ssm. Had ssm not been legal in Wash., no such demand would have been made of her and she would not have violated any law, and would not have been prosecuted. The whole thing was caused by ssm being legal.

          • Badkey

            It was demanded by the state of Washington that all citizens be treated the same.

            You’re still mad cuz you ain’t special no more.

          • Gary

            It is an unreasonable and immoral demand.

          • Badkey

            That is nothing more than your opinion.

            Both SCOTUS and I disagree (and SCOTUS has for 135+ years).

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Gary, she was required to offer her services that she advertised to the public, and then decided to discriminate. SSM has nothing to do with this at all, you’re simply too ignorant to see this.

          • Gary

            You are an imbecile. Your statement is absurd.

          • Badkey

            And Allah will continue to giver virgins to his favored sons.

          • Paul Hiett

            But while you live here, you either obey our laws, or suffer the consequences.

          • Gary

            Or do what I do.

          • Badkey

            Whine, whine, whine…

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re a bald faced liar, Gary, and we all know it. Just thought you should know.

          • Gary

            What have I lied about?

          • Paul Hiett

            All of the laws you claim you break.

          • Gary

            And how do you know I have lied about that?

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s never that hard to pinpoint the “internet tough guy”.

            “Yeah, I break all the laws I want and never get caught, so you better be careful!”

            Yeah, tell me all about how bad you are.

          • Gary

            You believe what you want.

          • Badkey

            You did admit that you have no problem lying.

            Do I need to make a screen shot of that one too?

          • Gary

            I freely admit that I will lie to those who seek my harm, if necessary.

          • Badkey

            We know.

  • Badkey

    Got a story on the homepage of this site about atheists… Gary says nothing.

    Got a story here a couple days old now, and Gary can’t leave it alone.

    There’s a special appeal in all things homosexual for Gary.

    I really wish I knew what happened in his life to cause this obsession.

  • Michael Bowen Roberts

    evading kidnapping charges at the cost of taxpayers and familie4s so they could get grants

  • Badkey

    Got a story on the homepage of this site about abortion… Gary says nothing.

    Got a story here a couple days old now about teh ghey, and Gary can’t leave it alone.

    There’s a special appeal in all things homosexual for Gary.

    I really wish I knew what happened in his life to cause this obsession.

  • Jackie Milton

    I told ya’ll once that Bentley is a boot licking dog to the feds.

  • wayne

    Anytime the Baptists take “moral objection”, you know something wonderful is about to happen…..

  • Sheila Moore

    We the people of Alabama need a new Governor… he is not upholding what the people has voted for!!!!

  • OldArkie

    2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    That time has come for the governor of Alabama. I suppose he fears he will suffer for Christ if he actually trust’s and obeys Him. While ignoring the suffering Christ did just to save him from the everlasting fire.

  • bob cratchette

    can no one get it through their heads this is about states rights and not letting the federal govt settle the question for every state but each state individually deciding what they define as legally recognized marriage not the fed govt in this case states rights trump what the fed govt wants to impose on every state. the constitution everyone is talking about never gave the fed govt authority over the states in such matters as this.

    • DGCJ

      The states cannot pass laws violating the US constitution. The courts are obligated to invalidate such laws. When you get to high school you’ll learn this in civics class.

      • bob cratchette

        the fed govt also cannot impose their will on the states either only in certain circumstances and ssm is not one of them. the overturning of DOMA was based upon a case in new york the windsor case that the scotus used to strike down DOMA which recognized marriage for all federal purposes recognized marriage as one man one womaN. the alabama court noted in windsor new york’s law allowed ss couples to obtain marriage licenses. thus the dignity was conferred by the states own choice a choice that was without a doubt the proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system , all in the way the framers of our constitution intended. but that raises a question . why if new york could make that choice then why would any other state be deprived of making the same choice. the problem with DOMA the scotus said was that it interfered with new york’s sovereign choice the court in alabama said that they used its historical and essential authority to define the marital relations and made a different sovereign choice than new york. if new york was free to make that choice , it would seem inconsistent to say that albama and other states should be free to make their own choice also, especially given that the recognition of civil marriage is central to domestic relations law applicable to its resident and citizens.

        • DGCJ

          Nope, the states cannot make laws which violate the federal constitution, moron. Without a federal ban on gay marriage (which ain’t happening), the state bans will fall.
          How come you capitalize words that shouldn’t be and don’t words that should be? Did you finish junior high? Pathetic!

          • bob cratchette

            whatever the states hve the final say on this matter and the federal govt can’t stand it that some of them are refusing to knuckle under and follow those edicts passed by the ones that would be kings if given the chance. your use of clever little quips or phrases is not impressing anyone but yourself.

          • DGCJ

            No, this isn’t true, and you’ll see come summer time when gay marriage is legalized nationwide. Mark my words.

        • DGCJ

          Your ridiculous reasoning is beyond stupidity. It smacks of childishness.

        • DGCJ

          No state can pass a law which violates the federal constitution. The vast consensus of the judiciary currently is that bans on gay marriage violate the 14th amendment. You can try to place a federal ban on gay marriage, but it won’t happen. Why? Because when interracial marriage was opposed by over 90 percent of Americans, they attempted four times to ban it using the federal constitution. They were unsuccessful in all four attempts. Why? Because amending the US constitution is well-nigh impossible given the rules.

          • bob cratchette

            not a federal ban there bozo a state ban from the states that do not support their warped perverted view of marriage. like it or not the states have the right in this matter not uncle sam has to say on the issue.

          • DGCJ

            My marriage isn’t perverted, morOn.

          • DGCJ

            You lost. Get over it. You’re so immature.

        • DGCJ

          Keep whining about my marriage. I love the fact that my marriage of seven years makes you unhappy. Go beat your chest. Get your frustrations out. Beat a woman. Do your heterosexual duty. Go commit a mass shooting. It’s what you heteros do when you get upset.

          • bob cratchette

            you have had your fudge packed so much it is starting to come out you mouth boy. your marriage is your business and glad you have finally found your dream of a lifetime of fudge packing but it will all work out in the end.

      • bob cratchette

        well it seems the fed govt can do this very thing so if they can not abide by the constitution then why do the states have to do that ? what is good for the goose is good for the gander. our sitting president does not abide by the constitution or the oath he took too uphold the laws of the land all laws not just the ones he likes so why should anyone else? you see when people start just obeying laws they think that should be obeyed it all starts to fall apart and the laws just become an obstacle they are either completely ignored or worked around.

        • DGCJ

          Our sitting president absolutely follows the constitution. The states did not follow the US constitution when it came to their marriage bans, and that’s why they are falling one by one. The public doesn’t get to vote on the civil rights of minorities. Not in a republic. You’ll learn that when you get to high school. Good luck!

  • bob cratchette

    the states that do not want to recognize what the fed govt is trying to force on them should rebel and tell the supreme court they will not knuckle under and recognize their findings on this matter in any case but of course then you would have judges and magistrates one dong it and another in a different county not doing it. you would have pretty much everyone doing what they wanted to sort of like what our president and federal govt does now they obey the law if they want and if they don’t want to who is going to do anything about it. the law in this case really does not matter because they will not obey it anyway

  • bob cratchette

    this country rushes headlong in its race to become the nation it describes in romans chapter one but there is a price to be paid for shaking your fist in GOD’S face as america will soon find out. so fix the popcorn sit back and watch as america becomes the GODLESS country it is striving to be. you me or anyone else does not tell GOD hey if you want to fellowship with us you have to lower yourself to our standards well sorry to burst your bubble GOD bends for nothing and no one

  • http://books.parsonplace.com Rev. Michael L. White

    Admittedly, I didn’t review every single comment below to verify whether anyone else has addressed this point, but I’d like to correct the pastor on his Bible reference to Daniel. The story Pastor McKee was referring to is found in Daniel 6 and involves King Darius, not King Nebuchadnezzar. The story of the statue which Nebuchadnezzar built and commanded his subjects to worship is found in Daniel 3 and involved Daniel’s three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (better known perhaps as Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-Nego). While I agree with Pastor McKee’s point about standing up for God’s Word (Law) in the face of contradictory human governmental law, I couldn’t let an erroneous application of the Bible’s facts go unchallenged.

  • Kathleen

    I wiuld hate to be that judge when he has to stand before God on the Judgement day.

  • DannyDino

    GLASS HOUSES, GENTLEMAN, GLASS HOUSES…..Sadly, two inconvenient truths have been revealed here; one, that though the pastor would wish otherwise, that darn pesky ‘Wall of separation between church and state” is not a wall he can or will dismantle any time soon, and the Republican Governor Bentley who did vehemently oppose same-gender marriage has had his true character–or, better said, his lack of it, now is facing impeachment for his OPPOSITE-gender affair, and misappropriating government monies to pay for that arrangement. It’s ALWAYS the Pharisees who are the most vile and corrupt, and Christ was repeatedly clear on His condemnation of such hateful and harmful judgmentalism, though, sadly for both, Christ said nothing in criticism towards gay people, though it was well-known to exist. Of the MANY multitudes of quotes from the Founding Fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution, asserting a refusal to allow faith and government be ‘mixed’, as Madison stated, ‘which makes each less pure’, T. Jefferson may have said that inconvenient truth in his famous writings, which I’ll post in a small part here: “Religious institutions that use governmental power in support of themselves, and force their views on persons of other faiths, or no faith, undermine all our civil rights. (The less pertinent and concerning point to those of us not in this state, still rings true as well) Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive, and leads to corruption within religion itself. (Here’s where that repeatedly annoying agenda laid out by our Founding Fathers get’s pretty uncomfortable for those who want to see THEIR faith be rule and law, like the good pastor) Erecting the wall of separation between CHURCH and STATE, therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” The good and noble, SOON-TO-BE FORMER Republican Governor Bentley will have quite a lot of free time to consider the deeply-troubling concern of the big bad evil gays, when, God no willing, he winds up in a tiny cell with a very erotically-inclined 300 pound cellmate. …One last Jefferson quote, which seems almost as if he has risen from his grave, after being shaken back to life by these two Pharisees, and spoken these direct words to the pastor directly: ” I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them.”