Obama: Religious Liberty ‘Doesn’t Grant Us Freedom to Deny’ Homosexual ‘Rights’

ObamaNEW YORK — During a Democratic National Committee fundraiser on Sunday, Barack Obama told those gathered that religious rights have limits when it comes to homosexuality.

“We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions,” he said. “But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

Billed as a homosexual gala, Obama had been introduced by Jim Obergefell at the event—the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

“We live in an America where a growing share of older generations recognize that love is love, and younger generations don’t even know what all the fuss was about,” he said. “Thanks to the unbending sense of justice passed down through generations of citizens who never gave up hope that we could bring this country closer to our founding ideals … we now live in America where our marriages are equal as well.”

During his speech, Obama also mocked the Republican party and several of its presidential candidates.

“Even as we are respectful and accommodating genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions, we need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes,” he stated. “That’s not how we move America forward.”

“One of their leading candidates argued that going to prison turns you gay,” Obama said, referring to Ben Carson.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Another candidate boasts that he introduced an amendment to end nationwide marriage equality, which isn’t even an accomplishment at all,” he continued, referring to Ted Cruz, before moving on to Mike Huckabee. “A third says Americans should just disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling entirely. I’m sure he loves the Constitution—except for Article III. And maybe the Equal Protection Amendment. And the 14th Amendment, generally.”

The president vowed to continue to push for progress for the homosexual agenda, as well as other issues.

“What makes America special is, is that though sometimes we zig and zag, eventually hope wins out,” he said. “But it only wins out because folks like you put your shoulder behind the wheel and push it in that direction.”

While Obama has regularly attended events in support of homosexuality, as previously reported, some former homosexuals who have been set free by the power of Christ have asked the president to also hear their stories.

“For years, the president of the United States has sat down with those in the LGBTQ community but has failed to hear the stories of those of us who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle,” wrote Janet Boynes in May. “As someone who spent 14 years in the homosexual lifestyle and then experienced the transforming power of Jesus Christ, I know it is possible to be set free. For 17 years, I have been living proof.”

She petitioned Obama to meet with people just like her and listen to their testimonies.

“Countless people who are participating in the homosexual lifestyle have visited with you at the White House, and you have supported them on numerous occasions,” Boynes stated. “What about those of us whose compelling stories you have chosen to ignore? We also have voices; and when you were first elected, you promised to listen to us. That has not happened yet.”


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
  • Peter Leh

    The
    southern christian in the antebellum could not continue to use their
    religion to prohibit equal protection of american citizens.. and we
    cannot continue it today.

  • Jim Garrou

    Marriage is not a Constitutional right. Where does he get off. But freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a right.

    • afchief

      You are exactly right! Marriage is NOT covered by the 14th amendment. This amendment was solely for slavery. In fact homosexuality was against the law in all states at the time the 14th amendment was passed.

      Since marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution the 10th amendment gives the states the right to include in their constitution. Around 40 states had marriage in their Constitution which states marriage is between one man and one woman.

      What happened in the SCOTUS is judicial tyranny as stated by Justice Alito.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        And yet, it’s the law now.

        • afchief

          No it’s not! The SCOTUS renders an opinion. Congress makes laws. COURTS CANNOT MAKE LAW! Where has Congress made homo marriage a law? Where is it written?

          The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

          The executive and judicial branches of our government do not make laws.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That is absolutely, categorically false. Show me one time when that has ever happened.

          • afchief

            Another brain dead liberal who has NO understanding of our Constitution. Hey genius, why don’t you go read the Constitution and educate yourself on who writes the laws of our country. I’ll give you a hint….it’s not the executive or judicial branch.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Still waiting for an example of the Supreme Court issuing an advisory opinion.

            Let me put it a different way: Why did all states begin issuing same sex marriage licenses immediately after Obergefell? Was that just a coincidence?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh…..the liberal deception. Stupid Americans are so easyily deceived to believe lies. Like I told you there is NO law on the books anywhere legalizing homo marriage. NONE! If so, show me. Show me where it is written. Before the recent “opinion” of the “Supreme” Court, marriage was strictly between a man and a woman in 39 states. 11 states had legalized it through the legislative process, 3 by direct election of the people, and 8 by action of State Legislatures. Today, marriage is still illegal in all 39 of the states where the law is still on the books. The “Supreme” Court cannot change the law, but can only offer opinions about it.

            There actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books. They only told us that it did, and we believed it, and told others to believe it.

            Again, prove to me where it is written. YOU CAN’T!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you even listening to what I’m saying?

            If same sex marriage is not the law, why did counties start issuing same-sex marriage licenses suddenly, right after the Obergefell decision? Why doesn’t someone tell them they don’t have to?

            And why did Kim Davis go to jail for refusing?

          • afchief

            You are NOT listening to what I’m saying!!!! There is NO law written anywhere that states homo marriage is legal. NO WHERE!!!! How many times do I need to tell you an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???? Or is that liberal brain too small to understand????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wow. Somebody’s angry.

            It’s not a matter of understanding. I understand every word you’re saying, it’s just that you’re wrong. Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you simply doesn’t comprehend what you’re saying? You’ve never been wrong before?

            In any case, the reality is that in Obergefell, the Supreme Court struck down all laws nationwide that ban same sex marriage. The Court has this power; they have since Marbury v. Madison.

            I understand that you don’t agree with this, and that you certainly don’t like it, but it’s reality all the same until someone rewrites the Constitution to eliminate judicial review.

            I’m going to ask you again: if this were not the case, why is every county in America now issuing same-sex marriage licenses? Why did they start after Obergefell?

          • afchief

            Then show me the proof! Show me where it is written. Laws do not exist out of thin air and courts cannot make or change laws. Show me where the legislative branch has changed the law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The legislative branch HASN’T changed the law. The only thing that changed was that any law forbidding same sex marriage in any state has been struck down as unconstitutional. That’s IT. So any state that forbid same sex marriage now CAN’T forbid it.

            What proof? The proof is the Obergefell decision. It’s publicly available, for free. You can find it many places.

            Why do you think courts can’t change laws? Courts strike down laws all the time. Do you see any states with laws forbidding interracial marriage? No, because the Supreme Court struck them down in Loving v. Virginia.

            Do you know of any states that have laws requiring segregated schools? No, because the courts struck those laws down in Brown v. Board of Education.

          • afchief

            You are making me laugh on your ignorance. Again, show me where it is written that a Kim Davis has to issue a marriage licences to a homo couple? Show me?

            “What proof? The proof is the Obergefell decision. It’s publicly available, for free. You can find it many places.”

            That is NOT proof!!! That is a decision. It is an opinion, period!!! Again, who makes and changes laws in out Constitution? WHO???? Are you really this ignorant?

            I’m done dealing with ignorance. It is QUITE OBVIOUS you have no understand of our Constitution and how laws are made and changed in our country. I refuse to discuss with uneducated people who have NO idea what they are talking about and keep spouting liberal/homosexual talking points which are lies.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Where does it say Kim Davis has to issue marriage licenses? In the order of Judge Bunning, which was upheld by the 6th Circuit, and the Supreme Court refused to review it.

            “That is NOT proof!!! That is a decision. It is an opinion, period!!!
            Again, who makes and changes laws in out Constitution? WHO????”

            In this case, nobody. The right was found by the Supreme Court in the 14th Amendment.

            “Are you
            really this ignorant?”

            Why are you making this personal?

            “I’m done dealing with ignorance. It is QUITE OBVIOUS you have no
            understand of our Constitution and how laws are made and changed in our
            country. I refuse to discuss with uneducated people who have NO idea
            what they are talking about and keep spouting liberal/homosexual talking
            points which are lies.”

            Uneducated? I have a law degree and I’m admitted to practice in 3 jurisdictions. Where did you learn your law?

          • afchief

            “Uneducated? I have a law degree and I’m admitted to practice in 3 jurisdictions. Where did you learn your law?”

            Now I know you are a boldface liar.

          • Angel Jabbins

            ‘Ambulance chaser’…well, I guess we know what kind of ‘lawyer’ he is, don’t we.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You don’t. It’s just a name. I thought it would be funny. I’m not actually a personal injury attorney.

            My picture is Lionel Hutz; do you honestly think that’s how I see myself?

          • respectourdifferences

            “Again, show me where it is written that a Kim Davis has to issue a marriage licences to a homo couple?”

            From her oath: “faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality”

            One of the duties of her office is to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples. Two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender have a right to a marriage license. Denying them that license based upon her personal religious beliefs violates her oath to perform her duties “without favor, affection, or partiality”.

          • afchief

            You know in 1974 when the ASA declassified homosexuality from a mental disorder there was NO new medical evidence to do so. It is quite apparent why it still is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            “You know in 1974 when the ASA declassified homosexuality from a mental disorder”

            How is that relevant to marriage laws or to the oath Ms. Davis took?

          • afchief

            Because I’m replying to a person with a mental disorder. Proof by your replies!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If she doesn’t have to, why did she go to jail for refusing? And why was that order upheld by the Sixth Circuit? And why did the Supreme Court refuse to overturn it?

            Could it be that it’s the law?

          • afchief

            The Word of God is quite clear!!! It states that the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so they cannot see the truth.

            You are proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It couldn’t possibly just be that you’re wrong?

          • afchief

            NOPE!!!

          • Angel Jabbins

            What did our Founders say:

            The founders gave us a system of three separate but co-equal branches of government. That means the President doesn’t get to write executive orders, and it means the Supreme Court doesn’t get to determine our national morality.

            The Supreme Court was intended to be a check and balance to the Executive and Legislative branches, as the Executive and Legislative are to be a check to the Judicial. None of the three branches is to hold a position of power which is higher than the others. Got it? Okay.

            That is exactly what SCOTUS is doing. Rather than return the Affordable Care Act to Congress for corrections, they swept in to do Congress’ job for them. Rather than allow states to determine their own laws on marriage (as they do with divorce, custody, legal fault etc.), they’ve swept in to do the job in place of “we the people.”

            “The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison

            Above: http: //louderwithcrowder. com/undeniable-quotes-the-founding-fathers-warn-about-scotus

            “…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
            Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

          • Angel Jabbins

            “The only thing that changed was that any law forbidding same sex marriage in any state has been struck down as unconstitutional.”

            Funny thing, though, how the SC made a completely different ruling on homosexual acts back in 1986,,,said such behavior was NOT protected by the Constitution. Jump forward to 2015…now is IS a protected (even celebrated) behavior. Oh, but TODAY’s Court is so much more enlightened than that other Court. NOT!

            Back in ’86: “The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Byron White, ruled that the right for gays to engage in sodomy was not protected by the Constitution, that the Georgia law was legal, and that the charges against Hardwick (man accused) would stand. The Court first argued that the fundamental “right to privacy,” as protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause against the states, does not confer “the right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” While the “right to privacy” protects intimate aspects of marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing from state interference, it does not protect gay sodomy because “no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated.”

            The Court also ruled that “the right to engage in homosexual sodomy” was not in itself a “fundamental right” protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court argued that the clause zealously protects from state interference only activities that constitute “fundamental rights,” that is, activities “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” In the history and traditions of American society, the Court could find no law construing “homosexual sodomy” as a fundamental right deserving constitutional protection. Instead, the Court observed that sodomy was banned by the original 13 colonies and outlawed by all 50 states until 1961. At the time Bowers was written in 1986, sodomy was illegal in nearly half the states.

            Finally, the Court rejected Hardwick’s argument that even if homosexual sodomy was not “a fundamental right,” it must be protected from “irrational state regulations,” arguing that Georgia’s law was rational even if its purpose was to “legislate” morality. The Court asserted that all laws are, to a certain degree, rooted in morality, and thus to strike down this one because it is “moral” would necessarily strike down most laws. The Court ruled that the Georgia law was constitutional and the charges against Hardwick could stand.”

            Justice Harry Blackmun (writing the dissenting opinion) condemned the decision. He wrote that “this case is about the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men, namely the right to be let alone.”

            Yeah….the ‘right to be left alone’..(where is that right specifically spelled out in the Constitution?)…that is what trumps all other rights today. Sure is trumping freedom of religion anyway. Supreme Kangaroo Court…that is what we have today and our Founders are rolling in their graves.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What religious right did you lose because of Obergefell?

          • Angel Jabbins

            You never addressed the issue of how the Court ruled one way in 1986…saying sodomy was NOT a protected right in the Constitution…but NOW it completely reversed itself to say just the opposite. What is happening is that we have a court now that sees the Constitution as a ‘living’ document that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever society at the time wants it to mean…which ever way the wind blows politically, morally, or socially. That is not what the Founders intended. The Court was to interpret it according to the original intention and design of the Founders

            There is no ‘right to marry’ in the Constitution. Show it to me. If there WERE a ‘right to marry’, then that means marriage has to be open and equal for all. If that is the case, then anything goes. Three people can marry each other (there is a case pending on this). A father can marry his daughter (another pending case). A man can marry his dog (probably a case pending on that one too!). A woman can have 5 husbands if she wants to. Marriage is demeaned and meaningless now and the Court is going to have a hard time not granting ‘equal marriage rights’ to these other combinations.

            How did I lose religious right under this new ruling? If you can’t see it, you must be blind. Christians are now being forced to not only accept gay marriage but to participate in it in various ways…bake a cake, sign a marriage license, do the flowers, plan the wedding, take the photos. rent them a room in a bed and breakfast…and when they feel they cannot comply because of their religious beliefs, they are fined heavily (some into bankruptcy) or, in one instance, sent to jail. In some instances, people are being silenced even for posting their opinions on the internet. One man lost his job simply for recommending a Christian movie (that discusses the issue of gay marriage) to a co-worker during a friendly discussion on a break. There will be more of it. We are just at the beginning of this..only a few months into it. It will get much worse for Christians. Just wait and see.

            The gays illegitimately got their ‘right’ to marry, but that was not enough. They want more!!! They want the right to cram it down the throats of people who have a moral and religious objection to it. They want tolerance for themselves but are not willing to give any out in return. Their way…all they way….or no way!

            The Supreme Kangaroo Court had no right to change the definition of marriage for the entire country…overnight. It is now the law of the land that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. Yet no law was passed. The people did not get any representation in this decision. We are now living in an oligarchy not a republic.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “You never addressed the issue of how the Court ruled one way in
            1986…saying sodomy was NOT a protected right in the Constitution…but
            NOW it completely reversed itself to say just the opposite.”

            Because there’s nothing to address. Sometimes the Court reverses itself. So what?

            “There is no ‘right to marry’ in the Constitution. Show it to me.”

            I don’t need to quote court opinions. If you’re curious to know how the Court arrived at its decision, the opinion is publicly available in many places. Besides, this site doesn’t allow links.

            “If there WERE a ‘right to marry’, then that means marriage has to be
            open and equal for all. If that is the case, then anything goes. Three
            people can marry each other (there is a case pending on this). A father
            can marry his daughter (another pending case). A man can marry his dog
            (probably a case pending on that one too!). A woman can have 5 husbands
            if she wants to. Marriage is demeaned and meaningless now and the Court
            is going to have a hard time not granting ‘equal marriage rights’ to
            these other combinations.”

            This is a ludicrous argument. You’re essentially saying that rights can’t ever be limited. If there’s a “right” to do something, then there must be the right to ANYTHING. How does that make sense? Why does that have to be?

            I have the right to walk out of my house. Do I also have the right to walk into my neighbor’s house?

            “How did I lose religious right under this new ruling? If you can’t see
            it, you must be blind. Christians are now being forced to not only
            accept gay marriage but to participate in it in various ways…bake a
            cake,”

            Has nothing to do with Obergefell.

            “sign a marriage license,”

            Kim Davis is not signing marriage licenses.

            “do the flowers”

            Has nothing to do with Obergefell.

            “plan the wedding”

            Has nothing to do with Obergefell.

            “take the photos”

            Has nothing to do with Obergefell.

            “rent them a room in a bed and breakfast”

            Has nothing to do with Obergefell.

            “and when they feel they cannot comply because of their religious
            beliefs, they are fined heavily (some into bankruptcy)”

            Has nothing to do with Obergefell

            “or, in one
            instance, sent to jail.”

            Are you talking about Kim Davis? She was sent to jail because, despite numerous options for compromise, she insisted on having every single thing her way. She:
            1. Refused to sign marriage licenses
            2. Refused to let any of her deputies sign marriage licenses, and
            3. Refused to resign.

            By acting like a spoiled child and refusing to compromise, she put the county in an untenable position. The judge offered her a hundred chances, but she wouldn’t take any of them. That’s not “losing your rights as a Christian,” that’s just throwing a temper tantrum.

            “One man lost his job simply for recommending a Christian movie (that
            discusses the issue of gay marriage) to a co-worker during a friendly
            discussion on a break.”

            Christopher Routson? That’s not even CLOSE to what happened in that case, but whatever the case, it’s irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Obergefell.

            “They want tolerance for themselves but are not willing to give any out in return. Their way…all they way….or no way!”

            “Any?” “All?” They’ve taken away ALL of your rights? Come on, even you don’t believe that.

            “The Supreme Kangaroo Court had no right to change the definition of marriage for the entire country…overnight.”

            They were asked to rule on it. Are you saying that the Supreme Court had only one way they could rule? That’s absurd.

            “Yet no law was passed. The people did not get any representation in this decision.”

            There are many states in which the legislatures legalized gay marriage. How do you feel about them?

          • Angel Jabbins

            1) “Are you saying the Supreme Court had only one way they could rule?’

            ‘One way to rule’….They are supposed to follow ONLY what is written in the Constitution in making their decisions, not manufacture new rights out of whole cloth that are not there.

            2)”There are many states in which legislatures legalized gay marriage.”

            The only states where gay marriage was passed by popular vote were Maine, Maryland, and Washington, very liberal states.

            Only 8 states passed it by the legislature (New York, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont….also pretty liberal states).

            All the other states….the majority, 26…in which same sex marriage was made legal, it was done by (kangaroo) court decision….not through representation of the people.

            3) What I shared about the man losing his job was correct. He lost the job, though he had received good reports all the 13 years of his employment. He was always outspoken about his faith with other employees the entire time he was employed and it was never a problem…until he shared with a lesbian. She did not appear to be bothered by his conversation with her at the time. Had she told him to shut up, he probably would have right quick. She later complained and he got fired….for simply telling her about a movie….that she didn’t have to watch if she didn’t want to. He did not accost her in anyway, call her names, demean her personally for being a lesbian. Just had a friendly conversation, sharing his faith and beliefs. She was offended by what he shared so she knew she had the power to get him fired and she did. Good grief!. The movie he was referring her to was not advocating hatred toward gay people in any way…just the opposite in fact.

            4) All the things I mentioned are a result of the Court decision and we are seeing more instances popping up as Christians take a stand for their faith and conscience. You are blind or totally biased by the Koolaid you are drinking if you cannot see that. As to Davis, she asked for an accommodation so her name did not have to appear on the form. Having her name on the ‘marriage’ license is a stamp of personal approval. No way to get around that. All it has to say is State of Kentucky. What is the big deal…is that so hard?

            5) Well, good luck to the Court as cases come up now for other new forms of ‘marriage’. What basis will they have to deny these others? None. They ‘love’ who they ‘love’ and have a ‘right’ to ‘love’ them…just like the gays! After all, they were ‘born’ that way….they just ‘feel’ it is right for them…who can say they are wrong?.. who can deny them their ‘right’ to do what they feel comes so natural for them? Don’t they have the ‘right’ as Justice Blackmun stated, ‘to be left alone to do as they please’? What a mess this Court has created!

            6) ‘Sometimes the Court reverses itself….so what?’

            When it made its ruling in 1986, it was interpreting the Constitution which is all the Court is allowed to do. In 2015, it was reading into it something that was not there and mandating it as law for the entire country without any say by the people. Justice Scalia stated concerning this decision: “..a system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

            7) “They’ve taken away ALL of your rights? Come on, even you don’t believe that.”

            Yes, I do think that is where this whole deal is headed. We are not there yet, but we are on the way. Christians…. already being labeled hateful bigots, losing the right to speak freely, carry on any commerce which involves weddings…. will be marginalized further in society. We may even be moved to our own ghettos one day. The mindset today is similar to another dark time in world history. Not all gays want that to happen, but many of the more activist ones do.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What, exactly, is your point here?

          • Angel Jabbins

            What is the point here?! You don’t see a problem with this scenario?…..that what was unconstitutional…not protected by the Constitution…in 1986 is now, not only protected, but the law of the land? Can you tell me what happened? Opinions change…the Constitution does not. There is a process for changing the Constitution but it is not by Supreme Court edict.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You must really hate Brown v. Board of Education then.

          • Angel Jabbins

            No, I don’t hate it because in that case the Court righted a huge wrong…discrimination based on skin color. Skin color is something a person does not chose….completely a result of his genetic inheritance. Separate but equal was a lie. It was not equal. It was a moral injustice. The Court did not have to view the Constitution as a ‘living’ document to overrule a bad law in that case. They interpreted it as it should have been interpreted all along. That black people were considered less than human and property of others was a travesty. Thankfully, that Court had the courage to right the wrong.

            Homosexuality is not the same as skin color. There is no scientific proof that gayness is an inherited trait through one’s genes. It is a choice. There are many who were once gay, bi, trans, lesbian who are now straight, so it is not true that there can never be any change. Skin color…pretty permanent thing. The Court based its decision on its own bias…and that of only 5 judges. In fact, two of the justices had performed gay marriages just before hearing the Obergefell case. They should have excused themselves from any involvement in this decision since they already had a bias based on their own personal feelings.

            Same thing happened in the abortion case. A baby was not concerned a person and the Court was biased in favor of the ‘rights’ for woman to control their own bodies. Yet now we know for certain, through advances in medical science of the last 20-30 years, that life begins at conception.

            There is no comparison between the gay marriage decision and Brown v Board of Ed. Different situations completely.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wait a minute: Aside from the fact that being gay is not a choice, don’t move the goalposts. First it was that it’s unfair for the Court to reverse itself. Now, it’s okay, but only in certain circumstances. Will you please make up your mind?

            Who decides if it’s “righting a huge wrong?” I consider it a “huge wrong” that same-sex couples weren’t allowed to get married.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Where did I state the Court could never reverse itself? If a previous Court did not properly interpret the Constitution, then another Court can certainly overturn that ruling. I hope that happens soon with abortion, as it has been proven through embryology that unborn babies are human beings from the moment of conception. So they DO have the right to life guaranteed to all citizens by the constitution.

            You cannot compare the cause of the blacks with that of the gays….(or that of the unborn). The blacks were being denied basic rights based solely on skin color. There is no ‘right to marry’ in the Constitution, as I have already stated, and there is also no proof that gayness is inborn and therefore unchosen, like skin color is. That you cannot see that is just evidence to your biased view point based solely on emotion.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so when CAN the Supreme Court reverse itself, and when can’t it?

          • Angel Jabbins

            Ugh! If you don’t get it by this time…can’t see the difference between being denied the most basic fundamental rights based solely on skin color as opposed to people being denied an imagined ‘right to marry’ due to sexual preference….then I don’t think I can ever get through you. This is the result of the brainwashing that is taking place in our schools and colleges today.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, I don’t see the difference. Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right itself.

            But instead of getting angry, why don’t you try answering the question? When can and when can’t the Supreme Court reverse itself?

          • Angel Jabbins

            I have answered the question…over and over. Marriage is not a ‘fundamental right’ guaranteed in the Constitution. Show me where that ‘right’ is. Marriage is an institution which was instituted by God…not by men. He and he alone gets to define what it is or is not. Even if you are an atheist, you have to see that marriage is not a right, but a privilege that is afforded only to those who qualify. I cannot marry my father, or a child, or two men, or a dog. If gays have a ‘right’ to marry, then how can polygamists be discriminated against and denied their ‘right’ to marry. Once you downgrade marriage to be something other than one man and one woman, you have no basis to tell anyone they cannot marry for any reason at all. We have made marriage a meaningless word.

            From Jurist: (great website…google it)

            “The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.”

            “In considering Constitutional questions, our Supreme Court often first considers its own opinions about the Constitution, rather than looking at the document itself. That’s the problem. The document should be the primary source. (!!!…me) The court need only apply the principles of statutory interpretation and construction in order to resolve many Constitutional claims. One principle of statutory interpretation is not to read into a law words not there. For example, the words “marriage,” or “gay marriage” do not exist.” (!!!!-me again)

            And lastly: “Judicially creating a right to marriage ignores the Constitution, eviscerates the 10th Amendment and is an improper judicial amendment of the Constitution. It defies all principles of interpretation or construction. For the Supreme Court to create a Constitutional right to marriage, it must first ignore and render dead the 10th Amendment, that pesky little part of our Bill of Rights that states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            You need to bone up!

          • respectourdifferences

            “Like I told you there is NO law on the books anywhere legalizing homo marriage. NONE! ”

            No such law is necessary. Laws restricting marriage based upon gender have been ruled unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. That leaves marriage laws as being between two consenting, non-closely related, unmarried adults, without regard to gender.

          • afchief

            Again, you have NO understanding of our Constitution and how it works. NONE!!!! Congress makes and writes laws. NOT the judicial or executive branch. Do you understand that? Is that too hard for that liberal brain of yours?

            Let me give you an example to help that liberal brain of yours understand; Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. That’s right, there is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! Zero! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

            STOP REPEATING LIES!!! You are making yourself look foolish!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you literally live in a world where law works differently than it does for every other person in America? Abortion is not, in fact, legal, but everyone thinks it is because no one understands the Constitution as well as you do?

          • afchief

            Then show me in writing. Again you can’t, just like homosexual marriage. IT IS NO WHERE IN WRITING!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Obergefell isn’t written?

          • afchief

            THEN IT IS NOT LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It was a sarcastic question. Of course it’s written.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Wow! i just read down through all of that exchange and….I have to hand it to you, you went above and beyond trying to get through those these poor folks. It is sad how things have gotten so twisted today… how people just don’t know anything about how our govt is really meant to work. All thanks to our broken liberal infiltrated public educational system.

          • afchief

            Yep! As a Christian you know as well as I how deceived homosexuals truly are. This is not about marriage with them. It is about having dignity. Anthony Kennedy used the term “dignity” throughout his entire written decision on sodomy-based marriage. I went to the dictionary because until recently, words had meaning.

            DIGNITY—“ a way of appearing or behaving that suggests seriousness and self-control; the quality of being worthy of honor or respect.”

            There is no dignity in sodomy! No matter what five degenerates in black robes might say, there is NO dignity in sodomy. Dignity cannot be bestowed by a court. No judge can make male-on-male sodomy “worthy of honor and respect.” Honor and respect come from within. No man can ever feel dignified as another man violates his anus. It is the ultimate desecration of manhood.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What is it we “don’t know?” Please, educate us. Provide citations.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I think I have been providing it in my comments to you above. I wish I had more time because there are more resources I could provide you on this matter. I love this stuff and could sit here going on about it all day. Unfortunately I have a very busy life so am only on here for a few minutes each evening. You are just plain wrong and, sad to have to say it, the product of our ‘progressive’ dumbed down educational system.

            This decision was a travesty as was Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade. The Court deliberately twisted the meaning of the Constitution. It imposed politically correct ideas on the American people…trampled on the sovereignty of the states which recognized the historical definition of marriage going back 1,000s of years. The Court trampled on the millions of voters who voted for defense of marriage laws/amendments in their states. It jeopardized the rights and needs of children by endorsing same sex ‘families’ in which children raised by same sex couples are deprived of either a mother or a father. These children get no say whatever in the matter. What about their rights? Would you like to do without your mom? Your Dad? And the Court has endangered the religious freedom of many Americans who have conscience objections to gay marriage.

            It is all about an ideology not about the proper workings of our government which consists of three branches which are supposed to check and balance each other. As Chief Justice Roberts said in his dissenting opinion stated: …’this Court is not a legislature. Whether same sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us… The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage….The majority’s decision is an act of the will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution…Just who do we think we are?'” Then he went on to note that the Court’s decision could easily be used to justify a constitutional ‘right’ to polygamy.

          • respectourdifferences

            There is also nothing in writing in the law which says you have the right to eat a hamburger. Based on your logic, it is not legal to eat hamburgers. Apparently you do not see the clear flaws in your logic. Laws are not written to allow things. Laws are written to define the restrictions on things.

          • afchief

            You just proved my point that homosexuality IS a mental disorder!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            Basis?

          • afchief

            Your entire statement!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            That is not a basis. That is simply another of your unsupported opinions.

          • Ivan McIntosh

            You don’t get it. You live in a western democratic republic, and you have the freedom to do anything unless there is a law prohibiting it. There doesn’t have to be a specific law before something is permitted. If you stopped for a moment and thought about it, you would realise that this is not only correct but is an extremely good thing.

          • afchief

            You do not get it! The SCOTUS only renders “opinions”. They do not make or change law. That happens only in the legislative branch. People like Kim Davis do not have to issue homo marriage licences to homos. Kentucky’s Constitution states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Until the law is changed, she does not have to issue them.

          • Ivan McIntosh

            I do get that afchief. They merely decide whether a law is constitutional or not. In the end that is all it is, albeit an opinion that has significant weight in the system of checks and balances of your government, and opinions will always generate argument. However, in government, someone has to have the final opinion, and that in this instance is the Supreme Court…unless one day a different panel of the Court changes its mind. That’s the system you’ve got, for better or worse.

            But unless there is a law specifically prohibiting something…and you mentioned an earlier law that was also struck down…then people are free to do that something. Right? And the example that follows is that same sex couples can get married, since laws that prohibit them doing so are, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, unconstitutional. I do see where you’re going, but I do not agree that you have it right on this point.

          • afchief

            As it is an “opinion” the 40 states that marriage between one man and one woman can continue to issue marriage licences to hetro couples only.

            The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

          • Ivan McIntosh

            Nevertheless the executive and legislative branches do fall into line, eventually, else your constitution wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on, and the laws of the 40 states stating man and woman only are likewise invalid on the same reasoning as the case before the Supreme Court. You are trying to shoehorn a meaning on “opinion” that carries far less weight than reality. An opinion issued by the Supreme Court is a powerful thing, and so it should be.

          • afchief

            Only the legislative branch can make it law. Until then, it is an “opinion” and nothing else.

          • Ivan McIntosh

            But you have the incorrect view that things require a law or they are not permitted. Whereas the proper view of someone living in a free society is that things are permitted to citizens unless prohibited…by a law that complies with the constitution.

          • afchief

            Nope! An “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

          • Ivan McIntosh

            Yeah, except you’d be wrong. Courts do make law and there is centuries of tradition of them doing so. Just google “common law”.

          • afchief

            Yep, another brainwashed subject!!!!

          • Ivan McIntosh

            I’m perfectly capable of having my views changed by a persuasive argument. It’s happened before and it will happen again. In your case, your narrow view of the powers of the Supreme Court seems not to have been adopted by any state – and there are surely plenty of people in the various state legislatures that would have liked to block the issue of marriage licences to same sex couples if they possibly could. So…are they all wrong, and you are the lone correct voice in the wilderness? Or can you acknowledge even the slimmest chance that you might not be correct? I’m prepared to acknowledge I might be wrong. Are you? And if you’re not prepared to acknowledge that, then who is the brainwashed one?

          • afchief

            Nope, because what I state is true. I would advise you to read the role of the SCOTUS. Every time I post a link it gets deleted. It is quite clear that the SCOTUS renders opinions, period. The legislative branch is the one who makes and changes law, period.

          • respectourdifferences

            “Congress makes and writes laws. NOT the judicial or executive branch.”

            Agreed. What law was made by the SCOTUS?

            “Abortion is not legal anywhere in America.”

            Obviously false.

            “That’s right, there is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! Zero!”

            Oh my. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the purpose of laws. Laws do not ALLOW things. Laws restrict things. Please show me the federal, or state, law which says it is legal to use a computer. Please show me the federal, or state, law which says it is legal to eat a hamburger. There are none. That does not mean that it is illegal to use a computer or eat a hamburger. Again, laws do not state what you CAN do, they state limits on what you can do.

            “There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion”

            It was not an “opinion”, it was a ruling.

            “In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal.”

            Please cite an example of an enforceable state law that says that abortion is illegal.

            “STOP REPEATING LIES!!!”

            What lies are you referring to?

          • afchief

            Wow! I’m done!!!! You statement above just shows how much liberalism and homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!!

            I WILL ASK YOU ONE LAST TIME. SHOW ME WHERE THE LAW IS WRITTEN THAT ABORTION IS LEGAL? SHOW ME WHERE IT IS WRITTEN THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS LEGAL?

            If you cannot show me, than SHUT UP!!!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            Again, you lack a basic understanding of the purpose of laws. Laws are not created to state was is allowed. Laws are created to place restrictions on what is allowed.

            If what you purpose were true, which it is not, then please point to the law that specifically says it is legal to use a computer. Please point to the law that says it is legal to eat a hamburger.

            “SHOW ME WHERE IT IS WRITTEN THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS LEGAL?”

            Show me where it is written that specifically states that two people of opposite gender are allowed to marry.

            I’ll ask again: What lies are you referring to?

          • afchief

            Bye! I’m done dealing with liberal/homo idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            If you can’t answer basic questions about your positions, then it renders your position meritless.

          • Elie Challita

            You just shot yourself in the foot. The Supreme Court can’t pass a new law, that’s true. But its basic function is to rule whether existing laws are constitutional, or whether they violate the rights of our citizens.

            By that definition the SC isn’t passing a law legalizing same sex marriage: It is ruling that prohibitions against same marriage are unconstitutional by default. It would be the same way if a state tried to pass a law excluding a certain group of citizens from voting on an arbitrary basis: the SC would strike that down as unconstitutional, and it wouldn’t need to pass a law allowing that group of citizens to vote.

            You can rail about activist courts all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they did exactly what they were supposed to do. If you disagree, feel free to keep raising the matter, but until you win you have to abide by the current laws.

          • afchief

            Nope, that is a lie. The SCOTUS renders an “opinion”, period!!! It cannot change ANY law!!!! The Congress is the body where laws are made and changed. NO WHERE ELSE!!! READ our Constitution.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can NEVER make or CHANGE laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • Elie Challita

            So do you think that any Supreme Court decision is nothing more than an opinion? Do you think that all SC verdicts are non-binding?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I was gobsmacked to read it, but apparently, he does.

          • afchief

            For the umpteenth time…..WHO MAKES AND CHANGES LAWS IN OUR COUNTRY???? Who? The Legislative branch, period!!!! The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

          • Elie Challita

            The SC did not rewrite laws, but its job is to tell the legislative branch, when necessary, that its laws are unconstitutional. Laws banning gay marriage were just found to be unconstitutional, and thus must not be enforced and should rescinded or changed.

            By your own definition, you admit that the SC didn’t do anything wrong: The state legislatures still can amend those laws, although how you’d amend a law that bans something when states are not allowed to ban that thing is beyond me.

          • afchief

            How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in your little liberal/homo brain???? The SCOTUS does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution.

            NO LAW HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN!!!!!

            This is Judicial tyranny!!! For over 150 years states had in their Constitutions that marriage was between one man and one woman. Just because we get an idiot for president and he appoints two homo judges, it changes the law that was valid for 150 years????? Yea right!!!

            IT IS CALLED JUDICIAL TYRANNY!!!

            You and your other “rump rangers” can go back to you liberal/homo sites. We know you are paid to be here.

          • respectourdifferences

            “NO LAW HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN!!!!!”

            Agreed. Please cite what enforceable law exists that would keep two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage.

          • afchief

            There actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books. They only told us that it did, and we believed it, and told others to believe it.

            IT IS A LIE!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            DOMA did not define who was, and who was not, allowed to marry.

            “The activist courts illegally overturned it”

            What was illegal about the Court ruling on DOMA?

            “however this did not nullify the law that was on the books.”

            Are you suggesting that a SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of laws is not binding?

            “IT IS A LIE!!!”

            What is a lie?

          • afchief

            Look, I’m done dealing with the stupidity of liberals and homosexuals. I have already told you the SCOTUS issues opinions, NOT LAW. READ OUR Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Any rational and logical mind knows the SCOTUS is conducting judicial tyranny. You homos can’t see it because your blinded by your sin. For example in 2102 the SCOTUS ruled that DOMA was invalid because it was NOT the jurisdiction of the federal government to dictate what is and isn’t marriage. And then in 2015 the SCOTUS says that all state Constitutions are invalid because the federal government has the jurisdiction to decided what is and isn’t marriage?

            This is called judicial tyranny and schizophrenia and it can be treated.

          • respectourdifferences

            “I have already told you the SCOTUS issues opinions, NOT LAW.”

            Yes, you have, and we agreed on that. You seem at a loss, however, to cite what law was written via Obergefell. Thus rendering your argument moot.

            So you can’t cite why the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA was illegal. Got it. Thanks.

            “the SCOTUS ruled that DOMA was invalid because it was NOT the jurisdiction of the federal government to dictate what is and isn’t marriage.”

            No, that was not the ruling of the court. The court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it treated same-gender couples who were legally married differently than it treated opposite-gender couples who were legally married.

            “And then in 2015 the SCOTUS says that all state Constitutions are invalid because the federal government has the jurisdiction to decided what is and isn’t marriage”

            No, the SCOTUS did not issue a ruling that said all state Constitutions are invalid, nor did it state that the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to decide what is and is not marriage. It ruled that laws prohibiting two citizens of the same gender from accessing the civil right of marriage were unconstitutional.

            So you can’t cite a basis for suggesting that SCOTUS rulings aren’t binding. Got it. Thanks.

            So you can’t cite what is a lie. Got it. Thanks.

            You really should spend some time getting a better understanding of our laws, judicial system, and the protections provided by our Constitution.

          • afchief

            Bye, bye little liberal homo. Back to your rump ranger sites where you can lie to each other.

          • Scoobym3

            “Rump Rangers.” Now that’s funny!

          • Elie Challita

            I am going to type this very slowly so that you may understand it:
            No law has be rewritten. The SC ruled that laws prohibiting gay marriage were unconstitutional. Therefore, gay marriage is no longer prohibited. Therefore, gays can get married.
            What’s so hard to understand about that?

          • afchief

            Yep! More proof liberalism and homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!! Again, for the umpteenth time…..The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            Bear in mind that offering an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            I don’t expect that to sink in the liberal/homosexual cranium. There is not enough space!

          • Elie Challita

            Do you ever get tired of repeating the same damn thing?
            A Supreme Court ruling is not “just an opinion”. It is a legal injunction that immediately countermands any law that is found unconstitutional.

            Let’s say that your state had a long-standing prohibition against atheists holding public office (which many states do). If the SC were to rule that such laws were unconstitutional, these laws are immediately null and void, and your friendly neighborhood atheist could run for office within minutes of the the ruling.

          • afchief

            Liberals make me laugh!!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            “The SCOTUS renders an “opinion”, period!!! ”

            The court issues rulings, no opinions.

            “It cannot change ANY law!!!!”

            Agreed. It can, however, rule that a law is unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

            “Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people.”

            That is not correct. Laws can only be made by legislative bodies. Citizens can vote on a proposed change in law, but the law itself must be put into place by a legislative body.

            “Courts can NEVER make or CHANGE laws.”

            What law do you believe was made or changed in Obergefell?

          • afchief

            It is quite apparent you have NO understanding of law and our Constitution. Bye! I’m done dealing with idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            Actually, it is quite apparent that you have no idea about our legal system or our Constitution. Unfortunate.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If Obergefell didn’t legalize same-sex marriage, why did states start issuing same-sex marriage licenses right after it was handed down?

          • afchief

            Are you really this ignorant???? Really? How many times do I have to tell you how law is made and changed? IT IS CALLED “Judicial Tyranny” and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

            Can that sink in that little liberal/homo brain of yours or are you going to prove to me that the ASA was wrong in 1974 and homosexuality is still a mental disorder????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so we have a system of laws, which, is man-man and its existence and legitimacy are solely dependent on the power given to it by people.

            If people then accept that the system does “X,” and the system only exists because people believe that it does, how is that different from “it actually does X?”

          • Ivan McIntosh

            I find it interesting to see that the self-proclaimed Christian in this argument is the only one resorting to very childish insults. That kind of language ought to be beneath you, no matter how frustrated you get. You can make your points without it.

          • afchief

            Is homosexuality a mental disorder? Check!
            Is liberalism a mental disorder? Check!

            It is truth!!!

          • Ivan McIntosh

            Even if it were truth, which it isn’t, it is the equivalent of going up to a really really fat person and shouting in their face that they’re fat. It may be the truth, but the person shouting is still a rude boorish a-hole.

          • afchief

            Apples and oranges!! We are on a message board and I can’t see a fat person. It is a well know fact that a liberals and homosexuals do not have a rational and logical cranium. Liberalism and homosexuality ARE mental disorders.

          • Ivan McIntosh

            Ok, so you’re an unchristian troll and you enjoy being an unchristian troll. I get it. Continue revelling in your smug self-righteous bigotry and cheap childish insults. You’re not fit to lick the boots of the real christians I know, who would be horrified at your language.

          • afchief

            The truth always cuts to the quick, does it not????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And while I’m at it, no court “made a law” here. The law is the 14th Amendment. The Court simply said how it applies.

          • afchief

            Hey genius, why don’t you study history and educate yourself on why and what the 14th amendment was/is for. When it was passed 1866 homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. It has nothing to do with marriage PERIOD!!!! This is why the states had marriage defined in their perspective Constitutions. That is what the 10th amendment is for.

          • respectourdifferences

            “It has nothing to do with marriage PERIOD!!!!”

            It has to do with any law – marriage or otherwise.

          • afchief

            More proof that homosexuality and liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

            AGAIN, when the 14 amendment was passed (for slavery) in 1866 homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. Repeat ALL states!!! The amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage. NOTHING!!!

            This is why 40 states had the definition of marriage in their respective State Constitutions according to the 10th amendment.

            STOP REPEATING LIES. It is quite apparent you have NO understanding of how our Constitution works. What happened in the SCOTUS is judicial tyranny. PERIOD!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            “AGAIN, when the 14 amendment was passed (for slavery) in 1866 homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. Repeat ALL states!!!”

            How is that relevant to the ruling Obergefell?

            “The amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage. NOTHING!!!”

            Who is allowed to marry is a matter of law. The 14th Amendment requires that state laws not conflict with protections provided by the 14th Amendment. ALL state laws – including the ones that deal with marriage.

            “STOP REPEATING LIES.”

            What lies are you referring to?

            “What happened in the SCOTUS is judicial tyranny. PERIOD!!!”

            How is the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of a state law an act of “tyranny”?

          • afchief

            In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?

            A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that? Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges. Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

            Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

            Courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            All this garbage over homo marriage is a cleverly designed smoke screen. Who cares what the Supreme Court says? They are merely rendering their “opinion”. The people of Alabama and 30 other states have already spoken on this issue. No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people. Did anyone vote to give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg the power to change the institution of marriage? I don’t think so

            It takes an Amendment to the Constitution to CHANGE THE LAW!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            “In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

            Well you are wrong on a couple of counts. First, your statement that 81% of the people voted is incorrect. There are over 3,000,000 registered voters in Alabama. 697,591 voted to approve Amendment 774. That is 23%, not 81%. Second, they did not vote on the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman. They voted to make it illegal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage.

            “How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?”

            The SCOTUS did not issue “an opinion”, they issued a ruling. It carries more weight because the judicial branch as the final say on issues of state law not violating protections provided by the Constitution.

            “A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that?”

            Yes, I do. What law was created as a result of the Obergefell decision. What law was created as a result of the Loving decision?

            “Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?”

            Yes. How is that relevant to this issue?

            “Courts only offer opinions.”

            No. They issue rulings.

            “The law cannot be changed by a “judge.””

            Agreed. Laws can, however, be ruled to be unenforceable.

            “No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people.”

            Actually, it can. If we follow your logic, then after the vote in Loving, interracial marriage should have remained illegal.

            “It takes an Amendment to the Constitution to CHANGE THE LAW!!!!!”

            No, it does not.

          • afchief

            You know in 1974 when the ASA declassified homosexuality from a mental disorder there was NO new medical evidence to do so. It is quite apparent that this lifestyle is still a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            “You know in 1974 when the ASA declassified homosexuality from a mental disorder”

            How is that relevant?

          • afchief

            The disorder is showing up in your replies.

          • respectourdifferences

            How so?

          • afchief

            Like I told you, you do not understand law and our Constitution. It is quite obvious by your replies.

          • respectourdifferences

            Yes, you do keep saying that. But you continue to be unable to explain how my understanding is incorrect and you continue to show that you are unable to answer the questions I pose to you about your statements.

            It is quite obvious from your replies that you do not understand the basis for our judicial and legal systems and our Constitution. That’s unfortunate. As a citizen of the US, you really owe it to yourself to have a better understanding of those things.

          • afchief

            BYE! Go back to your liberal socialist sites and play with other “rump rangers”!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            So you can’t explain how my understanding is incorrect. Got it. Thanks.

          • Elie Challita

            Interracial marriage was also against the law, and yet it was struck down under that same amendment. Segregation was also legal, and yet it was struck down under that same amendment.

            That’s the purpose of constitutional amendments: They set a benchmark by which we can evaluate unforseen situations. The writers of the 1rst amendment never imagined how freedom of speech would apply to online journalism, and yet we take it for granted that you can freely express yourself on a medium which the founders had no way of conceptualizing.

          • afchief

            Wrong! No it was not struck down by the same amendment. The Federal Government has zero Constitutional Authority to redefine marriage or violate the 9 & 10th Amendment (or the others for that matter). the US Constitution does not mention Marriage anywhere. The Power is Not the Federal Government’s as the State’s have NEVER Enumerated that Power to the Federal Government BY Amendment. This falls under the 10th Amendment. The People have spoken in Referendum and have voted upon this. The 14th Amendment does NOT apply as it was placed into the US Constitution for ONE reason ONLY and that was to Protect the Newly Freed Slaves and give ONLY them the Rights of Citizenship, The argument that the 14th applies is a FALSE argument. Homosexuality was against the law in all states when this amendment was passed.

          • Elie Challita

            So do you think that interracial marriage should still be illegal in states that had banned it by law? What about segregation?

            The Supreme Court’s function is not to pass law: It is to look at laws passed by the legislative branch and tell them that they’re wrong. You’re using an extremely narrow reading of legal texts, which quite simply isn’t feasible.

            The first amendment said nothing about your freedom of expression on the Internet. Does that mean you do not have the right to express yourself freely here?

          • respectourdifferences

            “No it was not struck down by the same amendment. ”

            You may find it helpful to review the Loving decision. It was based upon the 14th Amendments protections of equal treatment under the law. Your statement is incorrect.

            “he 14th Amendment does NOT apply as it was placed into the US Constitution for ONE reason ONLY and that was to Protect the Newly Freed Slaves and give ONLY them the Rights of Citizenship,”

            Please cite where in the 14th Amendment it states that equal treatment under the law only applies to issues of race.

            “Homosexuality was against the law in all states when this amendment was passed.”

            How is that relevant?

          • afchief

            BYE! You are proving that mental disorder again!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            If that’s all ya got – that’s all ya got.

          • afchief

            That’s because liberals and homos cannot handle the truth!!! It is quite obvious!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            Given your significant lack of understanding regarding our laws and constitution, you have provided little “truth” to handle.

            What “truth” is it you believe that “liberals and homes” cannot handle?

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Liberals and homos make me laugh because as a Christian, I know how blinded you are from the truth.

            It’s funny and sad at the same time, and you are quite blind!!!!

          • respectourdifferences

            What truth is that?

            What is it you believe I am “blind” to?

      • respectourdifferences

        “Marriage is NOT covered by the 14th amendment.”

        All laws are covered by the 14th amendment.

        “This amendment was solely for slavery.”

        Where is that in the 14th Amendment?

        “Since marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution the 10th amendment gives the states the right to include it in their constitution.”

        Agreed. In turn, the 14th Amendment requires that any state law not be found to violate protections provided by the 14th amendment.

        “What happened in the SCOTUS is judicial tyranny”

        How is the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of a state law an act of “tyranny”?

        • afchief

          I swear liberals are dumber than a box of rocks. Read below.

          • respectourdifferences

            I did. My statements and questions stand. Now, back to my questions….are you able to answer them?

          • afchief

            Like I said liberals are dumber than a box of rocks!!!!

            “All laws are covered by the 14th amendment.”

            Really? Are you this ignorant? The 14th amendment defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues.

            IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE!!!!!!! Which is why the States used their Constitutional right for hundreds of years to define marriage in their respective Constitutions. When this amendment was written (in 1866) homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. AGAIN, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            It is judicial tyranny because there actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books. They only told us that it did, and we believed it, and told others to believe it.

            Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • respectourdifferences

            From the 14th: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

            What part of “any law” do you find confusing?

            “IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE!!!!!!!”

            Who is allowed to marry and who is not is defined by law. Those laws, based upon the 14th amendment, are subject to judicial review.

            “It is judicial tyranny because there actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act”

            DOMA did not define who was allowed to enter into civil marriage and who was not.

            “The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013”

            What was illegal about their actions?

            “Courts can never make laws.”

            Agreed. What law do you believe was made as a result of Obergefell?

      • Random non-partisan voter

        Anti-Sodomy Laws are not Anti-Gay homosexuality laws. Straight people perform sodomy. It’s called… hold on to your hats… ORAL SEX (time to start rounding up spouses giving blowjobs to hubby or eating out the wife).

    • Peter Leh

      equal protection is… and the state enforces all civil contracts.

      SO……

    • respectourdifferences

      How is that relevant?

    • respectourdifferences

      “Marriage is not a Constitutional right.”

      How is that relevant? Eating a hamburger is not a Constitutional right. Does that mean that people can be restricted from eating hamburgers?

      Equal treatment under the law is a constitutional right. That applies to all laws – including marriage laws.

  • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

    Wow! The confounded lunacy in this man’s speech is almost unbearable.

    The introduction of homosexuality as a protected predisposition establishes contradictions within the Constitution; in regards to freedom of religion and special civil rights [sic] protection of the LGBT community.

    “…recognize that love is love.” Yeah! But what is love? Progressivism has eliminated the natural boundaries of the the word–among many others.

    “…unbending sense of justice…” Evil for good, good for evil! The current system of governmental justice has done nothing but bend.

    “…hope that we could bring this country closer to our founding ideals.” No…no…and many more noes!!! This country has abandoned the founding principles and embraced something with less hope of remaining anything but a despotic cesspool of chaos.

    Homosexuality “is” but shouldn’t be a protective class. It is not the same as a civil right and shouldn’t fall under the 14th amendment. but…it…does.

    It seems like every generation has some sort of evil overlord. I guess Obama is this generations…

    • afchief

      If satan had a son…..

    • Valri

      “Yeah! But what is love?”

      Assuming that’s a picture of your wife and yourself in your avatar? That’s love. And when it’s two homosexuals they love each other in EXACTLY the same way you and your wife do. And if you disagree with that, then you are disagreeing with reality.

      If you want to talk about “cesspools of chaos” let’s talk about people who use their faith to hate others.

    • Phipps Mike

      love is not exclusive to opposite sexes. Men love men and women love women. Accept it and move on.

      • Matthew T. Mason

        No. God said it’s a sin, I stand with Him. End of discussion.

        • Elie Challita

          If God wants to pass legislation in the United States, he can run for Congress like everyone else. Until then, that’s just your opinion.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Wow. What a moron.

          • Elie Challita

            Thank you for that well thought out rebuttal.
            Would you like Vishnu and Allah to chime in on our legislation as well?

    • Matthew T. Mason

      “What is love?”

      Baby don’t hurt me
      Don’t hurt me no more

  • Denise Parker

    Wonderful speech. The voice of reason. I am very glad that we hve a president who believes in freedom and supports constitutional rights of individuals. Founding fathers never intended this country to be ruled by religion. They intended individual rights to practice personal faith, but not to impose it on others. I just wish more Christians understood that concept better. You keep your faith, but you don’t get to practice it on others. That is freedom and protects us all.

    • Bradley Schroeder

      as long as the freedom of others doesn’t ask me to violate mine (make cake for, put my signature on a gay marriage certificate, perform wedding in my church, etc…) then thats ok. it works both ways. and gay right certainly does not override my religious rights because God’s laws are higher than man’s laws. Gays can marry and be joined in man’s eyes, but only man and woman can marry in God’s eyes so it is ok to think its all equal.

      • Matthew T. Mason

        You don’t get it. For the homosexual, it’s not about equality. It’s about their way or no way, and that includes personal opinion and belief. And it’s only with Christians, as they won’t go after muslims at all.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      The voice of Mr Obama. Mr Obama does indeed have a wonderful voice. What a stage presence! He really does believe everything he says. Even when he’s dead wrong, he says it with such style. Also, he is dead wrong. Dead wrong.
      He should keep his his precious homosexuality, and take it to the place he is going, but not impose it on others. As long has he rules by his irreligious ideas, only his homosexual friends have freedom, and only they are protected.

    • Phipps Mike

      ” Founding fathers never intended this country to be ruled by religion.” exactly.

  • Emmanuel

    Got to love a speech from a paper christian.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Thank you for not capitalizing “christian.” Charlatan might be a better word for him.

    • Josey

      Obama the chameleon, I heard bits of his speech at the UN, couldn’t take much of what he says because he is a hypocrite when it comes to telling other nations what they should or shouldn’t do, as he does as he pleases and then claims the American people stand behind him on it when the majority doesn’t including this speech on sodomy, five justices ruling on it nor the 3% sodomites in America who support it is not a majority.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        How about the 55% of Americans who support it? Are you just going to ignore them?

      • Phipps Mike

        sodomy INCLUDES oral sex between opposite sexes. Your numbers are wrong for that reason.

  • gatekeeper96740

    Where does it say we have to celebrate debauchery?
    Why are we forced to participate in lascivious gutter behavior.
    Next will be pedophilia weddings like the muzzies have.

    • Peter Leh

      “Where does it say we have to celebrate debauchery?”

      nowhere.

      “Why are we forced to participate in lascivious gutter behavior”

      What “lascivious gutter behavior” have you be up to? You worry me.

      “Next will be pedophilia weddings like the muzzies have.”

      Naw… a pedophilia wedding would be going BACK in time not moving forward.

      We are progressing around here not going back were the “muzzies” are presently.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “Why are we forced to participate in lascivious gutter behavior.”

      You’re not. There, was that so hard?

      • Names_Stan

        Oh, I don’t know, sounds like a real under undercurrent of debauching & lascivying going on there.

        Whoever “forced” him really did a number on him, to get him to “celebrate” it too. Or maybe it wasn’t all that tough a sell…

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “Thanks to the unbending sense of justice passed down through generations of citizens who never gave up hope that we could bring this country closer to our founding ideals ”

    “unbending sense of justice?!?” Irony, much?

    “closer to our founding ideals?” When the 14th Amendment was passed, sodomy was illegal in all of the states. Now, it has been used to invent an oxymoron – gay “marriage.”

    I notice that the Abortion President’s definition of “love” does not extend to members of the Republican Party who disagree with him (liberal “tolerance” isn’t, is it?), nor does it extend to the millions of human beings killed in the womb so he can collect his votes from clueless young single women and men who are so selfish as to want sex without consequences that they place their selfish beastly desires over the lives of human beings with intrinsic moral values and fundamental rights. What he calls “love,” God calls “hate.” Please repent, Mr. President – your Hell looks worse than most.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I don’t think the President would ever say that Republicans can’t fall in love.

    • Elie Challita

      1- We have changed quite a few laws since the days of the founding fathers. Do you propose we overturn all these changes to be more in line with the 1800s?

      2- Tolerating intolerance doesn’t strike you as an oxymoron, or are you going to trot out that old ice cream flavor argument again?

      3- Abortion is legal. If you disagree, pass a law banning it (good luck with that one though).

      4- If you don’t want people to abort kids they don’t want to or can’t have, why do you not support sex education and harmless methods of contraception which have been proven to greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Elie, it is GREAT to hear from you!

        “1- We have changed quite a few laws since the days of the founding fathers. Do you propose we overturn all these changes to be more in line with the 1800s?”

        Nope, but nice change of subject from the fact that the 14th Amendment was used to create a myth (gay “marriage”) that was neither specified, implied, or intended when the 14th Amendment was passed. 🙂

        I just want the baby sacrificers to join me in overturning the laws that kill 4000 innocent human beings (with intrinsic moral value and positive fundamental rights) in the womb every day, in the US alone – I am not a fan of people who advocate for killing babies. How about showing an ounce of compassion for the most vulnerable? Is it going to take as many decades to acknowledge their right to life as it did to get the Democrat Party to acknowledge the right to liberty of the black man?

        “2- Tolerating intolerance doesn’t strike you as an oxymoron”

        What?!? I think you have that backwards, my friend. “Tolerance” is putting up with people you disagree with, NOT just the ones you agree with. The self-refuters are the ones like you who say: “I refuse to tolerate the intolerant.” If you think about this for a moment, you will see that what that means is that your refuse to tolerate yourself! Totally self-refuting and absurd. But, humorous nevertheless. 🙂

        “3- Abortion is legal. If you disagree, pass a law banning it (good luck with that one though).”

        “Slavery is legal. If you disagree, pass a law banning it (good luck with that one though).” — Elie, the owner of black people in the 1850’s. 🙂 I’m actually stunned that you are making so many easy mistakes today, Elie.

        “4- If you don’t want people to abort kids they don’t want to or can’t have, why do you not support sex education and harmless methods of contraception which have been proven to greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?”

        Non-sequitor AND strawman AND false dichotomy. What other excuses will you use for condoning moral murder?!? Try this:

        “If you don’t want people to hate gays, then why won’t you support religious freedoms for people like Kim Davis?!?” See how that works?

        It is an off day for you, Elie, on the logic end of things. I can break out my propositional logic study for you if you like? 🙂

        • Elie Challita

          1- Hey, you’re the one that claimed that amendments should only very narrowly apply to whatever they were first drafted for. I think the spirit of the 14th amendment applies equally to all types of discrimination. When did you start preferring the letter of the law over its spirit?

          2- You expect fairness from an immoral atheist such as myself?
          Jokes aside, no. Just no. Wherever your morality may come from, you can set lines and limits to it. Charity doesn’t mean that you should give away all I own, and then kill yourself so that you can donate your organs. Tolerance doesn’t require me to allow what I consider to be harmful and hateful beliefs free reign.

          3- Oh come on, really? Because slavery was once legal, you think you can justify blatantly ignoring any law you damned well please and automatically claim the moral highground for doing so?

          4- How is it a non-sequitur? The best way to reduce the number of abortions, which are mostly caused by unwanted pregnancies, is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Given that premise why is it that the same people who claim they want to stop abortions don’t take the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m really confused about where the logic is in your argument tonight, Elie – please forgive me, as I am getting up in age and might be losing it. When it comes to the 14th Amendment, as it relates to both abortion and gay “marriage,” let me just summarize the view I am trying to make across all 4 points hopefully:

            It’s not that I am trying to take a narrow view of the 14th Amendment and its application. It’s that I would like to see how the 14th Amendment applies even remotely to the issues of abortion and gay “marriage.” In the case of abortion (both Roe and Doe), it has LONG been admitted by legal scholars on BOTH sides of the issue that the legal “logic” used to construct a “right” to intentionally kill a human being in the womb (that’s what abortion is, in case you missed it) was laughable at best and a complete legal travesty at worst. I am not aware of anyone on either side who would say that was good legal adjudication. They admit that it was pure fabrication, and the 14th Amendment was a useful tool, nothing more.

            Those legal scholars on the side of abortion admit this too – especially those who were intimately involved in the actual adjudication in front of SCOTUS. They have admitted it was nothing more than a means to an end, and we know from history where “means to an end” leads, right? (Of course, it is no problem on atheism, where objective moral values and duties simply do not exist, which is why it surprises me to see you arguing so much for ANY position, Elie: it matters not one whit in any ultimate sense whether abortion or gay “marriage” is legalized, if your worldview is correct. Arguing strongly for a moral position on atheism is self-refuting. The fact that abortion or gay “marriage” was legalized will not only NOT matter, but will be remembered by no one when the universe goes through its incredibly slow dark cold death throes. It is futility squared.)

            As for gay “marriage,” we are already seeing indications that this “right” was just another myth invented by SCOTUS, and it will only be a matter of years before the lawyers who argued in favor before the SCOTUS will be yucking it up and admitting that it was a means to an end, children be damned. (Just like happened in Roe and Doe.)

            But, the really surprising thing to me is to see you making such incredibly poor arguments in favor of abortion – I mean, yes, I know that 97% of atheists are in favor of it, but with the great secular arguments out there against it, it just seems to be particularly reprehensible in this day and age. Your argument is “Give me my condoms for free or else I get to keep killing babies in the womb” – really?!? That is worse than pathetic, and I am pretty sure you know it, on some level. (Surprisingly similar, however, to “Bake me a gay cake or I will bankrupt you!”)

            Instead, let’s deal with some logic here. Here is one secular argument that I like:

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights. (basic and positive morality).

            2. Assigning rights arbitrarily amongst human beings has proven catastrophic. (history of the world).

            3. What is located in the human womb, post conception, is a human being. (settled science).

            4. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights – one who is guilty of no crime.

            The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it?

            Yet, even if pure logic does not do it – after all, NOT killing an innocent baby DOES get in the way of a guy’s sex without consequences life – a person would have to be willfully ignorant and barbarically callous to not be moved by the visuals of this day and age. I wonder what it would take – with all of the information out there – videos and pictures and descriptions by abortionists, testimony, etc – for a pro-abort to convert to pro-life at this point? Basic science and logic did it for me, long before the internet became public and while I was still an atheist, 13 years before becoming Christian. But, with all of the visuals, with the womb with a view (ultrasound), a person has to be really beyond sick to remain on the side of abortion “rights.” Either that, or one must be unbelievably selfish to place his sex without consequences ahead of the life of an innocent human being with intrinsic moral value.

            That is what i don’t get: when I became pro-life, it was just logic and a basic understanding of Human Biology 101. Words, that’s it. There were no videos of abortions out there, no pictures of post-abortive babies with arms and legs and heads lying dismembered in dishes and garbage cans. A person really has to have their head stuck in the sand to stand firm on abortion. It would be like looking at the bodies of dead Jews stacked like firewood in the concentration camps and saying “well, that’s nature for you. Survival of the fittest.” I simply cannot understand it.

  • Chrissy Vee

    “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions,” Profoundly respectful? Traditions?
    “Even as we are respectful and accommodating genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions…” We? Accommodating? Good grief. He is always so cunning with his wording.

    Wait. Aren’t Muslims in America also against homosexuality too? Why are they not called out for their “discrimination” against homosexuality? oohhhh…THAT must be the religion he is claiming to profoundly respect and accommodate.
    So when he stated… “But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”, he forgot to add, “Unless of course you are Muslim, then you may practice every aspect of your religion without prejudice.”
    Regardless, homosexuals aren’t even aware that they are being used for a greater agenda. I hope more of them turn to Christ. Lord have mercy.

    • Peter Leh

      “Wait. Aren’t Muslims in America also against homosexuality too?”

      which proves Obama is not a Muslim and conservative christian are more like Muslims. no?

      That is a scary thought.

      • Chrissy Vee

        Your lack of awareness shows through your posts. Your lack of wisdom is what is scary.

        • Peter Leh

          oh i am aware… of the contradictions. 🙂

          • Chrissy Vee

            OK this one I wrote I stand for. 🙂

          • Peter Leh

            Mine was indeed a bit of a drive by comment.

            I just find it funny the meme going around saying the president drinks, eats pork, supports women’s rights, and gays rights (all which islam prohibit) then says ” Worst Muslim Ever”. 🙂

          • Chrissy Vee

            Muslims are taught to lie and be deceitful if they must for their gain. That may or may not sound vague to you and many others, but it is very relevant to your post.

          • Peter Leh

            i have heard that.

            However i have never seen a orthodox muslim eat pork. Even they cant lie about that.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Fair enough, but…. does he REALLY eat pork? Do we really know?

          • Peter Leh

            This looks like pork baby back rib to me. Beef ribs are huge:

            https:// thetechnotebook.wordpress. com/2014/07/30/news-spin-obama-eats-ribs-a-matter-of-perspectives/

          • Chrissy Vee

            Just looked at it. It is possible those are baby back ribs. It is also possible there is no alcohol in his drinks. I am not saying I know either way, but he is a great deceiver.

          • Peter Leh

            “I am not saying I know either way, but he is a great deceiver.”

            lol . yo dont have to be a muslim to be a great deceiver. Just say he is a “politician”, right? lol

          • Peter Leh

            Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol. You may google images. there seems to be plenty

          • Chrissy Vee

            I am sure there are! I guess what I am trying to get at is, is it possible he is deceiving by drinking alcohol, eating pork… to portray that he is not Muslim?

          • Peter Leh

            “I guess what I am trying to get at is, is it possible he is deceiving
            by drinking alcohol, eating pork… to portray that he is not Muslim?”

            i don’t believe even a muslim would cross that line.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Yeah… I guess I can understand that.
            In that case, I believe that he is drinking nonalcoholic drinks and eating beef ribs, because I am convinced he is Muslim. I guess we will all see when everything comes to fruition.

      • Angel Jabbins

        I am just curious. Why do you display the Islamic sign for the letter ‘N’ next to your name since you apparently are not a Christian. The ‘N’ is for Nazarene…meaning follower of Christ. ISIS puts that symbol on the homes of Christians when they kick them out onto the street, take over their property, and force them to either leave town, stay and pay a high tax, or be executed.

        Do you use it in sympathy with those being persecuted for their Christianity or it is in mockery of it? Just wondering about it for a while now. Seeing that sign next to your name and then reading your comments is always a bit confusing for me.

        • Names_Stan

          since you apparently are not a Christian

          God tell you that in a dream, or do just generally judge people on the basis of a few sentences?

          You got a real future in the Pharisaical arts.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            1) Christianity doesn’t have an open definition. It’s in the New Testament. Peter’s screen behavior indicates he isn’t a Christian.

            2) Angel wasn’t asking you to begin with. You should stay out of it.

          • Peter Leh

            he was not asking you either. 🙂 Otherwise jump in Matt the water is warm.

        • Peter Leh

          “Do you use it in sympathy with those being persecuted for their
          Christianity or it is in mockery of it? Just wondering about it for a
          while now. Seeing that sign next to your name and then reading your
          comments is always a bit confusing for me”

          in solidarity with our persecuted brothers and sisters in christ.

          Apparently you don;t consider me one. Thank god we don’t need each others approval for salvation. the only approval we need is from the HS.

          I agree with you more that you think. I pick and choose the topic I wish to comment it on. I just don;t like bullies. Religious bullies are the worst. i have lived with them all my life. So in general my challenges of another’s position is to get them to think about their contradictions. the world certainly sees them.

          Perhaps the confusion comes from the fallacy that we must all agree on everything or the other is not a “christian”?

          No need to assume. You may always ask. (which indeed you did) 🙂

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You may call yourself a Christian, but if you believe and espouse the opposite of what the Bible teaches, you’re a liar.

          • Peter Leh

            the devil is the father of lies. nor is he my father,

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You won’t be able to say that to Jesus. He’ll deny you.

          • Peter Leh

            and you know this how? Unless you are god how are you the gatekeeper of my soul?

            have i been mistaken and should have been praying to Matt? i did not get that memo.

            Those who think they are god are idolators. Where do idolators go according the bible… Matt?

          • Names_Stan

            And my post (disagreeing with taking God’s authority on oneself to condemn us to hell) gets deleted.

            It must’ve been a good one. Wish I could remember what I said.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23 KJV)

            That’s the Word of God, heathen. Game, set, match.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Thanks for responding.

            Of course we will never agree on everything. There are many things that are non-essentials where we do have the freedom to disagree. However, we must all agree on the essentials of the faith to have true Christian fellowship. What do you consider to be the essentials of the faith?

            While we don’t need each other’s approval for to be saved, we are told in Scriptures to discern and not to fellowship with those who say they are Christians yet teach and believe in a false christ. It would be great to know just where you are coming from. Do you hold the Bible to be the infallible, inspired Word of God? Is Jesus both God and Man. Did He raise from the grave and sits now at the right had of the Father? Is He a Man right now? Is there one God in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Is salvation through Christ alone, faith alone, by grace alone, to the glory of God alone, through the Word of God alone? Is Jesus the only way of salvation?

          • Peter Leh

            i agree with all you have typed.

            But to be specific My essentials of the faith start Jesus. Eveything else we can debate and discuss.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I have been around Christian bullies myself. In fact, I had quite a duel with one on this website who is extremely hindered in his witness/testimony by legalism…making major issues out of minor things and becoming hateful when you disagree. Oh, I know the type well. Still we must not use the bullies as an excuse to just approve of everyone who claims to be a Christian. There are true and false converts. If one is a false convert, that means he is lost. If we truly care about others, we want them to be surely and soundly saved. Jesus warned that there will be many in that Day who thought they belonged to Christ, who will hear Him say, ‘Depart from Me, I never knew you.’ That is a fearsome thought which should make each one of us ponder our faith…is it true saving faith based on the infallible Word of God? Or do we just pick and chose what we will believe…accepting some of it, but throwing out the parts that are offensive to our flesh.

            I wrote to you our of concern not in an effort to bully you. I asked some questions as to what you believe. I assume you have chosen not to answer and that is fine. But Jesus said the way to heaven is so narrow that few will find it. If that is true, we need to be very sure we are on that road. There ARE essentials of the Christian faith. Today, those essentials are being cast aside by many. I pray you are not one of them.

          • Peter Leh

            “There ARE essentials of the Christian faith. Today, those essentials are
            being cast aside by many. I pray you are not one of them.”

            as i have said, the essential message of christianity or the jews for that matter is christ. The Messiah.

            it starts and ends with Jesus. Anything added to it is blasphemy.

            Otherwise else we can agree to disagree, wrestle with it together, or put each other out of fellowship. The two former recognize the role of the HS the latter many times plays god, imo.

            “I wrote to you out of concern not in an effort to bully you. I asked
            some questions as to what you believe. I assume you have chosen not to
            answer and that is fine”

            i appreciate the thought, angel. you have been more than generous. i have been around the block more than a few times. Frankly i can;t tout the line of the american church any longer.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Thank you for your reply. I was worried I may have offended you.

            I agree that the American church is a mess. But not all American churches have abandoned the gospel. There are still a few good ones out there though they are not easy to find. God always has His remnant…even here in godless America. 🙂

            I am still a bit confused as to what you believe though. You said the only essential matter of Christianity is the Messiah, Christ, and everything starts and ends with Him. After that, you feel all else are debatable issues? Everything? Would that include those things I mentioned: Christ’s being both God and Man, the Second Person of the Trinity, that He died and arose from the grave, that the only way of salvation is only through His atoning work on the cross? The bible warns us there will be many false Christs in the last days. How will we know which one is the real Messiah? Just believing there IS a Messiah and His name is Jesus is not enough to save a person. We have to believe in who He said He was (God in the flesh) and what He claimed to accomplish for us (complete atonement for sin). And, even more than that, we must respond by repenting and clinging to Him as our only hope. We must give up trying to save ourselves by our ‘good’ works and trust in His perfect, completed work for us. How will we know who Jesus is except for what the Bible tells us? Jesus is there on very page from the O.T. to the New. The more I read it, the more I see Him, the better I know Him.

            There are judgmental people inside the church and out who are not guided by the Holy Spirit..that is true. But, there is a faith that is true and which must be defended. Otherwise, it just gets watered down and becomes meaningless, powerless to save. Christians are right to confront heresy, but should always do so in love. Once biblical truths are abandoned, people are free to make up a god in their own minds, one with whom they are more comfortable, but who is not real, and thereby many deceive themselves into thinking they are saved when they are not. Jesus IS the essential, but how do you know you have the right Jesus?… lots of counterfeits today. There are essentials of the Christian faith (some I mentioned above) which inform us that our faith is in the true Jesus.

            Thanks for getting back to me.

          • Peter Leh

            i am not saying “essential ” doctrine is not beneficial or useful. But to say one is saved with Jesus + “anything” is heretical. Either he is enough… or is not enough. Either he can save… or cannot save. If i cannot save myself then it is ALL him.. not him + a few more things i must do or believe.

            “There are judgmental people inside the church and out who are not guided
            by the Holy Spirit..that is true. But, there is a faith that is true
            and which must be defended.”

            which is why we have denominations. All with their own “essential” doctrine to stand out from another “lesser” denomination. We all feel compelled to defend the faith … as we see it.

            If the HS leads us into ALL truth (which he does) the only explanation i can give to the thousands of denominations is we humans are grieving the HS, building our own kingdom, and or playing god.

            The HS lead us into ALL truth. Which truth? all. Some? no all. So if you and i disagree and both claim to be saved… either both of us are wrong but at minimum only one can be right.

            Unless we are prepared to claim who is “in” and who is “out”… why not realize there is more room at the table of fallible man?

            “Jesus IS the essential, but how do you know you have the right Jesus?…
            lots of counterfeits today. There are essentials of the Christian faith
            (some I mentioned above) which inform us that our faith is in the true
            Jesus.”

            “oh ye of little faith”. 🙂

            is the HS not the sealer of our salvation? does he not lead us into all truth? is there not freedom in the gospel? Do we not as a body disagree? if so then the “essentials” are a matter to wrestle with not demand conformity. Debate, discuss not condemn and judge another.

            ” You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

            “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
            ‘every knee will bow before me;
            every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

            So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.”

            I am all for the conviction by HS… but as soon as my conviction must become your conviction, i crossed the line. But if you don;t have my conviction does that mean you are not a brother in spirit? not at all.

            so notice if you will, i dont get much into the theological debate ( i could but in general choose not to ).. i do speak up if i see a contradiction in faith, practice, loving your neighbor, and be a plain bully. ( not necessarily all at once or in that order).

            In truth this place is a welcome distraction to what i do for a living. one day my wife will get mad enough to make me concentrate on work. 🙂

    • Valri

      You like that word “agenda” don’t you? You use it…I don’t know, almost like someone who has an…agenda.

      • Chrissy Vee

        You live in ignorant bliss, just like the other sheeple. But I do dig your sudden interest in me. 😀 ♥

        • Valri

          The self-delusion is cute, but faith-based hate is your gig, sister. Not mine. Good luck in life.

          • Chrissy Vee

            LOL Ok Val.

      • Peter Leh

        it is political speak. You are the sheeple she is the ditto head.

        When one regurgitates what they have been told… who then is the sheeple?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “Aren’t Muslims in America also against homosexuality too? Why are they not called out for their “discrimination” against homosexuality?”

      I didn’t hear anything in that speech that singled out Christians.

      • Chrissy Vee

        Of course you didn’t.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          You’ve gone through and posted a bunch of half-answers to everybody who has addressed you. But you haven’t actually made any points.

          Is there something you’d like to say? Because now would be the time.

          • Chrissy Vee

            I will not be baited by the ungodly, nor will I give my pearls to the swine. ‘Nuf said.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m not baiting you, I’m telling you that if you have a position, tell us what it is. Half answers don’t help anything.

          • Peter Leh

            “Half answers don’t help anything.”

            otherwise it is better to just say: “in my opinion.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            She didn’t really express any opinions either.

          • Peter Leh

            if it is not fact what else could it be?

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Ignore Ambulance Chaser. He claims to be a lawyer, but has demonstrated time and time again a willful ignorance of the Constitution. In short, he’s just another know-nothing, anti-Christian bigot.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Thank you Matthew. 🙂 I actually have had the pleasure of his comments before. That is why I responded the way I did. Thanks for watching my back! May God bless you brother! ♥

          • SFBruce

            You’re very good at name-calling, but you don’t even attempt to refute Ambulance Chaser’s claim. What makes you think Obama was singling out Christians?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Obama has never said anything negative about Islam. That’s how I know.

          • Peter Leh

            Ya he says little.. he just kills them

          • SFBruce

            That’s not accurate. According to The Daily Caller, President Obama said, “It is violence within Muslim communities that has become the source of so much human misery.”

          • Matthew T. Mason

            This is the same Obama who has stated more than once an endorsement of Islam. Know what you’re talking about, cuz.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I think my wife, who is a Christian, would disagree that I’m an anti-Christian bigot. And so would the pastor of the church we hot married in and still attend.

            But since you’re so smart, and you know everything, let’s see some examples of things I’ve said that “demonstrate a willful ignorance of the Constitution.” And cite your sources.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Obama needs to get saved from his Sin. He is so misguided, even doesn’t know the nature of true hope. Jesus (the) Christ is our Hope, and He doesn’t excuse homosexuality in any way. Jesus offers the Way out of Sin, not the permission to live in it.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • Peter Leh

      i don’t think anyone need our permission for anything, do they?

      The bullies are the ones who think others do. 🙂

      • Josey

        I think what he said was that Jesus offers the Way out of Sin not permission to live in it. He didn’t say one word about anyone needing our permission to sin. Jesus always told those He saved and healed or set free however you want to say it, He always told them to go and sin no more. Sin causes sickness and bondage.
        It is Christ who has the Power to set one free, no human can do that for another, all we as humans can do is be the light set on a hill to show another the way to Christ and God does the rest, one plants the seed and one waters but it is God who gives the increase.

        • Peter Leh

          stick around Josey… you will earn much about our friend and brother FoJC

  • Phipps Mike

    “our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” bingo and its 100% true. Religion does NOT get to trump ANYTHING, Its only EQUAL to other rights. There isnt a hierarchy on what rights are more than others. There is no such thing as the right to suppress.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Tell that to the muslims.

      • Elie Challita

        We did. They’re not passing laws in the US.

    • Bradley Schroeder

      Just long as we are in agreement that their lifestyle does not interfere with my right to to not go against my faith AT ALL. If the govt makes me have to marry someone or make them a cake, then they are saying homosexual rights are higher but to us Christians Gods law trumps all man’s law. True Christians would not.

  • The Ranger

    Some people had rather delight in their sin and ignore their common sense, reject and refuse to seek the knowledge of God they are without excuse .” For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” Romans 1:20. (AKJV)

  • OldArkie

    The United States will become like Sodom and Gomorrah & it will like what took place that even at Lots house, Genesis 19:1, will be happening all across this country.

    • Lynn Kitty Frey

      So God doesn’t punish America for all the people we allow to live on the streets and starve to death because they can’t find work? God won’t punish us for all the black young men and women that get extra judicially executed by police every single day? God won’t punish us for a foreign policy that has killed MILLIONS of innocent people? But he’ll punish us because people are doing things he doesn’t like with their genitals… Do you even hear yourself?

  • Random non-partisan voter

    That last part, about Janet Boynes, is idiotic. What about all the
    people that have ‘escaped’ bigoted and hypocritical religion? Will the
    president sit down and hear their stories out after her?

    So many of the arguments against homosexuality fall on their face very quickly.

    That
    marriage is the US is defined as between a man and a woman? It wasn’t
    originally. Conservative religious groups pushed that definition in in
    the 50’s. Previous to that there was no sexual orientation mentioned.

    That
    allowing gay people to marry is pushing a believe on you? Unless
    you’re suddenly going to ‘turn gay’, no, it’s not. That others can
    marry because of YOUR beliefs? Yes, that is pushing a belief on someone
    else.

    More recently, Kim Davis. Gay people are forcing her to
    endorse an opinion she doesn’t hold? No, they aren’t. They aren’t
    making support anything. But she sure was doing that by not just
    refusing to issue the licenses herself, but also prohibiting the others
    where she works from doing it to… i.e. LITERALLY forcing them to
    conform to her opinion.

    The side against can’t come up with valid
    reasons. Their arguments have so many holes in them it could turn
    titanium into swiss cheese. Religious freedom is not intended to allow
    you to freely subject others to your religious beliefs… it’s meant to
    do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Those who don’t understand that shouldn’t be
    trusted to lead our country, twist and warp the constitution to their
    own personal interpretation.

  • Reason2012

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them and does not dwell in lust upon others, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • Jim H

      Do you realize nobody reads all of that stuff when you go into Bible babble mode?
      “Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).”
      No doubt that quote applied to the group Jesus was speaking to when he said it and likely most groups who hear it today. He didn’t say the stuff you put in parentheses.
      I don’t think he assumed the literal meaning of each word he said was important. It was the point he was trying to make that was important. after all, his main teaching method was parables.

  • Elie Challita

    What are the so-called ex-gays asking for, exactly? If you truly managed to change your orientation, then you’re perfectly able to live as a straight person the same the majority of people do. What is your story, anyway?
    That because you supposedly chose which gender you are attracted to, others are obligated to change as well?

  • Rebecca

    There’s a reason homos were in the closet. There’s a reason that minority is forcing others to accept or pay. There’s a reason and it’s satan. He is using them as a tool for further perversion in society. When all’s said and done, satan loses and if they don’t turn from their choices, so will the homosexuals.

    • Lynn Kitty Frey

      Despite people like you, lots of queer people are still Christian. It doesn’t make much sense to me (I was a Christian for 12 years, but I’m an atheist, now)… but it’s a thing.

      • Rebecca

        People like me?

        • Lynn Kitty Frey

          Yes, people like you. Anti-queer Christians. Despite people like you, there are a lot of queer Christians. I don’t get it, but it is still a thing.

          As a former Christian and current outside observer, I think Christians like you need to get your head out of the clouds and develop a sense of empathy. If I’m just an unrepentant hellbound sinner who thinks that Jesus and God as the Bible depicts them are terrifying entities for sending people to eternal torture for disbelief alone when they won’t make their existence objectively verifiable, what’s it to you? I’ve raped and murdered the exact number of people I want to: zero. And I try my very best not to cause harm to others. When I do, I apologize and seek their forgiveness, because that’s what matters to me. It’s called empathy and personal responsibility, something that many Christians seem to lack…

          • Rebecca

            I have no problem with you being gay.
            As for your “As a former Christian”, that is not accurate. A true Christian will never be a former Christian, since they were never a true one to begin with.

          • Lynn Kitty Frey

            Oh….kay? So my baptism, my belief, my confession with mouth, the persecution I faced, and the proselytization work I did… and I wasn’t a “real” Christian? Okay. Whatevs.

          • Rebecca

            Apparently.

          • Lynn Kitty Frey

            Y’know… I’m not going to debate with you as to whether or not I was a “real” Christian. I really give zero f**ks about your definition of the word. My point is, one of the basic tenants of the Christian faith requires a lack of personal responsibility and empathy. To just accept that people deserve eternal torment for disbelief alone in inhumane at best and downright hateful at worst.

          • Rebecca

            And I give zero F**KS about your definitions.

          • Lynn Kitty Frey

            So, are you just going to respond to what I’m writing, or are you just going to mimic me?

          • Lynn Kitty Frey

            I am queer as f**ck… but I’m not gay. I don’t know where you got that idea.

  • Lynn Kitty Frey

    As a queer person, is my religious freedom not as valid as it is for cis/het people? Also, I wonder if the author realizes just how many queer Christians there are in the world?

    • Rebecca

      You mentioned to me that you are an atheist, so why ask the question about religious freedom? You don’t believe, so it’s a mute point. Now if you were a person who believed in God, it would be a valid question.

      • Lynn Kitty Frey

        You do realize there are atheist religions, right? For example, Buddhism is a religion that has no gods. Most Satanist sects don’t actually *BELIEVE* in Satan. They believe in kindness, reason, and personal autonomy. I am a non-religious atheist, and part of my religious freedom is not being beholden to the religious beliefs of others. I should not have my human rights restricted due to my lack of religious beliefs. Just like you should not have your human rights restricted due to the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of others.

  • Looking Glass

    Religious liberty means one is free to practice the religion of his choice. It does not mean that an individual has the liberty to impose his religious ideals on others.

  • respectourdifferences

    “Obama: Religious Liberty ‘Doesn’t Grant Us Freedom to Deny’ Homosexual ‘Rights’”

    But, of course, Obama, despite the quote marks in the headline, did not say: “Doesn’t grant us freedom to deny Homosexual rights”. What he said, as the article clearly states, was: “religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”, which is true.

  • Paramananda Devasahayam

    A man who can not stand for Jesus is against Jesus. then who- a messenger of Satan? It is high time that Antichrist trying to lay foundation to establish his kingdom

  • Terry

    Where did the idea of the “right to homosexuality” come from in the first place? Somebody made it up and our nation has swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker! Kind of like you MUST teach evolution in the schools but THOU SHALT NOT teach creation! Who made up that one way ticket?