Poster Promoting Biblical Marriage at Colorado Clerk’s Office Removed Following Complaint

Poster-compressed (1)KIOWA, Co. — A poster quoting a Scripture about marriage has been removed from a Colorado county clerk’s office following a complaint by a prominent professing atheist group.

As previously reported, the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently sent email correspondence to several county clerks and two state lawmakers who had been discussing in an email chain this summer how those with religious objections to same-sex “marriage” should proceed with handling the issuance of licenses.

As part of the discussion, Elbert County Clerk Dallas Schroeder explained that he had a poster created last year that cites a Scripture about marriage. The poster partially quotes from I Corinthians 7:2, and reads, “…let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

“I talked with a local artist, who is also a Christian, and he created a beautiful poster which I have had hanging for about a year,” Schroeder replied in the group message. “There is no way to miss it if you are in for a marriage license. It is a picture of a bride standing on a hill with the groom walking up the hill to meet her.”

“I am not denying anyone service,” he said. “My thought process is that they have to see the poster and if they choose to violate God’s written word, then that is on their head. I have warned them.”

FFRF recently sent a letter of complaint to those involved in the conversation, not only to contend that the clerks “must issue licenses to gay couples whatever [their] personal religion,” but to also assert that Schroeder’s poster is unlawful.

“Mr. Schroeder is displaying words from his religion’s holy book to issue a religious warning to all citizens in a government building,” wrote staff attorney Andrew Seidel, according to a news release about the matter. “This is unconstitutional.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Now, FFRF reports that the poster has been removed, and was likely taken down on Thursday, the day after FFRF asked to be put in touch with Schroeder’s attorney.

“We’re glad that the poster, which was meant to intimidate LGBT citizens and promote Schroeder’s personal religion, has been removed from government property,” Seidel said in a statement. “The government must remain neutral on matters of religion and quoting the Bible is hardly neutral.”

In 1843, Noah Webster, who authored the first American dictionary, wrote, “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. … All the miseries and evils which men suffer from—vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war—proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

“Religion: Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of His will to man, in man’s obligation to obey His commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties,” he also wrote in his 1828 definition of religion.


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
  • Michael C

    “[T]hey have to see the poster and if they choose to violate God’s written word, then that is on their head. I have warned them.”

    If I have to visit a government office to file official paperwork with a public servant who’s salary is paid with my taxes, they shouldn’t be issuing me religious “warnings.” I wouldn’t find this acceptable from an employee of any faith background. If Schroeder wants to harass people with his religious beliefs, he’s welcome to do so off the clock from the sidewalk.

    Dallas Schroeder was the bully in this situation.

    • The Last Trump

      Guess that makes Michael C the “bully” (!?) here.

      If we Christians want to hear about sexual perversion and the defiling of the sanctity of marriage, we’ll seek out your face book page or one of your intolerant chat groups.
      Thanks for coming to Christian websites daily to spew your “warnings” and “harass people with your religious beliefs”. Maybe take your own advice & take it to the sidewalk.
      Nobody here wants to hear it, hypocrite. Thanks.

      • gizmo23

        What a mad Christian you are

      • Valri

        Nobody wants to hear your angry pseudo-Christian rantings and ravings either, but you inflict them on us just the same. Looks like we have a stalemate on our hands, eh?

        • afchief

          “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

          Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

          Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

          Void – having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

          Homosexuality is Repugnant. It is Null. It is Void!!!!

          Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

          Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

          • Valri

            Homosexual relationships are two people of the same gender in a loving committed relationship to one another identical to a straight relationship. Only difference is they can’t procreate.

            “Repugnant” is just your opinion. Clearly it’s not “null and void” with so many millions of people in homosexual relationships that work.

          • afchief

            Nope! There is nothing normal, natural or right about homosexuality. It is deviant, perverted, and a mental disorder. It is sick!!! It is unclean!!! It is gross!!!

          • Valri

            Mental disorder? What century are you living in?

          • afchief

            Is Homosexuality A Disorder?

            (Note: While in this section we make the case that homosexuality should never have been removed from the officially approved list of psychological disorders, we need to stress that we are NOT saying homosexuals should necessarily be in therapy. We are all born imperfect. We all have our little imperfections. We are basically sophisticated animals. We share about 95% of our genes with monkeys, baboons, apes, etc. We probably have genes which predispose us to violence, stealing, promiscuity, bullying, etc. These behaviors occur naturally in the animal kingdom. So, in a way, we are all born “disordered.” But that does NOT mean we all need therapy. Most of us function just fine, imperfections and all. Yes, we maintain homosexuals have an imperfection heterosexuals don’t have. But it’s a relatively minor one that shouldn’t need therapy. If, however, homosexuals let their orientations depress them, for example, then therapy is advisable.

            (Now, we need to control our animalistic natures and say NO to any immoral desires we have, natural or not, genetically based or not. If homosexual genes exist, if homosexual desire naturally exists, we should just say no to homosexuality. It may not be easy for some, but it should be done nonetheless.)

            For decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues who are now letting sexual politics trump science and logic). Just like a female mind in a male body is a sure sign that something went wrong somewhere (in nature and/or nurture), so a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is likewise a disorder. Elementary logic leads us to the conclusion that in both cases, the mind is in conflict or disharmony with the body. And just like we view transsexuality as a problem-it-is-okay-to-try-to-fix (sex reassignment surgery is one controversial but legal treatment), so we should view homosexuality as a problem-or-disorder-it-is-okay-to-try-to-fix.

            To treat a disorder as if it’s not a disorder is flat-out malpractice. For example, if you went to a doctor because you weren’t feeling well, and the doctor did some tests, found you had heart disease, AND DIDN’T TELL YOU, rational people would say the doctor was malpracticing. That, basically, is what the APA is doing regarding homosexuality. It is not telling homosexuals they have a disorder.

            To help illustrate how illogical the APA’s reversal of its position on homosexuality was and is, all you have to do is consider how the APA violated or ignored one of its own criteria when it did so. One of its criteria for determining whether a condition is a disorder is whether the condition results in a significant impairment of social functioning. The fact that homosexuals do not have the desire to engage in perfectly natural phallic/vaginal, procreative sex; the fact that homosexuals have no desire to engage in that sex which animal species require for their very survival and existence—the fact that homosexuals are essentially impotent with the opposite gender—is clearly a significant impairment of social functioning and persuasive evidence of a disorder (which disorder, like so many other disorders, may have a genetic component). The APA has little credibility nowadays. It’s been compromised.

            Homosexual activity is so physiologically unnatural and disordered that homosexuals actually have to rely on heterosexuals (or artificial means) to create more homosexuals, since true homosexuals by definition do not engage in reproductive sex.

            A book written by Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychological disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups, NOT science. In the book Bayer wrote about “confrontations organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions”1 and said that that decision “was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason.”2

            And there is evidence that the APA has been corrupted, not only by sexual politics, but by money. From “Who’s Behind the Bible of Mental Illness” by Kent Garber, which was in the Dec. 31, 2007/Jan. 7, 2008 issue of U.S. News & World Report (page 25): The “American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years producing a new edition of…The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders….[It] is hugely influential because it determines what is and is not a mental disorder….The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated with shyness, for example, became symptoms of ‘social anxiety disorder.’ And drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems. Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the drug industry.”

            And regarding that new edition of the DSM, the fifth, which was released in May 2013: it’s so flawed that it “has been slammed by prominent psychiatrists—including Dr. Allen Frances, head of the task force that wrote the fourth edition, who warned doctors to use it ‘cautiously, if at all'” (Alice Park, “Head Case,” Time, June 3, 2013, p. 16).

            One of the biggest knocks of the latest DSM is that it labels things as disorders that are in fact NOT disorders. For example, according to Dr. Allen Frances: “We are turning childhood into a disease….Perfectly appropriate developmental immaturity is being mislabeled as a mental disorder and treated with unnecessary, expensive, and potentially harmful pills….[T]he field [of psychiatry] has lost its rationality” (from an article in Psychology Today titled “No Child Left Undiagnosed,” Sept./Oct. 2014, p. 50).

            We shouldn’t rely on the seriously compromised APA to tell us what is and is not a disorder. (And any psychiatrists who financially support the APA should have their heads examined.)

            To close this section, there is evidence provided by homosexuals themselves that many of them are heterophobic. For examples, from homosexual author Dennis Altman: “Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex.”3 And one well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has admitted that he “was afraid of the opposite sex,” according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual.4

            Footnotes

            1. Dr. Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 3.

            2. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

            3. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), p. 222.

            4. Tom King, “I am in love with Cher,” Chicago Sun-Times, March 15, 2000, p. 50.

          • Josh G

            You could also read the autoethnographic study by Diana L. Lee entitled: Shattered Diana: A Memoir Documenting How Trauma and Evangelical Fundamentalism Created PTSD, Bipolar, Dissociative Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) in Me. Point is for every wacko study regarding whether homosexuality is a mental illness, there is another study that can show fanatical Christians are mentally incompetent. Are either true? It does not matter. Your hatred (and it is hatred) of homosexuals is your opinion and neither I nor anyone else posting will change that. But spouting such hatred only puts you in ill light in front of God, because it is not our place to determine who goes to Heaven or Hell. Homosexuality and the LGBT community have no affect on you, so the only reason you are spouting such ill words is because you are trying to spread hatred and discord to the LGBT community. As the Bible says, “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21). So while you revel in what you perceive to be sexual immorality, and as you perceive to being against God’s plan, you yourself are contributing to sins of equal magnitude.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Right. Luckily, the only laws regarding homosexuality that are repugnant to the Constitution are the ones that punish it. Romer v. Evans. Obergefell v. Hodges.

            And don’t tell me that those rulings have no force and effect. YOU just quoted case law.

          • afchief

            Homosexuality if repugnant and is null and void.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If homosexuality has no “value, effect, consequence, or significance”, why do you complain about it so much? Seems pretty significant to you.

          • afchief

            Homosexuality is sin. It is also a sickness. It destroys life’s. It has no redeeming value. It is deviant, perverted and dangerous.

          • NGN

            sure they are….sure they are… is that why gays are marrying now in all 50 states legally??

          • afchief

            The world is infected by two cancers today…..liberalism i.e. homosexuality and Islam. Both are cancers and are death!!!

          • NGN

            Awwwww…do you need a hug? The big scary gays and muslims are out to get you chef………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Do you realize you quoted the case that established judicial review? You know, the thing you supposedly hate so much that says the Supreme Court gets to rule that laws are unconstitutional?

            “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the
            judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
            particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If
            two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the
            operation of each.”

          • afchief

            Wrong! Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

            What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

            A “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, now you’re just shifting your argument to say something is not a valid law if it’s an unjust law. Fair enough, I guess…..well, I think a law that says states get to say consenting adults of the same sex can’t marry is unjust, not to mention unconstitutional.

            “What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest?” You know, they kinda DO say that, actually. A little thing called income tax. See the 16th Amendment. It can work out to 30% if you make enough money. Actually it can be up to 39.6%.

            I guess you’re just another one that doesn’t understand the idea of informed consent, if you don’t understand the difference between homosexuality, and bestiality and pedophilia.

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

            Oh, okay, I didn’t understand it the first thousand times you said it, but NOW I understand it, now that you put it in CAPS and gave it an extra exclamation point!!!!!!! Please…..

          • afchief

            When do we as a society make a stand for what is morally right? Do we cave to the 2% of the population and rewrite the definition of marriage all in the name in equality? The road to dehumanizing humans began long ago. The homosexual lobby is merely one in a long line of lobbyist’s lobbying to change the nature of humanity to appease the masses who, after rejecting the truth of God, entered into fanatical worship of self. Read Romans 1.

            Man is becoming his own god now. Sex became and is, the only high calling of humanity. Sex, separated from procreation, love, and marriage has been THE opening of Pandora’s Box and the major reason humans are returning to a state of barbarism and devaluing humanity on a scale never known before in human history. Yes, Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

            You know if the truth would come out about the homosexual lifestyle which our media never tells us about. More people would know the truth of how sick and twisted this lifestyle is. For example; some gays may have to wear diapers for the rest of their poor lives. The few unfortunates who have AIDS may have their lives shortened to just 38.547 years. Sure doesn’t sound normal to me but abbynormal!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The lobby is lobbyist’s lobbying? 38.547 years? Abbynormal?

            This is verging on self-parody now, seriously.

          • afchief

            It is TRUTH!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What exactly is “dehumanizing humans”, anyway? Gay marriage is going to turn people into cyborgs or something?

            “Marriage will be assimilated, resistance is futile”?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            One more thing…..”Man is becoming his own god now,” you say. I kinda don’t really like to keep repeating this, but I’m an atheist. (There’s an old joke that says, an atheist and a vegan walk into a bar. How do I know? They told everyone within two minutes! lol) No offense to those here that believe otherwise, but to that I’d just say, “it’s always been that way.”

          • NGN

            too funny and LOL! the diapers meme and the shortened lifespan are nothing more than right wing talking points. You are a liar for christ

          • afchief

            The Word of God is sooooooooo true about people like you…..”who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”!!!!!!!

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not????

          • NGN

            you’re not the least bit truthful. you probably believe Sandy Hook was a conspiracy..LOL! BTW—the word of which god as there are many…..toodles chef.

          • Roger Peritone

            Like many of the unjust rulings given by biblegod where he orders the genocide of various groups of people?

            Or the unjust law that said that anyone with physical deformities was not allowed in his “holy temple”?

        • Peridot Path

          Nothing decent about homosexuality , nor trolling against Christians
          on the Christian News site . And the ultimate loss is for those
          who refuse to repent of their sexual immorality . As long as they
          burn with lust for one another and refuse to repent , then the
          Lake of Fire is theirs , eternally. Some judges made law from
          the bench – which is unconstitutional , and being challenged – but
          God is the Law Giver and Judge of all mankind . He is the One
          who decides who really wins and who really loses. God has the
          right to decide where individuals will spend eternity , not
          SCOTUS judges. And every human has the right to choose
          eternal life or eternal death – choose life.

          • Valri

            God, I’m so glad I don’t live in terror of places like a Lake of Fire. Must be like living your life in a prison.

      • afchief

        We Christians KNOW that homosexuality is sin. We know the lies and evil behind this lifestyle. And we also know this has to happen as prophesied in the word of God.

        Luke 17:28-31 (NASB) It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

        • NGN

          if you’re the poster child for christianity, I want nothing to do with it.

          • afchief

            Why? Because I speak truth? The truth always hurts. Does it not?

          • NGN

            you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you…LOL!

        • Josh G

          “We Christians” Really? I have friends who a same sex couple and also happen to be devout Christians, and staunch Republicans. Their church teaches love, compassion, and acceptance. One of the partners has now been accepted as a monk. Any church that teaches hatred, contempt, bigotry is not following God’s plan. It is funny you quote the story of Lot. What did the passage say about those who were not sinning. Were they punished because of others sins? Are you truly saying that God will punish everybody because homosexuality exists? if that is the case will I be punished because people have pre-marital sex, or commit adultery, get divorced, or kill others? Why is homosexuality such an important sin that it is ok for others to commit other sins but not that one. It could not be because your hatred clouds your rationale?

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!!

            Romans 1:18-28 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

            28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • Josh G

            You know just because you can copy and paste from the Bible does not mean you are right by God. I have already commented to you in a previous post. Here is an excerpt: Your hatred (and it is hatred) of homosexuals is your opinion and neither I nor anyone else posting will change that. But spouting such hatred only puts you in ill light in front of God, because it is not our place to determine who goes to Heaven or Hell. Homosexuality and the LGBT community have no affect on you, so the only reason you are spouting such ill words is because you are trying to spread hatred and discord to the LGBT community. As the Bible says, “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21). So while you revel in what you perceive to be sexual immorality, and as you perceive to being against God’s plan, you yourself are contributing to sins of equal magnitude.

          • afchief

            It has nothing to do with hatred, but TRUTH!!! Telling you that homosexuality is sin is LOVE not hate. I/we are warning you what the Word of God says about this lifestyle. We are telling you that there is still time to repent and live. If you continue in this lifestyle your eternal soul will burn. Right now you are a walking dead man. There is no life in you. You exist for today. Repent and live!!!

            James 2:26 (NASB) For just as the body without the spirit is dead

            1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

            Jude 6-7 (NASB) And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

          • Josh G

            If it is love then why are you not condemning to Hell those who fornicate (ie premarital sex) or commit adultery or steal or cheat or the alcoholics? You specifically choose homosexuality, which is because you have an ingrained disgust for it, not necessarily because of what the Bible says, but because you personally feel it is not natural. The LBGT community does not bother me, many are friends with my wife and children. They are like every other person, they are trying to live in this world, fit in, and be happy. If that means living a lifestyle that you perceive as sinful so be it, but like the adulterers, fornicators, cheaters, etc. they do not affect you. Getting on a high horse that you are trying to warn them to save their souls is just a convenient way to justify your hatred and bigotry, BOTH of which are sins in the eyes of God Everybody has their interpretation of what God wants and believe above all others that they are right and others are wrong. I am not going to change your perception and behavior in vilifying homosexuality anymore than I could expect to change a radical Daesh from murdering innocent people because they believe it is what God wants. My only advice is you should stop worrying about what side God is on and worry more about whether you are on God’s side.

          • afchief

            We are on a message board and the subject is biblical marriage. Homosexuality is not biblical marriage. The Word of God says it is sin and that is why as a Christian I’m repeating what the Word says. If you have a hard time with it then why are you here? Here are the rest of the sins you mentioned.

            1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

          • Josh G

            No the subject is why condemning same sex marriage in a governmental capacity is wrong. Not everybody is Christian and not everybody believes in the Bible. Regardless if you agree with that or not it is not anyone’s place to pass judgment just because they are committing a sin you feel tops other sins. For a county clerk to cherry pick same sex marriage as something to condemn people over, when he is not condemning those who are marrying out of wedlock, divorcees, adulterers, etc. is saying that those sins are ok because it they are between a man and a woman. That is bigotry and not spreading the word of God.

          • afchief

            Same sex marriage is STILL against the law in most states. The SCOTUS opinion changes nothing. Only congress can make or change laws. This person is not committing bigotry. The county clerk is exercising their 1st amendment right.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            FFRF is dead wrong.

          • Josh G

            Look I do not hold it against you that you do not understand how the law and Constitution works, but at least try to do some research before you make statements like that. First, understand the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No state nor legislature can make a law that contradicts the Constitution. Everyone who watched the GOP or Fox News spouts the ridiculous argument that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, but there are many of our freedoms and liberties that we benefit from that are not explicit in the Constitution but still take authority from. This is based on jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. The Court does not make or redefine laws, they interpret the Constitution so that any present laws that violate the Constitution are thus pre-empted. The Supreme Court interpreted in 1923 in the case Nebraska v Meyers that marriage is fundamental liberty interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This was brought up again in 1967 when the Court ruled that laws preventing interracial marriage were unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia. ALL Obergefell v Hodges ruled was that any law that prohibits same sex couples from marrying, affects the economic benefits that come with marriage (ie health insurance, tax benefits, intestate laws, etc.) violates that persons due process. The effect is again the Court DID NOT redefine or make a new law. Article 6, section 2 of the Constitution (called the supremacy clause) states that any law made by Congress or the states that violates a persons rights under the Constitution is pre-empted and can no longer be held. That meant that any law forbidding same sex marriage is unconstitutional and will not be enforced because it violates the Constitution. Same sex marriage IS NOT illegal and just like in 1967 when the Court found that any state law forbidding interracial law was legal, so is the same for same sex marriages. And sorry the 1st Amendment does not protect a state actor from making discriminatory speech. The county clerk office is NOT n establishment of religion (that would be a church) ad while you do have the right to free exercise of religion, using that religion to discriminate or break the law is not protected, again especially if you are a government employee of the state (see Employment Divisionn v Smith

          • afchief

            “The Supreme Court interpreted in 1923 in the case Nebraska v Meyers that marriage is fundamental liberty interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This was brought up again in 1967 when the Court ruled that laws preventing interracial marriage were unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia. ALL Obergefell v Hodges ruled was that any law that prohibits same sex couples from marrying, affects the economic benefits that come with marriage (ie health insurance, tax benefits, intestate laws, etc.) violates that persons due process. The effect is again the Court DID NOT redefine or make a new law. Article 6, section 2 of the Constitution (called the supremacy clause) states that any law made by Congress or the states that violates a persons rights under the Constitution is pre-empted and can no longer be held.”

            You are dead wrong!!! 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 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage. The states have had marriage in their Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS has NO right to even rule on marriage, PERIOD!!! The 14th does NOT giving same gender couples the right to marry. This is a post Civil War amendment that has nothing to do with marriage, but activist federal judges have wrongly use the “due process ” clause as the basis for their incorrect interpretation . “Due process” correctly applies only to judicial proceedings. These activist judges should be impeached, removed from the bench and disbarred.

            Supreme Court decisions which overthrow State abortion or marriage laws (among other legitimate State laws) violates the U.S. Constitution specifically those decisions violate the 10th amendment because power over abortion or marriage is not granted to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution those powers therefore fall to the States under the 10th amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has nullified the U.S. Constitution by violating it by violating and nullifying the 10th amendment.

          • Josh G

            Did you read my post? Specifically where i said: “The Court does not make or redefine laws, they interpret the Constitution so that any present laws that violate the Constitution are thus pre-empted?” In regards to the 10th Amendment, the 10th Amendment does not protect a states laws that are pre-empted by the Constitution. I provided you references that support the fact that marriage is a fundamental liberty interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (which applies to life, liberty and property interest of Americans regardless if it was enacted after the Civil war). Due process does not apply to only judicial proceedings (that would be procedural due process, I am talking about Substantive due process–Google it). Finally, due process rights trump any state law, When the Supreme Court made that decision they interpreted the Constitution and stated that same sex couples have the economic liberty to marry as protected under due process–because the Constitution outweighs any state law said law is therefore no longer enforceable (ie unconstitutional). And once again the 10th Amendment does not protect a state law that is unconstitutional. If you disagree that is fine. I have provided you all the references that support my statements (I feel my law degree and PhD provide me a better insight to these matters than whatever Fox News says). I suggest you READ them and find the information that refutes what I said before your next post which will be akin to saying I am a liar and God hates the homosexuals.

          • afchief

            I have told you the 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage. NOTHING! A marriage is a relationship, not a person. Among themselves, males have equal rights, under law, to marry females, and vice versa. Does the 14th Amendment give a right to have a harem of wives? By what “logic?” Can these rights be conveyed and mixed, like a credit default swap that is swapped around several times a day? Is the Gov some kind of captured third party contractual beneficiary pimp and obligor? Can A marry B and C, while B is married to D and E and F, while F is married to an entire commune, while E is married to whoever???

            The 14th Amendment was specifically proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. Nothing else. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues it has been since cited for with lots of creative interpretations.

            The 14th amendment was placed into the Constitution to provide Freed Slaves with US Citizenship. Due Process Right before the Ratification of the 14th Amendment was not conferred to Slaves. The Equal Treatment was to confer Citizenship Rights to FREED Slaves. The Context of the Amendment was to Freed Slaves Rights, NOT to Homosexual’s Marriages or ANYTHING ELSE!!.

            When the 14th amendment was written homosexuality was illegal in ALL states.

            IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. NOTHING!!!

            It’s called Judicial Tyranny!!!!!!!!!!

          • Josh G

            Again I provided you resources that support my contention. I have studied constitutional law for almost 4 years now. You refuse to rely on your misconceptions rather than make the effort to refute my sources. And you provide no substantive proof of your allegations either. Funny when it comes to supporting your biblical views you are all about citing multiple passages.

          • afchief

            No, you have proven yourself a liar. There is no truth in you. To state that the 14th amendment covers homosexual marriage is a boldface lie. Homosexuality was against the law in all states when this amendment was adopted into our constitution in 1866. The 14th concerns issues of freed slaves. Even women had to wait until the 19th Amendment for a constitutional right to vote.

            You have proven to be a liar!!!

            Where did you study constitutional law? Pee Wee Herman’s godless liberal anti-american anti-christian bozo law school??????

          • Josh G

            So according to you there is no due process for all Americans and no equal protection. Man ignorance must be bliss. You refuse to refute my references which means you refuse to accept anything other than your bigotry. Unfortunately you proved my earlier points. I am done so continue to spout how ignorant and bigoted you are. Happy holidays!

          • afchief

            You are quite the liar!!! You have NO understanding of Constitutional law. NONE!!! Let alone that 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.

            Yes you are a liar

            And it is called Judicial Tyranny!!!!

          • Josh G

            You act like a petulant child. I state facts and back them up with references and instead of trying to read them you stand by your unsubstantiated and false understandings. And unlike when someone questions the Bible–where then you fill your comments with copy and pasted passages–you refuse to provide any substantial and unbiased proof of your reasonings. I read your comments and it is quite laughable because in the real world if you have a debate you make your point and back it up. Until you can do that I am sorry but you sir are the liar.

          • afchief

            You gave NO facts!!! You stated the 14th amendment is the justification for homo marriage. Which is a boldface lie. I gave you the history and reasoning behind the 14th amendment and WHY it was added to our bill or rights. But, because your a liberal and/or homosexual truth DOES NOT sink in. Instead you lie like every other liberal and homosexual I see on these forums.

            The Word of God is so true about people like you; “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” i.e. sin i.e homosexuality!!!

            Your posts are proof!!!

          • Josh G

            This is why you should read my comments before you rant. I stated facts and provided US case law that substantiated those facts. It is you who refuse to try and educate your self and refute those references.

          • afchief

            Was homosexuality against the law in all states in 1866 when the 14th amendment was adopted?

            Why was the 19th amendment added (women voting rights) when the 14th amendment should have been justification for women to vote?

            Waiting…………………………..

          • Josh G

            Again read my posts. Jurisprudence is not automatic. You can make the same argument as to why interracial marriage and homosexual marriage were not allowed until 1967 and 2015 respectively. Just because you make a law or amendment does not mean there are not ambiguities to straighten out. The document provided life liberty and property to all Americans (white or black). They can’t spell out every single instance and that is how and why we have a Supreme Court. When an issue is tried in the lower courts and then appealed to a higher court and then finally appealed to the Supreme Court that issue is looked at specifically on how it fits in the constructs of the Constitution. If it does not fit the Constitution then regardless if the law was passed in 1777 it is unconstitutional. But you have to bring the controversy forward to have the Court rule on it and that takes time. Hence why it took so long to pass the 14th Amendment and interracial marriage and finally same sex marriage.

          • afchief

            You make me laugh!!!!! Most states for decades have stated what marriage is in their constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment!!!! Why? Because the federal constitution NEVER mentions marriage!!! Does that sink in your little little cranium? Do you understand???? Or are you the typical liberal/homosexual that continues to lie????

            The courts are rendering their “opinion”. The people of 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, Tim!

            Who do they think they are? No wait…who do WE think they are? Do you REALLY believe that the opinions of five political hacks on the Supreme Court trump the will of 81% of the citizens in Alabama? I think not. At some point, this is gonna get ugly…and I believe we are nearing that point.

            The right to get “married” based solely on who one chooses to copulate with is one of the most short-sighted “opinions” in the history of the world. Liberty is not licentiousness. You have no God-given right to do that which is wrong.

            Homosexual marriage is not now, nor will it ever be, “legal” in America. You know it, I know it, and heck, even the homosexuals know it. They don’t want to get married…they just want to destroy marriage.

            It is based on one big lie!!!!

          • Josh G

            Again my law degree trumps your Google search/Fox news viewing. The cases I cited support that marriage is a fundamental liberty protected under due process and therefore is a protected right under the Constitution and therefore not relevant to the 10th Amendment. Read before you rant.

          • afchief

            Law degree?!?!?! From where? Rocko’s law school for the mentally impaired?!?!? LOL!!!

            You have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!! NONE!!!

            I see this same ignorance from every liberal and homosexual. It is because the Word of God is soooooooooooo true. “they suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.

            Your posts are proof!!!!!!!!!

          • Josh G

            Still waiting for you to support your conspiracy theories on how the law works

          • afchief

            How the law works?!?!? Are you for real??? And you call yourself a lawyer???? 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. You cannot legislate from the bench!!! It is JUST an opinion, period!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?????

            Abortion is still against the law. Marriage is still the union of one man and one woman. There is no separation between the church and the state as is currently accepted in America. They just tell us there is, we believe it, and we teach the lie to others. A court decision does not carry the force of law, and it most certainly does not “change” the law. Abortion is illegal, homo marriage is a fraud, and religious values cannot be separated from government.

            Ask any judge: Show me the law! Show me the law that legalizes abortion. Show me the law that legalizes homo-marriage. Show me the law that separates church and state.

            Show me the law…

            And I will show you the law where abortion is still illegal in all 50 states!!! I will show you the law in most states where their Constitutions states marriage is between one man and one woman. And I will show you the 1st amendment that states;

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          • Josh G

            Here is a word: jurisprudence–look it up. Laws are made by the legislation but how they are to be enforced and applied is based on judicial interpretation. Your stance is that the courts are in place to spout opinions and are irrelevant. Although that is your opinion it is wrong. Any law can be challenged. The law in most state Constitutions says that marriage is to between a man and a,woman. This effectively precludes same sex couples from receiving the same economic benefits that heterosexual couples benefit. This law was challenged because Americans were excluded rights shared by other Americans. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and was ultimately decided on previous case law and jurisprudence that had confirmed the economic benefits of marriage is a due process liberty interest that applies to same sex couples. The effect is that any law that says otherwise is preempted and not enforceable. This does not mean a law,was made or marriage redefined. It is how our court system have worked since Marbury v Madison.

          • afchief

            “This law was challenged because Americans were excluded rights shared by other Americans.”

            No, marriage was already defined between one man and one woman in most states constitutions. It was and still is a state issue in accordance with the 10th amendment. Three states through the “voting process” (one of two ways to make and change laws) changed marriage to include homos. It is legal in three states and ONLY those three states.

            It was and still is NOT a federal issue because it is NOT in the federal constitution. If the states want to change the definition of marriage, start a petition and get it on a ballot for a vote “of the people” to change their respective constitutions.

            KNOW THE LAW AND HOW IT WORKS!!!!!

          • afchief

            THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT TO PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM THE MAJORITY, AND CONGRESS IS A BETTER PROTECTOR OF MINORITY RIGHTS THAN IS THE JUDICIARY

            A. George Washington: “[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution… enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail.37

            B. Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.38

            C. The Judiciary is now regularly anti-majoritarian.

            D. The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is not to protect the minority from the majority.

            E. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the minority from the majority; the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect every citizen, whether in the minority or the majority, from the intrusion upon their rights by government.

            F. Congress is a better guardian of the people and the minority than are the courts.

            G. Federalist #51: “The members of the Legislative department . . . are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. . . . they are more immediately the confidential guardians of their rights and liberties.39

            H. In 1875, Congress banned all segregation,40 but in 1882, the Supreme Court struck down that law.41 While the Court is often praised today for ending segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, what the Court actually did in that case was only to reverse its own position that had kept segregation alive 70 longer than Congress’ ban.

            I. Thomas Jefferson: “When the Legislative or Executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.42

          • Josh G

            Seriously? If the Supreme court does not protect the minority in the context you put it, then why do we even have an equal protection clause? Why does the Supreme court rules on matters that involve equal rights to minorities? Regardless, the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to uphold the right that all americans have the right to the economic benefits of marriage to include same sex marriage only strengthens the fact that the ruling applies to the majority of Americans. Americans are not just Christians, they are muslims, hindus, jews, etc. Just like Americans are heterosexual and homosexual.

          • afchief

            You still do not know our history or our Constitution. What I stated is from historical writings .I can site the sources if you want. Like I said, marriage is NOT a federal issue. If the legislative branch wants to make it a federal issue than the federal constitution MUST be amended to reflect “what marriage is and is not”. So far they have not which is why it is STILL a state and only a state issue. It is a state issue because most states constitutions address marriage in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            The Constitution stipulates that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4). A republican form of government is one in which the people elect leaders to make public policy, with those leaders being directly accountable to the people. More than thirty States, by their republican form of government, had established a definition of marriage for their State. The Supreme Court decision directly abridges the constitutional mandate to secure to every state a republican form of government.

            To believe that the Judiciary is an independent and neutral arbiter without a political agenda is ludicrous. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed:

            “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”

            Judges definitely do have political views and personal agendas; they therefore were given no authority to make public policy. The perils from their doing were too great. As Jefferson affirmed, the judges’ “power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” He therefore warned:

            “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.” “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

            The Supreme Court’s decision is a direct assault on the republican form of government that the Constitution requires be guaranteed to every State.

          • Josh G

            What I have been trying to say is the US Constitution must be applied for the benefit of all americans and cannot support any law that favors one group over another. It must be neutral to all religions, faiths, nationalities, race, gender, and yes orientation. The Supreme Court said in Meyers v Nebraska that “The right to marry, establish a home and bring up children is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” The Supreme Court in 1974 stated in Cleveland Booard of education v LeFleur that “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In 1996, the Court in MLB v SLJ stated “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”NO state law that denies a person due process can be upheld. The Constitution trumps ANY state law. Not the 10th Amendment, not the State Constitution nothing can violate a persons due process. The Supreme Court made the best decision because they did not put (at least the non-dissentors) their religious affiliations and policy beliefs in play. They used previous jurisprudence to support the decision that ultimately safeguarded everyones rights under the Constitution, which is that the Constitution does not allow a state to deny a person their economic liberty protected under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Again this is how the Supreme Court works–NOT to make new laws or redefine marriage but to uphold and interpret the Constitution–which includes neutrally defining what liberty rights under due process each individual American shares.

          • afchief

            You still do not understand that SCOTUS rulings are “opinions”. That is ALL they are. They do not establish law!!!!

            THE JUDICIARY IS NOT A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

            A. Federalist #51: “the legislative authority necessarily predominates.1

            B. Federalist #78: “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. . . . The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. . . . [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power. . . . [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.2

            C. Congress determines the operation of the Judiciary, not vice versa (Congress sets the number of judges and courts; what issues may come before the courts; judges’ salary and compensation; how often the courts meet and the length of their sessions; and just as Congress can establish and set the number of lowers courts, so, too, can Congress also abolish them; etc.)

            D. Robert Wright, officer in the Revolution, Maryland judge, early U. S. Senator: “[C]ongress can establish legislatively a court, and thereby create a judge; so they can legislatively abolish the court and eventually annihilate the officer…the inferior courts are creatures of the legislature, and that the creature must always be in the power of the creator – that he who createth can destroy.3

            E. William Giles, member of the first federal Congress under the Constitution: “Is that [the Judiciary department] formed by the Constitution? It is not…It is only declared that there shall be such a department, and it is directed to be formed by the two other departments, who owe a responsibility to the people….The number of judges, the assignation of duties, the fixing of compensations, the fixing the times when, and the places where, the courts shall exercise the functions, &c., are left to the entire discretion of Congress. The spirit as well as the words of the Constitution are completely satisfied, provided one Supreme Court be established….Congress may postpone the sessions of the courts for eight or ten years, and establish others to whom they could transfer all the powers of the existing courts.4

            F. As Rep. Steve King correctly explains, “Constitutionally, Congress can reduce the Supreme Court to nothing more than Chief Justice Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle” – a power that the Judiciary cannot reciprocally exercise over Congress.

            THE JUDICIARY IS NOT TO BE AN INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

            A. John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution: “[W]hat innumerable acts of injustice may be committed – and how fatally may the principles of liberty be sapped – by a succession of judges utterly independent of the people?5

            B. Thomas Jefferson: “It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.6

            C. Nathaniel Chipman, office in the Revolution, early Member of Congress, U. S. federal judge, Chief Justice of Vermont Supreme Court: “If the judges are made thus independent . . . they will become a dangerous body.7

            D. Jonathan Mason, law student trained by John Adams and an early Member of Congress: “The independence of the judiciary so much desired will – if tolerated – soon become something like supremacy. They will, indeed, form the main pillar of this goodly fabric; they will soon become the only remaining pillar, and they will presently be so strong as to crush and absorb the others into their solid mass.8

            E. Thomas Jefferson: “We think, in America, that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government. . . Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the legislative or judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making them.9

            F. Joseph Nicholson, early Member of Congress, successfully managed the impeachment of multiple early federal judges: “Give [judges] the powers and the independence now contended for and . . . your government becomes a despotism and they become your rulers. They are to decide upon the lives, the liberties, and the property of your citizens; they have an absolute veto upon your laws by declaring them null and void at pleasure; they are to introduce at will the laws of a foreign country…after being clothed with this arbitrary power, they are beyond the control of the nation. . . . If all this be true – if this doctrine be established in the extent which is now contended for – the Constitution is not worth the time we are now spending on it. It is – as it has been called by its enemies – mere parchment. For these judges, thus rendered omnipotent, may overleap the Constitution and trample on your laws.10

            THE JUDICIARY IS NOT THE SOLE BRANCH CAPABLE OF DETERMINING CONSTITUTIONALITY

            A. James Madison: “But the great objection . . . is that the Legislature itself has no right to expound the Constitution – that wherever its meaning is doubtful, you must leave it to take its course until the Judiciary is called upon the declare its meaning. . . . I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits.11

            B. Elbridge Gerry, signer of the Declaration and a framer of the Bill of Rights: “It was quite foreign from the nature of [the judiciary’s] office to make them judges of the policy of public measures.12

            C. Luther Martin, framer of the Constitution and Attorney General of Maryland: “A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.13

            D. John Randolph of Roanoke: “[I]f you pass the law, the judges are to put their veto upon it by declaring it unconstitutional. Here is a new power of a dangerous and uncontrollable nature contended for…The power which has the right of passing – without appeal – on the validity of laws is your sovereign.14

            E. Thomas Jefferson: “O]ur Constitution. . . . has given – according to this opinion – to one of [the three Branches] alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others – and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.15

            F. Rufus King, signer of the Constitution, framer of the Bill of Rights: “The judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators.16

            G. John Randolph of Roanoke: “The decision of a constitutional question must rest somewhere. Shall it be confided to men immediately responsible to the people – the Congress, or to those who are irresponsible…the judges?….[a]re we [Congress] not as deeply interested in the true exposition of the Constitution as the judges can be? With all the deference to their talents, is not Congress as capable of forming a correct opinion as they are? Are not its members acting under a responsibility to public opinion which can, and will, check their aberrations from duty?17

            H. Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.18

            I. James Madison: “[R]efusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. . . . makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper.19

            J. Federalist #81: “[T]here is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.20

            K. Thomas Jefferson: “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions – a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . [A]nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective.21

            L. President Andrew Jackson: “Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. . . . The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive.22

            M. Abraham Lincoln: “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. . . . At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having . . . resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.23

            FEDERAL JUDGES DO NOT HOLD LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS

            A. The Constitution says that judges hold their office only during “good behavior” (Art. III, Sec. 1).

            B. Federal judges may be removed by Congress for misbehavior, which, historically, did not include only criminal behavior but also other misbehavior.

            C. Historically, federal judges have been removed from the bench by Congress for contradicting an order of Congress, for profanity, for rude treatment of witness in a courtroom, for drunkenness, for judicial high-handedness and a variety of other reasons.24

            D. The Constitution provides six clauses on impeachment – the most often-mentioned subject in the Constitution.25

            E. The Founding Fathers and early legal authorities were clear about the ground for impeachment:

            1. James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: “[I]mpeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.26

            2. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “The offenses to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy. . . . are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.27

            3. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: “[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.28

            4. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “attempts to subvert the Constitution.29

            5. Alexander Hamilton: “the abuse or violation of some public trust. . . . [or for] injuries done immediately to the society itself.30

            6. George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights,” and Elbridge, signer of the Declaration and Framer of the Bill of Rights: “mal-administration.31

            7. William Rawle, legal authority and author of early constitutional commentary: “the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice32 as well as attempts to “infringe the rights of the people.33

            8. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.34

            F. Federalist #65: “[T]he practice of impeachments [is] a bridle in the hands of the Legislative body.35

            G. Justice James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution, placed on the Supreme Court by President Washington: “Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.36

          • Josh G

            Article III, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court the power to resolve matters arising under the Constitution, controversies between two states, and disputes between the federal government and a state: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. This was emphasized in Marbury v Madison which is the authority on judicial review.
            Of course there are checks and balances within all branches of the government. But the one power that the Supreme Court has is to be the final interpretation on whether a law meets the standards set forth in the Constitution. Let’s assume you are correct in arguendo. We have a Republican majority led Senate and Congress. Don’t you think if the Supreme Court decision was just an “opinion” they would have moved to remove the ruling? The Court has more power than you think and THEY have the final say as to what law is constitutional or not.
            Again Google jurisprudence. Google Supreme Court authority. Google fundamental liberty interest and Due Process and marriage. DO NOT take my word for it. You assume I am a liar, stop saying it and prove it.

          • afchief

            You are no lawyer. I cannot believe that a lawyer thinks that the SCOTUS can change and make law?!?!?

            You cannot even interpret the Constitution!!!!

            “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. This was emphasized in Marbury v Madison which is the authority on judicial review.”

            Can you show me where in this statement is states that the SCOTUS can change or make law?

            Do I need to state for you again, HOW law is made and changed in this country?????

            Please stop trying to act like a lawyer!!!!! You are making yourself look quite foolish!!!!!

          • Josh G

            Listen read this very carefully because you have not read anything I have posted. Go back to every comment I have made and please, please show me where I have said that the Supreme Court makes or changes laws. Go ahead I will give you some time and then move to the next paragraph.

            As you can see I have painstakingly made it clear that the Court cannot make laws and its only function is to interpret the Constitution. IF the Court makes a ruling on a law that finds it unconstitutional then that law is pre-empted. This is not the Court’s doing it is how the judicial and legislative system work. Just like Congress has authority over the Court, the Court has authority to determine if a state or federal law conflicts with the Constitution. Under judicial review, any law is now pre-empted meaning that the 10th amendment cannot save the law. The issue of whether a state law, like the one in Florida, can deny same sex couples from marrying was not changed. It was not transformed into a new law. The Court just made it clear that you cannot use that law to deny same sex couples from marrying because doing so will deny them their due process rights as protected under the Constitution. They have this authority under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution, which says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”

          • afchief

            “IF the Court makes a ruling on a law that finds it unconstitutional then that law is pre-empted.”

            Wrong! 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? And you call yourself a lawyer????????

            Marriage been in states constitutions for decades and longer What changed? Five liberal/homosexual lawyers determine that states constitutions violate the federal constitution????? It did not violate the federal constitution for decades and now it does????? Are you really this dumb to think that the federal constitution ALL OF A SUDDEN is being violated because 5 liberal/homo judges think so???? Really???

            President Andrew Jackson, regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down. A SCOTUS ruling is an OPINION, PERIOD!!!! There is NO law that is pre-empted. Stop getting this garbage from homo websites. You are making yourself LOOK foolish!!!!

            You are proving to me that you are a LIAR!!!! There is no truth in you. NONE!!!!!!

          • NGN

            you’re the one who looks foolish chef. gay marriage aka marriage is now legal in all 50 states whether you agree or not……don’t you love it? SCOTUS has ruled. You and your lost the right to discriminate. Cry me a river chef!

          • afchief

            You really have NO understanding of how our Constitution works. NONE!!! The SCOTUS changes no law or makes a law. Silly homo ONLY congress can do that!!!

            Go read a book. You are proving that mental disorder again!!!!

          • Josh G

            Look regardless of what you believe that is how things work. You can sit at your computer and rant until the cows come home how you know more about how the law,works than anyone else. Meanwhile I will enjoy the real world where states are following the Supreme Court decision and same sex couples in every state including Florida are happily getting married. I am used to people like you afchef. My grandfather spouted Bible passages thar he too used to justify his bigotry and hatred towards African Americans and interracial marriage. You are no different and like him you too Wil be old and forgotten while Americans embrace all races nationalities and sexual orientation.

          • afchief

            Really?

            Then show the law where Abortion is legal?

            Show me the law where homo marriage is legal?

            Waiting…………………………………………

          • Josh G

            Ok these are such ignorant statements. Show me ANY law that will ever say “such and such is legal.” Show me a law that says same sex marriage is illegal. And before you ignorantly post the Florida law statute for the hundredth time, remember what I said . . . such law is now pre-empted because any state law that denies same sex marriage is unconstitutional. You may not agree and you may deny it is legal (or as you like to say and I quote “YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!!!”), but go back to my request that I posted before that asked you to find where same sex marriages are NOT now LEGALLY being allowed in Florida. Also sorry I may have misquoted you there, I think I added an extra exclamation point sorry.

          • afchief

            Yes, more proof that homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!! Since your argument is that the 14th amendment applies to homo marriage then why did it not apply to women for voting? Why did congress have to write the 19th amendment into the Constitution?

            You can’t show me the law because there is NO law stating homos can marry. NONE!!!!

            Yes, you are a liar!!!!

          • Josh G

            That’s right FOUR exclamation points. Read comments above, I already answered this question.

          • afchief

            I’ve read your comments and they do not make sense and are way off. Five judges can change NOTHING!!! If we had 9 ultra conservative judges that stated homosexuality was illegal it would mean NOTHING.

            Courts do make or change ANY law only congress can. Courts ONLY render opinions!!!

            You cannot show me any law that was made or changed by the SCOTUS. NONE!!!!

          • Josh G

            I have answered your statements and cited case law that backs up my statements. I asked you to show me proof that any same sex marriages are legally being denied in the state of Florida, where you swear up and down are illegal. Yet you cannot. Interestingly, I was born in Miami, went to elementary, middle and freshmen year in Gainesville (Eastside!), went to high school also in Bradford and Clay (Keystone Heights) counties, have friends in St Augustine, and family in Ormond Beach and Daytona. NONE of my friends or family can corroborate your ignorant and bigoted statements about it being illegal in the state of Florida to have same sex marriage. You are simply posting the same things, making the same ignorant arguments, and spouting hatred because you have nothing else better to do and let’s face it–it makes you feel important. Me? I cannot stand to read bigoted commentary from people who pretend to be Christians, especially when it is fueled by ignorance of the law and how our legal system works. I will eagerly await your next post, and this time could type that I am a liar in CAPS with 5 exclamation points. So cool when you do that.

          • afchief

            More proof that you are a liar!!! There is NO law stating homosexuals can marry. NONE!!!!!!! History demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

          • Josh G

            No Caps? Only 3 exclamation points? Disappointing.

            Why do you continue to quote arguments that were made before the Supreme Court was even developed? History has proven that they have been wrong multiple times. Heck they believed African Americans should be slaves.

            You can complain all you want about the Supreme Court ,but they have been functioning in their role without complaint for centuries. Do they always get it right? I don’t think so. I think the Hobby Lobby case and Alice Corp v cls bank were bad decisions.

            Still waiting for you to show me that Florida is enforcing their law and denying same sex marriages.

          • afchief

            Whether the law is being enforced or not is NOT the question!!!! I have stated and asked you to show me the law that states homos can marry. YOU CAN’T!!!! If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.

            Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

            If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives, the Supreme Court’s decision will not, cannot, change America. Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

            Only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people’s representatives can the Supreme Court “change America.”

            The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing homo marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

            Irrespective of one’s position on these issues, one has to recognize tyranny. Clearly, if these judges had declared that homos could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune. But if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that in time, forces not to the liking of modern liberals will hold the reins of the Supreme Court. Hence, transferring power to the judiciary and away from the people will eventually hurt all Americans, no matter their political persuasion.

            It’s called Judicial tyranny!!! PERIOD!!!

          • Josh G

            Whether it is being enforced or not is 100% the question. I have already explained to you that nobody will make a law saying something is legal. State statutes aren’t just rewritten and modified when necessary they must go through the legislature. Regardless it is not needed because any law deemed unconstitutional will not be enforced.

            If you are correct and the law in Florida is still good then you will be able to scour the court reports or some news venue and find an instance where a same sex couple is being denied marriage.
            Instead you will find evidence supporting my statements. Florida same sex couples are getting married and legally nobody can stop them.

          • afchief

            Then SHOW ME THE LAW!!! Again, for the umpteenth time you can’t!!!! Liberals and homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!!!! You have absolutely NO idea how laws are made and changed in our country. NONE!!!!

            I’m done with dealing with stupidity and liars!!! Again, the Word of God is soooooo true about people like you…….”who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”….fits you to the “T”!!!!!

          • NGN

            the only ones with a mental disorder are those who believe in talking snakes and that gays cant get legally married……Thank you SCOTUS!

          • afchief

            Oh show me the law, oh show me the law, oh show me the law, yes show me the law todayyyyyyy, yes show me the law, yes show me the law todayyyyyyyyy!!!

            LOL!

          • Josh G

            And again “for the umpteenth time” I have explained this to you, posted references that support my statements, and challenged you to refute them. You cannot and can only copy and paste the same arguments, and then make yourself feel important in life by insulting them . . . oh and use exclamation points.
            Truth is you are uneducated and are making up for it by posting comments based on propaganda fed to you by biased and conservative news organizations. I have contradicted everything statement you have made, and you cannot provide any proof to the contrary, but that is ok because you are behind a computer and can simply post the same stupid arguments and scream that people are liars. This makes you feel good about yourself.
            So here is the deal. From now on when you comment without providing me the relevant things to refute my statements I will answer with please go back and review my previous explanations. Relevant things includes showing me how the current united States refuses to listen to Courts “opinions” (just because the written reports are called opinions does not mean they do not hold the weight of the law). Again if you are so knowledgeable about the law then it should be no problem to find where states are denying same sex couples from marrying, ESPECIALLY when this is supposed to be illegal.
            The law you want me to show you is the fact that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to show that any state law that denies a person the economic benefit of marriage, one that Americans benefit under their rights under due process, shall be pre-empted and cannot be enforced.
            AGAIN if I am wrong show me a real world example where the state legislation is legally refusing to follow the Supreme Court “opinions.” Don’t spout historical opinions by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison because they are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
            Me and my same sex married friends will pray for you.

          • afchief

            You are as ignorant and dumb as they come!!!! You have NO understanding of our laws, our constitution and how our courts work!! NONE!!! The Word of God is soooooooooooooo true about people like you “they suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. That is you to the “T”

            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. The Constitution is then amended to reflect the change!!! This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. 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.

            Yes, I have always known that liberalism and homosexuality are mental disorders. So I know it is beyond your comprehension to understand truth. You are stuck in sin and sin blinds!!! You cannot see the truth. You do not want to see the truth.

            The Word of God is soooooooo true….”you are a liar and there is no truth in you….you serve the father of lies…….satan”!!!

          • Josh G

            Thank you for re-posting your arguments. Please go back and review my previous explanations. Thank you and I will pray for you.

          • afchief

            Thanks for confirming what I already knew about liberals and homosexuality……..they are liars and there is not truth in them!!

            Here is some info to ponder about the “civil right” of homosexuality. You can find the facts here. WARNING: GRAPHIC TRUTH.

            28 percent of homosexual males had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more males.
            79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers.
            Half of the white homosexuals said that they had at least 500 different sex partners.
            Some reported as many as 20,000 different partners.
            Average age of death from AIDS ….. 35.7 years.
            Expected average life span (of the homosexual community) 45 years.

            Here’s more

            90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about 67% do it regularly.
            Gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
            Over 1/3 of gays admit to “fisting.” (Putting their fist where the sun don’t shine.)
            About 80% of gays admit to tongue/anus penetration.

            According to reports The journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This puts more young people at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.19

          • Josh G

            Thank you for re-posting your arguments. Please go back and review my previous explanations. Thank you and I will pray for you.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse”

            Uh, shouldn’t that be kinda obvious? Gay men have anal sex, yeah, we kinda figured that out already. Is that supposed to be shocking or something?

            Also, it took me about 1 minute to find out that stuff about the supposed gay promiscuity was probably copy-and-pasted from CARM, which mainly cites a book written in 1978, which is now thought of as obsolete and outdated. Anyway, though, even if that were true, being promiscuous and/or engaging in risky sexual behavior is no reason for someone to be denied their rights.

          • Bob Johnson

            There is no law saying I can eat a banana. I don’t need such a law. Nor do I need a law to say who I can marry. The Supreme Court has removed previous limitations.

          • afchief

            Apples and oranges!!! We are talking about the the SCOTUS and Constitutional law.

            The SCOTUS can remove NOTHING!!!! It only renders opinions!!! 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.

            Sorry to burst your homosexual bubble!!! But that is the way our government works!!!!

          • NGN

            Nopers. Bans against gays marrying are unconstitutional per SCOTUS thus rendering said laws null and void. Try again chef boy ar dee!

          • afchief

            This is why liberalism and homosexuality are such mental disorders!!! They have NO idea how our government works. NONE!!!!

            Silly liberal……show me the law where abortion is legal?

            Waiting……………………………

          • Bob Johnson

            “Show me where it is written…”

            In California that would be The Reproductive Privacy Act (2003), specifically,

            Cal. Health & Safety Code 1233460 et seg

          • Bob Johnson

            Plagiarism – AmericanThinker dot com written by Tom Trinko Dec 8, 2015

          • afchief

            The truth is truth!!! I can see it bothers you.

          • NGN

            legal in all 50 big boy….you should go ahead and marry that boyfriend of yours in your avatar…LOL!

          • afchief

            Yes you are a liar!!! You cannot show me any law stating homos can marry, but I can show you laws where homos marrying is illegal.

            The Word of God is sooooooo true about people like you “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”!!!!!

          • NGN

            scotus + unconstitutional laws equal marriage equality. Riddle me this moron, if its not legal why are so many gays getting married legally with all benefits?

          • afchief

            Silly homo there is NO law written stating homo marriage is legal. NONE!!! They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them. It is a lie!!!

          • NGN

            Much like Josh, you are just ranting at your computer about something that will be here forever. Gay folks can get married just like I did and there’s nothing you can do. You can continue calling people liars(too funny) and yelling but it wont change the fact that society will keep passing you by until you become irrelevant. Enjoy your old age…..chef.

          • afchief

            The life expectancy for homosexual men is 20 years less than that for
            heterosexual men; the suicide rate is much higher; the need for
            psychological help is higher. So why is it that we, as a society, think
            we are doing homosexuals a favor by not only turning a blind eye to all
            these negatives, but making heroes out of those who come out of the
            closet? Are cigarettes as harmful to your health? No – the life
            expectancy for long term smokers is 10 years less than that for
            non-smokers. And note that the horrors of second-hand smoke have
            largely been debunked, so the third party effect isn’t as great as once claimed. Yet we condemn smoking and glorify homosexual activity. Go figure.

          • NGN

            nopers. totally debunked xtian lies. The guy who started that rumor of shortened lifespan was kicked out of his own profession due to this “research”. Please keep the rants coming,,,,,,,,,pure entetainment

          • NGN

            they are both legal. your screaming about this makes you look more foolish and childish by the moment….too funny chef.

          • afchief

            Show me the law!!

            You can’t!!!!!!

          • NGN

            again…ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS…need I say more chef?

          • afchief

            Show me the law that states homos can marry???

            You can’t!!!!!

          • NGN

            No need as it is legal in the USA. Gays can marry in ANY state including yours and receive all benefits and considerations. Eats you up doesn’t it???

          • afchief

            Ohhh the poor homos can’t show me the law, show me the law, show me the law. Ohhhhh, the poor homos can’t show me the, show me the law, show me the law.

            LOL!

          • NGN

            your ignorance is scary

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • NGN

            not me but keep trying chef boy ar dee!

          • Josh G

            To answer your question YES because of the 5 justices states cannot deny same sex couples marriage just like in 1967 where their decision made it unlawful to deny interracial marriage and in 2003 where their ruling made it unlawful to criminalize sodomy. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

          • afchief

            Wrong!!!! If we had 9 ultra conservative judges on the bench that said homosexuality was against the law, would that be the law? No, it would not.

            History demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            The meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . would be mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

          • afchief

            Article. I.

            Section. 1.

            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

            DO I NEED TO DEFINE WHAT LEGISLATIVE MEANS?????????

          • Josh G

            This means Congress can make laws and has the power to delegate those responsibilities. So what?

          • afchief

            At least you know that!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not a legislative power.

            You seem to be arguing that Congress should impeach the judges that voted to legalize same sex marriage……why is it, then, they haven’t done that?

          • afchief

            They have not been impeached because we have a completely lawless government now. There are only a handful of conservatives who still hold to the Constitution.

            A. The Constitution says that judges hold their office only during “good behavior” (Art. III, Sec. 1).
            B. Federal judges may be removed by Congress for misbehavior, which, historically, did not include only criminal behavior but also other misbehavior.
            C. Historically, federal judges have been removed from the bench by Congress for contradicting an order of Congress, for profanity, for rude treatment of witness in a courtroom, for drunkenness, for judicial high-handedness and a variety of other reasons.24
            D. The Constitution provides six clauses on impeachment – the most often-mentioned subject in the Constitution.25
            E. The Founding Fathers and early legal authorities were clear about the ground for impeachment:
            1. James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: “[I]mpeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.26
            2. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “The offenses to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy. . . . are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.27
            3. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: “[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.28
            4. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “attempts to subvert the Constitution.29
            5. Alexander Hamilton: “the abuse or violation of some public trust. . . . [or for] injuries done immediately to the society itself.30
            6. George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights,” and Elbridge, signer of the Declaration and Framer of the Bill of Rights: “mal-administration.31
            7. William Rawle, legal authority and author of early constitutional commentary: “the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice32 as well as attempts to “infringe the rights of the people.33
            8. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.34
            F. Federalist #65: “[T]he practice of impeachments [is] a bridle in the hands of the Legislative body.35
            G. Justice James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution, placed on the Supreme Court by President Washington: “Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.36

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yawn….I think I already read all of that in your last copy-and-paste.

            Here’s a few for you, then:

            “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

            So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law
            and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
            If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the
            Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the
            Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” – John Marshall

            And you should have kept going a little bit with your Jefferson quote way back…the bit about “our judges are as honest as other men”….later in the same thing, he said “It (the constitution) has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” And, anyway, keep quoting Jefferson, though, he’s got some good ones, especially when it comes to him talking about religion and such.

            “Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
            every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.” — (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. ii., p. 217)

            “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
            between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” — 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc.

          • afchief

            I’m amazed at the ignorance of liberals when it comes to constitutional law. Do you really think 5 judges can change the law? What if we had 9 conservative judges on the bench and they ruled that homosexuality was against the law? Would it be law? NO it would not!!!

            History demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

          • Bob Johnson

            copy and paste from wallbuilders dot com founded by David Burton.

          • afchief

            Does the truth bother you? Apparently it does!!!

          • NGN

            he cant. just an internet lawyer witout any real argument. makes himself look foolish on a daily basis here

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t even think Fox News propounds such ludicrous conspiracy nuttery. These beliefs are relegated to extreme right anti-government sovereign citizen type organizations. But afchief refuses to cite even those! He just stomps his foot and shouts louder.

          • NGN

            “this is gonna get ugly”…what does that mean chef boy ar dee? IS that a threat? Do you think that liberals cannot protest themselves? Too funny

          • afchief

            And you said that you studied constitutional law for 4 years?!?!?!

            LOL!!!!!

          • afchief

            Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy? Why did they not use the 14th amendment 30 years ago? Did a light bulb go off today? LOL!!! 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?

            Yes, you are proving yourself to be quite the liar!!!

          • Josh G

            See again you are posting about the law when you have no idea. In 2003 the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas ruled that sodomy (straight or homosexual) was legal so long as it was in the privacy of ones home. If you read the case law it again sights fundamental right under due process regarding an Americans right to privacy.

          • afchief

            You are making me laugh!!!! The courts can change NOTHING when it comes to law. NOTHING!!! In my state (Florida) marriage is between one man and one woman!!!!

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

            Yes, you are a liar!!!!

          • Josh G

            That law cannot stop a same sex couple from being married in the state of Florida because it is preempted by the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

          • afchief

            Show me the law that states two homos can marry?

          • NGN

            this may be news to you moron but gays can legally marry in all 50 states…too funny. you and your ilk lost…Period. SCOTUS says they can marry and they can. Poof there it is… better luck next time chef boy ar dee

          • afchief

            Yes, liberalism/homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!!! The SCOTUS ONLY renders opinions. If it is legal, SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!

            My states (Florida) Constitution states this;

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

            Silly homo……leave the truth to us Christian Conservatives. It is quite obvious you are a liar and no nothing!!!!

          • NGN

            Sorry silly rabbit but SCOTUS ruled your state laws unconstitutional. You lose…we win…… Game Over Chef…….LOL!

          • afchief

            Poor homo, nothing has changed!!!! It is quite obvious you have NO IDEA how our government works. NONE!!!!

            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?

            The law is still in Florida’s constitution. It is STILL the law of our state!!

            Go get a book on Constitutional law and read it!!!

            You are making yourself look quite foolish!!!!

          • Josh G

            Show me the law where states are successfully stopping same sex marriages.

          • afchief

            They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others. It is a LIE!!! I already showed you Florida’s constitution where is illegal for two homos to marry. All the hubbub over homosexual marriage is a cleverly designed smoke screen. Who cares what the Supreme Court says? They are merely rendering their “opinion”. The people of 30 states have already spoken on this issue. No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people.

          • NGN

            Soory but your little state constitutional amendment with regard to gays marrying is unconstitutional…its legal in your state…Oh the horror!!!!!

          • afchief

            Wrong!!!! There is NO law stating homos can marry. NONE!!!!!

          • NGN

            again…legal in all 50 with or without your input. keep screaming though. you are just one more reason that your side lost…..stupid arguments

          • afchief

            I love telling the truth. You homos are liars. You cannot produce any law that show homos can marry!!!

          • NGN

            don’t have too o’ funny one. SCOTUS’ has ruled on the unconstitutionality of gay marriage bans. No new law needed as the old one was struck down. You are way too funny chef

          • afchief

            Show meeeee the law. Oh yes, show me the law. Why don’t you show me the law…. Because you can’t

            Catchy tune……………………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who is this “they” that tells gay marriage is legal when it really isn’t?

          • afchief

            Are you really this ignorant??? OK Mr. “Make believe Lawyer”, tell me the law the clerk in Kentucky violated for not marrying two homos that put her in jail?

            Waiting…………………………………………..

          • NGN

            she refused to do her job moron. she is an employee of the state. do your job or get someone else to do it. she lost and the two women got married…legally

          • afchief

            Oh show me the law, oh show me the law, oh show me the law. Because you can’t, oh yes, because you can’t.

            LOL!!!!

          • NGN

            pretty funny watching this lawyer work you over like a Big Mac!

          • afchief

            Yes, show me the law, oh show me the law, yes show me the law todayyyy. Yes, show me the law, oh show me the law, yes show me the law todayyyyy.

            LOL!!!

          • NGN

            off the meds again eh chef? SCOTUS has ruled and you lost….doo dah doodah. Gays are getting married in Florida all the doo dah day! And getting the legal benefits of legal marriage. Roast your buns don’t it?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            She violated Obergefell, which is a binding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

            You don’t believe me? She went to jail. How much more binding can it get?

          • afchief

            AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A LAWYER?!?!?!?!?

            Where is the law written??????

            SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, I call myself a lawyer, but more importantly, the state of New York and two federal judicial districts call me a lawyer. And as a lawyer, I know that court decisions are binding legal precedent.

          • afchief

            Then show me the law!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            When people tell you that SCOTUS rulings are binding, you tell them that they are liars, have no understanding of constitutional law, or are fake lawyers.

            So what is it that you think is taught in law school? Do you honestly believe that we were taught that SCOTUS rulings are not binding? If so, why do the briefs and rulings in literally every case you read full of case citations?

          • afchief

            SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That doesn’t answer my question. What kind of law do you believe is taught in law schools? Yours, where court precedents are not binding? Or do you believe that it is taught that case law is binding?

          • afchief

            When the SCOTUS makes a ruling, show me the law that was changed/made. Do not cite a smith v jones. That is NOT the law!!!

          • NGN

            doubtful that the two of you were school mates

          • NGN

            nopers

          • NGN

            Legal in all 50 chefarooni!

          • afchief

            Nope! You are a liar!!!! SHOW ME THE WRITTEN LAW!!!!!

          • Josh G

            Also the Word of God says not to spread hatred, discord, and dissension, which is what you are dong when you keep condemning homosexuals to Hell. God can forgive and it is his place to determine who goes to Hell, NOT yours. Are you a homosexual? No. Does a man and a man marrying affect you personally? No. Then what are you stressing over if not because you have a deep down disgust for homosexuality?

          • NGN

            but it is legal marriage…..in all 50 chef boy ar dee!

          • afchief

            Wrong!!! Show me the written law and I will show you the law of my state’s Constitution, Florida

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

          • NGN

            those of you like the chef who cant read…..SCOTUS ruled your state laws against gays marrying are unconstitutional( I know its a big word chef). End of story. Your state is performing legal gay marraiges………does that bother you? LEGAL MARRIAGES…in all 50…..woo hoo!

          • afchief

            Poor homos who has NO understanding of Constitutional law…..show me the law!!!!!

            Poor homo……the SCOTUS only renders “opinions”. Once the opinion is rendered is goes back to the legislative branch to change or make the law. If the legislative branch ignores it……………NOTHING CHANGES!!!!

          • NGN

            obviously it has changed since gays are getting legally married in your state…LOL! poor chef…so oppressed by the evil gays and liberals. you are too funny chef!

          • afchief

            Nope! It is still against the law!!! Homosexuality is perverted, deviant and dangerous!!!!

            There’s just one problem with the gay agenda: it’s based on a lie. Homosexuals are not like heterosexuals, nor is the practice of homosexuality innocuous. The single largest problem for the gay agenda is medical science. In 2014, the CDC found that men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM), about 1 percent of the population, accounted for 83 percent of syphilis cases in the U.S. Syphilis, a disease that was once on the verge of eradication, is spreading like wildfire. According to the CDC, syphilis rates “are increasing at an alarming rate.” The statistics for AIDS are similar. In 2010, MSM were responsible for 63 percent of new AIDS cases in the US. The rate of anal cancer among MSM is seventeen times higher than among heterosexuals. It is alarming that the gay community exhibits no restraint and cannot be self-policing. Even school children know about condoms, yet venereal diseases rage unchecked through the population of gay men. A recent report in the medical literature found that infection rates for both gonorrhea and chlamydia are increasing among MSM.

            The fact that about two-thirds of syphilis and AIDS cases occur amongst one percent of the population tells us something that is immediate and unambiguous: that homosexuality is not an innocuous choice. What gay men do behind closed doors is fundamentally different from what heterosexuals usually do in their bedrooms. It’s also more dangerous. In 1975, when that young man appeared before my psychology class, and told us in all apparent sincerity, “I’m just like you,” he was lying.

          • NGN

            Nope. Not against the law. Legal marriages happening right now in Florida. The only thing perverted here is your outlook. You are too funny chef, completely wrong, but way too funny!

          • afchief

            Poor homo, you can’t show me the law where it is legal. SCOTUS opinions change NOTHING!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You want someone to show you the law? I’ll show you the law.

            No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

          • afchief

            Wrong, silly liberal/homo. The Court’s decision violates the moral standards specifically enumerated in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence sets forth the fundamental principles and values of American government, and the Constitution provides the specifics of how government will operate within those principles. As the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly acknowledged:

            The latter [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. [1]

            The Declaration first officially acknowledges a Divine Creator and then declares that America will operate under the general values set forth in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” The framers of our documents called this the Moral Law, and in the Western World it became known as the Common Law. This was directly incorporated into the American legal system while the colonies were still part of England; [2] following independence, the Common Law was then reincorporated into the legal system of all the new states to ensure its uninterrupted operation; [3] and under the federal Constitution, its continued use was acknowledged by means of the Seventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Numerous Founding Fathers and legal authorities, including the U. S. Supreme Court, affirmed that the Constitution is based on the Common Law, [4] which incorporated God’s will as expressed through “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” [5]

            Those constitutional moral standards placed the definition of marriage outside the scope of government. As acknowledged in a 1913 case:

            Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more – a status ordained by God. [6]

            Because marriage “was not originated by human law,” then civil government had no authority to redefine it. The Supreme Court’s decision on marriage repudiates the fixed moral standards established by our founding documents and specifically incorporated into the Constitution.

            The Constitution establishes both federalism and a limited American government by first enumerating only seventeen areas in which the federal government is authorized to operate, [7] and then by explicitly declaring that everything else is to be determined exclusively by the People and the States (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

            Thomas Jefferson thus described the overall scope of federal powers by explaining that “the States can best govern our home concerns and the general [federal] government our foreign ones.” [8] He warned that “taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the general authority [federal government] . . . . would . . . break up the foundations of the Union.” [9] The issue of marriage is clearly a “domestic” and not a “foreign” issue, and one that directly pertains to the State’s “moral rule of their citizens.” But the Supreme Court rejected these limits on its jurisdiction, and America now experiences what Jefferson feared:

            [W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another. [10]

            By taking control of issues specifically delegated to the States, the Court has disregarded explicit constitutional limitations and directly attacked constitutional federalism.

            The Constitution stipulates that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4). A republican form of government is one in which the people elect leaders to make public policy, with those leaders being directly accountable to the people. More than thirty States, by their republican form of government, had established a definition of marriage for their State. The Supreme Court decision directly abridges the constitutional mandate to secure to every state a republican form of government.

            To believe that the Judiciary is an independent and neutral arbiter without a political agenda is ludicrous. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. [11]

            Judges definitely do have political views and personal agendas; they therefore were given no authority to make public policy. The perils from their doing were too great. As Jefferson affirmed, the judges’ “power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” [12] He therefore warned:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. [13] The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. [14]

            The Supreme Court’s decision is a direct assault on the republican form of government that the Constitution requires be guaranteed to every State.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yes, marriage WAS instituted by human law. But of course, that’s just my atheist point of view talking, so I’m sure you wouldn’t agree.

          • afchief

            No, by God!!!

            Genesis 2:24 (NASB) For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh wow, well that totally convinces me……………not.

          • NGN

            it does and it has. legal marriages are happening whether you like it or not. That’s what’s exceedingly funny, is that you deny the obvious….ROTFLMAO! keep raging against the machine chef

          • afchief

            They may be happening but homo marriage is still against the law in all states except three.

          • NGN

            only in your feeble xtian mind

          • afchief

            I just love telling the truth!!!! You on the other hand are a liar!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Your statistics are actually right. It is, without a doubt, a problem among MSM. Is that a reason to deny them their rights as citizens of the United States, though? I don’t think so.

            The same study that you were probably looking at also says black people represent approximately 12% of the U.S. population, but accounted for an estimated 44% of new HIV infections in 2010. Should we deny them their rights, too, while we’re at it?

          • afchief

            We know people are born black. NO ONE is born homo!!! It is a choice!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, it’s not a choice. Did you choose to be straight? Anyway, who the hell would CHOOSE to be in one of the historically most discriminated against groups, if it’s only a choice?

          • afchief

            Nope! There is NO homo gene!!! NONE!!! If there was people would be aborting their homo babies at an extremely high rate.

            Homosexuality is a choice!!! And a BAD choice!!!!

          • NGN

            not a choice. never has been . thanks for the rant chef!

          • afchief

            Gays aren’t born gay:

            Even a cursory examination shows it’s absurd to think that gays are born gay, that there is a “gay” gene. Evolution teaches that genes that help an organism survive and reproduce endure and genes that hinder survival or reproduction disappear. Yet what gene could possibly be worse for reproduction than a “gay” gene? Clearly any person with a “gay” gene wouldn’t have had kids and hence the gene would disappear from the gene pool.

            Further many studies have shown that being gay is not genetic. Eight major studies of identical twins prove that being gay is not due to genetics. Identical twins have the same DNA and hence, if being gay is purely genetic, if one twin is gay the odds of the other being gay would be 100%. Yet the reality is on average the chance of the other twin being gay is around 12%.

            This does not mean that gays wake up one morning and decide to be gay. Studies have shown that gays are very likely to come from families with detached or absent fathers. That makes sense; gays turn to sex with men to replace the love they never had from their fathers. After all, our society is great at confusing sex with love.

            Given that being gay is not genetic it is likely that being gay is curable. While the MSM attacks any possibility of gays becoming heterosexual the reality is that cure rates of 30% or more may be possible for gays who want to be cured.

          • NGN

            sure they are. when did you choose to be straight? more lies for Christ and continued cut n paste…to funny chef. Guess what…….gays are getting legally married in your home state….LOL!

          • afchief

            I just love posting the truth!!!! It always offends the mentally impaired!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “What gay men do behind closed doors is fundamentally different from what heterosexuals usually do in their bedrooms.”

            What gay men do behind closed doors is none of your damn business.

          • afchief

            How Does Gay ‘Marriage’ Hurt Us? Here’s How.

            By Eric Metaxas | June 17, 2014 |

            Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask.

            Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

            The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, “there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Of course he means legal proceedings.

            For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

            But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.

            Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was “charged with a human-rights violation” and “threatened with litigation.”

            Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex “wedding” ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations. But that wasn’t good enough. The women prosecuted, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

            Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway.

            As Michael Coren puts it, “it’s becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents”—precedents intended to silence and punish anyone who dares to disagree with so-called gay “marriage.”

            If you think this couldn’t happen here, think again. This year [2012] we’ve seen ObamaCare attack the autonomy of Catholic churches by attempting to force them, in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for church employees. And just last week, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital in New York sued the hospital for denying her partner spousal health benefits.

            This is what we need to tell our neighbors when they ask us, “How does gay ‘marriage’ hurt us?” It means that those hostile to our beliefs will attempt to bend us to their will to force us to not only accept gay “marriage,” but to condone it as well.

            This is why I urge you to join the half-million Christians who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. Please sign it yourself by going to
            You and I must demonstrate love to our gay neighbors, of course, remembering that we are ultimately engaged in spiritual warfare. But we should boldly stand up when our rights as citizens and the demands of our conscience are threatened.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            First of all that doesn’t really have anything to do with what I was actually talking about.

            Anyway….”Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.”? Yeah, because of not DOING their jobs. (see Kim Davis….who still has her job, by the way)

            I’ll agree that churches shouldn’t be forced to perform or even condone gay marriage, but that’s as far as it should go. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you get to infringe on the freedom of others.

          • afchief

            Marriage, touches all aspects of society through a vast web of legal rights, privileges and acknowledgments. The relationship you’ve entered into is protected by law and must be legally recognized by everyone — your relatives, your banker, your insurance broker, your landlord, your doctor, your undertaker, everyone — even those who might have some objection to it, moral or otherwise.

            Therefore, no matter how much a person might object to same-sex marriage — might see it as sinful — he or she could easily become entangled in somebody else’s sin. And even if the aspect of legal compulsion tends to mitigate their guilt, they will likely consider themselves, at the least, morally compromised by what others have done. This is a concept that supporters of same-sex marriage would dismiss as sectarian and petty. To them what seems self-evident — indeed, what strikes them as morally imperative — is that they should be able to demand and receive any wedding cake they’re willing to pay for.

            To the Christian baker, on the other hand, this is a profound assault on conscience.Same-sex marriage supporters don’t see it that way: The baker’s just making an arbitrary value judgment against homosexuality, they’ll insist. (Of course, they won’t use the term homosexuality. They’ll say something like: being free to love whomever one chooses.) That’s why the baker thinks same-sex marriage is a sin. If it weren’t for his bigoted attitude, there wouldn’t be any problem.

            But this is not so. The baker’s view isn’t arbitrary at all. The sinfulness of homosexual acts is a fundamental teaching of the religious body to which he has attached himself, which makes it something more than an individual moral whim (or personal prejudice). And in any event, the baker is perfectly entitled to make such a value judgment, just as he’s perfectly free to attach himself to the religion of his choice. The Constitution guarantees him those freedoms.

            Employing the law to compel his complicity in someone else’s sinful behavior — as he and his church define it — does not advance rights. It advances tyranny. More than that, it becomes what you might call a kind of moral rape. (Now don’t get cute; you know I’m not suggesting there are types of rape that aren’t immoral. I mean a rape of someone’s conscience.)

            Does this sound overblown? I don’t wish to diminish the trauma of sexual assault. Not at all. But there’s a valid analogy here.

            What is physical rape but forcing a woman into a profoundly personal act that’s central to her self-identity, her sense of moral worth, and the commitments she’s chosen to make in her life — and which should only be assented to voluntarily? We judge it as evil when someone compels her submission by force. We call it violating her. Those who advocate compelling our Christian baker to participate in a same-sex wedding cannot see that using the law in this way is equally a violation. What they wish to do is precisely what, in another context, they would claim is the great sin of the Church: imposing beliefs and standards on others.

            Yet this is what the gay lobby is insisting on: forced violation of conscience. And they want it not because they like wedding cake, but because they wish to gain religious validation for relationships which, until very recently, none of the historical religions has ever accepted as legitimate.

            Their means of accomplishing this is to force believers to behave as if they approve of same-sex marriage, or at least don’t care one way or the other. And it is in response to the gay lobby’s heavy-handed efforts in this regard — the lawsuits, the boycotts, the personal slanders, and all the rest — that Indiana has enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

            Despite what is being claimed, RFRA does not give religious believers a license to discriminate against gays or anybody else. There are protections on the books against that. It merely assures people of faith that their consciences and their religious practices will not be burdened by state law unless there is a “compelling state interest” to justify it — and then only to the minimum degree necessary to meet that compelling interest.

            That’s the purpose common to all the versions of RFRA around the country. And this, it seems to me, is the only legitimate way to advance rights. Even the rights of gays, who might someday — when the intellectual atmosphere has turned against them — find themselves in need of their own conscience protections.

          • NGN

            faux xtians think their holy man gives them the right to discriminate…not!

          • afchief

            We have to protect you from yourselfs. People who “Pack the Fudge” are killing themselves at a very high rate.

          • NGN

            You think I’m gay? ROTFLMAO! Sorry to inform you that I have been married to the same woman 16yrs an d have two wonderful daughters. How long have you been married to the guy in the avatar?

          • afchief

            Sorry, but that is a Christian singer named Rick Pino in that picture with me.

          • Michael C

            All of this law stuff can be confusing. No worries.

            1) The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. All federal and state laws must adhere to the Constitution.

            2) Individual states have the power to govern themselves in a democratic fashion within the structure and confines of the U.S. Constitution.

            3) The Judicial Branch is charged with interpreting the law, including the Constitution. The highest court, the Supreme Court of the United States, is the final arbiter in Constitutional matters.

            4) The other branches of government are bound by law to respect the judiciary on matters of the interpretation of the Constitution.

            Now, to address your confusion;

            If a law is ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, this means that this particular law is rendered unenforceable. No new law needs to be drafted to implement legal changes. It becomes illegal to enforce the old (unconstitutional) law. For example, although the Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage bans were unenforceable in 1967, anti-miscegenation laws weren’t actually repealed from from the law books in South Carolina and Alabama until 1998 and 2000 (and by a surprisingly low voter margin). Does this mean that South Carolina and Alabama were permitted to continue to prohibit interracial marriage for decades after the Supreme Court’s ruling? Of course not. Only an idiot would’ve assumed as much.

            In the case of Obergefell, the Supreme Court ruled that, as it relates to the civil contract of marriage, statutory bans on the basis of sex violate the United States Constitution.

            This means that no government entity is permitted to discriminate on the basis of sex in the recognition of civil marriage. It does not matter what unenforceable laws remain on the books. Unenforceable laws are unenforceable.

            If none of this makes sense to you and you feel the need to respond to this comment, here’s the one question I ask of you; What new laws were created to permit interracial marriage in response to the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia “opinion”?

          • afchief

            WRONG!!!! Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

            What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

            Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are……opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

            For instance, the recent Obamacare “decision” from the Supreme Court was supported by five justices, while four justices had a dissenting “opinion.” How can an opinion be enforceable? Especially an “opinion” so equally divided and strongly opposed?

            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?

            President Andrew Jackson, in a shot across the bow regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down.

            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?

            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?

            Homosexual marriage is not now, nor will it ever be, “legal” in America.

          • NGN

            legal in all 50 sweetheart, but keep ranting as it is sweet music to my ears…you are too funny…

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why don’t you answer his question instead?

          • afchief

            I have already explained how our constitutional process works numerous times. Was there an amendment to the Constitution about interracial marriage? Do states still have laws on the books considering interracial marriage? Follow the written law. Not a court case!!!!

            This person is saying nothing new!!!

          • Michael C

            …perhaps there are some continuing education courses on the U.S. legal system offered at your local community college.

          • afchief

            Then SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!

            Yes, more proof that homosexuality still is a mental disorder!!!!!

          • Michael C

            Show you what law?

          • afchief

            Show me the law that states homos can marry.

            My state (Florida) has marriage between one man and one woman in our Constitution.

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

            Show me the law!

          • Michael C

            All of this law stuff can be confusing, I know. I’ll try to explain it to you as long as you promise to read this and actually take some time to think about it.

            The law does not outline every every possible legal combination of spouses. Think about it. Lawmakers would spend all of their time thinking about who could possibly marry who else.

            Show me the law that says an albino can marry a quadriplegic. SHOW ME THE LAW!!!

            In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia law prohibiting “miscegenation” was contrary to the Constitution. When a law is deemed to be unconstitutional, this means that it can no longer be enforced. From that point on, interracial couples’ marriages were recognized by every state in the U.S. No new laws needed to be created to allow interracial marriage because the laws that said that they couldn’t marry was unenforceable.

            Did you catch that? No new law needed to be created.

            The anti-miscegenation laws in some states remained on the books for decades. It didn’t matter because they could not be enforced. The anti-interracial marriage law in Alabama wasn’t repealed until 2000. But because it had been ruled to be unconstitutional decades before, it could not be enforced. …therefore, the state was required to recognize the marriages of interracial couples even though they had a law that said it was illegal.

            Florida has a law that says that two people of the same sex cannot marry. That laws has been ruled to be unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. …therefore, the state must recognize the marriages of gay couples.

            The law does not outline everyone who can marry, ’cause that’d be ridiculous. The law says that everyone can marry but then outlines the exceptions (age, relation, etc). The laws only outlines who is prohibited from marrying.

            Same sex couples used to be one of those legal exceptions but those laws are now unenforceable. They may still be on the books but remember what I said about Alabama and interracial marriage laws? Being that same sex couples are not explicitly prohibited from marrying, their marriages are fully legal.

            You’re not required to like it.

          • afchief

            OMG!!! Homos marriage is STILL against the law! Do you understand that???? The courts cannot make or change law!!! Do you understand that???? They ONLY render opinions!!! Do you understand that???

            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.

            ONLY the legislative branch can make or change law!!!!

            DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?????

          • Michael C

            You seem to be very, very confused.

            You are correct that courts cannot make laws. However, the Judicial Branch does have the power to strike down any law that violates the U.S. Constitution.

            The Supreme Court did not make or change a law to allow same sex couples to marry. That is not necessary. They struck down the laws that prohibited same sex couples from marrying. If it is illegal to prohibit same sex couples from marrying, this means that same sex couples can legally marry. No new law is required.

            I feel like I’m repeating myself here but when the Court ruled that prohibiting interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional, no new law needed to be written to allow interracial marriage. Even though some states kept the unconstitutional and unenforceable anti-interracial marriage laws on the books, it was illegal to enforce them.

            All branches of the government must obey the Constitution. The Judicial Branch is charged with interpreting the Constitution. The Executive and Legislative Branches must respect the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Constitution. If they do not like the Court’s ruling, they can amend the Constitution.

            I asked you a question above and you have yet to answer it. Whenever you finally get around to thinking about the correct answer to this question, please apply the same logic to your confusion over Obergefell. The question is as follows;

            What new laws were created to permit interracial marriage in response to the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia “opinion”?

          • Josh G

            Nice explanation Michael. Unfortunately, as you can see from my prior discussions with afchief they fall on deaf ears. The point is afchief does not want to be educated because it does not fall into his world, which justifies the hatred of homosexuals and those who support them. It is good though to keep explaining because it illustrates how you and I are willing to debate and discuss, while afchief only understand obscenities, name calling and exclamation points when people disagree. Those who read these posts can see how irrational and unwilling he is to accept anything other than his twisted view of how the legal system works, and his unwavering and sinful hatred towards homosexuality.

          • Michael C

            There’s also the distinct possibility that it’s a fake profile created in an attempt to make Christians look bad.

          • Josh G

            Absolutely! With all of the talk about the Daesch and their propaganda strategies it would not surprise me that afchief is a terrorist trolling websites to stir up vitriol towards Christians.

          • afchief

            WRONG!!! What you stated is a boldface lie!!! You have NO idea how our government works and constitutional law. NONE!!!! 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.

            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, change or shoot down laws.

            ONLY the legislative branch can do that!!! ONLY!!!!

            You are just like other homosexuals who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”

          • Michael C

            You’re getting closer to understanding how things work.

            If a law is in violation of the Constitution, it cannot be enforced.

            The Supreme Court is charged with determining matters related to the Constitution.

            The Executive and Legislative Branches must respect the Supreme Court’s rulings.

            If a law is ruled to be unconstitutional, the Legislative Branch has the option of rewriting it to get it in line with the Constitution or they can amend the Constitution to get it in line with the law. However, if the Supreme Court says that a law is toast, the law is toast. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and no lesser law can violate it.

            Can I make a suggestion? Please find someone you trust and respect, someone you feel to be intelligent and educated, sit down with them and read through this thread together. Perhaps they’ll have better luck explaining this stuff to you.

          • afchief

            Think man!!! Just think!!! Please tell me homos at least have a few brain cells left? Just a few? For decades. I repeat for decades states had in their Constitutions (and 30 states still do) that marriage is between one man and one woman. Now 5 homo friendly judges say that this is against the constitution??? And they use the 14th amendment which has NOTHING to do with marriage!!! NOTHING!!!!! The states in accordance with the 10th amendment put marriage in their Constitutions.

            Now THINK!!!!! Why in 2015 did the SCOTUS rule this way??? Think man, think!!!! The judges CHANGED!!!! Opinions can change when judges change. Does that register?????? 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?

            Please tell me you have a few brain cells left???????? Or are you going to prove to me what I already know is a mental disorder…………….homosexuality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Michael C

            We seem to have derailed a bit, here.

            Simple question;

            What government body is charged with the authority to interpret the Constitution?

          • afchief

            Finally, a light bulb went off!!!! Yes, the SCOTUS ensures that laws that effect the federal Constitution do not violate the Constitution. Now, if the SCOTUS rules that a law does not meet Constitutional muster, it is then sent back to the legislative branch to be changed, or struck down. The SCOTUS cannot remove or change any law!!! NONE!!!!

            As I stated before, 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.

            President Andrew Jackson, in a shot across the bow regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down.

            Again, the legislative AND the executive branch HAVE to AGREE that a law has to be changed or struck down!!!

            THAT IS THE LAW!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            Portions plagiarized from ushistory dot org/gov/9c.asp and from Coach Dave Daubenmire NewsWithViews dot com May 7,2015.

          • afchief

            Don’t you just love the truth? It never gets old! It always offends.

          • Michael C

            The Executive and Legislative Branches of the government must respect Supreme Court rulings. …even if they disagree with them.

            That’s the law.

          • afchief

            Then show me the law!!!!

          • Michael C

            Are we back on this? I’ve covered this with you already.

            What new laws were created to permit interracial marriage in response to the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia “opinion”?

          • afchief

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Silly liberal/homo courts do NOT make, change or remove laws!!! Only the legislative branch can do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Please educate yourself and stop looking like a typical liberal/homosexual i.e. a mental disorder!!!

            Read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • Michael C

            Show me the law that says that interracial couples can get married in states like Virginia and Alabama.

            Show me the law.

          • afchief

            There is no law!!!!! And if the people of Alabama or any other state says the interracial couples cannot marry, then that is the law of that state!!!

          • Michael C

            Why do you hate our system of government so much? Why do you hate the Constitution?

          • afchief

            Hate it?!?!?!? I’m telling you how it works. I love it!!! Since you are blinded by your sin of homosexuality, you refuse to see the truth. It is quite obvious.

            Sin ALWAYS blinds. And you are proof!!!!

          • NGN

            there’s a novel reply. too funny chef!

      • NGN

        I’m quite sure you’ll get over it….

    • Roger Peritone

      Exactly.

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

  • Nidalap

    Persnickety vampires! Always with the hissing and fang-baring over anything Christian! 🙂

  • Becky

    Atheists do not care about the US Constitution. Their agenda is to rid our nation of Christianity.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Yes we do. No it’s not.

      • NGN

        Ditto!

      • Becky

        No you don’t. Yes it is.

        • NGN

          any proof becky or just spouting nonsense? atheists by definition do not hate Christianity. one cannot hate that which doesn’t exist.. don’t care about the constitution???? LOL! I spent 8yrs and 2 deployments in the US Army defending our constitution. Try again liar

    • NGN

      just your opinion…nothing to see here..move along…

  • bowie1

    “ll the miseries and evils which men suffer from—vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war—proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” That says it all for the atheist attitude – especially the word despise. They despise its teaching and the Saviour whom they reject.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Haha……just ignoring all the injustice and oppression and that other stuff committed in the name of your god, I guess?

      I’m not even saying religion in general or any one specific one is evil (like some atheists I have seen say), it can be either a force for good or evil. I just think it’s very simplistic to pin all the “miseries and evils” or the world on atheism, or any thing, really.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Bravo! It is unconstitutional for the government to endorse one particular religion, which this was certainly doing.

  • BarkingDawg

    There, that wasn’t so difficult, now was it?

  • acontraryview

    Well no surprise there. The poster should never have been up in the first place.

    “My thought process is that they have to see the poster and if they choose to violate God’s written word, then that is on their head. I have warned them.”

    She’s not there to warn people about what may happen according to her personal religious beliefs. She is there to do her job.

  • Samuel F Waddell

    If the WORD OF GOD offends them then so be it. Post it more and write it bigger so that the whole world sees!