Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Forbids State Judges From Issuing ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

Moore

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court has reinforced the state’s ban on homosexual “marriage” as per a directive issued last spring, forbidding probate judges from issuing licenses that are contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” wrote Roy Moore in an order on Wednesday.

As previously reported, in 2013, two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn Alabama’s marriage amendment after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child.

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled in favor of the women, prompting Moore to send a memo to probate judges throughout the state, advising that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as he believed that Grenade’s ruling only applied to the two women. But while over 50 judges decided to obey Moore, others opted to issue the licenses.

As confusion ensued, one probate judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the court for further guidance. In March, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.

“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the 148-page order read. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

In Moore’s writings on Wednesday, he noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive.

  • Connect with Christian News

However, he simultaneously outlined that “[i]n 1885, the Supreme Court of the United States described marriage as ‘the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.'”

Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis immediately complied with Moore’s order, posting a notice at his office.

“In order to comply with the administrative order of Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore dated January 6, 2016 and rulings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the court is not issuing marriage licenses to any applicants until further notice,” he wrote. “This action is necessary to ensure full compliance with all court rulings that apply to the court and to Mobile County Judge of Probate Don Davis. We regret any inconvenience encountered.”


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
  • Nidalap

    Ha! He’s a character! So politically incorrect too! 🙂

    • Bob Johnson

      And cost the citizens of Alabama a few more million dollars.

      • Nidalap

        If they don’t like it, they’d better scrounge up enough votes to oust him! 🙂

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Highly intelligent too. He understands the Constitution much better than most of SCOTUS does.

  • Robert Taylor

    I thank God they’re standing up for the rights of the state and the enforcement of current state law. They are right to ignore the unconstitutional and ill legal actions of the United States Supreme Court!

    • https://www.facebook.com/kengpalmer/ Ken Palmer

      The real issue behind all of this is SCOTUS used the 14th amendment (by reinterpreting it) to enforce this on the states. Unfortunately for them, it opens the loophole that allows state judges like this one to constitutionally block it.

      • acontraryview

        How did the SCOTUS “reinterpret” the 14th amendment?

        “it opens the loophole that allows state judges like this one to constitutionally block it.”

        How so?

      • Guest

        Actually this person didn’t use their position as a judge to make this edict, they used ‘another hat’ of the job, as administrator of the judicial personnel in the state. Unfortunately, that means its NOT a judicial decision and has no weight in comparison to the SCOTUS ruling; As the Alabama federal prosecutors said:

        “Moore’s order is no different than former Alabama Gov. George Wallace telling boards of education in the state more than a half century ago to maintain segregation in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v Board of Education, Krotoszynski said. “Wallace’s order didn’t trump the Supreme Court then and I don’t think Moore’s order is going to trump the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell,”

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Who says the actions of the Supreme Court are “unconstitutional and ill legal [sic]?” You? Are you the Absolutely Really Ultimate Supreme Court?

      • afchief

        The Constitution!!!

        Do I need to show you?

      • Bob Johnson

        afchief !!!!

      • afchief

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

        Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent. (Homosexual marriage)

        Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance. (Homosexual marriage)

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

        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 i.e. homo marriage!!!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Supreme Court opinions do nothing!! NOTHING!!!!

          • afchief

            Did a light bulb go off?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Dude, seriously? Are you this un-self-aware? You quoted a Supreme Court ruling even though you tell me a thousand times a day that Supreme Court decisions serve no purpose.

          • afchief

            All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution!!! What laws today are repugnant to the Constitution?

            Do you need some help?

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, marriage laws that discriminate against protected classes of American citizens are repugnant to the Constitution.

          • afchief

            LOL!

            They weren’t 10, 50, 100, 200 years ago but they are today?!?!?!?

            Do I need to tell you why??????

          • Bob Johnson

            That would be because of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes, it does take a while to work its way throughout the courts. Curiously, had the states not passed the DOMA laws it would have taken longer to find actual laws that needed judicial review.

            So because the states pressed the issue, all hell broke loose.

          • afchief

            You are making me laugh!!!! Now it’s the civil rights act?!?!? Where did you dig this one up??? LOL!

            Keep trying!!!! LOL!

            Like I said it IS a states issue ONLY!!!! It is NOT a fed issue.

            Remember!!!! 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.

            IT IS ONLY AN OPINION!!!!

        • Bob Johnson

          “repugnant to the Constitution” That is to the Constitution. Not repugnant to me, you, jews, christians, muslims or any other group. It need only be repugnant to the Constitution.

          Null and void – YES.

          homo marriage is not repugnant to the Constitution. The Constitution, as you are fond of telling us, says nothing about marriage.

          • afchief

            You are exactly right! But the SCOTUS judges who heard the case about homo marriage did! The judges should be impeached!!!!

            Homosexuality is REPUGNANT!!!!

        • Bob Johnson

          Who gets to have an opinion on “repugnant to the Constitution”? Judicial Review and then only when someone (someone who “has standing”) brings a case to the Court. (There are other ways, such as more laws or amendments.)

          • afchief

            Any rational and logical mind KNOWS that homosexuality is repugnant.

            A reprobate mind does not.

        • acontraryview

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

          Since the Constitution provides for equal protection under the law, and laws banning two citizens of the same gender violate equal protection under the law, such laws are “repugnant to the Constitution” and are “null and 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 i.e. homo marriage!!!”

          There is no law which specifically allows “homo marriage”.

    • acontraryview

      In what way was the action of the SCOTUS on this issue “unconstitutional and ill legal”?

  • Michael C

    Fun fact about Alabama.

    Even though bans on interracial marriage were found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution in 1967, it wasn’t until the year 2000 that Alabama finally got around to repealing their illegal miscegenation laws. It took them over thirty years to catch up with the rest of the country on the issue of interracial marriage.

    Even more disheartening is that in 2000, over 40% of Alabama voters wanted to keep the illegal and unenforceable interracial marriage ban in their State constitution. Over half a million Alabaman voters liked the idea that their constitution said that “the legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a negro, or descendant of a negro.”

    • afchief

      That is HOW the law works!!! Since marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal Constitution it is left up to the states IAW the 10th amendment. If the Alabama voters do not want interracial marriage then that is their RIGHT by a vote of the people.

      That is the law!!!!

      • TheKingOfRhye

        And if Alabama voted to ban interracial marriage, how long do you think that would last?

        • afchief

          As long as the people of Alabama vote for it!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re telling me the federal government wouldn’t step in and say “no, you can’t do that”?

          • afchief

            There is no legal right for the feds to do so. If the majority of people of Alabama want this law, then they have spoken. It is law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The will of the people of Alabama overrules the United States Constitution?

          • afchief

            Marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. The feds have NO right to hear the case. That is why 30 states had it in their Constitutions that marriage is between one man and one woman in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            Three states put homo marriage in their Constitutions. That is how the law works. The people vote for a law or the legislative branch makes law.

            That is how laws are made and changed and struck down in America. There is NO other way.

          • TheKingOfRhye


            Marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. The feds have NO right to hear the case.”

            9th Amendment. The SC determined marriage is one of those “unenumerated rights”.

          • afchief

            Negative!!! It has been left up to the states to determine what marriage is and is not! There is NO mention of marriage in the Federal Constitution. NONE!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There doesn’t HAVE to be a mention of marriage in the Constitution. Again, that’s what the 9th Amendment is for.

          • afchief

            Then why did the states have marriage mentioned in their Constitutions? Why was sodomy against the law in 1986. What changed? Judges!!!!!!

            It’s called Judiciary Tyranny!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not saying the opinions of courts don’t change. I’m just saying their opinion DO carry weight, which is what you don’t seem to realize.

          • afchief

            There opinions can effect change in the form of policy. The SCOTUS cannot strike down laws.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They can declare laws unconstitutional. You mentioned how it took a long time for schools to desegregate after Brown vs Board of Education…..as if that was a GOOD thing?

          • afchief

            That’s because it took the legislative branch (congress) to change the law.

            If the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional it is STILL up to the legislative branch to remove or change the law. Until then, it is STILL law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            When did Congress pass a law that says school segregation is illegal?

          • afchief

            Go back and do you own research!

          • Michael C

            The Court has been striking down laws for over two hundred years.

            Are you just hearing about it now?

          • afchief

            Show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS can strike down laws?

            And I will show you where only the Legislative branch can do so!!!!

          • afchief

            Why did the SCOTUS declare that DOMA was unconstitutional in 2012 stating the feds have no jurisdiction to declare what marriage is and is not? And then in 2015 they state the feds have jurisdiction to determine what marriage is and is not?

            I’ll tell you why; it’s called Judicial Tyranny!!!!

          • Michael C

            In the Windsor (DOMA) decision, the Court never said that the federal government has no jurisdiction in matters of marriage. In fact, the decision clearly states otherwise.

            I’m guessing that you never actually read the Windsor decision…

          • afchief

            Yes, IT DID!!!! More liberal lies!!!! The Constitution is clear on what federal courts can hear. As Publius Huldah has pointed out:

            Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

            a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States 1 [“federal question” jurisdiction];

            b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

            c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects;3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].

            Nothing in this case meets this criteria.

            Read more at http://freedomoutpost. com/2015/06/supreme-court-illegally-strikes-down-marriage-laws-in-four-states-each-justice-approving-should-be-immediately-impeached/#iJOSJfxFGqvPT2ya.99

          • Michael C

            You claimed that the Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor because the federal government has no jurisdiction in marriage.

            This is incorrect.

            The Windsor decision clearly states that state marriage laws “must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
            see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967).”

            There exists no contradiction between Windsor and Obergefell.

          • afchief

            NOPE!!! The SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction in marriage. NONE!!! Show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the right to hear a case on marriage?

            Waiting……………………………………………..

            Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

            a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States 1 [“federal question” jurisdiction];

            b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

            c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects;3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].

            Nothing in this case meets this criteria.

          • Michael C

            Loving v. Virginia.

          • afchief

            Sorry Mr Reprobate Mind, what part of the Constitution states the SCOTUS can hear marriage cases!

            Waiting………………………………………………..

            Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

            a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States 1 [“federal question” jurisdiction];

            b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

            c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects;3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].

            WHERE IS MARRIAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION??????

          • Michael C

            I’m fairly convinced that you use this as a fake account in the attempt to make Christians and conservatives look bad.

          • afchief

            Nope! Just speaking truth!!! You have yet to show me WHERE marriage is mentioned in the Constitution. And why 30 states already had it in their Constitutions. Which makes it a State issue!!!!!

          • Michael C

            The governance of marriage is not outlined in the Constitution.

            The Court found that the bans on the recognition of the marriages of gay and lesbian couples (just like the bans on interracial marriage) were in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

            …but you already know this. You just don’t like it.

          • afchief

            Sorry, but you are a liar and there is NO jurisdiction for the SCOTUS to hear a marriage case. NONE!!! 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!!.

            The 5th amendment has NOTHING to do with homo marriage. NOTHING!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Ha! It can’t be any other explanation, because then there would have to be a human being who is this dense.

          • TheKingOfRhye


            WHERE IS MARRIAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION??????”

            It’s one of those ‘unenumerated rights’ the 9th Amendment was talking about.

            Now you’re saying the SC didn’t even have the right to hear the Obergefell case…..because it was about marriage? I don’t think it really matters what it was about, the Supreme Court had to hear it. It was a ‘circuit split’, when “two or more or different
            circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue.” (wikipedia) That falls under “a)”, doesn’t it? Also, the SC rules about ALL KINDS of things not mentioned in the Constitution. Just to look up one other recent case….Michigan v. EPA, earlier last year, they blocked an EPA regulation that would have limited emissions from power plants. By your logic, they shouldn’t have heard that case either, right? Pollution isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, is it?

          • Guest

            Marriage is a civil contract and therefore covered under the contract clause, the full faith and credit clause and the 14th amendment.

            And the SCOTUS only found a licensing restriction of the contract unconstitutional, the promises of the actual contract stay exactly the same.

            But it’s futile to try and argue the facts with Russ, he makes up what he wants and ignores the rest in all things.

          • afchief

            Nope! This is why 30 states have marriages mentioned in their Constitutions IAW the 10 amendment. It is NOT a fed issue. It is an individual and state issue.

            It is also being reported from WND that just weeks ago when dozens of top legal scholars from the likes of Washington & Lee, Boston College, Kansas State, Notre Dame, University of Texas, Villanova, Vanderbilt, Hillsdale, University of Nebraska, Catholic University and Regent University issued a statement encouraging all state and federal officials to treat the Supreme Court’s recent creation of “same-sex marriage” as “anti-constitutional and illegitimate.”

            “It cannot … be taken to have settled the law of the United States,” said the statement from the American Principles Project.

            “We call on all federal and state officeholders: To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case. To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions. To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons. To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evidence in Obergefell.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            WND? Really? lol

            Yeah, OK, so there’s some conservative/homophobic legal scholars out there….believable, when you look at how many politicians are the same way, too.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.”

            How would that work? That doesn’t make sense to me…..that would be like if after Loving v Virginia, some states said it was only legal for the Lovings.

          • afchief

            The states do NOT have to do anything. It is a state’s issue, period!! It is NOT a fed issue. If the states want homo marriage, then bring up on a vote!!!

            Three states have already done so.

            That is HOW the law works!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, it doesn’t work that way. If it did, then why didn’t every state have a vote on interracial marriage after the Loving decision? Once something is determined to be a RIGHT, such as both interracial and same-sex marriage, it’s no longer up for a vote. Ever heard the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’? If you think this country is a pure democracy, where everything is put to a vote, you’re seriously, seriously mistaken.

            Read the Ninth Amendment a few more times, maybe then you’ll get it….

          • afchief

            Nope!!! What part of the Constitution DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!?!?

            NOWHERE is marriage mentioned in the federal Constitution. NOWHERE! That is WHY 39 states put it in their respective constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment!!!! Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman in 39 states. 11 states had legalized it through the legislative process, 3 by direct election of the people, and 8 by action of State Legislatures. Today, homo marriage is still illegal in all 39 of the states where the law is still on the books. The “Supreme” Court cannot change the law, but can only offer opinions about it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            States had votes and legislation of their own about it because the federal government hadn’t said anything about it.

            Like I said, the courts rule about all sorts of things that were never mentioned in the Constitution.

          • afchief

            The states acted in accordance with the 10th amendment of the Constitution. Why? Because marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal constitution!!!

            Why is this hard to understand?!?!?!?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It doesn’t have to be mentioned in the Constitution, because of the 9th Amendment. Why is THAT so hard to understand??

          • afchief

            No it is NOT!!!! You are proving to me what I already know about the liberal cranium and how deceived it is!!!! I want you to think for a minute (maybe a couple) about what you are saying. If the 9th amendment covered marriage, then why did the states put it in their Constitutions?? If the 9th amendment covered “equal rights” why did we need the 19th amendment for women to vote? The 14th for slaves to be free?

            Does that little liberal cranium understand?

            Do you know what has changed in the last few years? Do I need to help you? We have a godless lawless lying pResident who appointed two homo women to the bench. 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?

            Do I need to help that little liberal cranium understand what has happened?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The 9th Amendment just means that more things than what are mentioned in the Bill of Rights or other amendments that can be considered rights. You’re actually right, in one way I suppose…about that last paragraph. Except I’d call them progressive, tolerant people in government, not “godless, lawless” and “homos” (which is not an insult, by the way, but still, Sotomayor, at least, is married to a man….believe it or not, someone can be a supporter of gay rights without being gay themselves). And that’s a GOOD thing.

          • afchief

            The 9th amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage. I would advise you to research WHY the 9th amendment was added to the Bill of Rights by our Founders. You will be enlightened!!!

            And yes they are godless, lawless and homos. 0bama is one of the most evil men to ever set foot in America.

            The man should be in jail!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So you don’t consider marriage a right?

            Gas is cheaper, the dollar is the strongest it’s been in quite a while, Osama is gone….but no, Obama is evil because some people can now get married. Uh huh….

          • afchief

            I’ll let you read 1180 reasons why 0bama is the most corrupt and one of the most evil men to set foot in America. It is ALL documented!!! The man is a type of anti-christ.

            Here are 1,180 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.

            https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpressDOTcom/2013/08/15/obama-252/

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Far-right conservatives (Im guessing) think Obama is evil……woohoo, breaking news……

          • afchief

            Is lying evil?
            Is lawlessness evil?
            Is homosexuality evil?
            Is abortion evil?
            Is murder evil?
            Is corruption evil?
            Shall I go on?????

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yes, yes, no, no, yes, yes, and I’m unfortunately sure you will anyway.

          • Seabeacon

            Homosexuality is not the choice, the other things are . We are not born liars.

          • afchief

            Homosexuality is a choice. A bad choice!

          • Bob Johnson

            Big wall rock climbing is also a bad choice. But as the Yosemite ranger said, “Every American has a God given right to try and kill himself.”

          • Bob Johnson

            That link to 1,180 reasons is over three years old, he must have broken a few more laws by now. Remember that time his motorcade ran a red light?

          • afchief

            He just updated the site on 7 January of THIS YEAR!!!!

          • Seabeacon

            Are you Baptist?

          • afchief

            No, I’m a Christian.

          • Mr. G.

            Apparently chief doesn’t realize that the US Constitution also protects the people from the enactment of unconstitutional laws contrary to basic rights.

          • acontraryview

            “Show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the right to hear a case on marriage?”

            The 14th Amendment. It provides the ability of the Federal judiciary to hear cases involving ANY state law.

          • gizmo23

            What if a state said all churches will be taxed double the rate for everyone else or every unmarried pregnant women must get an abortion you would support it ?

          • afchief

            First the people have to get enough petitions to get it on a ballot. Then the will (vote) of the people have to approve it. It becomes law!!!

          • gizmo23

            And you would be OK with any law they would pass

          • afchief

            I never said I would be OK, but it would be the law.

          • gizmo23

            So all rights come from the majority of people that vote for them. now I get it.

          • afchief

            Straw man argument.

          • gizmo23

            That is exactly what you are saying, that voters determine your rights

          • afchief

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

            The SCOTUS only renders opinions.

          • gizmo23

            So rights can be taken away by popular vote. If a state decides that Catholics should pay a special tax that is OK with you. What if a state says you have to have a special license to join a church? You would be OK with that?
            You are the one that doesn’t get it. We live under a system of common law where courts do interpret laws and protect the minority.

          • afchief

            Nope! It is NOT the minority in every case. If the majority votes for it, it then becomes law!

            Don’t forget; “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

            Homosexuality is “repugnant!!!!

            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?

            A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can”

            Please cite one court that has put forth that it is allowed to make law. Further, provide one example of a court making a law.

          • acontraryview

            You might want to gain a better understanding of the 14th Amendment.

      • Michael C

        I don’t understand why you hate this country and our system of government so much.

        • afchief

          Hate? There is no more patriotic then me. I’m trying to tell you how the law works. You have a distorted view of how our government works.

          It is based on a lie!!!

      • gizmo23

        I remember so clearly how you railed against the Hobby Lobby decision and called for the president to ignore their ruling

        • afchief

          That’s right! Ignore the entire ruling of 0bamaNOcare because the entire monstrosity is Unconstitutional. 0bamaNOcare is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be throw out. The federal government CANNOT force anyone to buy anything, period!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s not the Hobby Lobby decision. The decision he’s referring to held that a private business can’t be compelled to provide birth control if doing so would violate their religion.

            He’s pointing out that you didn’t seem to have a problem with that decision, even though birth control isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

            Do I really have to spell this stuff out for you?

          • afchief

            My point is the entire monstrosity called “obamaNOcare” is a violation of the Constitution.

            As I have stated any ruling by the SCOTUS is an opinion, period!!!!

          • gizmo23

            How about workers comp and unemployment insurance?
            You don’t have to buy health insurance just pay the extra tax

          • afchief

            The federal government can force you to buy nothing!!! It is unconstitutional

          • gizmo23

            I never saw that in the constitution so they can do whatever they want

          • afchief

            Does not deserve an answer.

          • gizmo23

            What’s the problem? Aren’t you the one always claiming if it isn’t in the constitution it doesn’t need to be considered? I see nothing in the big C that says government can’t make you buy something

          • afchief

            Please use the “noodle” God gave you!!!!! Or are you trying to demonstrate that mental disease we all know as liberalism? Are we a republic or a dictatorship?

            We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

            The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States. ART. 1, SEC. 8, PAR. 1

          • gizmo23

            The general welfare would be to provide everyone with insurance, a job, and a decent home. Says so in the C

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, more proof about that mental disease we call “liberalism”!!!

          • gizmo23

            I’m just quoting the Constitution like you. But you have no come back do you?

          • afchief

            Think man think!!!!! Who is going to pay for it?

            Oh wait “uncle sugar”? That’s who!!!!

            Typical liberal psychobabble garbage!!!

            2 Thessalonians 3:10 (NASB) For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

          • gizmo23

            Congress has the power to levy taxes at any rates it wants. Right there in the big C. Congress has the power to feed anyone it wants and make other people pay for it. Right there in the big C.
            They also have the power to make your medical records public. There is no right to privacy in the big C. Oh wait the court ruled in Roe v Wade that you do have that right, but that is just their opinion.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the ugly and anti-american head of socialism is showing once again! There are just two kinds of people in America today…one wants the government to get the heck out of the way, so they make money and make jobs so others can also make money..and then there is obama and the ‘gimme gimme group…and which one are you?

            If given a choice between a “fair” system with everyone equal but poor, and one where success is attainable but not guaranteed, which would you rather have?

            Socialism/liberalism is the government micromanaging the details in everyone’s lives by means of taking from those who have and distributing it in a very unproductive way to those who don’t have so much. Socialism breeds corruption, laziness, oppression, etc.

            Capitalism is man taking care of himself in a competitive but predominately cooperative market system. Capitalism breeds independence, interdependence, personal responsibility, freedom, etc

            You can’t “spread” wealth. By “spreading” wealth you only destroy it. That has been proven again and again.

          • Bob Johnson

            Not settled – Sweden, Norway. And Germany’s sales tax is 19%

          • afchief

            I’ve had enough – I’m leaving Sweden!

            March 23, 2015 By Svante White

            Editors note: the Swedish version of this article on AVFM Sverige was picked up by Swedish News Nyheter24 and is causing quite a stir.

            The first time I seriously entertained the idea of leaving Sweden came last summer when I was listening to Asa Romson’s hate speech from Almedalen, an important meeting place for everyone involved in Swedish politics, where the major parties give speeches during Almedalen Week.

            Her speech demonized Swedish, white, heterosexual, middle-aged men. Men like me. When Romson painted us all with the same brush – a prejudiced and stereotypical brush, blaming our entire ethnic group for everything under the Sun,– the cup finally ran over for me; I had enough. When she became Deputy Prime Minister, there was no longer any alternative. I knew I had to leave.

            I am leaving my country. In my homeland I’m now regarded as being the root of all evil. What makes me the enemy? My sex, my skin color, my sexual orientation and my age. Things that make me who I am, things I didn’t choose. What doesn’t matter when judging me are my actions. So who am I, this evil man?

            I come from a modest background and have worked very hard. I have taken sick leave for only about 1 week in the last 18 years.

            I have been involved in starting up five companies which meant shouldering the burden of all the late nights and at great risk to my personal finances.

            I have started and owned companies that exported millions of dollars of goods – business that has been very beneficial for Sweden.

            My company has created employment for 75 people, many of them immigrants.

            I can safely say that I’ve paid more taxes than the average Swede.

            I have represented Swedish business enterprises in China, Germany and Russia.

            I believe that I have contributed to the Swedish economy to a greater extent than many others and certainly to a much, much, MUCH higher extent than Åsa Romson has ever done.

            Now I’m saying goodbye to Sweden. If I ever have the opportunity to start up again in business and spend my money and resources it will not be in Sweden. Not in a country where I was seen as the enemy, regardless of my actions. Not in a country where I am only judged on my sex, my skin color, my sexual orientation and my age.

            These are enough to have a target painted on my back and be described as fundamentally evil by people instead of thanking me. I’ve sold my house, terminated all my business in Sweden and I am leaving everything entrepreneurial behind me. This evening, I ordered a one-way ticket out of here. My flight leaves April 7th.

            I have lost hope. I have no faith in a government, politicians and the media who follow political dogmas that can not be questioned or even discussed – which means the odds are against it ever being changed.

            Sweden needs a new Pär Ström, a famous critic of Swedish feminism who feminists directed attacks and death threats against until finally halted his advocacy for gender equality. Sweden needs someone with knowledge, the courage of a lion and with the financial backing needed to challenge political correctness and stand up against prejudiced people like Åsa Romson.

          • gizmo23

            There is no proabition against socialism in the big C so if the people vote for it all is well

          • afchief

            There sure is and if you read our Declaration of Indpendence it says even more so. Socialism is evil!!! It is stealing from others and giving to the lazy!!! It is anti-american and anti-christain.

            Article IV

            Section. 4.

            The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

            Socialism is NOT a Republican Form of Government!!!

          • gizmo23

            Sure it is if people vote it in. Congress has the power to tax and do whatever it wants with the money. Says so in the big C. There are socialist parts of every government and they are republics.
            The D of I does not tell the government how to run and has no power of law

          • Karova Milk Bar

            no it doesn’t

          • Karova Milk Bar

            he already won so is celebrating and laughing at you with friends

          • Karova Milk Bar

            said karl marx

          • Karova Milk Bar

            cuz you cant read a wipe

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Oh, he’s got you, Michael. Four exclamation points. Even you can’t overcome that much Truth (TM).

      • afchief

        I moved it to 5!!!!!

    • Amos Moses

      Again you try to conflate race with sodomy.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    It is time for Roy Moore to be removed from the Supreme Court, for the second time.

  • TheKingOfRhye

    “In Moore’s writings on Wednesday, he noted that his order does not weigh
    in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama
    Supreme Court’s directive.”

    Its impact should be obvious. The US Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. That made the “Alabama Sanctity Of Marriage Amendment”, and other laws like it, unconstitutional.

    Does anybody really see anything coming of this besides the federal government telling Alabama they have to start issuing marriage licenses again?

    • afchief

      Nope! A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion. It changes nothing!!! It is NOT law!!!

      • TheKingOfRhye

        I thought we’ve already covered this topic….it’s called judicial review. Sure, maybe you can argue that we shouldn’t have that, though I would disagree, but that’s been established for over 200 years (see Marbury vs Madison). And if a SC decision is only an opinion, how come about everyone in our government (aside from Moore, I guess) seems to think it’s more than that?

        • afchief

          No it is not. The SCOTUS cannot legislate from the bench i.e. strike down laws. Only Congress can do 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.”

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

          • acontraryview

            “Only Congress can do that.”

            Congress does not have the power of judicial review. Therefore the Congress cannot ‘strike down’ laws. That power exists only with the judiciary.

          • afchief

            That’s right only the SCOTUS has the power of judicial review. But it is up to Congress to make, change or strike down any laws.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Judicial review IS striking down laws.

          • afchief

            No it is not! That is NOT in the Constitution. Once the SCOTUS makes a ruling (an opinion) it is up to the legislative branch to change or strike down the law. The SCOTUS has NO authority to do so!!!

            President Andrew Jackson, ignored 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.

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

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

            The SCOTUS only renders “opinions”!

          • Mr. G.

            afchief’s understanding of the US Constitution is an a par with his understanding of the Bible.

          • acontraryview

            “But it is up to Congress to make, change or strike down any laws.”

            That is not true. There are many entities besides Congress that can make, change, or vote to remove laws. Legislative bodies do not “strike down” laws. That is a term that is applied only to judicial rulings.

            If the judiciary rules that a law is unconstitutional, it becomes unenforceable. The law can remain on the books, and does not have to be changed. It is simply no longer enforceable.

            It would benefit you to gain a better understanding of how a judicial and legal system operate. You are woefully misinformed.

          • afchief

            I’m not even going to waste my time with a LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            You do have a tendency to run when faced with facts that prove your statements are false.

            Again with the bearing of false witness. Unfortunate.

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, it sometimes takes awhile before law enforcement (executive branch) will do their job. Although if you google “blue laws” you will find many laws “still on the books” that are not enforced and any judge will dismiss immediately.

          • afchief

            The legislative branch has to change or strike down the law. The legislative branch does NOT have to agree with the SCOTUS and keeps the law. If so, it is STILL law.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I think I’m just going to stop responding to afchief. He doesn’t listen. He refuses to accept evidence. He refuses to admit when he’s wrong even when it’s blatantly obvious. There’s really no point in talking to him.

          • afchief

            Ahhh Mr. Make Believe Lawyer, I knew you would show up. Again, show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS can strike down laws. And I will show you where it is left up to the legislative branch to do so.

            Waiting…………………………

          • Bob Johnson

            We all know that only the legislative branch can make laws. It is up to the judicial branch to determine if those laws are a breach of the Constitution.

            “Strike down” is a handy phrase, in fact, what happens is that this informs the executive branch that they can not enforce those laws and that future judicial cases will not consider those laws in rendering “opinions”.

          • afchief

            Nope!! It is up to the legislative branch to change or strike down the law, period!!!

            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?

            THE COURTS ONLY RENDER OPINIONS!!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            Please answer this very simple question:

            Assume Congress passed a law that made all gun ownership illegal. The case goes to the Supreme Court, and they strike that law down as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But Congress doesn’t repeal the law…are you suggesting that means that gun ownership is still illegal?

          • afchief

            For one, it would never happen. The people in Congress represent the people in their districts and their interests. Two, for it to happen, Congress would have to remove the amendment which would take 75% of Congress agreeing to remove the amendment.

            It would never happen.

          • Trivia Jockey

            You dodged the question. I wasn’t asking if this was a realistic scenario. I’m asking you if Congress passes an unconstitutional law, and SCOTUS says it’s unconstitutional, if Congress disagrees can they keep a valid unconstitutional law on the books?

            I’ll put it another way…you’re a big fan of state laws voted on by the people. Let’s say that the people in New York decide they don’t want guns anymore. They vote to ban guns in that state. Obviously, that case would go up to the SCOTUS and obviously SCOTUS would declare that law unconstitutional. But if the people of New York disagreed and chose to keep their law, is it still valid? Can the New York police confiscate guns?

          • afchief

            No, it is not valid. The state can make laws that do not violate the federal Constitution which is the reason for the 10th amendment. In the case of a state trying to ban guns, the SCOTUS would over rule it. The state law is unconstitutional.

          • Trivia Jockey

            >>In the case of a state trying to ban guns, the SCOTUS would over rule it. The state law is unconstitutional.

            YES, EXACTLY. This has been our point all along. SCOTUS has the power to strike down and void unconstitutional laws. We’re glad you finally agree.

          • afchief

            It is still an opinion. 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?

            It is STILL an opinion!

          • Trivia Jockey

            You just contradicted yourself. You can’t have it both ways. You said “SCOTUS would overrule it”. But if the SCOTUS ruling was “just an opinion”, then the New York gun ban would still be law. New York cops could still confiscate guns.

            >>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?

            Your hypothetical doesn’t make any sense – the Court doesn’t draft new laws, the only review existing ones.

          • afchief

            They would over rule it. But it is STILL ONLY an opinion. The state would have to remove the law by the legislative branch or by a vote from the people.

          • Trivia Jockey

            So what happens if the state legislature declines to remove it? The people already voted. Is the gun ban still valid law there?

          • afchief

            For one, you are making argument for the sake of argument. Something like this would NEVER happen. A state would never get enough signatures to get it on a ballot. And a state legislature would never consider this.

            “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.

            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.

          • Trivia Jockey

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

            You are correct, but it takes a ruling from SCOTUS to establish that. History is full of laws that were successfully passed by state and federal legislatures, only to be declared null and void by SCOTUS. That’s how judicial review works. That’s how it’s always worked (since 1803).

            What you’re saying is patently absurd – if SCOTUS only issued what amounts to “advice” with no binding effect, then judicial review is meaningless…legislatures would be free to keep enforcing unconstitutional laws if they so chose. SCOTUS rulings would be entirely meaningless. If SCOTUS opinions were merely advice and not law, why does everyone place so much emphasis on the importance of Supreme Court cases?

          • afchief

            Nope! What I say is the truth!!! A court cannot make, change or strike down laws. NONE! It is ONLY an opinion, period and nothing more!!! 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?

            “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.

            Despite the Supreme Court’s limitations in implementing decisions, the justices often set policies that lead to real social change.”

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

          • Trivia Jockey

            You keep copying and pasting the same nonsense. You are utterly and comically wrong.

            Good for the rest of us that nobody in the judiciary, the legislature or the executive branch agrees with you. Nobody.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Since apparently only “fake lawyers” believe in judicial review, I asked him (repeatedly) to introduce me to a “real lawyer.” I’m still waiting for an answer to that.

          • Trivia Jockey

            He clearly has no interest in an honest discussion, he simply reposts the same nonsensical things and declares that everyone else is “lying”. And you’re right, he cannot point to anyone in the actual government or legal industry who agrees that SCOTUS opinions are only “advice”.

          • afchief

            Sorry but it IS the truth!!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            Guy with no legal training or proof: “there’s no such thing as judicial review”

            Multiple people with law degrees who have provided clear citations: “you’re wrong and here’s why”

            Guy with no legal training: “you’re all liars”

            lol

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth always offends!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            All right, different scenario. P sues D for violating the XYZ Act. D moves to dismiss saying the XYZ Act is unconstitutional.

            The court agrees, and dismisses the case. P doesn’t appeal.

            Does D have to pay, or not?

          • afchief

            Apples and oranges! We are talking about the Constitution. The Scoutus.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Humor me.

            What happens in this scenario?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So I take it you’re not going to answer?

          • afchief

            I’ve already told and shown you how the law works. Is that too hard to understand?

            You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is going no where

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You haven’t told OR shown me how the law works. Not in real life or in afchief – land. So let’s try this again, shall we?

            P sues D for violation of the XYZ Act. D moves to dismiss on the grounds that the XYZ Act is unconstitutional.

            The court agrees and dismisses the action against D, ruling the XYZ Act unconstitutional.

            Does D have to pay?

          • afchief

            READ!!!!

            Five Judicial Myths

            Talking Points About the Judiciary

            Despite what we hear today . . .

            1. 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.

            2. 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

            3. 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

            4. 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

            5. 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

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=1464

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you having difficulty understanding my question? I didn’t think it was that hard.

            Let me ask again: If a court dismisses a case because the law it was predicated on is unconstitutional, does the defendant have to pay?

          • Bob Johnson

            “I’ll pay as soon as Congress rewrites the law.” could replace, “The check is in the mail.”

          • afchief

            I know where you are going with this and we have been over it numerous times. Let me remind you, courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            Not one of our key “cultural” issues has ever been changed by a vote of the people. Abortion, marriage, prayer in schools, sodomy laws, free speech…they’ve all been “changed” by “court opinions.” Which are based on LIES!!!!

            AGAIN, courts offer opinions. Legislatures and we the people make the laws. Supreme Court decisions are not laws—they simply tell us that they are.

            Defy them! Nullify them! Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If “we have been over it numerous times,” it shouldn’t be a problem to answer. Or do you not want to answer because if you did, you’d have to admit that your beliefs make no sense?

          • afchief

            I have sourced my statements and they are factual and truth. You have sourced nothing! You and other homos just do not want to accept the fact that what I have stated is truth. I see it ALL the time.

            Truth IS the enemy of liberals and homos!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Whether you have or have not “sourced statements” is irrelevant. You haven’t answered my question.

            Yes or no? Does the defendant have to pay? It’s a very simple question with a very simple answer!

          • afchief

            Also, how much are you payed to troll Christian and conservative sites? The lawyers I know, do not have time to post on websites.

          • Bob Johnson

            You do realize the Federalist papers are a collection of many views of our nation’s founders. The Federalist papers do not represent legal opinion, rather it is a back and forth conversation about possible constitutions.

            And David Barton, whom you often cut&paste majored in religious studies at Oral Roberts University; he is not a legal scholar.

          • afchief

            You do realize the truth always offends? Do you not?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “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.”

            Right. Like laws banning same-sex marriage.

            “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.”

            – Marbury v Madison again

          • afchief

            Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. And homosexuality IS REPUGNANT!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The Supreme Court rules on all kinds of things not mentioned in the Constitution. There are laws about things (such as marriage) not mentioned in the Constitution. It’s part of their job, when it comes up in a case, to decide whether those laws are constitutional or not.

            If you think states should be able to have laws that are unconstitutional, what the heck is the point of even having a Constitution?

          • afchief

            Really? Show me where in the Constitution?

            Article III.

            Section. 2.

            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.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve said this before….it’s called judicial review. Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but that was what that Marbury v Madison case, the one you yourself keep quoting, established over 200 years ago.

          • afchief

            Nope! Obergefell is a State issue not a federal issue.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It was several states issuer, combined into one case. And again, the SC has the power to say that state laws are unconstitutional. If not them, then who? The same legislative branch that made the law in question?

          • afchief

            I’m done wasting my time with you. States have had a marriage clauses in their Constitutions for decades and just because we have a homo friendly pResident who appoints homo friendly judges to the bench it is now unconstitutional?

            Horse Hocky. IT IS A LIE!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re actually kind of right in a way. We have probably the most LGBT-friendly president yet, and that’s a big part of why there is now marriage equality in this country. States has laws against interracial marriage for decades, too, you know. But you think they should be able to have laws against that still, so maybe that’s not a good argument to use on you.

          • afchief

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re missing something there, though. Laws do change. However, it’s not like new judges are appointed to the Supreme Court, and bam, just like that, new laws. There has to be a new case brought before the court. If we somehow ended up with nine judges that didn’t agree with Obergefell, that wouldn’t mean anything until a new case came before them.

          • afchief

            What you liberal/homos cannot explain is WHY the majority of states have a marriage clause in their respective Constitutions. They have these clauses BECAUSE there is NO mention of marriage in the federal Constitution.

            Marriage is a State issue, PERIOD!!

            Like I have been saying, we have a lawless, lying, anit-American, anti-Christian, Traitor, narcissistic, Muslim, homo friendly pResident, who appointed homo friendly people to the bench!!!

            NOTHING has changed!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Let me ask you this: do you believe the three branches of our government should have equal power and be able to act independently of each other?

          • afchief

            The SCOTUS is a weaker of the three. It does NOT represent the people. Congress has the most power. It is closet to the people.

            “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.”

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=104

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There’s where we have a difference of opinion, then. Personally, I think what I was talking about is a GOOD thing. You keep talking about the will of the people and all that, but that just ends up being the will of the majority. Which is fine up till it becomes “tyranny of the majority”.

          • 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

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=1464

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s contradicting itself.

            “AND CONGRESS IS A BETTER PROTECTOR OF MINORITY RIGHTS THAN IS THE JUDICIARY”

            But then…..”The Judiciary is now regularly anti-majoritarian.”

            Jefferson said ”
            “[T]he will of the majority…
            may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived”? I would have to disagree with that. It was the will of majority to allow slavery (at least in some states). It was the will of the majority that women shouldn’t be able to vote. It was the will of the majority that black people shouldn’t have the same rights as white people. It was the will of the majority that gay people shouldn’t be able to get married. (I know you think they were right on that last one, but I just had to put that in there)

          • Bob Johnson

            It does not need to be mentioned. Just as gun ownership is an enumerated right spelled out in the Second Amendment, marriage and abortion are covered by the Ninth Amendment.

            That is, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          • afchief

            That is a LIE and you know it!!!! If that were the case we would NOT needed anymore amendments after the 9th.

            Stop with your lying!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            “Something like this would NEVER happen.” Check out Illinois and Chicago gun bans. Then check out Federal court case Moore v. Madigan (2012).

          • afchief

            Any law banning guns is unconstitutional.

          • Bob Johnson

            So you agree with the courts opinion that the law is unconstitutional and people in Chicago can buy and carry guns without having to waiting for the state to create a new law or revoke the current State laws (which are Federally unconstitutional).

          • afchief

            Do the gun bans violate the 2nd amendment?

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, the court determined that the State laws were in violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution – that is why the court found the law unconstitutional.

            Note that not all gun laws have been found unconstitutional – states can deny guns to felons and well as several other restrictions.

          • afchief

            Really? So it says in the Constitution that a felon can be denied gun rights after doing his time and paying his debt to society?

            Can you show me where?

          • Bob Johnson

            Not in the Constitution – Congress passed a law – actually several laws. You can find them in Chapter 44 (Sections 921-931) of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C).

          • gizmo23

            He is really not worth talking to

          • afchief

            Because the truth is the enemy of liberals!!!!

          • afchief

            Ahh yes, that’s because the truth is the enemy of liberals!! And I will continue to speak truth!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            On the other hand, some readers may think he understands the law and will believe what he says since no one disagrees.

          • Mr. G.

            If God had fashioned mankind after afchief, we’d have 2 mouths and no ears.

          • Amos Moses

            Having no ear for lies and two mouths to speak the truth would be an advantage i would think.

          • Mr. G.

            If it always worked that way, wouldn’t that be great? Unfortunately, with no ears to hear truth, the mouth has none to speak 😉

          • Amos Moses

            And you think God is limited to that. Interesting, and false.

          • Mr. G.

            Kindly don’t put words in my mouth. I referred to human beings who all too often use God’s name in vain of their own biases and prejudices.

          • Amos Moses

            And your evidence that it is being done so? You have none, not on this forum in any event.

            i disagree with AFCheif frequently, but what he has said here on this bit is spot on.

          • Mr. G.

            There are those who only talk but do not listen. I would say that anyone who pretends to claim that God validates their interpretation of the Bible is walking very close to if not stepping over the line. of taking God’s name in vain.

          • Amos Moses

            “There are those who only talk but do not listen.”

            We do not listen to lies and a person, in the truth, cannot be lied to and believe it. Sorry, again, we do not have minds so open that our brains spill out.

      • Elie Challita

        Chief, what is the role of the Supreme Court?

        • afchief

          Do you have a hard time reading? Here is Article III of our Constitution.

          Article III.

          Section. 1.

          The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

          Section. 2.

          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.

          In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

          The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

          Section. 3.

          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • Elie Challita

            So does section 2 mean that the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on the validity of the Laws of the United States?

          • afchief

            Laws that affect all states.

          • Elie Challita

            So does this mean that SCOTUS can only rule on federal laws, but not on state-specific laws?

          • afchief

            Come on man!!! We are reaching!!!! Each state has it’s own Supreme Court to decide on state matters. The federal Supreme Court hears cases that possible violate the federal Constitution.

            Marriage IS a state issue, period!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Why is it a state issue, but slavery or segregation is not?

          • afchief

            If Congress decides to make it a federal issue then an amendment is passed i.e. the 14th amendment to abolish slavery.

          • Elie Challita

            As you’re fond of pointing out, SCOTUS ruled on slavery long before the 14th amendment was passed.

          • afchief

            Yea in 1862 and the amendment was adopted in 1866. The war was not over until 1865

            “Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, 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:”

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=104

    • Mr. G.

      Maybe Roy Moore being removed from the bench for the 2nd time?

  • afchief

    Way to go Judge Roy Moore!!! Upholding the States Constitution!!!! Upholding the LAW!!! The SCOTUS opinion means NOTHING!!!! I repeat, NOTHING!!!!

    • Chip01

      So… Are you saying it means nothing?

      • afchief

        Yep! It means absolutely NOTHING!!!! It is ONLY an opinion and changes nothing.

        Only Congress can make, change or strike down laws. Not the SCOTUS!

        • Chip01

          Absolutely nothing?

          • afchief

            That’s right! It is ONLY an opinion!!! The SCOTUS cannot legislate from the bench! Only Congress can make, change or strike down laws. ONLY!!!

          • Chip01

            Yup. Yours is only an opinion.

          • afchief

            Nope! It is FACT!!! The Constitution gives the legislative branch the only power to make, change or strike down laws. PERIOD!!!

          • afchief

            “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.

            Despite the Supreme Court’s limitations in implementing decisions, the justices often set policies that lead to real social change.”

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

      • Bob Johnson

        Perhaps afchief was Kent Hovind’s legal advisor.

        • Chip01

          I’m sure he/she is a “key player” in all this.

  • acontraryview

    Too funny. Maybe he got tired of not being in the news. Reminds me of: “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

  • Chip01

    Roy M wants his spotlight back. It’s no fun, when people are not writing articles about you. Roy wants to showboat.

    Don Davis’s note says ALL marriage license… So, no one in Alabama is getting married?

    • Bob Johnson

      Probably only in churches and synagogues. Many churches have rainbow flags on their front lawns.

  • afchief

    The feds have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to meddle with marriage. Marriage is an individual and state issue.

    States: NULLIFY THE TYRANNY OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL ACTS AND DECISIONS.

    May this sanity spread to many other states.

    • Chip01

      And yet they did… Marriage equality is here to stay.. And all without consulting AFCHIEF… Huh…

      • afchief

        There is NO homo marriage!! There is ONLY a SCOTUS opinion!!!

        Which was illegal in the first place. The SCOTUS has NO right to hear a marriage case. Marriage is NOT mentioned in our Federal Constitution!

        • Chip01

          You should yell more and eat fatty foods.

          • afchief

            Someone has to speak the truth!!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            You want some truth?
            Go read judges 19 and 20, apply the same logic as you use for the S&G story and let us know your conclusion…

          • Guest

            the hebrew euphemism ‘know’ was only used in the context of male-female consensual penile-vaginal intercourse. Involuntary was always a combination of ‘seized’ and ‘lie with’ and it was never used for same sex activity ever. We know from the centuries of Talmud discussions what the sins of the people of Sodom was – they actively tried to remove the poor travelers among them through draconian means to the travelers AND any that would help them, they were arrogant and haughty and they were sexually libertine, with people in authority telling men they should have sex with another man’s wife. The one thing never mentioned in the Torah or the Talmud is same sex activity until doctrinal corruption centuries later.

            Sometimes asking someone out so you can meet them is just that – what a gang does to get someone to remove themselves from a place of relative safety so they can be set upon. It was forbidden to aid poor foreigners as Lot had done and he, his family, and the travelers were are at grave risk from the mob.

          • afchief

            What is your point?

          • PietjePuk

            To make homosexuality the sin of sins, you need the S&G story to be about homosexuality. The funny thing is that there are two almost completely similar stories in the bible, one being S&G in Genesis, the other one the story in judges 19 and 20. In both stories travelers arrive in a town and find shelter. The citizens of the town want to “know” the visitors (meaning they want to have sex with them). In S&G it is a threat of rape, in Judges it is an actual rape. Both towns end up turned into rubble under gods command.
            The first story is the threat of rape is of homosexual rape, the second story is heterosexual rape.
            If you conclude that S&G is about homosexuality being such a big sin that it is reason enough to bring down S&G, than it must mean that heterosexuality is an equal sin and the reason for bringing down the city in Judges 19 and 20. That is obviously nonsense. Which means that S&G is also not about homosexuality. But we knew that already of course…

          • afchief

            We derive the name “Sodom” from homosexuality. It is one of the abominations committed in S&G. It is quite obvious that homosexuality was open and promoted in Sodom. Just like we are moving that way today in America. In Ezekiel 16:49-50 we find the sins S&G committed and because of these sins they also committed abominations i.e. homosexuality.

            Homosexuality is sin. It is an abomination to God. There is nothing normal, healthy or moral about it. It is perverted, deviant and extremely dangerous to one’s physical and spiritual health. It is death!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Hahahaha, exactly what i thought. You couldn’t be more wrong. If S&G would be condemning homosexuality, Judges 19 and 20 would be condemning heterosexuality. Obviously nonsense.

            The term sodomite is a catholic church invention a few hundred years after christ.

            Every self respecting theological scholar will tell you that the link between sodom and homosexuality is bogus and made up a few centuries after christ. This is common knowledge for a long time already. But I will explain to you again….

            First of all some rational:

            * Sodom was condemned even before the threat of homosexual rape was made

            * Sodom was destroyed before the covenant with Moses in which gay sex was declared (one of the) abominations (read Paul’s Romans 5: 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.)

            * If all the man and boys of Sodom were homosexuals, how could children be born?

            * The threat made to the angels was of homosexual rape, that is obviously incomparable to loving and caring same sex relationships

            * Why would Lot have offered his daughters to the men if he knew they would not be interested in them anyway?

            There are two important type of sources that can explain the sin of Sodom, one being our bible and the other the meaning given to the story by the copy right holders to the story (judaism).

            There are many references in the bible to the story of Sodom, but none declare homosexuality to be the sin of Sodom. And whenever homosexuality is mentioned in the bible, there is never a reference to Sodom being made.

            The references to Sodom in other parts of the bible give a very clear picture of the sin of Sodom:

            Luke 10:10-13
            But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

            Ezekiel 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant,overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughtyand did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

            The sin of sodom was inhospitality to strangers.

            There is a comparable story in the bible where visitors of a city are threatened with gang rape (Jude 19).

            22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

            23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

            25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

            Very similar story. And although the man is not raped this time, his concubine was as she was also a stranger, but the virgin daughter was not raped as she was local. So also here the threat of rape is the ultimate form of inhospitality.

            The copy rights holders of Genesis, Judaism shares exactly the same opinion. Some references:

            ******
            the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance…

            Josephus, Antiquities I:
            194-5
            *****
            The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them…They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land…

            There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.

            If one wounded his neighbour they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for bleeding thee [bloodletting was sometimes considered medically beneficial in those days; Here the Sodomite judge cruelly ruled that if one beats you until you bleed, you owe your attacker money for this “beneficial” medical service”…]

            … they had beds upon
            which travellers slept. If the guest was too long they shortened him by lopping off his feet; if too short, they stretched him out…

            If a poor man happened to
            come there, every resident gave him a denar [coin], upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized such coins, and refused toa accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his (denar)…

            A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, hiding it in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees
            came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: on account of the maiden (ribah).

            Babylonian Talmud,
            Sanhedrin 109a
            *****
            Said R Levi, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. There was the case of two girls, who went down to draw water from the well. One said to her friend, Why are you pale? The other said, All the food is gone from our house and we are ready to die. What did the other do? She filled the jug with flour and exchanged it for her own. Each took the
            one of the other. When the Sodomites found out about it, they took the girl (who had shared the food) and burned her. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. What is written is not, ‘In accord with their cry’, but, ‘according to her cry’, referring in particular to the girl.

            Genesis Rabbah, Parashah
            49:6

            *****

            R Menhama in the name of R Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, As to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and
            take away his money.

            Genesis Rabbah, Parashah
            50:7

            *****

            Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt… Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven… Rabbi Joshua… said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked…

            Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account… Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I
            will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards.

            Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer

            *****
            Nachmanides commenting on
            the verse “AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM”.

            Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land… many will come there and they despised charity… they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease
            and the oppression of the poor… In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil
            practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin – i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy – since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.

            Nahmanides (Ramban)
            Commentary on Genesis, 13th century

            ****** For similar views
            see Numbers Rabbah 9:24 (midrash), the JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis by Nahum M. Sarna, page 135, note #5, and the ‘Stone Edition of the Chumash’ [better known as the Artscroll Chumash] by Mesorah publications, commentary on page 81.

            ******************
            Many many thanks to Robert Kaiser for doing the work of collecting those powerful passages about the sin of Sodom. They clarify the story (for which unfortunately I can’t site a source) about the great Gaon of Vilna, who sat with voice but no vote on the Council of the Jews of Vilna. His task was to comment from a Torah perspective on new legislation proposed before the Council. When there was no such new legislation, he did not take part in the meeting.

            One day a member of the Council put forward a proposal for ending or greatly reducing the influx of Jews from poorer regions into Vilna, where they hoped for a better life. The Gaon rose to leave the meeting. “But Rabbi,” said a Councilmember, “we need your comment on this proposed new legislation!”

            “What new legislation?” said the Gaon. “This was already the law of Sodom, long ago!” And he left. The proposal was dropped.

            Translating the sin of Sodom to current day, we are not looking at LGBT people. It is the people that do not want to accept refugees, are not welcoming to immigrants, the greedy. Sounds like???

            Homosexuality was a ritual impurity under Leviticus, just like having sex with a woman having her period, or eating shellfish, etc. Remember what Jesus said about these ritual impurities: it is not about what goes into the mouth, but it what comes out of the mouth. Basically he declared the old Laws of ritual purity irrelevant.

            You probably will come up with Romans 1 now, but before you do, please read Romans 1 and 2 together as the first is only an introduction to the other parts of Pauls letter to the Romans.

            Basically, there is no reason to be found in the bible to declare homosexuality a sin.

            Jesus was actually quite supportive (read Matthew 19:12).

            And there are three beautiful stories of Same sex love relations in the bible without any condemnation.

            So you are wrong. Or as Jesus warned us, a false prophet. Because remember, no bad fruit grows on a good tree, and no good fruit grows from a bad tree…

          • afchief

            I have seen these homosexual lies before. And yes they ARE LIES!!!!!! They come from several homosexual websites. I would advise you to stop reading their lies!!! This is the classic example of trying to justify your sin. And homosexuality IS sin!!!! Because you are stuck in this sin of homosexuality, God has given you over to reprobate mind to do what is wrong and to believe lies.

            Homosexuality IS sin. It is DEATH. It will kill you physically and spiritually.

            There is freedom in Jesus!!!!

            No born again bible believing Christian can call homosexuals normal let alone gay marriage acceptable. Most of us Christians know why gays come to Christian websites like this. 1. They are searching for the truth because they know in their heart what they are doing is wrong. 2. They want and need our affirmation of their lifestyle. They need for Christians to say their lifestyle is OK and God approves of it because their heart is condemning them. Or 3. They hate us and everything Christian and want us to fall off the face of the earth.

            Again, there is freedom in Jesus!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Substantiate it…

          • afchief

            I will not go to a homosexual site. They are disgusting!!!

            Listen, you know in your heart that homosexuality is wrong which is why you are here trying to justify it. There is freedom in Jesus Christ. He can set you free from this sin. Give Him a chance.

          • PietjePuk

            Sorry dude. You are wrong.
            Your sin is part of the famous ten commandments. Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor.
            You believe in a human made construct. You are free to believe what you want. But it has nothing to do with god or jesus.

          • afchief

            Nope! I have been a Born Again Christian for 33 years and have read the bible 11 or 12 times. I KNOW the Word of God. I KNOW homosexuality IS sin.

            Something so perverted, so deviant and so dangerous is NOT from God. It is sin!!! It is death!!!

          • PietjePuk

            You can read the words, but if you don’t understand the meaning of the sentence you can read it as often as you want but you will never get it.
            Love is the fulfillment of the law.

          • afchief

            Sorry, you are typical of any other sinner trying to justify your sin. You KNOW in your heart it is wrong. But the desire and pull is so strong you delude yourself into believing that you were born this way. You can’t stop. It is tearing you apart inside. It has to be right. God had to make me this way. You go to Christian websites looking for affirmation. You do not find it so you lash out with lies. You post propaganda from homosexual websites trying to change our minds. It never works. We Christians KNOW the Word of God. His Spirit lives within us and leads and guides us into ALL truth. We know that homosexuality is sin. We know you are trapped in this sin. We know you are crying out looking for help. There is help in Jesus. That freedom you seek can be found in Him and ONLY Him.

            Give Him a chance.

          • PietjePuk

            You really don’t understand the gospel. And don’t worry, nothing is tearing me apart inside.
            I am in a loving and caring relationship with my husband. We are very happy, and our relationship makes us to be more than the individuals only. I don’t need affirmation from anyone but jesus. And he is very clear. Love is the fulfillment of the law. There is no greater gift of god to humanity than love. God has brought me the love I have for my husband. That is all I need.

            Homosexuality as a sin is a human construct. Invented a few hundred years after christ, for the political agenda of the roman catholic church. That it is still convenient for the other churches doesn’t make it more valid.

            Don’t be surprised if jesus passes by you without looking at you when he comes back to the earth. Remember who he gave his attention to the first time he came to us. Remember who he despised.

            You are not doing his work. You don’t understand his words. Go read Romans. Not only 1, but all of it. It is your ilk that we have been warned against.

            Repent before it is too late!

          • afchief

            You are living a lie!!!! I see your deception is great!!! It is quite clear God has given you over to a reprobate mind to do things not proper. You are lost in sin. There is no decency in homosexuality. There is no dignity in male-on-male oral sex. There is no dignity in male-on-male anal sex. There is no dignity in “rimming” or “fisting” another male.

            No judge can EVER dignify that. You can call it “marriage” if it makes you feel better, but two men doing despicable things to each other’s bodies can never be dignified. Calling it “gay” does not make it so. Sodomy is dirty; in fact God calls it abominable. Calling it “gay” is nothing more than trying to dignify what they KNOW to be deviant. You are looking for society and us Christians to tell you it is OK. It is not. It is abominable. The Supreme Judge said so.

            You are trying to nullify the Biblical prohibition against male-on-male sodomy by comparing it to eating shellfish or wearing mixed thread robes (see the book of Leviticus). I personally don’t like lobster, but I wouldn’t hesitate to put one in my mouth in public. Some things were meant to go into the mouth…some things weren’t.

            Saying these things about what homosexuals do makes me sick!!! How undignified would a heterosexual feel while and after having done THAT? I would feel sick!!!!

            Going to a church that approves of sodomy does not dignify the sin. “Her priests have violated My law and have profaned Mine holy things. They have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” Ez. 22-26

            PROFANE—“to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt.” Marriage is sacred.

            Marriage is sacred, but many of America’s pastors have profaned it. They have lied to you. Homosexual behavior is vile, abominable, debaucherous, perverse and deviant.

            So now those who practice sodomy have looked to the perverted judges for dignity. What they fail to understand (or choose to ignore) is the fact that the courts have neither the power nor the authority to dignify such perverse behavior. No court decision can possibly give dignity to men who service other men.

            Picture Elton John and his partner “making love.” Would that look dignified to you?

            It is perverted! It is deviant! It is sin! It brings forth death.

          • PietjePuk

            Your ranting is almost funny. But I feel a bit sorry for you.
            If you don’t like to imagine sex between two man then don’t. going trough such emotions is not healthy for you. I also don’t imagine you having sex with your partner. I find that disgusting too. And no, not every homosexual practices fisting. The other things you mentioned are equally done by heterosexuals. Don’t you know that heterosexual catholics often practice anal sex because they are not allowed to use precautions? About 40% of women admit that they have had anal sex. That is not much less than homosexuals, as not all homosexuals practice anal sex (approx. 50%). And I seriously hope for you that you and your partner sometimes engage in oral sex. I understand that you are not comfortable with homosexual sex. that is fine. Then don’t engage in it. Trying to find justification for your opinion in christianity (the original version, not the man made one) is a death end.
            About your abominations, the original hebrew word was Toevah. It would be better translated as a taboo. The taboo on gay sex in leviticus (in the context of sex orgies for honoring baal), is quite similar as the taboo on shell fish, wearing clothes made out of two fabrics, etc.
            Tell me, do you honor the sabbath? because if you don’t that is punishable by death as well. Or have you given yourself over to the pagan celebration of the Sunday, as made mandatory by emperor constantine in the 3rd century when he merged the pagan religion with christianity?
            Jesus himself said that it is not about ritual purity (it is not about what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of the mouth). And if you want to judge, judge righteously: because no good fruit comes from a bad tree, and no bad fruit comes from a good tree.
            There is no sin in same sex love.

          • afchief

            You are a LIAR and have been given over to a reprobate mind. There is NO truth in you!!!! You are an instrument of satan and serve him. You have mangled the straight paths of the Gospel. You have brought wrath upon yourself. I would advise you to repent and seek forgiveness.

            You suppressed the truth.
            Your foolish heart have become darkened.
            You have dishonored you own body
            You exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and God.
            You commit shameless acts with debased minds

            You are living in sin!!!! Your soul is in jeopardy!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Please substantiate…

          • afchief

            Ravages of the Lifestyle

            But one may ask, “Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry. After all, who does it hurt?” Today’s society is lying to us about homosexuality. We are told that it is biblical—clearly incorrect. We are told that it is genetic—no evidence for it. And we are told that it can be a beautiful and loving lifestyle—wrong again.

            Statistics show that homosexual behavior is marked by death, disease, disappointment, promiscuity, perversity, addiction, and misery. The real threat to persons in the homosexual lifestyle does not seem to be discrimination, but physical devastation.

            Please note—the purpose of our web site is to present the testimony and evidence as best we know it. The statistics below are harsh. If you have contrary evidence, we would be glad for you to provide it. Here are a few of the available statistics:

            The best available evidence indicates that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population, not even accounting for death from AIDS.

            25% to 33% of people in the homosexual lifestyle are alcoholics compared to 7% in the general population.

            60% of all syphilis cases are among homo and bi-sexual men.

            Homosexual men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general public.

            Most people in the homosexual lifestyle are loving and caring. But we cannot merely sweep under the rug the statistics that indicate that homosexuals are 16 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest a child and 15 times more likely to murder.

            In addition to increased molestation, empirical research shows that children of a homosexual couple have more frequent harms such as social difficulties, emotional turmoil, gender role disruption, etc.

            For further statistics, see the educational pamphlet Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do. (This pamphlet, as well as others available from the Family Research Institute, are excellent to distribute at your workplace if you are forced to attend an indoctrination on homosexuality!) They are available at this website: Family Research Institute (See “Pamphets” and “Scientific Articles” in the upper left hand corner of the home page.)

            According to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, a stunning 31 percent of lesbians in relationships had experienced physical violence from a partner within the past year. According to John Klofas of the Rochester Institute of Technology, “Trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse.” Meanwhile, gay males, according to the peer-reviewd journal Violence and Victims “are more likely to be killed by their partners than [by] a stranger.” The increased potential for violence has been confirmed in numerous studies (see Conservapedia and John Jay College), as well as by gay advocacy groups such as the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project.

            Child Molestation appears to be staggeringly higher among gays. See Pedophilia.

            Encouraging people to enter relationships so much more dangerous for them than marriage is not responsible behavior on the part of any government. Likewise, legalizing gay marriage hurts homosexuals in general. When the government says that gay marriage is fine, it teaches (often through public elementary education, see Spain), that homosexual behavior is fine. But unfortunately, these behaviors are linked to a number of serious health problems, including drug abuse. Gay men are infected 50 times more often than straight men, and and have a much higher incidence of anal cancer (among men), breast cancer and gynocological cancers (among women), and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.

            The pathology of homosexual practice gives the reasons for many of the ravages of this lifestyle. In a 1991 paper, James Holsinger Jr, a physician nominated for the post of Surgeon General, explained that the structure and function of the male and female reproductive systems are fully complementary. But the rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against severe damage. Not only is the rectum not lubricated, but the anal sphincters are designed for only the outward passage of objects.

            Holsinger stated, “From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.” Among items in a long list of problems listed by Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.).

            Homosexuals do not want you to think about what they do. This is why Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty created such a stir when he simply stated the obvious: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

            The following link is an open admission from a homosexual male regarding the norm in this lifestyle: Self Destruction.

            Also see this link concerning the health of various lifestyle groups: Health.

            The gay political movement largely follows the methods described in Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen’s strategy manual After the Ball. This includes making themselves seem victimized in order to gain sympathy—carrying out a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media,” and marginalizing people and groups who oppose homosexual behavior. But the facts are that the gay lifestyle itself creates its own victims.

            We should make a logical distinction between human characteristics. It is bigotry to oppose someone on the basis of race. But it is wise to oppose someone because they practice destructive behavior.

            Here are some additional links:

            Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do

            Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behavior

            Statistics on Pedophilia and Murder

            Lifestyle Risks

            Dr. John Diggs

            Center for Disease Control

            Sexual Orientation and Cancer

            Prostate Cancer Survival

            Catalogue of Health Effects

            Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle

            Statistics on Homosexuality

            Domestic Violence among Homo Partners

            Children of Homosexual Parents Suffer

            Cancer Risk Greater for Homosexual Men

            44 Times Greater Risk of AIDS

            Top of page A Loving Lifestyle?

            Homosexual activists and often the uninformed media leave us with the impression that the gay lifestyle is filled with love and tenderness. No doubt this is often true. But statistics, again, show another reality.

            Lifelong monogamy is nearly non-existent among those in a homosexual lifestyle, including those who profess to be “married.” Promiscuity is rampant. Many contacts are between strangers with 70% of gays estimating that they had sex only once with over half of their partners. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexuals could be classified as monogamous or even semi-monogamous (having 10 or fewer lifetime sexual partners.)

            One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men.

            The website Meet Gay Couples notes, “[Surveys] all report that varying degrees of non-monogamy are fairly common among male couples.” The gay newspaper Washington Blade reports that “three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous.” The study’s lead author, a gay professor at the University of Windsor, holds the opinion that “younger [gay] men tend to start with the vision of monogamy…because they are coming with a heterosexual script….The gay community has their own order and own ways that seem to work better.”

            Gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay male couples whose relationship lasted from 1 to 37 years. They found that all the couples whose relationships lasted more than 5 years incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity. There was not a single long-term monogamous couple.

            Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands long enough to gather data on it. A 2003 study found the average duration of “steady” male partnerships to range from .75 to 2.25 years. These “steady” relationships had an average of 8 casual partners in addition to the significant other each year.

            The sin of promiscuity is an aspect of heterosexual behavior as well. But statistics indicate that it is a far greater factor in the gay lifestyle. Here is an article that seems typical: Fort Smith

            It can be said with impunity that what advocates of gay marriage really want is not just marriage rights. They want a world without any sexual inhibitions or limitations.

            The slippery slope is real. In fact, some advocates of gay marriage are advocates for the end of marriage itself. For example, gay scholar Nan Hunter argues that “legalizing lesbian and gay marriage would have enormous potential to destabilize the gender definition of marriage for everyone.” Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz describes Norwegian sociologist and gay marriage advocate Kari Moxnes’s views as seeing “both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women.” In Moxnes’s article “Empty Marriage,” she describes “Norwegian gay marriage [as] a sign of marriage’s growing emptiness, not its strength,” as “a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself.”

            Interestingly, only a few gay couples when given the opportunity to marry actually do so. The Family Research Council quotes a statistic from USA Today showing that in Vermont’s first three and a half years of civil unions, only 936 gays or lesbian couples chose to take advantage of the opportunity—about 21 percent of the estimated adult homosexual population. In Sweeden, where traditional marriages are increasingly rare, gay union numbers are even lower, as reported by a 2004 Baltimore Sun article, “About 1,500 same-sex couples have registered their unions” out of an estimated 140,000 gays and lesbians—or about 2 percent.

            Top of page A Way Out?

            Many people in the homosexual lifestyle are saying that what they want is acceptance. But those who have counselled homosexuals say that they often reveal a deeper desire of wanting out of the problem.

            What does our compassion as Christians demand? Our concern is marked by a broken-hearted grieving over the condition of the sinner. Shouldn’t our mercy and love be to help bring the lives of everyone into conformity with the will of God? The evidence supports our confidence that God’s commands are not arbitrary, but that they are for our own good. Studies consistently support the idea that, on average, those persons who are living a biblical lifestyle have happier, more successful, and healthier lives than those who do not. This includes having a more satisfying sex life!

            If you are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, we suggest to you that the loss of confidence in your gender was probably from someone who convinced you of such. But God does not see you that way! He sees you as the man (or woman) that he made you. If you have a problem, it is one of authority.

            Jesus changes people from the inside out. There is no hope for a broken world or a broken life other than through Jesus. Through Jesus, there is hope for us all. We recommend visiting the following websites for further information:

          • PietjePuk

            hahahaha, you really found yourself a website. I challenge you to proof all the statistics they mention, because they seem to be a bit inaccurate.
            But for the sake of the argument, if all these statistics were true, it still doesn’t mean that it is a sin. Crossing the street is not a sin either, but we all know how dangerous that can be.
            So please substantiate. And also please calm down a bit. All this excitement is bad for your heart…

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar? I sure did and your posts are proof!!!!!

          • afchief

            The Bible What it says

            There are claims that the Bible does not really condemn homosexual behavior or that Jesus would not condemn this behavior. But let’s look at what the Bible actually says.

            The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 1:7). The passage in Romans, in particular is so clear that it seems to have been written by St. Paul in anticipation that people might challenge the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong (in case you don’t get it, let me make it perfectly clear!). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15.

            Homosexual behavior is always discussed in the Bible as a serious sin. It is usually not singled out, but listed among other particularly heinous sins as examples of how depraved one can become. It is discussed in the context of idolatry. Idolatry is a most serious offense against God, and its seriousness helps explain why homosexual behavior was a capital offense in the Old Testament. Historical Christian interpretation has consistently viewed homosexual behavior as sinful. The modern word sodomy even comes from the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            It should be pointed out that what the Bible condemns is not personality traits such as feminine feelings on the part of a man (or masculine feelings on the part of a woman). However, Jesus taught that sin runs deep. He said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28; compare Mark 7:15-23). But notice the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “such were some of you.” This seems a clear indication that homosexuals can change. While our basest instincts of many sorts are difficult to control, we are not like animals in the forest; we can overcome our temptations to become blameless in God’s sight (Philippians 2:15; Colossians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:7, 6:14; Titus 1:6; 1 John 3:4-10).

            There are those who take some of the passages of Scripture above and attempt to show that they do not really mean to condemn homosexuality. But these arguments fall short, and upon investigation become an obvious ploy to distort the plain meaning of Scripture. As applies to other doctrines of the Bible, one must avoid trying to interpret Scripture in light of one’s proclivities, and instead, interpret one’s proclivities in light of Scripture. The Bible is its own grid. It is wrong to overlay your own grid on the Bible. For a more detailed look at this, see Biblical Interpretation.

            Is the biblical view still valid?

            Christians are sometimes accused of being hypocritical on homosexuality because they ignore the death penalty for this sin as prescribed in Leviticus. This is a false charge based on a limited understanding of the Bible. It is helpful to understand the difference between CIVIL or CEREMONIAL LAWS versus MORAL LAWS in the Bible. While civil or ceremonial laws can and do change from country to country or time period to time period, moral laws do not change because they are rooted in the nature of man. The New Testament repealed Old Testament civil law (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) and Old Testament ceremonial Jewish laws (Acts 10:12-15; Romans 14:17; Colossians 2:11-16; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). So the Old Testament PENALTY for homosexuality (death) does not carry forward into New Testament times, even though the NATURE of the sin and its condemnation remains. The Bible is consistent throughout on moral law, which includes homosexual behavior.

            This understanding is consistent with how Jesus deals with other sins. We see in John 8 how Jesus treats the adulterous woman. He condemns her actions, yet helps her escape the severe penalties common in their culture.

            What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

            No specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:7). There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage, Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this—any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman—demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.

            Jesus was quite clear about his contempt for sexual immorality (Mark 7:21). Jesus’ teaching on moral issues in fact toughened and strengthened them, such as in Matthew 5:27-30 when he expanded our understanding of sexual sin to even lusting in our heart!

            Jesus didn’t merely accept people as he found them—he turned people’s lives around. After his encounter with Jesus, the tax collector Zacchaeus pledged to pay back his debts fourfold (Luke 19:1-10). And Jesus made it clear to the adulteress in John 8:1-11 to leave her life of sin.

            Further, Jesus specifically said that he did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. To suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for political correctness.

            “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” ——Jesus per Mark 10:7

          • PietjePuk

            Thank you very much for your reply. I will respond one by one, starting with Sodom and Gomorrah:

            If S&G would be condemning homosexuality, Judges 19 and 20 would be condemning heterosexuality. Obviously nonsense.

            The term sodomite is a catholic church invention a few hundred years after christ.

            Every self respecting theological scholar will tell you that the link between sodom and homosexuality is bogus and made up a few centuries after christ. This is common knowledge for a long time already. But I will explain to you again….

            First of all some rational:

            * Sodom was condemned even before the threat of homosexual rape was made

            * Sodom was destroyed before the covenant with Moses in which gay sex was declared (one of the) abominations (read Paul’s Romans 5: 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.)

            * If all the man and boys of Sodom were homosexuals, how could children be born?

            * The threat made to the angels was of homosexual rape, that is obviously incomparable to loving and caring same sex relationships

            * Why would Lot have offered his daughters to the men if he knew they would not be interested in them anyway?

            There are two important type of sources that can explain the sin of Sodom, one being our bible and the other the meaning given to the story by the copy right holders to the story (judaism).

            There are many references in the bible to the story of Sodom, but none declare homosexuality to be the sin of Sodom. And whenever homosexuality is mentioned in the bible, there is never a reference to Sodom being made.

            The references to Sodom in other parts of the bible give a very clear picture of the sin of Sodom:

            Luke 10:10-13
            But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

            Ezekiel 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant,overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughtyand did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

            The sin of sodom was inhospitality to strangers.

            There is a comparable story in the bible where visitors of a city are threatened with gang rape (Jude 19).

            22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

            23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

            25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

            Very similar story. And although the man is not raped this time, his concubine was as she was also a stranger, but the virgin daughter was not raped as she was local. So also here the threat of rape is the ultimate form of inhospitality.

            The copy rights holders of Genesis, Judaism shares exactly the same opinion. Some references:

            ******
            the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance…

            Josephus, Antiquities I:
            194-5
            *****
            The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them…They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land…

            There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.

            If one wounded his neighbour they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for bleeding thee [bloodletting was sometimes considered medically beneficial in those days; Here the Sodomite judge cruelly ruled that if one beats you until you bleed, you owe your attacker money for this “beneficial” medical service”…]

            … they had beds upon
            which travellers slept. If the guest was too long they shortened him by lopping off his feet; if too short, they stretched him out…

            If a poor man happened to
            come there, every resident gave him a denar [coin], upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized such coins, and refused toa accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his (denar)…

            A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, hiding it in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees
            came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: on account of the maiden (ribah).

            Babylonian Talmud,
            Sanhedrin 109a
            *****
            Said R Levi, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. There was the case of two girls, who went down to draw water from the well. One said to her friend, Why are you pale? The other said, All the food is gone from our house and we are ready to die. What did the other do? She filled the jug with flour and exchanged it for her own. Each took the
            one of the other. When the Sodomites found out about it, they took the girl (who had shared the food) and burned her. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. What is written is not, ‘In accord with their cry’, but, ‘according to her cry’, referring in particular to the girl.

            Genesis Rabbah, Parashah
            49:6

            *****

            R Menhama in the name of R Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, As to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and
            take away his money.

            Genesis Rabbah, Parashah
            50:7

            *****

            Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt… Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven… Rabbi Joshua… said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked…

            Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account… Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I
            will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards.

            Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer

            *****
            Nachmanides commenting on
            the verse “AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM”.

            Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land… many will come there and they despised charity… they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease
            and the oppression of the poor… In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil
            practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin – i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy – since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.

            Nahmanides (Ramban)
            Commentary on Genesis, 13th century

            ****** For similar views
            see Numbers Rabbah 9:24 (midrash), the JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis by Nahum M. Sarna, page 135, note #5, and the ‘Stone Edition of the Chumash’ [better known as the Artscroll Chumash] by Mesorah publications, commentary on page 81.

            ******************
            Many many thanks to Robert Kaiser for doing the work of collecting those powerful passages about the sin of Sodom. They clarify the story (for which unfortunately I can’t site a source) about the great Gaon of Vilna, who sat with voice but no vote on the Council of the Jews of Vilna. His task was to comment from a Torah perspective on new legislation proposed before the Council. When there was no such new legislation, he did not take part in the meeting.

            One day a member of the Council put forward a proposal for ending or greatly reducing the influx of Jews from poorer regions into Vilna, where they hoped for a better life. The Gaon rose to leave the meeting. “But Rabbi,” said a Councilmember, “we need your comment on this proposed new legislation!”

            “What new legislation?” said the Gaon. “This was already the law of Sodom, long ago!” And he left. The proposal was dropped.

            Translating the sin of Sodom to current day, we are not looking at LGBT people. It is the people that do not want to accept refugees, are not welcoming to immigrants, the greedy. Sounds like???

          • afchief

            Yes, a re-paste from a homosexual website. Do not bother posting these lies because I will NOT read them!!!!! We Christians know, that we know, that we know, homosexuality IS sin. It is DEATH!!!!!

            You are living a lie!!!!!!

            There Is No Such Thing As a “Gay” Christian

            By Greg May

            ________________________________________

            In a previous article (“Information Highway: Avenue of False Doctrine”) I voiced my concern over the growing number of websites on the Internet promoting false doctrine. Also increasing in number are gay “Christian” websites.

            There is no such thing as a “gay” Christian.

            Homosexuality is a sin according to God’s Word. It is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. In Old Testament times, people who practiced homosexuality were to be taken outside the walls of the city and stoned to death. It was the rampant promiscuity of this lifestyle that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah:

            And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is Great, and because their sin is very grave…” (Genesis 18:20).

            The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood in the time of Noah are examples of the coming judgment upon the world as recorded in the book of Revelation. Just as Noah and his family were put inside the Ark before the Flood, and Lot’s family were sent away before burning sulphur fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, so will God’s people be removed from earth when Jesus appears in the clouds during the Rapture.

            There is a striking similarity between the days of Noah and Lot and the conditions of the world today: The economy was prospering, business was good and the construction industry was flourishing. Violence was widespread and the pursuit of pleasure was the main objective: “If it feels good do it!”

            Homosexuality and immorality were proliferating as well.

            Paul wrote in the New Testament:

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

            “…and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions”: Could Paul have been prophesying about AIDS?

            Today our society glamorizes the lifestyle; celebrities are applauded when they “come out of the closet” and others are persecuted when they speak out against the gay lifestyle.

            The late Patrick Heron once wrote, “I would hope that people with opposing views would be tolerant of the Christian position. After all, we are constantly being asked to be tolerant of the gay community.”

            I remember watching on TV news back in the 70s when a member of the gay community pushed a pie in Anita Bryant’s face when she spoke out against gay rights issues in Florida. Today the gay community is bringing lawsuits against people who don’t go along with their agenda.

            Satan is the master of deceit and the father of lies. He has a talent for presenting something that goes against God’s will in a nice gift-wrapped package for people to sample.

            The disco 70s did more to make “being gay okay”’ than anything else. The disco movement which was widely supported by the gay community burst upon the American pop culture scene like an atomic bomb. Now it was the “in thing” to dance at gay clubs because, “They always have the best music” and gay people know how to “party” better than anyone else.

            Two of the most prominent “Disco Queens” – Gloria Gaynor and the late Donna Summer became born-again Christians. In fact, Summer’s career took a nosedive when she confronted her gay audience during a concert telling them, “AIDS is your sin.” But Grace Jones continues to exploit her androgynous look and popularity with the gay community to promote her career; and her father and brother are both ministers.

            Female impersonators are being paraded everywhere and are now featured in mainstream entertainment. Recently, a female impersonator was quoted in the media as being a “drag queen for Jesus” and ABC TV’s Diane Sawyer presented a full-length interview with former Olympic star Bruce Jenner who is changing his sex.

            God loves the sinner but He hates the sin.

            Jesus went to the cross and died for all; anyone can be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord. Mary Magdalene was caught in adultery in which the penalty was death. But Jesus didn’t condemn her – in fact, He pardoned her. It was Mary Magdalene who stayed at the foot of the cross after Jesus’ disciples left.

            In the past, churches shied away from reaching out to the gay community. Today there are ministries that are being offered at many churches to bring men and women out of the lifestyle of sin and darkness and into the light and joy of God’s Word.

            Those who claim homosexuality is not a sin in God’s eyes are blinded by Satan.

            The love that David and Jonathan had for each other in the Bible is often misconstrued by the gay community to suggest they were lovers.

            “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been

            unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”

            (2 Samuel 1:26)

            The love that David and Jonathan had was a supernatural and pure love in the form of a godly covenant between them – they were not homosexuals.

            “And they two made a covenant before the Lord” (1 Samuel 23: 18).

            Jonathan loved David beyond the love he had for women and also beyond the love for his father and his own life, just as Christ commanded us to love Him:

            “If any man comes to Me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

            God’s Word makes it unmistakably clear that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

            “. . . for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave

            traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the

            sound doctrine . . .” (1 Timothy 1:10).

            In these last days we need to be about the Father’s business which is winning souls for Christ. Although the Bible makes it clear homosexuals will have no place in God’s Kingdom, He makes a way for the sinner to be cleansed and washed white as snow by the redemptive Blood of the Lamb that was shed when Jesus was crucified at Calvary.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            The pot calling the kettle black. You are a master in copy/paste.

          • PietjePuk

            hahahaha, you come up with this???

            Just a text with no substantiation in it? You have to do better than this.

            “The love that David and Jonathan had was a supernatural and pure love in the form of a godly covenant between them”, I couldn’t describe the relationship with my husband in a better way…

          • afchief

            You are sick and a liar. I’m pretty sure I know who you are (Oshtur) and have seen your lies on other websites.

          • PietjePuk

            Who is Oshtur?

            Again, calling somebody a liar without substantiation doesn’t decrease that person’s credibility nor increases yours. Do better. Start thinking for yourself.

          • afchief

            Bye! I’m done dealing with a liar!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Thanks for your time and your responses.
            May god be merciful when you face him, you clearly need it.

          • PietjePuk

            Leviticus is about what your post refers to as ceremonial laws. Its about ritual purity. We all know what jesus said about these laws: It is not about what goes into the mouth (no sexual connotation intended) but what comes out of the mouth. It is not about if you eat shellfish or not. It is about what is in your heart, and what you do with that. I refer also to the righteous judgement as defined by jesus: a good tree does not bear bad fruit, and a bad tree doesn’t bear good fruit.
            And also remember what Paul says about this law in his letter to the Romans.

          • PietjePuk

            Romans 1 is the introduction to the rest of Paul’s letter to the romans. Romans 2 is quite specific:

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            Romans 1 starts by the way with the description of people that have turned away from god and had other more material gods which they prayed to. As a result he gave them over to lust, etc. This is about temple prostitution and orchies to worship baal. In no way has any reference to my loving and caring relationship with my husband.

            What Romans 2 tells you is that you should not judge people because what is described in Romans 1, because you yourself to exactly the same things. That obviously doesn’t necessary means homosexual sex, but apparently for Paul that doesn’t make any difference.

          • afchief

            John 7:24 (NASB) Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies……satan. There is NO truth in you!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Jesus told you how to jude righteous:
            Because no good tree bears bad fruit, and no bad tree bears good fruit…..

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies….satan. There is NO truth in you. You cannot see it because you have been blinded by satan!!!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

          • PietjePuk

            Thanks.

            Now you understand why I spend my time with you on this site. Because that is exactly my worry about you. You are blinded and do not see the light of the gospel.

            You keep on judging, while you have been warned multiple times not to do so (jesus does, read up on the story of the pharisees, paul does in romans 2, etc. etc.), and even if you have to judge, you don’t know how to do it righteously (good tree – bad fruit, bad tree – good fruit story).

            Remember one thing: Love is the fulfillment of the law…. That is the only thing that counts. There can never be anything wrong with love.

            You are too invested in the ancient old lie and deceit of the roman catholic church, which started a few hundred years after christ. They did for a very particular reason.

          • PietjePuk

            Corintian 6:9-11. I don’t know which your translation of the bible you are using, but the translations differ considerably. The KJV version talks about abusers of themselves with mankind and the effeminate.

            Our key words for the discussion here are the words translated as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” . . . This changed halfway through the last century, when some Bible translators began connecting these terms directly to homosexuality. The first occurrence of this shift came in 1946, when a translation of the Bible was published that simply stated that “homosexuals” will not inherit the kingdom of God . . . The concept of sexual orientation, and of same-sex orientation in particular, didn’t exist in the ancient world. The English term “homosexual” was not even coined until the end of the 19th century. And so translations of these words that suggest that Paul was using these distinctly modern concepts and categories are highly suspect . . . The word translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” in the King James is a compound word. In the Greek, it is “arsenokoites,” “arsen” meaning “male,” and “koites” meaning “bed,” generally with a sexual connotation . . . simply looking at a word’s component parts doesn’t necessarily tell us what it means . . . This and some other contextual data indicate that this term referred to some kind of economic exploitation, likely through sexual means. This may have involved forms of same-sex behavior, but coercive and exploitative forms. There is no contextual support for linking this term to loving, faithful relationships.” (underline added)

          • PietjePuk

            2 peter 2 refers to S&G and its meaning. As homosexuality is not the sin of S&G, 2 peter 2 is not about homosexuality either… Same for Jude 1… Strange flesh refers to sex with angels…

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies……..satan!!! There is NO truth in you. You have been given over to a reprobate mind to do things that are not proper.

          • PietjePuk

            Proof that I am a liar… Substantiate it. Just shouting that I am a liar doesn’t decrease by credibility nor increases yours…

          • PietjePuk

            Genesis 2, and all the other versions that related to the topic Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” (as per Mark 10:7).

            Jesus was very clear about this in Matthew 19:

            4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

            5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

            But that is where most of the so called “christians” stop as the next part becomes to uncomfortable for them:

            11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

            12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

            Now you will say that eunuchs are all without male genitals. That is disproven in the same sentence: There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. These are celibate priests, not necessarily castrated priests.

            Why the distinction between born eunuchs and man made eunuchs? Because society made a huge distinction in that time between the two. Man made eunuchs are the ones we refer in current day to as eunuchs. Castrated man. Born eunuchs still had all their tools at their disposal. They just did not have an attraction to women. This follows from the roman law of that time, as well as the Talmud (which was obviously the context for jesus):

            Roman Law:

            There was a kind of “lemon law” for slaves in the Roman empire — just as in modern times used car dealers may be prohibited from concealing major flaws in cars, Roman slave dealers were prohibited from concealing serious flaws in slaves that they offered for sale. The purpose of the rulings in Book 21 Title 1 of the Digest was to determine what kinds of flaws would give rise to the rescission of a purchase contract if the seller had not reported them before the sale.

            Minor flaws, such as long-ago healed wounds or stuttering speech, were called defects and did not require disclosure. Relevant flaws, such as blindness or tuberculosis, were called diseases. The jurist Sabinus defined disease in this context as “an unnatural physical condition whereby the usefulness of the body is impaired for the purposes for which nature endowed us with bodily health.”

            Ulpian declares that “if there be any defect or disease which impairs the usefulness and serviceability of the slave, that is a ground for rescission; we must, however, bear in mind that a very minor flaw will not lead to his being held defective or diseased. Thus a slight fever, or an old recurrent fever which can now be ignored, or a trivial wound, will entail no liability if it be not declared; such things can be treated as beneath notice.”

            Vivian says “that we should still regard as healthy those with minor mental defects,” otherwise the health of a slave could be denied “without limit, for instance, because he is frivolous, superstitious, quick-tempered, obstinate or has some other flaw of mind.”

            Ulpian ultimately stipulates that “generally, the rule which we appear to observe is that the expression ‘defect and disease’ applies only to the body … All in all, if the defect be one of the mind alone, there will be no rescission, unless the vendor has stated that such defect does not exist when, in fact, it does … if the defect is wholly physical or a combination of the physical and nonphysical, there is scope for rescission.”

            Paulus says (D 21.1.5): “Just as there is a distinction between those defects which the Greeks describe as a malignancy, and those they categorize as misfortunes, maladies, or weaknesses, so there is a distinction between such [lesser] defects and that form of disease whereby the usability of a slave is reduced.”

            So we see, the principle is that a slave is diseased for the purposes of the law if he has a bodily flaw which diminishes his usability, which for a slave means his ability to perform certain functions that may be of value to his owner.

            Now we come to the point that interests us today. The law finds that eunuchs did not have an incapacitating bodily flaw.

            Ulpian says (D 21.1.6.2): “To me it appears the better view that a eunuch is not diseased or defective, but healthy, just like a man who has one testicle, who is also able to procreate.”

            Therefore Ulpian is saying that the usefulness, or capability, of a eunuch is not destroyed by his being a eunuch: he is able to procreate. How can this be, we ask today? Eunuchs, as we all know, are made unable to procreate by their emasculation!

            Paulus (D 21.1.7) clarifies: “If, on the other hand, someone is a eunuch in such a way that he is missing a necessary part of his body, even internally, then he is diseased.”

            So the reproductive ability of the unqualified form of eunuch is not destroyed because he is not missing any necessary parts of his body. If it were impossible for a eunuch to produce a child because of a bodily characteristic, even a naturally-occurring one like an anatomical birth defect, then that would clearly constitute a disease under this section. But Ulpian says a eunuch is not diseased, but healthy. Apparently, eunuch status must be an issue of the mind, featuring no disabling anatomical defect and therefore having no legally relevant consequences. By the way, I have never seen this section of the Digest cited in any article or book about eunuchs. I found it by looking up spado in a concordance to the Corpus Juris Civilis.

            To recap, the distinction for Ulpian and Paulus is between a eunuch whose capability to procreate is destroyed because he is missing necessary parts of his body, and an anatomically whole eunuch for whom procreation may be psychologically difficult, but is biologically unimpeded.

            Returning to Ulpian’s other statements about the various types of eunuchs, we recall eunuchs by nature, crushed and pounded eunuchs, and castrated eunuchs. Out of these categories, the crushed, pounded and castrated lack necessary parts of their body and are physically incapable of procreation. There is only one category left for the anatomically whole eunuchs: they are the “natural eunuchs.”

            In D 50.16.128 natural eunuchs are mentioned first before man-made eunuchs, and in D 21.1.6.2 whole eunuchs are mentioned before anatomically deprived eunuchs. Under Roman law, not only is it very important whether a eunuch is mutilated or anatomically whole, but the natural, whole eunuch is the true eunuch.

            And from the Talmud:

            Natural Eunuchs in the Talmud: Never Fit, But Possibly Curable

            Like the Roman law, the Talmud also distinguished with clear legal consequences between natural and man-made eunuchs. In Yebamoth, Chapter 8 (folio 79b), Rabbi Joshua posed a question about a contradiction he had encountered in the law.

            According to the Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), when a man dies childless, it is his brother’s responsibility to marry the widow and engender a child in his brother’s name. Any man who refuses to give his deceased brother a child in this way is disgraced and must submit to a humiliating public ceremony called “chalitsah” in which the widow removes one of his shoes and spits in his face. From then on the reluctant brother’s family is known as “the house of him who had his shoe loosed” [beit chalu’ hanna’al].

            The legal problem puzzling Rabbi Joshua was this: “I have heard that a eunuch submits to chalitsah and that chalitsah is arranged for his wife, and also that a eunuch does not submit to chalitsah and that no chalitsah is arranged for his wife, and I am unable to explain this.” The text continues with two conflicting explanations by the Tannaim.

            Rabbi Akibah said: “I will explain it: A man-made eunuch submits to chalitsah and chalitsah is also arranged for his wife, because there was a time when he was in a state of fitness. A eunuch-by-nature neither submits to chalitsah nor is chalitsah arranged for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit.”

            The opposing view was given by Rabbi Eliezer, who said: “Not so, but a eunuch-by-nature submits to chalitsah and chalitsah is also arranged for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither submits to chalitsah nor is chalitsah arranged for his wife, since he cannot be cured.”

            The text goes on: “Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified concerning Ben Megosath, who was a man-made eunuch living in Jerusalem, that his wife was allowed to be married by the levir, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akibah. The eunuch neither submits to chalitsah nor contracts the levirate marriage …”

            In the Talmud, as in Roman law, the distinction between natural eunuchs and man-made eunuchs was substantive.

            Conclusion, man that do not have an attraction to woman are exempted from Matthew 19 verse 4 and 5, and all other references to the same topic.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies….satan. There is NO truth in you!!! You have been given over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are improper!!!!

            What Jesus said about homosexuality — Part 1

            By Dan Popp

            It’s another slogan that passes for thought among the thinking-averse: “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality….” The rest of the sentence remains unspoken for fear that laughter might break out. “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality; therefore He approves of it.”

            First of all, that’s what’s known as an “argument from silence;” a logical fallacy. By this rule Jesus would be made to endorse rape, cannibalism and lots of other nasty stuff. Secondly, we cannot know whether Jesus, in His brief earthly ministry, ever mentioned homosexual sin specifically (see John 21:25), so the claim can’t be substantiated. But the slogan is not only unverifiable and non-rational; it reveals ignorance of what we know Jesus did say. Though His teachings recorded in the gospels don’t directly address the issue of same-sex sex, the Scriptures leave no room for an honest reader to conclude that Christ condones any sin, including this one.

            Before we look at what Jesus said about homosexuality, let me explain my purpose in writing this. It isn’t to put anyone down, or to say, “Jesus hates fags.” If the Lord hated homosexual sinners, He would have to hate heterosexual sinners (like King David), and certainly murderers (like David, Moses and Paul), thieves, and so on, right down to jaywalkers. And me. And all Christians. If the Son of God had hated us sinners, He certainly wouldn’t have endured torture and death on the cross to rescue us. To rescue us from our sins. My one intention is to help other believers respond to the far-less-than-half-truth that “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.”

            Jesus’ affirmation: The morality of the Old Testament is still valid

            Contrary to the popular misconception, Jesus is not the Second Moses. He didn’t come to give us new laws, or to hand out free passes to break the old ones. Christ didn’t have to stand on a mountain and repeat by name every sin mentioned in the Old Testament for all of those sins to remain sins. God, by definition, doesn’t change; therefore He does not change His ideas about what’s right and wrong. If sin is not sin, then God is not God. *

            Jesus addressed all sins generally when He said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:17,18) Again in Luke 16:16,17 He said, “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the Law to fail.”

            Far from smashing the moral code revealed to Israel, Jesus didn’t even relax it — He tightened it.

            “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder….’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court…. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (read Matt. 5:21ff)

            In this less-loved portion of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord continues with four more laws — each time with that same formula: You have heard…but I say — each time showing not that the Law of God has been repealed; rather, that it reaches deeper than we ever knew.

            Jesus’ premise: The original pattern is God’s will

            In answering a question about divorce, Christ lays a foundation that has implications for our topic.

            And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.” (Matt. 19:3-8 NASB, emphasis mine — see also Mark 10:2-9)

            His argument assumes that God created things a certain way because (duh) that’s the way He wanted them. If we can get back to the original pattern, before sin marred the picture, we’ll be able to see God’s will for human sex and marriage. That heavenly will, restated here by the Lord, is one man and one woman united in marriage for life.

            Christ taunts the Pharisees, faulting them for not deducing God’s perfect will regarding marriage from the simple words, the two shall become one flesh. The implications of the fact that before God joined them, He made them male and female are even more elementary.

            Homosexual behavior and “gay marriage” aren’t going to fit into this primal pattern, which Jesus here places above the Law of Moses. If “serial monogamy” between man/woman couples isn’t God’s will, then neither is anything further outside the lines drawn in the opening chapters of Genesis. Jerry Falwell popularized this argument, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” He created them male and female for a reason. Creation involves design, and design reveals intent.

            There are at least two other ways that Jesus spoke out against same-sex sex. I hope to examine those next time.

            * Disbelievers have been known mock this truth, conflating universal laws with rules given to Israel to make it unique; failing to differentiate the ceremonial from the moral; and confusing changing punishments for sin, with the unchangeable sinfulness of sin. A digression for their sake is either unnecessary or unmerited.

          • PietjePuk

            I quote: “Though His teachings recorded in the gospels don’t directly address the issue of same-sex sex”

            He actually does in Matthew 19… So the writer is incorrect.
            Secondly, the writer says that Jesus was in support of the old law. But still Jesus was clear that it was not about what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of the mouth. So jesus debunked any laws regarding ritual purity for sure, which kills any use of leviticus in the discussion. So again your author is wrong.
            Finally, if the other parts of the old testament/old law does not declare loving and caring same sex relations as a sin, than the rest of the authors point becomes invalid as well.

            Sorry, bogus story…

          • Seabeacon

            The Levites wrote Leviticus to differentiate between themselves and their rituals (clean) and the pagan Babylons’ (unclean/abominations.) They thought that God would only bless them if they stayed culturally and religiously separate.

          • afchief

            Homosexuality IS sin!!!

          • Seabeacon

            Hey, you can think it but please don’t pretend it’s the truth. This stuff if why Christianity is waning. We can’t use old knowledge and superstition in the 21st century.

          • afchief

            Sanctity of Marriage

            The argument against same-sex marriage is by no means limited to Christian dogma. In fact, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is an ancient concept from across religious and non-religious philosophy (including Greek and Roman thought). The distinct bond that constitutes traditional marriage was not invented by the state, and the state has no right to change it.

            Proponents of same-sex marriage have mis-characterized marriage. Marriage is not about companionship or its utilitarian benefits, not about taste or preference, or even about love.

            Many in the culture have mistakenly concluded that marriage is merely an institution for the convenience of adults. The problem with this common misunderstanding of marriage today is the mistaken idea that marriage is about the rights and happiness of adults, that two adults have a right to happiness for as long as they want. In actuality, marriage is not adult-centric, but is the bedrock institution for culture to sustain itself through having and nurturing children.

            Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

            Anal intercourse does not produce children. Further, there are complementary aspects of a man and woman that are important to the institution of marriage which go beyond the obvious physical attributes. There are things that a man needs that can only be provided by a woman, and vice versa.

            Many heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, misunderstand that the fundamental and intrinsic meaning of marriage is the raising of children and what is best for them. That is why laws have historically discouraged adultery and divorce. Statistics are clear that children raised outside of a traditional strong family unit are much more likely to suffer social ills. (See Getting the Marriage Conversation Right.)

            These complementary aspects are important to the relationship of the couple itself, as well as to the children. One does not have to appeal to religion to instinctively understand this. Yet statistics verify the structure of the traditional family as the approach to raising children that gives the best measurable results. The overwhelming body of social science research agrees that children do best when raised in homes with married, opposite-sex parents. Every child has the right to both a mom and a dad.

            The most comprehensive study to date of the psychological and social status of adults with homosexual parents is that of Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas (Study). Based on a random sample of about 15,000 this study reported results consistent with common sense, that those raised in a traditional man-woman intact marriage did best. Those with a homosexual parent(s) were the:

            most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual

            most apt to to be on welfare

            most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection

            most apt to have recently thought of suicide

            most apt to report being raped

            most apt to test impulsive

            most apt to smoke

            most apt to report heavy TB viewing

            most apt to have been arrested

            most apt to have pled guilty to a crime

            most apt to score high on depression

            most promiscuous

            least apt to be employed

            least apt to report being able to depend on others

            least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family

            It isn’t that gay people are necessarily bad parents, but children thrive most fully when raised by a mother and a father. The Witherspoon Institute’s Report on Marriage explains why: There are crucial sex differences in parenting. Mothers are more sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and partly as a consequence, they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children.” Complementing that, “Fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to tackle difficult tasks, endure hardship without yielding, and seek out novel experiences.” Similar arguments appear in a policy brief by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a journal article from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal.

            The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. “Nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman,” says scholar Harry Jaffa. Political entities have overwhelmingly agreed. For example, the Minnesota Supreme court said, “There is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race,” a limitation it finds illegitimate, “and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

            Historian Glenn S. Sunshine has this to say in his book Why You Think the Way You Do: “Throughout history, in every society without exception, marriage in one form or another has had a privileged place as a means to regulate sexuality, so that children would be brought into the world and raised in a stable environment. The notion of homosexual marriage was thus absurd; it violated the very purpose of marriage. Some societies had provisions for temporary same-sex relationships, usually between an adult and an adolescent male, but nothing that allowed for permancy or gave the status of marriage.”

            As put by Melanie Baker, “Law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny….If we want to preserve the democracy that stands on self-evident truths as its foundation; if we want to provide our children and grandchildren with the same protection we currently enjoy; and if we want to salvage the remaining bits of rationality essential to a truly diverse and integrated society, we will stand against bills like the [Maryland] Civil Marriage Protection Act.”

            Actually, we discriminate in many ways as to who can marry. One cannot marry his mother. One cannot marry a minor child. And one cannot have multiple wives. These are all issues determined to be important for the individuals involved as well as society.

            Yet we cannot divorce the institution of marriage from its theological roots. We acknowledge that marriage is an institution given by God (Genesis 2:24). The Creator of the Universe established the relationship between a man and a woman, thus it is a divine institution, not a human one. To confer marriage-like rights to gays is not the prerogative of people (Matthew 19:6). (This includes civil unions or domestic partnerships, as they are merely marriage by other names.) Defining marriage is the prerogative of God. Whatever may tend to undermine the institution of marriage would also undermine the authority of God, as well as hurt society.

            Liberals may argue, “Why should we arbitrarily select only heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals want to marry?” The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between a man and a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. Its purpose is clear and of utmost importance to society.

            David Orland in an article entitled “The Deceit of Gay Marriage” puts it very well. He says:

            To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society’s reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat.

            The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those who employ it. This is for two reasons:

            First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and the law—though many are surprised to learn this—is aimed at the general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements.

            Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual “families” of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones.

          • Seabeacon

            Marriage used to be one man and as many women as he could afford. It’s not a noble institution.

          • Mr. G.

            I think it’s sad that folks like him are going to be what drives Christianity to irrelevance with their hangups about loving relationships. Some of us are busy trying to rescue it from them before they drive everyone away.

          • Seabeacon

            I try to do that too. I hope more will join in.

          • Mr. G.

            Just keep on loving others and speaking the truth: that you don’t have to be like afchief to be a Christian. 😉

          • Seabeacon

            The good Christians are just minding their own businesses, so people just think they’re basic nice people. They see the fundamentalists getting morally outraged at everything and steer clear of anything to do with the religion. It’s heartbreaking.

          • Mr. G.

            Yes, it is heartbreaking. When I think of Jesus, I think of two words: love and inclusion. My objective is to be loving and inclusive. My experience tells me that draws people toward Christ every time. Although it’s sometimes challenge for me, I do not exclude those who want to exclude others and do my best to be loving toward them as well. That said, I do not associate myself with groups who want to exclude or support them in their aims by seeking membership in their group and/or making donations to it.

          • Seabeacon

            We don’t pass laws based on whether or not some are disgusted by it.

          • 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.

            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 i.e. homosexual marriage.

          • Seabeacon

            Inconsistent is not quite the same meaning as disgusting. Context. The natural world can sometimes be gross to some people. Sex especially is gross when we think about other types of people doing it. i.e., our parents, old people, gays. Gays probably think hetero sex is disgusting.

          • afchief

            The thought of two men having sex makes me want to toss my cookies!!! Homosexuality has been disgusting in America for over 200 years. It still is disgusting!!!

          • Seabeacon

            Some religions honor them, most don’t care, but the fundy bent of the Abrahamic religions somehow are squeamish about it.

          • afchief

            It still is a mental disorder! There has been nothing to state otherwise!!!

            Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away

            by PHIL HICKEY on OCTOBER 8, 2011

            According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

            Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

            What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

            The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

            Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

            Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

            So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

            The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

          • Seabeacon

            The article says it’s not genetic. It’s not, it’s hormonal. I guess some folks think if it’s not genetic, it must be choice. lol Wrong!

          • Bob Johnson

            Déjà vu – you pasted this same response in this same thread two days ago. Should we also repost our replies again? I think not.

          • Seabeacon

            lol You’re funny.

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • Seabeacon

            Give me some truth and I’ll see if I am offended by it. That’s a first century book, back when they thought sperm contained the whole baby.

          • afchief

            The Bible What it says

            There are claims that the Bible does not really condemn homosexual behavior or that Jesus would not condemn this behavior. But let’s look at what the Bible actually says.

            The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 1:7). The passage in Romans, in particular is so clear that it seems to have been written by St. Paul in anticipation that people might challenge the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong (in case you don’t get it, let me make it perfectly clear!). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15.

            Homosexual behavior is always discussed in the Bible as a serious sin. It is usually not singled out, but listed among other particularly heinous sins as examples of how depraved one can become. It is discussed in the context of idolatry. Idolatry is a most serious offense against God, and its seriousness helps explain why homosexual behavior was a capital offense in the Old Testament. Historical Christian interpretation has consistently viewed homosexual behavior as sinful. The modern word sodomy even comes from the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            It should be pointed out that what the Bible condemns is not personality traits such as feminine feelings on the part of a man (or masculine feelings on the part of a woman). However, Jesus taught that sin runs deep. He said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28; compare Mark 7:15-23). But notice the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “such were some of you.” This seems a clear indication that homosexuals can change. While our basest instincts of many sorts are difficult to control, we are not like animals in the forest; we can overcome our temptations to become blameless in God’s sight (Philippians 2:15; Colossians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:7, 6:14; Titus 1:6; 1 John 3:4-10).

            There are those who take some of the passages of Scripture above and attempt to show that they do not really mean to condemn homosexuality. But these arguments fall short, and upon investigation become an obvious ploy to distort the plain meaning of Scripture. As applies to other doctrines of the Bible, one must avoid trying to interpret Scripture in light of one’s proclivities, and instead, interpret one’s proclivities in light of Scripture. The Bible is its own grid. It is wrong to overlay your own grid on the Bible. For a more detailed look at this, see Biblical Interpretation.

            Is the biblical view still valid?

            Christians are sometimes accused of being hypocritical on homosexuality because they ignore the death penalty for this sin as prescribed in Leviticus. This is a false charge based on a limited understanding of the Bible. It is helpful to understand the difference between CIVIL or CEREMONIAL LAWS versus MORAL LAWS in the Bible. While civil or ceremonial laws can and do change from country to country or time period to time period, moral laws do not change because they are rooted in the nature of man. The New Testament repealed Old Testament civil law (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) and Old Testament ceremonial Jewish laws (Acts 10:12-15; Romans 14:17; Colossians 2:11-16; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). So the Old Testament PENALTY for homosexuality (death) does not carry forward into New Testament times, even though the NATURE of the sin and its condemnation remains. The Bible is consistent throughout on moral law, which includes homosexual behavior.

            This understanding is consistent with how Jesus deals with other sins. We see in John 8 how Jesus treats the adulterous woman. He condemns her actions, yet helps her escape the severe penalties common in their culture.

            What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

            No specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:7). There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage, Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this—any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman—demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.

            Jesus was quite clear about his contempt for sexual immorality (Mark 7:21). Jesus’ teaching on moral issues in fact toughened and strengthened them, such as in Matthew 5:27-30 when he expanded our understanding of sexual sin to even lusting in our heart!

            Jesus didn’t merely accept people as he found them—he turned people’s lives around. After his encounter with Jesus, the tax collector Zacchaeus pledged to pay back his debts fourfold (Luke 19:1-10). And Jesus made it clear to the adulteress in John 8:1-11 to leave her life of sin.

            Further, Jesus specifically said that he did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. To suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for political correctness.

            “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” ——Jesus per Mark 10:7

            The God of the Bible is not merely a God of love and forgiveness. God has characteristics of love AND justice (among others). Jesus, for example, warns about hell more than any other biblical figure! We must not underestimate the holiness of God, who demands right conduct—in fact, perfection (Matthew 5:48). For examples of the wrath and judgment of God, read: Genesis 2:17; 2 Kings 17:18; Psalm 74:1, 79:5, 90:11; Proverbs 10:16; Micah 7:9; Zephaniah 3:8; Matthew 5:29, 7:13, 23:25-28, 25:46; Romans 1:32, 2:8, 6:23; Acts 3:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 6:7-8; Philippians 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; James 1:15; and Revelation 20:12-15.

            There are those who suggest that God is merely a God of love and accepts people just as they are. Certainly that is incorrect. God does not accept us as we are. He demands repentance. We must not create a God to suit ourself. This is idolatry which is a violation of the First and Second Commandments.

            Is the Bible out of date and out of step with society? Absolutely not, as we will see below. The scientific realities of homosexual behavior validate the Bible.

          • Seabeacon

            Stop cutting and pasting. The Bible was written by men in ancient times back when they had little knowledge of their world. We can’t base anything on outdated info and errors. The Bible was plagiarized by previous myth, as all religious is based on the one previous to it. lol Good luck.

          • afchief

            Nope! The bible is TRUTH!!! Even any rational and logical mind KNOWS homosexuality is perverted, deviant and extremely dangerous!!!

          • Seabeacon

            Aw, you must be Baptist…

          • afchief

            A bible, truth speaking Christian!!!

          • Seabeacon

            Keep scaring people away. You’re supposed to make want to be Christians, not want to run away.

          • afchief

            I will keep speaking truth!!! I can’t stop!! It is in my bones!!! It is in my Spirit!!!

            Hebrews 4:12 (NASB) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

          • Seabeacon

            I’ll make sure to tell people to blame you when Christianity is no longer the majority religion in the US in 25-50 years. What was your name again?

          • Mr. G.

            I first met him over on CharismaNews – he’s one of their most toxic regulars.

          • Seabeacon

            Toxic. lol

  • SFBruce

    Judge Moore decries the “confusion and uncertainty” surrounding same sex marriage in his administrative order, but apparently fails to see the irony in the fact that Moore, himself, is the primary source of this confusion and uncertainty. The Supreme Court has ruled that bans against same sex marriage are unconstitutional. Since 1803, the court’s authority to take such actions has been widely recognized. Moore has succeeded in getting some attention, and making getting a marriage licence more difficult for some same sex couples, but he’ll lose this in the long run, just as George Wallace last his battle to maintain segregation and Moore himself lost when he defied a federal court back in 2003 over his 10 Commandments monument.

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 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.” Rom. 1:26-27

    • PietjePuk

      You so conveniently only mentioned the introduction and left out what Romans is about:

      2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    This amounts to a judicial temper tantrum. Roy Moore is not a good Christian — he’s simply a media junkie who can’t stand to be out of the spotlight for more than 5 minutes. Marriage Equality is here to stay — and that’s fine for everybody including Christians. Marriage is a civil contract. Matrimony is a religious rite (in which I have no desire to participate).

  • acontraryview

    Well that publicity stunt lasted all of 24 hours. All probate judges in Alabama are back to issuing same-gender marriage licenses.

  • Coach

    What Every Woman Needs
    by RMH
    Women are searching today as never before for ful llment and purpose in life. Traditional roles and functions are being questioned. Many answers are being given. Where is a woman to nd true worth, ful llment, and happiness in life?
    As a governor’s daughter, I grew up in a wealthy and prestigious family. During high school and college I had many honors and earthly possessions. Later I was a public schoolteacher. I mar- ried a professional football player and had three children. Yet it was not in these experiences that my deepest needs were met.
    What are a woman’s deepest needs and how are they to be met? Since God created the woman, He knows her deepest needs and He alone can meet them.
    A Woman Needs Love
    God alone can provide unconditional, self-sacri cial love, a love that has her highest good in view. The Bible tells us: “in this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
    A Woman Needs Security
    Often a woman’s security is based on nancial stability, her husband, or her own success in the world. All these things can change. God never changes. “He is the same yesterday, today, yes and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He alone can give true stability and security.
    A Woman Needs Peace
    In a world full of changes, pressures, and problems, where can a woman nd inner peace? Only Jesus Christ can provide inner peace regardless of outward circumstances. Through Him we can have peace with God. “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful” (John 14:27).
    A Woman Needs Purpose
    God did not make one mold for all women. He has a unique plan, full of meaning and purpose for each of us—a purpose in life suited to our own special gender, gifts and abilities, in the sphere of His will and according to His Word. “In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:6).
    A Woman Needs Self-Worth
    The world attributes worth to beauty, intelligence, talent or position in life. The Bible says “… man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). Our worth in His eyes is based on the character of our life and the qualities that He develops as we commit our life to Him.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      I’m single. I’m loved, I feel secure, I’m at peace, I have purpose, I have self-worth. And all that without the help of any God.

      • Coach

        But you stand condemned and will face a Holy God and give account for your lying, thieving, blasphemous life. Repent, because you may feel at peace, but you’re at war against God. Jesus Christ is your only hope Jolanda. You say you feel secure, the Bible says there’s a way that seems right that leads to destruction. You have purpose, to serve your sinful desires that God will call you into account for. You have self worth because you believe satan’s lie and deny God, when creation screams at you, but you say nothing produced everything and the universe has order for no reason and there’s no such thing as right and wrong, anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
        You’re loved by those of us who tell you the truth, that God is good, eternally existing in 3 persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. God’s goodness demands perfect justice an eternal lake of fire. But the devil, whom you serve laughs and says “that’ll never happen”. Jesus Christ drank the wrath of God, so that all who by faith alone in Him alone would be saved from the wrath to come and overcome sin.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Lying, yep sometimes. Thieving,nope wouldn’t be very good at it. How can I be at war with something I don’t believe in? Explain that to me, cause I wouldn’t know. I don’t serve your devil, I don’t believe in God, hence I don’t believe in the devil. Very simple. So you can only have those things when you believe in your God? Riiiiiiight! I feel secure. You need to get past my dog (pitbull) if you want to enter my house and she is a very good judge of character. I don’t like you neither does she. I have purpose. I work at a horse farm who mainly takes in rescued horses. The love you get from those animals is just so awesome. So I feel loved. I have a great family and awesome friends, Christians, Muslims, Hindoes, Atheists, black, white, heteroes, homosexuals. Self worth, I’m happy with myself and with my life. I believe in evolution, but that doesn’t mean ther is no right or wrong. Murder, rape, stealing etc is wrong, they are crimes. Everything that doesn’t fit in your world, homosexuals, atheists is wrong to you. Well for others it’s not. Live and let live, you should try it sometimes instead of always believing what God tells you. I don’t believe and my world is beautifull. Oh one more thing, I’m at peace.

  • TonyB

    “The union for life between one man and one woman…”. they should then also not issue licenses to people who have been previously married and divorced… To be fair.