South Carolina Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Interpose Against Supreme Court Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Ruling

South Carolina State HouseCOLUMBIA, South Carolina — Two Republican lawmakers in South Carolina have introduced a bill that would interpose against June’s same-sex “marriage” ruling and defend the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.

Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Woodruff, and Rep. Mike Burns, R-Taylors, recently filed Bill 4513 in the General Assembly, otherwise known as the South Carolina Natural Marriage Defense Act.

“[I]n Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), five justices of the United States Supreme Court issued a lawless opinion with no basis in American law or history, purporting to overturn natural marriage and find a ‘right’ to same-sex ‘marriage’ in the United States Constitution and the fourteenth amendment,” it reads in part.

The bill quotes remarks from the dissenting justices in the case, and notes that “natural marriage has been recognized and regulated by the states since the founding of America,” and that “English common law was the source of the early American common law.”

The bill then quotes from Sir William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Common Law were used by attorneys and the courts throughout early America. Blackstone taught that a man’s rights come from God, and that all law must be based on God’s law.

“[The] law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in any obligation to any other,” Blackstone stated. “It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”

The Blackstone Institute outlines that “[i]t was only in the mid-Twentieth Century that American law, being re-written by the U. S. Supreme Court, repudiated Blackstone.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Consequently, Woodruff and Burns declare in Bill 4513 that not all orders are lawful, and unlawful orders should be resisted.

“It is the policy of the State of South Carolina to defend natural marriage as recognized by the people of this State in the Constitution and laws of the State of South Carolina, consistent with natural law and the United States Constitution,” the bill declares. “Natural marriage between one man and one woman as recognized by the people of this State remains the law in South Carolina, regardless of any court decision to the contrary.”

“A court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect,” it says.

Bill 4513 also requires the state attorney general to defend South Carolina law in the event of a lawsuit surrounding the institution of marriage.

Chumley said that he believes officials in South Carolina must uphold the will of the people and the law of God.

“Their lifestyle or what they do is their call. This is not against gay people. This is saying that South Carolina should not sanction or ordain something we believe is wrong,” he told reporters. “I represent the people, and the people have shown several times that they are opposed to this, and are in favor of traditional marriage.”


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
  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    A legislature … legislating. How curious. I thought that writing legislation was the function of the courts.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      One of the functions of the courts is to rule that laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court wrote no legislation.

      • daniwitz13

        You seem to understand that Courts rule on Laws for Constitutionality. But a Law has to be Legislated first before they can take it up to rule on. States Legislated a Marriage Law of Male and Female. It was the SCOTUS opinion that it “banned” SSM. There were no Legislated “ban”, it was their ‘assumption’ that it did. With ‘assumptions’, ANYTHING can be “banned”, not only SSM. Pity

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “But a Law has to be Legislated first before they can take it up to rule on.”

          Yes, like you say in your next sentence, it was DOMA, a law that was legislated that they ruled on, which said that states could ban SSM. (not all of them did, but some definitely did, just ask the people that wanted to get a same-sex marriage in those states) And they ruled that was unconstitutional, which is called ‘judicial review’. That’s not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it was established in the Marbury v Madison case in 1803. Maybe a state can ban anything if they really want to, but the Supreme Court still has the power to rule on its constitutionality. Sometimes the people that are trying to make this a “states rights” issue miss that point.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Wasting time is not legislating. Should this be enacted a federal court would compel individuals to comply with Obergefell which makes them personally liable not to mention that failing to comply with an injunction is contempt of court.

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

        So the United States is a federation of individuals, not a federation of states…. but then why is it not called the United Individuals? This is really confusing.

    • acontraryview

      I can’t imagine why you would think that, since no court has produced legislation, nor is any court empowered to produce legislation.

  • Michael C

    I have no doubt that this pointless stunt will endear them to a certain section of voters when they seek reelection.

    • American4Truth

      It is not pointless. It is only pointless when compared to your little pro homo little brain.

  • afchief

    Way to go South Carolina!!! Upholding the States Constitution!!!! Upholding the LAW!!! The SCOTUS opinion means NOTHING!!!! I repeat, NOTHING!!!!

    Marriage is/was NEVER mentioned in the Federal Constitution which is why 30 states have it in their Constitution in accordance with the 10th amendment!!! If the states want to have homo marriage, bring it up to a vote of the people of each state. Three states have already done so. That is how law is made in America i.e. by a vote (will) of the people or by the the legislative branch. The SCOTUS cannot make, change or strike down any laws. It is ONLY an opinion!!!!

    May this sanity spread to many other states.

    Every state should have done this. It is none of the FedGov’s business how states recognize marriage.

    • gizmo23

      Still pulling out the big C.
      TV, football, automobiles,semi auto rifles aren’t in the big C either so congress can make any laws about them.
      Where is marriage in the C?

      • afchief

        You are correct!!! There is NO marriage in the federal Constitution. It is an individual and state issue ONLY!!!!

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Except that Marbury v. Madison makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter. Thus, it means everything. Get over it. Gay couples now have a constitutional right to marry. If you cannot accept that then organize a constitutional amendment. You’ll need 38 states to ratify.

      • afchief

        They sure don’t!!! 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?

        ONLY Congress can make, change or strike down laws!!!!!

        “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

          Laws will not change as often as judges change. Judges cannot rule on a law unless someone takes a case to court. The person or group taking a case to court must have “standing”, that is, show that they have been hurt.

          • afchief

            My point is a Court decision changes NOTHING!!!!!! The legislative branch for one has to agree with the decision and two, then (federal or state) change or remove the law. The Court can do NO such thing!!!

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

          As an issue of unrebuttable fact, the Supreme Court has determined that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry by virtue of Equal Protection and Due Process. That was the ruling of the Court.

          Therefore, if South Carolina interferes with the constitutional rights of citizens a federal district court will enjoin the individuals responsible from doing so in the form of an injunction. The ruling of the Supreme Court becomes stare decisis or settled law giving district courts no leeway.

          The offended gay couples can now sue those individuals personally and, if they continue to obstruct, the federal court can fine them or imprison them.

          • afchief

            You are NOT hearing what I’m saying!!!! The SCOTUS only rendered an opinion (an illegal one too because it is NOT a federal issue). For that decision to be BINDING, the legislative branch HAS to amend the Constitution or remove “a” law.

            The Court can strike down NO laws.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They decided they could, over 200 years ago. Sure, you could say that it shouldn’t be that way, but at least acknowledge that that is the way it IS.

          • afchief

            They could what?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Strike down laws.

          • afchief

            Give me an example of a law the SCOTUS has removed from federal law i.e. the Constitution?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, there’s DOMA, that wasn’t in the Constitution, but it sure as hell was federal law.

          • afchief

            That’s right! DOMA was not Constitutional and should never have been federal law. The Constitution was never amended to reflect DOMA. That is the very reason WHY the SCOTUS shot it down because marriage is not a federal issue. Marriage is a states issues in accordance with the 10th amendment

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that DOMA was struck down because marriage is not a federal issue, but that’s just wrong. Under DOMA, marriage was a state issue. It gave states the ability to have different definitions of marriage. If the Supreme Court thought marriage was only a state issue, wouldn’t they have let DOMA stand??

          • Guest

            Actually the DOMA ruling invalidating section 3 was because it tried to alter a state-issued contract after the fact, which is a violation of the contract clause, by trying to federally define it out of existence.

            There were citizens with completely legal contracts and DOMA made them invisible to the Feds, an unconstitutional act. It was a known ‘poison pill’ from the time it was passed. If section 3 had just said it was going to treat same-šęx marriages differently that would have probably been constitutional. What it couldn’t do is pretend they didn’t exist at all.

            so DOMA said that state-issued civil contracts must be treated constitutionally by the Feds, and Obergfell said that even state-issued civil contracts must be in compliance with the federal Constitution particularly the 14th.

          • afchief

            You homosexuals just won’t believe the truth. That is why I know what I’m dealing with!!!

            Nope, that is wrong. DOMA was NEVER a state issue.

            Why do you think the majority of states have a marriage clause already in their Constitutions?

            if states WANT homo marriage there is two ways to do it. A vote of the people or the state legislature has to change the law and amend the Constitution.

            It is that simple!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So you’re telling me you think that if something is a “states issue”, it doesn’t matter if it’s constitutional or not? That the federal government can’t basically just tell the state, “no, you can’t do that, it’s against the constitution”? If the states can violate the Constitution with impunity, why do we even have a Constitution of the United States?

          • afchief

            If it is a state issue and NOT a federal issue, then the highest court to hear the case is the State’s Supreme Court..

            Marriage has been and always will be a State issue unless Congress amends the Constitution.

          • Guest

            No marriage is a civil contract and most definitely under federal review because of that. All civil contracts and licenses have to be compliant with the federal Constitution by virtue of the contracts clause, the full faith and credit clause and the 14th amendment’s equal treatment and due process clauses.

            The court found a common licensing restriction on this civil contract unconstitutional, that’s all.

          • afchief

            Bye! I know who you are and you are a LIAR Oshtur!!!

          • afchief

            Those constitutional moral standards placed the definition of marriage outside the scope of government. As acknowledged in a 1913 case: Grigsby v. Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (Tex.Sup.Ct. 1913).

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

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

          • Guest

            A Texas court? Sorry as soon as you use religion as your justification you lose because everyone has a right to not share your religious views.

            Many Christian sects think people can marry regardless of ‘male nor female as do Jews, humanists, Diests and other atheists and agnostics.

            That this 100% secular contract uses the same name as a religious rite is a confusion for some. If you want to change the word you use for the religious rite you can or you can change the name of the civil contract – much of Europe calls the civil contract a ‘union’.

            But until then this contract is called marriage and available to people of all beliefs even the ones you don’t agree with.

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar??? I sure did and this IS more proof!!!!

          • Guest

            yes, you did bear false witness against me, that’s why I and the rest of the world don’t care what you say.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A Texas Supreme Court case?

            Well…….that’s just an OPINION, right? It doesn’t change ANYTHING, right????

          • afchief

            That’s right!!! It just reiterated what everyone already knew. That God created marriage. That marriage already had a definition.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That was sarcasm, you know…..

          • afchief

            Sue? Then show me the law?

        • Guest

          Russ the court didn’t rule that sodomy was illegal in 1986 – only 13 states had laws against it in 1986 – they ruled they didn’t see a law against the sexes of those having sex was unconstitutional. THAT was the ruling like Dred Scott in that it saw there was no constitutional protection based on race. And in this case gender.

          In 2003 the court ruled the previous ruling was too narrow, that intimate sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by the 14th amendment and consensual sexual activity between consenting adults acting in private was a protected liberty, regardless of the sexes or the act involved. This ruling invalidated all laws against sexual acts and the sexes of those performing them.

          The only one thinking the courts are making law is you, they are invalidating unconstitutional laws which is one of the jobs of the courts.

          • afchief

            BYE, You are a liar Oshtur and serve the father of lies!!!

    • Bob Johnson

      The First Amendment freedom of the press, does it extend to radio, television, and the Internet? Your freedom to make these comments has been extended by the courts without new legislation. Otherwise, you need to get some lead type, ink, paper, and a press.

      • afchief

        Courts ONLY make opinions!!!! Did you know 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.

        I’ll repeat it AGAIN!!!! Courts ONLY render OPINIONS!!!!!!! They CANNOT strike down laws or make laws!!!!

        • Bob Johnson

          Okay, sometimes the Courts, Congress, or the President makes mistakes. I have even made a couple of mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are rectified sometimes they are never fixed. What’s your point?

          • afchief

            My point is Courts do not make, change or strike down laws. ONLY the legislative branch (federal or state) can do so. The legislative branch has to agree with the decision of the court and then amend the law or remove the law.

            That is the ONLY way!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            If the Supreme Court only renders opinions, why is Texas Governor Greg Abbott trying to and Amendments to limit the court?

          • afchief

            Because we have a completely lawless government now. Republicans included. There are only a handful of politicians who have not bowed the knee to power, money, and political correctness.

            The Federal government is stepping on States rights.

          • Bob Johnson

            Then the Governor does not need new laws. He only needs to enforce the current laws. Adding another repetitive law won’t change anything.

          • afchief

            He is trying to do a “Convention of states” which requires 75% of states to ratify the Constitution (39 states). Read more here

            Texas Governor Calls For Constitutional Convention To “Wrest Power” From Obama

            http://www.zerohedge. com/news/2016-01-09/texas-governor-calls-constitutional-convention-wrest-power-federal-government-run-am

          • Valri

            So when you don’t like what the government does, you declare them lawless? What would happen if everyone did that?

          • afchief

            Since you have a reprobate mind and CANNOT see truth I will not get into with you.

            Just the latest example; 0lawless making law through an EO to limit certain people (Social Security recipients) from obtaining guns

            Totally unconstitutional and an abuse of power. The pResident has NO authority to take any rights away from any Americans.

            NONE!!!

          • Valri

            It’s not that I have a reprobate mind. I have a working mind, that’s all. And you don’t. It’s your way of the highway, we get it.

          • afchief

            Well let’s see! Is 0bama a lawless and lying pResident? Yes or no?

          • Valri

            No. He isn’t.

          • afchief

            There is my proof of your reprobate mind to see truth!!!! It is Soooooooo obvious!!!

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

            https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress. com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

          • Valri

            So you’d prefer one of those hateful Tea Party pigs who want to jail homosexuals and shut down Planned Parenthood? Why doesn’t that surprise me?
            Your link is a joke by the way.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth is always the enemy of liberals and homosexuals. It is sooooooooo obvious!!!

          • Valri

            Suppose you get your wish and all the nasty homosexuals and liberals go away? Who’s left for you to HATE when that happens?

          • afchief

            My wish is they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

          • Valri

            I would never wish for ANYONE to adopt the kind of belief system you have, it’s hateful in the extreme.

          • afchief

            Psalm 14 (NASB)

            14 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

            They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;

            There is no one who does good.

            2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men

            To see if there are any who understand,

            Who seek after God.

            3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;

            There is no one who does good, not even one.

            4 Do all the workers of wickedness not know,

            Who eat up my people as they eat bread,

            And do not call upon the Lord?

            5 There they are in great dread,

            For God is with the righteous generation.

            6 You would put to shame the counsel of the afflicted,

            But the Lord is his refuge.

          • Valri

            You hate people based on the sexuality they were born with. That’s all I need to know about you. That your faith in God did this to you speaks volumes about the faith you’ve chosen to follow.

          • afchief

            Telling you the truth is hate? On the contrary, it is love. I do not want to see you suffer eternal consequences for making this decision to live in sin.

            It is your hate of God that drives you to hate us Christians. What we state comes from His Word.

          • Valri

            You are in no position to instruct on this subject. What you have learned isn’t truth, it’s lies, hatred and intolerance. All the things Jesus was opposed to.

          • afchief

            I sure am!!! I’ve been a Christian for 33 years. I’ve been an elder and youth pastor in churches. I have researched and taught on the evils of homosexuality and plenty of other sins. I know the Word of God and I know what is says about homosexuality.

          • Valri

            All you have learned, and taught to others which is worse, is hatred. It’s got nothing to do with Christianity, in fact it’s the opposite from everything Christ taught.

          • afchief

            Why do you continue to lie? You are fulfilling Romans 1 to the “T”

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

            Last reply. The courts most certainly can strike down laws deemed unconstitutional as in Loving and Obergefell. Same-sex marriage bans are done. Unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            NOPE! You are wrong again!!! That was a “State” issue and the congress of that state has to agree with that decision and then amend the states constitution.

            It is NOT a fed issue. 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.”

            It is ONLY an opinion!!!

            To prove my point, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by the SCOTUS, so why is there NO federal law (an amendment) and in fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Again, Courts ONLY render opinions!!!

          • Guest

            And the opinion was that the government can’t intrude on the woman’s decision in the first trimester. They didn’t legalize abortion they limited the government from interfering with a woman’s choice.

            Similarly this court only ruled a common licensing restriction on a civil contract as being incompatible with the Constitution, particularly the 14th amendment. And yes the 14th amendment’s due process and equal access clauses makes all laws potentially federal issues.

            No law was created in either case, just unconstitutional things blocked.

            As such this law would itself be found unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            I will not converse with a KNOWN liar!!! You are one!! BYE!

          • Michael C

            Sir, just yesterday you said this;

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

            Being that you’ve posted this quote, I’d like to assume that you understand what it means. I probably shouldn’t make that assumption.

            This quote that you’ve provided on other forums means that if the Supreme Court (the highest authority on the Constitution) deems that a law is in violation of the Constitution, they have the power to render it null and void.

            This is a quote that you’ve provided.

            (feel free to continue to contradict yourself if you feel so inclined)

          • afchief

            Nope!!! John Adams once said “Our Constitution is only for a religious and moral people”. Is Homosexuality moral? No it is not. The justification the SCOTUS used to say that homos can marry was the 14th amendment. When the 14th amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. It was and is immoral i.e. repugnant.

          • gizmo23

            So was whites marrying blacks, so we changed the definition of marriage

          • afchief

            Poor liberals who DO NOT KNOW law or even a definition!!!! The definition of marriage = one man and one woman!!!

            Yes, liberalism STILL is a mental disorder!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So Supreme Court rulings are not binding but offhand comments by John Adams are?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I love how he quotes the case that established how the Supreme Court gets to say that laws are unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            Mistakes? These were court opinions; 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?

            It is ONLY an opinion!!! It changes NOTHING!!!!

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

            Seriously, you are short a formal education — or something. The Court erred in Dred Scott. The error was corrected through a constitutional amendment. Other errors have been corrected through new cases.

            That is not going to happen with marriage because someone would require Article III standing demonstrating a real injury (not hypothetical or in the abstract) due to same-sex marriage where the only remedy was to stop same-sex marriage. It’s an impossible burden.

          • afchief

            Sorry you are wrong!!! If the feds want homo marriage then the federal Constitution HAS to be amended. Around 39 states already have marriage clauses in their respective Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            This is an individual and state issue. It is NOT a fed issue because marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal Constitution.

          • gizmo23

            Full faith and Credit

          • afchief

            What is your point?

          • gizmo23

            All of those were changed by Constitutional amendment. So your side needs to get to work

          • afchief

            So sorry Mr. liberal. I know the law and how it works!!!

            Keep reaching!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So when the Supreme Court ruled that women had no right to vote, did women just go out and vote anyway?

          • afchief

            What? Are you really this dumb?

        • gizmo23

          In the big C.
          If a state grants a gay marriage other states have to recognize that marriage. So even if gay marriage was overturned it wouldn’t matter what your state did.
          Article IV, Section 1:
          Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[5]

          • afchief

            You liberals keep reaching to find where I’m wrong! I”M NOT!!!!

  • SFBruce

    This will turn out to be a complete waste of time and money. Responsible political leaders in South Carolina should be telling their constituents that while same sex marriage is now the law of the land, no one is being forced to marry anyone, and religious liberties are still intact. Instead, the legislature is passing a bill which Haley may well sign, and the AG may well waste more taxpayer funds by defending the indefensible in court. A lawsuit will be filed immediately, and the state will have zero chances of prevailing.

    • afchief

      Not the law of the land!! If it is……..show me the law!!!!

      • SFBruce

        Saying something over and over and over doesn’t make it true. Bans against same sex marriage are unconstitutional. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the reality.

        • afchief

          Nope it is not!!! If so, then SHOW ME THE LAW!!! My state (Florida) says marriage is between one man and one woman!!! THAT IS THE LAW

          Article 1

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

          • SFBruce

            That law is now unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that has been the case since January 6, 2015. Similarly, Florida banned interracial marriage, but the law doing so was declared unconstitutional in 1967. Live in denial if you want, but these are the facts.

          • afchief

            Are liberals really this ignorant of the law. Show me the law???????

            This is how a SCOTUS opinion works. Once an opinion is rendered, the legislative branch HAS TO agree to the opinion and then amend the constitution or remove the law. That is HOW the law works!!! READ!!!!!!!!!

            “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

          • SFBruce

            There’s a sliver of truth in what you’re saying, but you seem to think the states’ compliance with Supreme Court rulings is somehow optional, but that is simply not the case. For example, Alabama didn’t repeal it’s laws banning interracial marriage until November 2000, even though it was deemed unconstitutional back in 1967 by SCOTUS. But that doesn’t mean interracial couples couldn’t get marriage licenses in Alabama before November 2000. If such a license had been denied, the couple could have gone into federal court and gotten a favorable outcome fairly easily, because Supreme Court decisions are unambiguously binding on lower courts.

            I know you’re highly unlikely to take advice from me, but if I were you, I’d avoid calling other people ignorant.

          • afchief

            I have yet to find ONE liberal or homosexual who has not been given over to a reprobate mind. Not one!!!! And you just proved to me you are being deceitful. Read below!!!!

            What you fail to realize is HOW constitutional law works. For one, for the SCOTUS to hear a case there has to be a possible violation of the federal Constitution. Two, if is a state issue and not a fed issue it stops at the State Supreme Court. Three, if the SCOTUS does hear the case and rules in favor of one party, THEN the legislative branch HAS TO AGREE to the decision. If the legislative branch agrees, it amend the Constitution or removes the law. The executive branch then signs it into law. If the legislative disagrees, nothing is changed. NOTHING!!!

            And what YOU ARE NOT STATING IS WHY Alabama over turned interracial marriage ban is a lie….the voters overturned it!!!!!! NOT THE SCOTUS!!!

            “Alabama’s Constitution had included a prohibition on mixed-race marriage since 1901. Not until 2000 did voters overturn the long-invalidated provision.”

            http://www.cnsnews. com/news/article/alabama-judges-use-segregation-era-law-avoid-gay-marriage

          • SFBruce

            If you want to successfully rebut my claim that Alabama’s prohibition was both unconstitutional and unenforceable, you need to provide some evidence that the state of Alabama actually enforced their ban of interracial marriage between 1967 and 2000. Yes, it takes time for legislators to modify laws on the books to conform with SCOTUS decisions, but that simply does not mean that states are can continue to enforce laws SCOTUS has declared unconstitutional. In our system, they have the last word on what the constitution means. I don’t think Hobby Lobby or Citizen’s United were correctly decided, but I recognize the reality that unless and until they’re overturned or new legislation is passed, they are the law of the land.

          • afchief

            What? What part are you NOT understanding? A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion. IT MEANS NOTHING!!!!! Once the SCOTUS of a state or our nation makes a ruling the legislative branch HAS TO AGREE to the decision!!!!!!! If the legislative does NOT agree, nothing happens. NOTHING!!!!

            KNOW the law!!!!!

          • SFBruce

            If rulings by SCOTUS mean nothing, why are they, including Obergefell, almost universally followed and acknowledged as binding?

            You still have provided no evidence that Alabama actually enforced their ban on interracial marriage between 1967 and 2000.

            And, for the record, I understand every word that you’ve written, and I also understand that they’re at odds with actual facts.

          • afchief

            I have said why numerous times. The sheeple are easily manipulated to believe lies. They just tell us that the SCOTUS makes/removes laws and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            Enforced? That is not the question!!!! The question is how are laws made, changed and remove in America!!!! I already showed you the Alabama voters removed the interracial band in 2000…..by a vote. One of two ways to make, change or remove laws in America.

            What I state is TRUTH!!! Not one of you liberal/homos has been able to show me a federal law making homo marriage legal. I have even given examples of past SCOTUS rulings (Roe v. Wade) and asked you liberal/homos to show me the law.

            NOTHING!!!!!

            KNOW the law!!!!!

          • SFBruce

            At least you seem to be acknowledging the fact that laws declared unconstitutional are, in fact, unenforceable. Amazingly, you acknowledge that only as you make the patently silly argument that their having been declared invalid is a trivial matter. Keeping impotent laws on the book do nothing but invite disrespect for the law.

            Again, I know you don’t want advice from me, but all the personal attacks, use of all caps and multiple exclamation points do nothing to support your claims. Instead, they just suggest they’re all you’ve got.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth always offends.

          • acontraryview

            “Not one of you liberal/homos has been able to show me a federal law making homo marriage legal”

            Show me a federal law that makes marriage between two people of opposite gender legal.

            Show me a federal law that makes marriage between two people of different races legal.

          • acontraryview

            “They just tell us that the SCOTUS makes/removes laws and we believe their lies.”

            Who has said that? The SCOTUS is not empowered to either make or remove a law. They are, however, empowered to rule upon the constitutionality, and thus enforceability, of a law.

          • acontraryview

            “Two, if is a state issue and not a fed issue it stops at the State Supreme Court.”

            Since the Federal Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, addresses the issue of state laws and the federal constitution, your statement is false.

            “THEN the legislative branch HAS TO AGREE”

            No, it does not.

            “If the legislative branch agrees, it amend the Constitution or removes the law.”

            The legislative branch of state government is not empowered to change the Constitution of the state. That can only be done through a vote of the people.

            “If the legislative disagrees, nothing is changed. NOTHING!!!”

            That is false. If the SCOTUS rules that a state law violates protections provided by the federal Constitution, then the law is no longer enforceable. So, yes, something is changed – the enforceability of the law.

            “the voters overturned it!!!!!!”

            Voters don’t “overturn” laws, regardless of how many exclamation points you use. Voters can vote to change or remove laws. “Overturn” is a term that applies only to the judiciary.

            ” Not until 2000 did voters overturn the long-invalidated provision.”

            Please note the phrase “long-invalidated”. Invalidate: “deprive (an official document or procedure) of legal efficacy because of contravention of a regulation or law.” The laws regarding interracial marriage were long ago invalidated. While they did remain on the books, because they had been invalidated, they were no longer enforceable.

          • afchief

            I just deleted everyone of your disqus emails. I’m done conversing with a reprobate mind and a KNOWN liar. I know the law and what I have stated is TRUTH has been backed up with sources. You have sourced NOTHING!!!

            You are a liar and I am not wasting my time with you!!!

          • acontraryview

            “I just deleted everyone of your disqus emails.”

            I’m crushed.

            “and a KNOWN liar.”

            Yet you have been unable to cite one thing I have said that is a lie. Pity.

            “what I have stated is TRUTH has been backed up with sources.”

            Some is truth, most is not.

            “You have sourced NOTHING!!!”

            Another of your lies.

            “You are a liar”

            Again with the bearing of false witness. Tsk, tsk, Russ.

          • afchief

            Bye Oshtur!!! You are a liar and have been given over to a reprobate mind.

            It is QUITE obvious!

          • acontraryview

            “You are a liar”

            There you go again with the accusations for which you provide no proof. How ARE you going to explain that to God, Russ?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            From the wikipedia article “Same-sex marriage in Florida”

            “Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Florida since January 6, 2015, as a result of Brenner v. Scott, the lead case on the issue.”

          • afchief

            You know liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!! I will say it again for the umpteenth time……………….wait for it….ooooooooooooh show me the law, yes show me the law, ohhhh show me the law today!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Show me the law that states that interracial marriage is legal.

          • afchief

            What? Where?

          • acontraryview

            Anywhere.

          • afchief

            What is your point?

          • acontraryview

            You stated that laws must be changed in order for something to be legal. Since interracial marriage has been legal since 1973, please cite the law that specifically allows interracial marriage.

          • afchief

            You are comparing apples and oranges. If a state wants a ban on interracial marriage then get enough petitions and put on a ballot. If the people of the state vote for it, IT THEN BECOMES LAW for that state.

            In the case of Alabama the state had it in it’s Constitution that interracial couples could not marry. It was overturned in 2000 by the VOTE (will) of the people!!!

          • acontraryview

            It was the law in Alabama. The law in Alabama was not “overturned” in 2000. It was removed. I’ll ask yet again: Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            Hello!!! The voters removed it!!! GO DO YOU RESEARCH!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            That’s what I said.

          • afchief

            Yes!!!!!!!!!!! That is how laws are made, changed, or removed. By one of ONLY two ways……..the (will) voters and/or the legislative branch.

            Do you see the light????????

          • acontraryview

            I agree with you on that. With that said, a law can remain on the books but not be enforceable.

            I’ll ask yet again: Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            That is a BOLDFACE LIE!

            Yes, you are a LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            What did I say that was a lie?

            Did interracial marriages occur in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

      • acontraryview

        “show me the law!!!!”

        The term “law of the land” does not refer to a specific law existing. It refers to something being legal throughout the US. If a law that prohibits something is ruled to violate protections provided by the Constitution and is thus no longer enforceable, that something then becomes legal throughout the US, thus making it “the law of the land” in the sense that it is legal throughout the land.

        When laws on interracial marriage were struck down, it became the “law of the land” that interracial marriage was legal throughout the US. There was no law that specifically stated that two people of different races were allowed to marry. They were simply not disallowed from doing so. Thus making their ability to marry legal throughout “the land”.

        • afchief

          Keep lying!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Please cite what I said, specifically, that was a lie.

          • afchief

            Your statement about interracial marriage. Show me the law where interracial marriage is against the law. I have told you umpteen times that laws can only be made or removed by two ways; by a direct vote of the people and by the legislative branch.

            What I said to the above poster PROVES my point that the voters of Alabama voted to remove interracial marriage.

            “Alabama’s Constitution had included a prohibition on mixed-race marriage since 1901. Not until 2000 did voters overturn the long-invalidated provision.”

            http://www.cnsnews. com/news/article/alabama-judges-use-segregation-era-law-avoid-gay-marriage

            KNOW the law!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Show me the law where interracial marriage is against the law.”

            It’s not anymore. It used to be. But then those laws were determined by the judiciary to violate the protections provided by the 14th Amendment and thus became no longer enforceable. The actual laws remained on the books in many states for years after the court ruling, but they were not enforceable.

            “I have told you umpteen times that laws can only be made or removed by two ways; by a direct vote of the people and by the legislative branch.”

            Agreed. The enforceability of a law, however, can be determined by the judiciary.

            “What I said to the above poster PROVES my point that the voters of Alabama voted to remove interracial marriage.”

            Yes, eventually. However between 1973 and 2000, even though the law remained on the books, it was not enforceable.

            Now, again, please cite one lie I told.

          • afchief

            Yes, you are quite the liar and I’m wasting my time conversing with someone given over to a reprobate mind.

            It is soooooooo obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite a lie have I have told. Rather, you continue to bear false witness. Got it. Thanks.

          • afchief

            You want me to prove you are a liar? Watch!!!!

            When the SCOTUS makes a ruling, is it the law of the land? Yes or no?

          • acontraryview

            Asking me a question doesn’t prove I am a liar. Citing something I said, and providing evidence that what I said is not true, is proving me a liar.

            As to your question, I’ll state again: The term “law of the land” does not refer to a specific law existing. It refers to something being legal throughout the US. If a law that prohibits something is ruled to violate protections provided by the Constitution and is thus no longer enforceable, that something then becomes legal throughout the US, thus making it “the law of the land” in the sense that it is legal throughout the land.

            Now, either cite something I said that was a lie and your proof that it is a lie, or admit that you are bearing false witness against me.

          • afchief

            Since you have a hard time reading and understanding. I’ll ask again!

            When the SCOTUS makes a ruling, is it the law of the land? Yes or NO?

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, acontrayview was very clear, he stated, “The term “law of the land” does not refer to a specific law existing. It refers to something being legal throughout the US. If a law that prohibits something is ruled to violate protections provided by the Constitution and is thus no longer enforceable, that something then becomes legal throughout the US, thus making it “the law of the land” in the sense that it is legal throughout the land.”

          • afchief

            And again I will state that is false and a lie. The SCOTUS cannot make, change, or strike down ANY laws in America. It is ONLY an opinion. Again, the legislative branch HAS TO AGREE with the ruling and make the change. If not, NOTHING changes.

            That IS the law.

          • acontraryview

            “It is ONLY an opinion.”

            No, it is a ruling.

            “Again, the legislative branch HAS TO AGREE with the ruling and make the change.”

            No, they do not. As you clearly pointed out earlier, Alabama did not remove the law forbidding interracial marriage until 2000. Nonetheless, that law was unenforceable once the SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia.

            “If not, NOTHING changes.”

            Clearly that is not the case, as interracial marriage was legal in Alabama beginning in 1973.

            It would help you greatly if you were able to grasp the difference between a law existing and a law being enforceable. SCOTUS rulings do not change the law. They can, however, change the ability of the state to enforce the law.

          • afchief

            Bye!!! I’m done dealing with a LIAR and a reprobate mind!!!! Your can’t even READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “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

          • acontraryview

            “I’m done dealing with a LIAR”

            You still have not been able to cite anything I said that is a lie. Why do you keep bearing false witness against me?

            Of course the court has no physical means to enforce a law. In our system, there is the collective understanding that when SCOTUS declares a law to be unenforceable that the states will act accordingly. If they do not, as was the case in Alabama which fought the court’s ruling regarding segregation, the Federal government has the authority to utilize force, as they did in Alabama, to stop the state from attempting to enforce a law that has been ruled unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

          • afchief

            YES, you are a liar. The Alabama voters changed the law in 2000. NOT the SCOTUS!!!

          • acontraryview

            I never said the SCOTUS changed the law. I said the SCOTUS changed the enforceability of the law. Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            No! The State STILL had interracial marriage as against the law up to 2000.

          • acontraryview

            Yes, the state did. They were not enforceable effective in 1973.

            I’ll ask again: Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            Ready? Wait for it!! Here it comes……ohhhhhhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, ohhhh won’t you show me the law todayyyyy!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Actually, it is you who is not showing the law. I’ll ask yet again: Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            Are you really this DUMB?!?!?!?!? READ my above post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            ohhhhhhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, ohhhh won’t you show me the law todayyyyy!!!!

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask yet again: Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            Yes, homosexuality is a mental disorder!!!! From post above;

            No! The State STILL had interracial marriage as against the law up to 2000.

          • acontraryview

            “No!”

            So interracial marriage was not allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000? Any interracial couple who applied for a marriage license in Alabama between 1973 and 2000 was turned down?

          • afchief

            That was the law in the State. Is that hard for you to understand?

          • acontraryview

            I don’t disagree with you that laws banning interracial marriage remained on the books in Alabama until 2000. That is fact.

            I’ll ask again: Was interracial marriage allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • afchief

            No, it was against the law

            LOL!

          • acontraryview

            So interracial marriage was not allowed in Alabama between 1973 and 2000? Any interracial couple who applied for a marriage license in Alabama between 1973 and 2000 was turned down?

          • afchief

            Bye, I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!

          • acontraryview

            So typical of you to run when faced with a question that you realize contradicts your entire argument, Russ. Enjoy the chickens.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I guess if there were any interracial marriages in that time period in Alabama (I’m just guessing here, but there were probably a good number of them), they were illegal. But all the judges and county clerks and other people involved in them didn’t realize that, apparently…..

            And all the gay marriages that have been going on in states that banned them before Obergefell are illegal, too! Despite how MOST people in their governments seemed to think that the Supreme Court decision was law.

          • acontraryview

            Yes, that makes much more sense.

          • acontraryview

            It is you who has a hard time understanding. I have provided you with the meaning of the term “law of the land”. It does not refer to a specific law. It refers to something being legal throughout the country. In that sense, yes, when the SCOTUS rules that a particular law that forbid a certain action violates the constitution and is no longer enforceable, that action becomes legal throughout the “land”.

          • afchief

            Ahhhh yes, you just proved to me you ARE a liar. So when the SCOTUS ruled that Sodomy was illegal in 1986, why did they rule it is legal today?

            Do you want me to answer that for you? Or do you want to lie some more?

          • acontraryview

            The answer is: Past SCOTUS decisions can be changed if legal issues come before future courts.

            For example: In 1896, in Plessy v Ferguson, the court ruled that “separate but equal” was legal regarding segregation. In 1954, in Brown v Board of Education, the court ruled that “separate but equal” violated the Constitution and thus such laws were no longer enforceable.

            In what way did my post prove that I am a liar?

          • afchief

            LOL!!!!! You are making me laugh!!! Legal issues before the courts?????

            The Constitution has NOT changed!!! The SCOTUS renders opinions on issues that pertain to the federal Constitution.

            Next laugh!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Legal issues before the courts?????”

            Yes, legal issues come before the courts. What kind of issues do YOU think come before the court? Non-legal ones?

            “The SCOTUS renders opinions on issues that pertain to the federal Constitution.”

            Actually, the court issues rulings, not opinions. The 14th Amendment is part of the Federal Constitution. It states, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Thus the determination of state laws being consistent with the Federal Constitution is an issue for SCOTUS.

          • afchief

            Poor liberal/homo. How can one use the 14th amendment because when it was passed homosexuality was against the law?

            A. Because we said so
            B. Because it applies to sodomy marriage
            C. Because the judges changed
            D. I don’t know I’m a liberal

          • acontraryview

            “How can one use the 14th amendment because when it was passed homosexuality was against the law?”

            Based upon your reasoning, how the court could use the 14th amendment to strike down “separate but equal” laws when “separate but equal” was legal when the 14th amendment was passed?

          • afchief

            I just can’t stop laughing!!! You are finally seeing the light that a SCOTUS decision is ONLY an opinion. It changes NOTHING!!!!

            NOTHING!!!

            Thanks for the laugh today!!

          • acontraryview

            “SCOTUS decision is ONLY an opinion”

            No, it is ruling, not an opinion.

            “It changes NOTHING!!!!”

            Obviously not the case, as since the ruling in Loving interracial marriage has been legal since 1973 despite laws remaining on the books (in the case of Alabama until 2000) that stated it was illegal. In addition, some-gender marriage is legal, despite our common state of Florida still having laws on the books that state it is illegal.

            “NOTHING!!!”

            That is false. A Supreme Court ruling can change the enforceability of a law.

          • afchief

            “A Supreme Court ruling can change the enforceability of a law.”

            Ready? Wait for it……Here it comes………..ohhhhhhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, ohhhh won’t you show me the law todayyyyy!!!!

          • acontraryview

            What law are you referring me that you want me to show you?

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Show me where in the Constitution it states a SCOTUS ruling “can change the enforceabliity of a law”

            Waiting…………………………………….

          • acontraryview

            The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2)

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Did I not say you are a liar??? I sure did. Let’s look at the Constitution. Shall we?

            Article. I.

            Section. 1.

            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress

            Section. 8.

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever

            NOW CLASS, what does the word “all” mean to you? Gee, teacher I don’t know. Can you tell us? Sure!!! All means “the whole, entire, total amount,” In this case ALL LAWS!!! What about the so called “supremacy Clause”. Well let’s look at it!!!

            Article. VI.

            Section 2

            This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

            Now class, there is NOTHING in here that states the SCOTUS can over rule the Congress when it comes to making, changing, and removing laws.

            SO YES YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            What law did Congress make regarding marriage?

          • afchief

            BYE!! I’m done dealing with a reprobate mind!!!! There is NO truth in you.

          • acontraryview

            So typical of you to run when you face the realization that you are wrong. Enjoy the chickens.

          • Trivia Jockey

            It doesn’t say that in those words, no. The Constitution was interpreted to grant SCOTUS that power in Marbury v. Madison (1803). SCOTUS has had the power to render a law NULL AND VOID since 1803.

            Null and void means “unenforceable”. For example, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court voided Texas’ sodomy law. Here’s the important part, pay close attention: if a Texas cop arrested someone for sodomy in 2004, that arrest would be NULLIFIED. Texas could NOT enforce it’s anti-sodomy law after 2003 EVEN IF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE DIDN’T REPEAL IT.

          • afchief

            Ready? Wait for it………………..Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh show me the law, yes, show me the law, ohhh show me the law todayyyy!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            Show you what law?

          • afchief

            Silly liberal, courts ONLY render OPINIONS for the umpteenth time!!!

            Now repeat after me, the only WAY for a law to be made, changed, or removed is BY……….a direct vote (will) of the people or by the legislative branch (state or federal).

            Now, I want you to read this over and over and over and over so it sink in that liberal cranium!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “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

            Now, what did it say? IT MUST COUNT ON THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES TO BACK IT’S DECISIONS!!!

            WHY?????????

          • Trivia Jockey

            Your citation doesn’t say what you think it says. Once the Court issues a ruling, that’s the law…but of course enforcing the law is another matter entirely. As soon as Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, racial segregation of schools was IMMEDIATELY ILLEGAL. But desegregation doesn’t physically happen overnight.

            So now let me turn the question back to you: If you believe that the Brown decision was “only an opinion” that was worthless until Congress changed the law, please show us what law Congress passed in 1954, 1955, or 1956, etc. to make racial segregation in schools illegal. PROVIDE ME THAT CITATION. Where is the law Congress passed to follow the Brown decision?

          • afchief

            Look,I’m done dealing with ignorance!!! You liberals cannot accept truth. It is your ENEMY. It is VERY clear!!!

            Do I have to do your research also. I already KNEW off the top of my head that not until 1964 when Congress passed the Civil Right Act is WHEN segregation was against the law. It took 10 hears for Congress to DO ANYTHING. READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of “equal protection of the laws” expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government–as well as the public at large–debated a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution’s prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits?

            In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word “sex” was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women’s Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word “sex” in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.”

            https://www.archives. gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/

          • Trivia Jockey

            >>I already KNEW off the top of my head that not until 1964 when Congress passed the Civil Right Act is WHEN segregation was against the law.

            HOLD THE PHONE…are you honestly telling us that you think that school segregation was perfectly legal between 1954 and 1964? For real?

          • afchief

            Are you really this dumb? THEN SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            There wasn’t one! That’s our whole point. The public school system in Topeka, KS was operating under an 1879 law that allowed segregated schools. SCOTUS invalidated that law in 1954. That law became immediately nullified. So the school district had to begin the process of desegregating.

            But because the Brown decision ONLY applied to public schools, Congress had to act if it wanted to ban segregation in ALL places of public accommodation. So they passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

            But there is no question whatsoever that public school segregation has been illegal since 1954.

          • afchief

            More proof that liberalism truly IS a mental disease!!! What does “ended segregation in public places” mean to the tiny winy little cranium??!?!?!?!? BYE!!!!

            “The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. First proposed by President John F. Kennedy, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and also passed additional legislation aimed at bringing equality to African Americans, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

          • Trivia Jockey

            Yes the CRA in 1964 ended segregation in ALL public places. The Brown decision in 1954 ONLY ended it in public schools.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! I enjoy conversing with people who have that mental disease called “liberalism and homosexuality”. It’s entertaining!!!! But, I’v had enough of lies, ignorance and stupidity. It’s time to say adios!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Do I have to do your research also. I already KNEW off the top of my head that not until 1964 when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act is WHEN segregation became against the law. It took 10 hears for Congress to DO ANYTHING. READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            Which title of the Civil Rights Act desegregated schools? Quote the exact language.

          • afchief

            You really are NO lawyer. Are you making minimum wage as a troll on Christian and Conservative sites? Working out of mommies basement? Can’t even look this up? Again, you are a liar and NO lawyer!!! BYE!!!!

            “Title IV

            Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, that doesn’t say “desegregated schools,” it says “encouraged the desegregation of public schools.”

            But more importantly, that’s not the text of the law, it’s a copy job from Wikipedia.

          • afchief

            Bye! Go back to mommies basement!!! You are making yourself look foolish!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, just to recap:

            1. You can’t show me where in the Civil Rights Act school segregation is banned.

            2. You have no idea what happens in your fictitious legal system when a trial court dismisses a case against a defendant because the law allegedly broken is unconstitutional.

            3. You can’t provide evidence of a “Real Lawyer” who doesn’t believe in judicial review.

            Are these statements correct?

          • afchief

            1. You are a liar

            2. You are NO lawyer

            3. You are a paid liberal troll.

            4. Bye!

          • afchief

            Also, as usual you did not answer my question!!!!

            Why must the SCOTUS count on the executive and legislative branches to back it’s decisions?

            What happens if they don’t back their decisions?

          • Trivia Jockey

            I’m happy to answer that question: SCOTUS does not need the other branches to “back” their decisions. SCOTUS decisions striking down laws have the force of law. When they strike down a law because it’s unconstitutional, it’s as if the law no longer exists…the executive branch cannot enforce that law.

            Lawrence v. Texas is a prefect example. SCOTUS struck down the Texas law making sodomy illegal. Texas was forced to immediately stop arresting people for sodomy (which they did). After 2003, nobody could be prosecuted in Texas under that law.

          • afchief

            BYE!!! I done dealing with outright stupidity. YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ME ONE LAW YET!!!

            You are a LIAR!!!!

            “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

          • Trivia Jockey

            Shown you what law? What law are you asking for?

            Yes, some of the founding fathers disagreed with judicial review. Congrats on finding those quotes. But judicial review of laws has been an established practice since 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.

            Literally nobody in any of the three branches of federal give meant disputes this. Nobody in government agrees with your interpretation.

          • afchief

            BYE! I KNOW the law. It is QUITE obvious you do NOT!!!!

            How much do you get paid to troll Christian and Conservative sites?

          • Bob Johnson

            And if by chance the executive branch (police) tried to enforce a law that the courts have “struct down”, the judge would throw the case out.

            And in the case of Kim Davis, hold the government in contempt of court . And you will note that the bailiff (a policeman) followed the judge’s instructions.

          • afchief

            You poor homos!!! You just can’t believe there is no law for “butt sex marriage”.

            Kim Davis should sue the pants of these people. There is NO law to issue marriage licences to homos. NONE!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yep, I’ve tried that one too.

            As expected, he never answered. Just copied and pasted more long, irrelevant diatribes until he was boxed into a corner, at which point he ran away declaring himself the winner.

            Typical afchief.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I stopped reading his bullc rap.

          • Bob Johnson

            Maybe we should start using Supreme Court ruling that he agrees with. After all – recent voting law changes, Hobby Lobby, etc… He has actually “won” in court as often as anyone else.

          • acontraryview

            No doubt those cases were fine for the court to rule on.

          • afchief

            The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

            The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

            Federalist #78 then proclaims:

            The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

            Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

          • acontraryview

            The Federalist Papers are not a basis for our legal system.

            “While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.”

            Exactly. Previous SCOTUS rulings can be overturned by future courts.

          • afchief

            Whattttt? No way!!! You mean future ruling can be changed when the judges change? No WAY!!! They made a ruling!!! That IS the law!!!

            LOL!!! You make me laugh!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I fail to see any inconsistency. The Court made a ruling. It was binding law on the entire country.

            A similar issue came before the Court years later, and the Court reversed it’s earlier ruking. Now THAT was binding law on the entire country.

            What’s the problem? The Supreme Court shouldn’t be able to reverse itself?

          • afchief

            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?

          • acontraryview

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

            Agreed. The enforceability of a law, however, can be changed by the judiciary.

            “If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.”

            Our laws change on a regular basis and always have.

            “Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?”

            Both.

          • acontraryview

            “You mean future ruling can be changed when the judges change?”

            Yes, that is what I mean. Were you not aware of that?

            “They made a ruling!!! That IS the law!!!”

            Judicial rulings either uphold existing laws pr end the enforceability of existing laws. They do not create law.

            “LOL!!! You make me laugh!!!!”

            Interesting that you find humor in your own misunderstanding of the law, our Constitution, and judicial system. But, hey, if that makes you laugh, then it does.

          • afchief

            Come on I’m waiting!!! Have you found anymore lies yet at your lying liberal websites?

          • acontraryview

            What lies are you referring to?

          • afchief

            Every time you post!!!

            LOL!

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t cite a specific lie I have told, then you are simply bearing false witness against me.

          • afchief

            Read your posts. They ARE lies!!!!

          • acontraryview

            I’m well aware of the content of my posts. You are leveled an accusation against me. Provide your prove or admit you are lying.

          • afchief

            Come on!!! If the SCOTUS said that sodomy was against the law in 1986 how can the law be changed?

            A. Was in enlightenment?
            B Did a light bulb go off?
            C Did the judges change?
            D. I don’t know I’m a liberal

            Come on…….I’m waiting for an answer!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            If a case that had been previously decided upheld a law, that law is subject to future legal challenges. If it is challenged, and comes before the court again, the court can issue a different ruling.

            Again, a court ruling cannot change a law. It can, however, change the ability of the state to enforce the law.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Ohhh I see how it works. If we have a godless, lawless, lying, Muslim pResident who appoints two homos to the bench, we can change the law whenever we want!!

            Next laugh!!!

          • acontraryview

            Again, the law did not change. The enforceability of the law changed.

            Which two SCOTUS justices are homosexual and what is your basis for that belief?

          • afchief

            Come on!!! If the SCOTUS said that sodomy was against the law in 1986 how can the law be changed? Was it because of?

            A. A lawless pResident
            B. Homo judges on the Court
            C. The Judges changed
            D. All of the above

            LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            The law wasn’t changed. The enforceability of the law was changed.

            A. George Bush was president in 2003
            B. Not that I’m aware of – do you have proof that any of the SCOTuS judges in 2003 were homosexual?
            C. That they did

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, more proof you ARE a liar!!!

            LOL!

          • acontraryview

            What proof?

          • SFBruce

            You may want to read your own quote from cnsnews a bit more carefully.

            “Not until 2000 did voters overturn the long-invalidated provision.” (Emphasis mine.)

            invalidate = void, nullify, annul, negate, cancel, disallow, overturn,overrule

          • afchief

            Will you please USE that liberal cranium!!!!! If the Alabama people voted for a interracial marriage ban in their state back whenever, and the people approve it…..then it is the LAW of the state!!! If the people decide it is time to remove the ban and vote to remove it then is removed BY THE PEOPLE…….in 2000.

            KNOW the law!!!!

  • BarkingDawg

    So?

    It’s a bill. It’ll never make it out of committee.

  • Samuel M Pierce Jr

    Way to Go!!

  • Ambulance Chaser

    Interposition is not a right that states have. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). If this passes it will be unconstitutional.

    “’A court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect,’ it says.”

    I know of no court decision that “strikes down natural marriage” (or “purports to”), but if the Supreme Court issued one, it would definitely be authoritative, valid, and have effect. Luckily, no court has ever issued such a ruling.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Lots of quotes from the opinions in dissent on Obergefell. Those were the losing arguments that failed to persuade four other justices.

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    This makes perfect sense. the Supreme Court says that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional so let’s introduce a same-sex marriage ban. Whoopie.

    Two cases: Cooper v. Aaron — similar nonsense after Brown v. Board of Ed desegregated the schools and;

    Marbury v. Madison. For more than two hundred years we have accepted the premise that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution.

    Unless you have 38 states to ratify an amendment, Obegefell is the law of the land. All this fuss and wasted time and money that doesn’t affect anyone other than the wedded couples.

  • Mr. G.

    Once again the conservative tendency to misname legislation. Nowhere do we see marriage between 1 man and 1 woman being in any way attacked. You’d think SCOTUS had indicated some intent to nullify existing “natural” marriages.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Actually you’d think that gay marriage means that these people are obligated to gay marry. I know — “gay marriage” is incorrect. It’s just marriage.

    • bowie1

      I think it is more about imposing on people’s religious freedom not to support services they disagree with. One example is of course is the business couple who were FORCED to pay a $130,000 fine to a lesbian couple in one of the states.

      • Mr. G.

        Can a restaurant refuse to serve a person of color?
        Can a baker refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial couple?

        • Michael C

          but… but… but… it’s not the same thing because no one has ever tried to use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination against interracial couples!

          • Mr. G.

            LOLOLOL – Good one, Michael 😉

          • afchief

            Interracial couples have plumbing that goes together. Homos don’t!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Thank you very much for your concern about our “plumbing” but we (my husband and i) can tell you that it works all fine. It is very pleasurable for the active party, while the receiving party can reach his climax without any further manual intervention needed. Can you satisfy your partner as well?
            And about that procreation thing, i know that the concept might be difficult for you, but humanity and the animal kingdom differ in a few things. Humanity is about more than procreation only (unless you believe in evolution). Its called civilization. And some people are so much more talented than the “plumbers”, and therefore contribute so much more to civilization, that god does not want them to be bothered by children.

            Remember what he himself has to say about it:
            Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
            “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
            and let not the eunuch say,
            “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
            For thus says the Lord:
            “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
            who choose the things that please me
            and hold fast my covenant,
            I will give in my house and within my walls
            a monument and a name
            better than sons and daughters;
            I will give them an everlasting name
            that shall not be cut off.

          • afchief

            You are disgusting! You are a liar!! You have been given over to a reprobate mind!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Nothing of the above is a lie. That you find me disgusting is fine, but nothing more than your opinion. Claiming that your disgust is founded in christianity is nothing more than blasphemy.

        • bowie1

          No, that is to do with an inherent physical appearance as opposed to deviant sexual behavior which requires an action on the part of the person or persons. Even some black activists are opposed to same sex marriage or any other combination that people come up with and thus certain products may become problematic.

          • Mr. G.

            There are those who believe that inter-racial marriage is deviant and that inter-racial sex is deviant. There are those who believe that even associating with a person of another race in any way is a sin the justifies brutal assault. Shall we allow businesses to operate on that basis?

          • bowie1

            Then they may as well go to a unitarian or liberal preacher who is quite willing to perform a wedding – or go to the justice of the peace. Besides even with an opposite sex couple they may be asked about their faith, possibly attending some pre-wedding classes in some churches.

          • Mr. G.

            And I don’t hear anyone suggesting anything else. As far as the essential joining of the “wedding”, I don’t see being asked to provide services advertised to the public at large suggesting than anyone other then the person performing the ceremony being asked to do anything other than what they believe. A person who has sought elective office is only asked to fulfill what the office says it requires – to certify that the couple seeking to be married meets the qualifications of the state – not the religion of the one who performs any “service” to the public.

          • afchief

            Bowie, you are dealing with minds given over to depravity. They cannot see or understand truth. It is foolishness to them 1 Cor 2:14

          • afchief

            How is inter-racial marriage deviant? They both have the plumbing that is MEANT to come together. Homos don’t!

          • Bob Johnson

            Bob Jones Sr. was pastor and founder of Bob Jones University. In his Easter Sunday 1960 sermon Dr. Jones shows using Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 17 how racial segregation is the will of God.

            Here is a quote from part of the sermon…
            “For instance, we are living in the midst of race turmoil all over the world today. Look at what they are facing in Africa, and look at what we are facing in this country. It is all contrary to Scripture- it is all contrary to the Word of God. I am going to show you that the Bible is perfectly clear on race – just as clear as it can be.”

          • afchief

            Marriage between two Christians of another race is not wrong. Marriage to a non-believer is.

            2 Corinthians 6:14 (NASB) Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Marriage to a non-believer” is wrong? That’s just like same-sex marriage, then. You and/or your church can think it’s wrong all they like, and indeed they should not be forced to conduct any marriages they don’t approve of (is that even happening anywhere?), but no church has any kind of say in civil marriage in this country.

          • afchief

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

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

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

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve noticed you’re copy-and-pasting David Barton now…well, I can do some copy and pasting too then…from “People For The American Way”‘s website:

            David Barton is in many ways emblematic of politics in Fox News – Tea
            Party America, in which facts are distorted in service of a right-wing
            ideological agenda, and in which political opponents are denigrated as
            enemies of faith and freedom. Barton’s work has repeatedly been debunked
            by historians and scholars, yet conservative political leaders and
            pundits continue to promote his manipulations in order to help
            Republicans get elected and in order to advance the Religious Right’s –
            and now the Tea Party’s – political agenda. It is urgently important for
            scholars, public officials, and responsible media outlets to vigorously
            challenge efforts by Barton, his supporters, and the movements they
            represent to miseducate current and future generations of Americans on
            the Constitution and the abiding American values of religious liberty,
            equal opportunity, and equality under the law.

          • afchief

            This man speaks truth. Everything is WELL documented. I see this ALL the time from liberals and homo JUST LIKE YOU!!! Lies!!!

            Another lie, which is liberals and homos defining characteristic.

          • PietjePuk

            So as long as two man are both christians it is fine to marry?

          • afchief

            You are a sick man given over to a reprobate mind!! Homosexuality is perverted!!! It is deviant!!! It is extremely dangerous to ones physical and spiritual health!!!!

            Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • Mr. G.

            I didn’t say I think inter-racial marriage is deviant. I said there are those who believe that it is. During the time that laws banning inter-racial marriage were being contested in court, those who thought it’s deviant were quoting their Bible verses justifying their objections to it. I’m fairly sure you can still find a few of those folks here and there.

          • afchief

            We Christians live under the New Testament today. Not the Old. There is no NT scripture banning interracial marriage. None!

          • Mr. G.

            There is no NT scripture banning same-sex marriage either 😉

          • afchief

            That is a BOLDFACE lie!!!!

          • Mr. G.

            I assume you have a chapter and verse to back that up?

          • afchief

            Maybe a reprobate mind will see the truth? Just Maybe??????

            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.

          • Mr. G.

            You’ve given lots of references to disdain for practices associated with idol worship and homosexual rape (Sodom), but nothing to condemn loving same-sex relationships / marriage. Given that I’m a straight man, I have no “proclivities” in this area to concern myself with. I read the Bible in the cultural context rather than seeking to confirm my personal biases.

          • afchief

            See, what you fail to see is what Jesus said. For thousands of years homosexuality was looked at as perverted, deviant, extremely dangerous and immoral. What has changed today. You liberals and homosexuals like to call it “social justice” “enlightenment” or whatever.

            Jesus said it will be just like the days of Lot when He returns. That there would be open homosexuality. That it would be accepted in societies. IT HAS TO HAPPEN!!!

            That is why we are very close to the return of Christ.

          • Mr. G.

            Where did Jesus say that? That there will be homosexual rape? Not surprising. That’s still something of a custom in some quarters around the Middle East.

            As a somewhat traditional Christian mystic, I rely heavily on the Holy Spirit when reading scripture and pretty much refuse to be bound by traditions of men. Systems of scriptural interpretation are designed to end up with a destination presumed to be true by the men who cooked them up. I am not bound by those either.

          • afchief

            You are living a lie and lost in sin. I see it by your posts. Romans 1 fits you to a “T”

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

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

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

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

          • Mr. G.

            Despite your imaginings, I am neither an idol worshiper nor homosexual. Quoting Bible verses at me does not make it so.

          • Mr. G.

            I’m curious: what’s your answer to, “Why did you say the things you did about my gay brothers and sisters?” e.g. do you think, “I thought I was just following orders will save you?”

          • afchief

            Ezekiel 33:8-9 (NASB) When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity (homosexuality), but his blood I will require from your hand. 9 But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.

          • PietjePuk

            Again you quote to selectively, because this is only the introduction to the second verse:

            2 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judges, for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit such things. 3 Do you think, O man, who judges those who do such things, and who does the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

          • Bob Johnson

            You apparently haven’t read much about ancient Greek and Roman culture.

          • afchief

            I sure have!!! One of the most contributing factors to the demise of Rome and Greek WAS homosexuality.

          • PietjePuk

            Lot had nothing to do with homosexuality. The story of Sodom was about inhospitality towards foreigners.
            If I look at the current attitudes in the US towards foreigners (refugees, mexican) that the days like Lot are indeed upon us

          • afchief

            Stop with your lies. You are making yourself look foolish.

            What does the word “Sodom” mean? Or are you going to lie about that also.

          • PietjePuk

            Sodom was a city that was destroyed by god. Read your bible.

          • PietjePuk

            Sorry dude, but many times wrong.

            Lets start with S&G. That was a post 500 invention of christianity. Judaism doesn’t interpret S&G as having anything to do with homosexuality. If you want, I have plenty of references to Talmud and other Jewish scripture stating just that(let me know if you want to have them).. (You also might want to check up on Judges 19 and 20, very similar story, with same outcome for the city, but then with heterosexual rape. If S&G would be about homosexuality, then Judges 19 and 20 would make heterosexuality a great sin as well, which is obviously nonsense).

            Leviticus is about ritual purity. Jesus was very clear about the importance of Leviticus: It is not about what goes into the mouth (referring to shellfish, etc.) but it is about what comes out of the mouth (words). Jesus also teaches people not to judge (especially not with a cold heart), or at most, judge righteously. But then again he gives guidance about what that means: because no bad fruit comes from good trees, and no good fruit comes from bad trees, basically meaning that you will be judged by the fruits of your life.

            Matthew 19 is often quoted as Jesus giving guidance when it comes to marriage. But everybody stops conveniently at verse 4. They never include the quote of verse 11 and 12:

            11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

            Now you will say that eunuchs are castrated men, but that is already proven to be untrue because also the 3rd option is referred to as eunuchs. Apparently the difference between an born eunuch and a man made eunuch is important enough to make that distinction. The talmud and also the roman law of that time provides the context to explain why it is important. Because a born eunuch still has all his “tools” at his disposal, where a man made eunuch is a castrated male. Born eunuchs are men that do not have a desire for women. Sounds like? (again, references are available)

            Romans 1 is one of the most misquoted parts of the bible, as it only serves as an introduction to the rest of the letters. If you read Romans 2 directly after, you almost think that Paul was the first LGBT rights activist:

            2 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judges, for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit such things. 3 Do you think, O man, who judges those who do such things, and who does the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

            Besides that, Romans 1 is about temple prostitution (worshipping of other gods = Baal, which included sex in the temple with everything with a hole, brother, sister, mother, grandparents, children, men and women).

            There are two other parts in the bible (corinthien and timothy) that in some modern translations condemn homosexuality. These translations are quite liberal with the truth, as nobody knows exactly what the two key words (arsenokoitai and another one) actually mean.

            For example, at the time of Martin Luther, “arsenokoitai” was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior so it shifted to homosexuality.

            Not really a good reason to condemn a whole group of people don’t you think?

            Regarding Saul, David was not married with the oldest daughter of Saul when he got married with the youngest (after the oldest was promised, but Saul did not deliver on the promise). Saul clearly states that David was his son in law twice (not as the later translations made up one in the twice). He was still alive at that point. That can only refer to his relationship with Jonathan. There are more strong reasons to believe so. For example, after David and Jonathan made a covenant, it says: “2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house”. If you might remember Genesis 2: “24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”, it is pretty clear what the covenant was about.

            And how about the original version of the kissing story between david and jonathan, were david got “gadal”. This part is translated differently in almost every version of the bible, because most literally it means “to become large”. Obviously a translation most translators are too uncomfortable with.

            David also is very clear that he finds the love for Jonathan more beautiful as the love for women. And as the love for women in that time had never a platonic meaning, this can only mean one thing.

            We also have the love story between ruth and naomi. Also clear is the story about Daniel, as it is about two eunuchs (and you know already what that means)…

            Homosexuality is about love. Love is the greatest gift of god:

            The Greatest Gift

            1 Corinthians 13:
            Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[b] but have not love, it profits me nothing.

            4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

            8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there aretongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

            1 Corinthians 14:
            Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

            There is no condemnation of loving and caring same sex relationships in the bible.

          • PietjePuk

            There might me in some translations, but there is not much common ground when it comes to the translations.

          • Bob Johnson

            Acts of the Apostles. New Testament.

          • afchief

            NOPE, there is not. Is so give me a verse.

          • PietjePuk

            There is no NT scripture banning same sex marriage, NONE!

          • afchief

            There sure is!!!!!!!

            Matthew 19:5 (NASB) and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

          • PietjePuk

            And Matthew 19:11 and 12 you so conveniently leave out…

            11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

          • afchief

            This is why you have been given over to a reprobate mind. You cannot see truth!!!

            God has defined marriage in the OT and the NT as between one man and one woman, PERIOD!!!

            Stop with your lying!!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Sorry dude. You are factually wrong.

            Jesus gave three exceptions when it comes to marriage:

            11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

            Don’t you know the following scripture:

            Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
            “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
            and let not the eunuch say,
            “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
            For thus says the Lord:
            “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
            who choose the things that please me
            and hold fast my covenant,
            I will give in my house and within my walls
            a monument and a name
            better than sons and daughters;
            I will give them an everlasting name
            that shall not be cut off.

          • afchief

            Yes, the Word of God is sooooooooooooooooo true about people like you. It is so clear you have been given over to a reprobate mind. You continuously lie. You continue to deny scripture! You continue to twist scripture to justify your sin.

            Yes, YOU are a liar and serve the father of lies………..satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Did jesus not give three exceptions? Does the quote not come from the bible?

          • afchief

            Know the Word of God and stop lying!!!!!!

            Question: “What is a eunuch in the Bible? What does the Bible say about eunuchs?”

            Answer: The eunuchs of the Bible were usually castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. A eunuch could also be someone who performed work typical of eunuchs, although he remained perfectly capable of having sex—i.e., “eunuch” in some cases was simply a title. The purpose of intentional castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality. It was a common practice in ancient times for rulers to castrate some of their servants and/or advisers in order to subdue and pacify them. It was especially common to castrate men who tended the royal harem. Queen Esther’s eunuchs are mentioned in Esther 4:4.

            In Matthew 19:12, Jesus mentions eunuchs in the context of whether it is good to marry. He says, “There are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus identifies three types of “eunuchs” here: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).

            Natural eunuchs include those who are born with a physical defect, but they also comprise those who are born with no real desire for marriage or sex. Forced eunuchs are those who have been castrated for whatever reason. Voluntary eunuchs are those who, in order to better serve the Lord in some capacity, choose to forego marriage. God calls some people to remain single (and therefore celibate). Paul speaks of those who serve the Lord in their unmarried state in 1 Corinthians 7:7—9.

            Some gay groups argue that Jesus was referring to homosexuals when He mentioned eunuchs who were “born that way.” However, the Bible never uses the words homosexual and eunuch interchangeably. Furthermore, eunuchs are never referred to in Scripture as being in sin, while homosexuality is universally condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

            http://www.gotquestions. org/eunuch-eunuchs.html

          • PietjePuk

            Read up on the last category:

            11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

            You 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

            I’m not reading your garbage. I KNOW the Word of God and what it says about homosexuality. I KNOW a reprobate mind when I see one and you are one.

            Homosexuality IS a lie. It is sin. It IS death.

            You are a liar!!!

          • PietjePuk

            If you don’t read it, you don’t know.
            You call me a liar, but don’t substantiate. If I proof you are wrong, you don’t want to read.

            What does that make you????

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Chief, I suspect that one is running multiple accounts. His ID is very similar to another account being ran over at Charisma News.

            These activists know no shame. The mod staff over here needs to get more firm in booting these guys.

          • afchief

            I agree Adam. Most of these liberal/homo trolls are paid to disrupt conversations on Christian and conservative sites.

          • PietjePuk

            May I suggest you stop lying. Read the bible first before you claim all kind of things about other people.

            You are a false prophet, and you sin against one of the famous ten “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”

            Or the later version: “love your neighbor as you love yourself”.

            Repent before it is too late!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I think a lot of homosexual couples are perfectly happy with the way their “plumbing comes together”. And why is marriage only about sex with people like you?

          • afchief

            It is perverted! It is deviant! It is extremely dangerous. It is sin. It is death!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Perverted and deviant? According to you? Your religion? Well, I don’t believe in either one of those.

            Dangerous? About any kind of sex can be dangerous, but there are ways to make it a lot safer.

            Sin? I don’t believe in that either.

          • afchief

            You are on a Christian site. This is what we believe. It will NOT change.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t expect it to, just stating what I believe myself. And I know for a fact that not all Christians agree with you.

          • afchief

            I know for a FACT they do. Because what I believe comes directly from the Word of God.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Let me guess……anyone who calls themselves a Christian but disagrees with you isn’t a TRUE Christian, right?

          • afchief

            If the Word of God states it, where is the disagreement?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There are different interpretations of that “Word of God”, aren’t there?

          • afchief

            Yes there are and they all say the same thing.

            Why are you here?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            All interpretations of the “Word of God” say the same thing?? Wow…..so how come there’s so many different Christian denominations then?

          • afchief

            Because of doctrine.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Anyway, that’s not even the point, I was just trying to say not all Christians agree on things.

          • afchief

            OK! But we all agree homosexuality is sin. Even a rational and logical thinker knows this.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “But we all agree homosexuality is sin”

            Not really. That was my point.

            “Some Christians have come to believe that gay sex is not an inherently
            sinful practice. Denominations holding this position include the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church, the Metropolitan Community Church, and the Friends General Conference. Also in Europe the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Lutheran Church of Denmark, the Lutheran Church in Norway, the Lutheran Church of Iceland, the Protestant Church of the Netherlands, the German Lutheran and United Churches in Evangelical Church in Germany and the reformed churches in Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches believe that gay sex is not an inherently sinful practice. The Metropolitan Community Church has been founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community.” (wikipedia)

          • afchief

            2 Timothy 3:1-5 (NASB) But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

          • PietjePuk

            You are talking about yourself:

            unloving, irreconcilable malicious gossips….

            Should you be avoided?

          • PietjePuk

            Sorry dude, you are wrong. It is not a sin.

          • afchief

            Have you ever stopped and thought what has changed in the last 7 to whatever years for a society to accept homosexuality? Why was homosexuality shunned and looked at as immoral for thousands of years. Not just by a few in society, but by all. Why is it so accepted today verses years ago? We Christians know why but I would like to hear a non-believer’s point of view.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, for one thing, it’s not like homosexuality was condemned by everyone until 7 years ago, and now everyone’s fine with it. You do know other countries around the world have had same-sex marriage long before we did, right? There have been varying degrees of acceptance, depending on where and when you’re talking about.

          • afchief

            Why is it accepted/tolerated now and not 40 years ago?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Good question, actually. Maybe it’s just the next logical step in the trend toward eliminating discrimination against particular groups of people.

            I think I have a pretty good guess as to why you think that is, though. Because the end times are approaching soon, right? Don’t even try to tell me all Christians believe that one, I know they don’t.

          • afchief

            In your heart you KNOW why. You just don’t to admit it.

            Yes, we Christians know EXACTLY why it is happening. And yes we are VERY close.

            I would advise you to get right with God. Tomorrow is not promised.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought I said this like a million times before, but I’ll try again: I don’t believe in a god. Did you not understand that? Don’t try to tell me what I “know in my heart”. Obviously, you don’t know a damn thing about me.

          • afchief

            I do know about you. You are no different then anyone else in the world. That which is known about God is within you. Because when you stand before God, you will be WITHOUT excuse. You just suppress the truth by living in sin. Sin blinds. Sin kills.

            Romans 1:18-20 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

            You will have NO excuse, because it is within you, because it is clearly seen!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I try to respect people of all religions, even though I don’t believe in any religion…..people like you make it hard, you know that?

          • afchief

            That’s because I speak the “hard truths” that will offend you. Whether you believe or not, you are actually serving satan. Satan cannot stand the truth. It makes him angry.

            1 John 3:8 (NASB) the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You offend me, but it’s because you’re a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous ass.

          • afchief

            It’s not me, IT’S THE TRUTH! If it is not truth, then prove me wrong.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Prove yourself right. You’re the one making the claims, not me.

          • afchief

            What I state comes from the Word of God and is truth!!! Jesus said in John 15:18 (NASB) “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

            Concerning this subject about the SCOTUS ruling I have proven over and over how law is made, changed and removed. NO ONE has shown me a law stating homo marriage is legal federally. NO ONE!!!!

            THE TRUTH ALWAYS OFFENDS!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You haven’t proven anything.

          • PietjePuk

            The more interesting question is why it was accepted 1500 years ago and not 100….

          • PietjePuk

            Thanks to internet, many more homosexuals have found the freedom to get out of their “closet”. And as every family has one or two, lots of people now have friends, family, neighbors, colleges, etc. who are gay. They find out that gay people are actually not much different from theirselves, or their other friends/neighbors. They recognize that their relationships follow exactly the same patterns as heterosexual relationships. They recognize the biblical misinterpretations of the likes of you for what they are: bogus bigotry….
            I know you have been reborn three times by now, and have read the bible 12 times. But I would recommend to reread the bible again and now without your bigot glasses. And don’t forget that your sin made it actually to the famous ten: Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Repent before it is too late! You are a lost soul

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a liar and serve the father of lies….satan. It is quite obvious you have been given over to a reprobate mind. Very obvious!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Proof that I am a liar….

          • PietjePuk

            Actually they do not. There is quite some difference of interpretation about the story between david and jonathan kissing. Most translators are very uncomfortable about the word gadal which means “to grow large”. The most literal translation would be: And David kissed Jonathan and became large… The word Arsekonotai was pre 1950’s translated as masturbator. As this is acceptable behavior these days, the meaning has shifted to the latest target group. Also the meaning of your favorite story (S&G) differs considerably between yours, and the one of the copy right holders to the story (Judaism).

          • afchief

            Take your evil disgusting lying garbage elsewhere!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Proof that I am a liar..

          • Bob Johnson

            Since I don’t read ancient Greek, all I have are interpretations. And every translation was done for a political purpose.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Very true.

          • PietjePuk

            Which version? which translation?

          • PietjePuk

            I give you something straight from the word of god. Just after your favorite passage:

            2 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judges, for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit such things. 3 Do you think, O man, who judges those who do such things, and who does the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

            (romans 2)

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies….satan!!!

            Ephesians 5:9-12 (NASB) (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them (homosexuality); 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.

          • PietjePuk

            I bet that what you have put between brackets is your own addition.

            Nowhere in the NT you find condemnation of loving and caring same sex relationships.

          • Bob Johnson

            Geocentrism, slavery, women’s suffrage, segregation – religion follows society, afchief’s grandchildren will be telling us how the church lead the way in marriage equality.

          • PietjePuk

            That is a contradiction in terminis… You might believe that homosexuality is a sin, but that has nothing to do with christ. Quite the opposite actually…

          • 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.

            I will not converse with you anymore.

            Take your lies elsewhere!!!!

          • PietjePuk

            Proof that it is a lie.
            Seems you are the false prophet here…

          • Bob Johnson

            Afchief should just quote Justice Potter Stewart, “I know it when I see it.”

            Of course that would be taking the quote somewhat out of context because the quote ends, “and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

          • PietjePuk

            it is love, the greatest gift of god.

          • PietjePuk

            Thank you very much for your concern about our “plumbing” but we (my husband and i) can tell you that it works all fine. It is very pleasurable for the active party, while the receiving party can reach his climax without any further manual intervention needed. Can you satisfy your partner as well?
            And about that procreation thing, i know that the concept might be difficult for you, but humanity and the animal kingdom differ in a few things. Humanity is about more than procreation only (unless you believe in evolution). Its called civilization. And some people are so much more talented than the “plumbers”, and therefore contribute so much more to civilization, that god does not want them to be bothered by children.

            Remember what he himself has to say about it:
            Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
            “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
            and let not the eunuch say,
            “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
            For thus says the Lord:
            “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
            who choose the things that please me
            and hold fast my covenant,
            I will give in my house and within my walls
            a monument and a name
            better than sons and daughters;
            I will give them an everlasting name
            that shall not be cut off.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Same-sex marriage, or indeed any marriage for that matter, does not require any sort of sexual behavior, nor does any sort of sexual behavior (whether you think it’s deviant or not) require marriage. So, you’re really not giving an argument against gay marriage, it’s an argument against gays. Maybe you’re one of those people that thinks we should legislate what consenting people do to each other behind closed doors, but I’m not.

          • gizmo23

            How about different religions? Those are a choice not a physical appearance

          • afchief

            2 Corinthians 6:14 (NASB) Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

            Christians who are of different races is scriptural. However, a Christian marrying a godless liberal is not.

          • acontraryview

            No, that is to do with an inherent physical appearance

            The law stated that people of the same gender were not allowed to marry. Gender is an “inherent physical appearance”.

            “as opposed to deviant sexual behavior which requires an action on the part of the person or persons.”

            So if two citizens of the same gender were not having sexual relations, then there is no issue as far as your concerned, correct?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Okay, but that’s not what the bill says. It says. It’s complaining about “court rulings purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell.” Which Obergefell does not do, nor does any other ruling.

        • afchief

          Obergefell is a State issue. It is NOT a federal issue. If the State legislature agrees with the ruling, then they can make it a state law. Until then, it is ONLY an opinion.

          KNOW the law!!!

          • Joe Soap

            There are over one billion people on this planet who now have access to same sex marriage. That’s a fact not an opinion. You and the rest of the deadwood can argle bargle on about it as much as you like but it ain’t goin’ away.

          • afchief

            Then show me the law that states homos can marry. 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?

          • Joe Soap

            I know this will be a shock to you but try to take it in. There are other countries on this planet besides America. Most of the west now has same sex marriage and they didn’t have to go running to the courts to do it. That crap is strictly American.
            So you and your ilk can whine about it as much as you like but you are on a loser. You cannot win this and all the “opinions” in the world won’t change it.
            You are an intolerant, illiberal, conservative who whinges on the internet about stuff you are powerless to change in reality. Well nobody cares what you think. Society has moved on so maybe it would be better if you just took yourself off and found a nice cave to live in. Stock up on guns, ammo and canned spam, and await the coming apocalypse. Of course that’s just my “opinion”.

          • afchief

            The Case Against Homosexual Activity

            Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society—specifically issues such as homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and other “gay rights” issues—revolve around two central and critical issues. Those issues are: is homosexual activity moral and “legalizeable” or immoral and “illegalizeable”?

            If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

            Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and “illegalizeable,” then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

            Or, to frame it another way: We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy, consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult exhibitionism, etc. For around two hundred years we had laws against consenting-adult homosexual activity—and the country did just fine. Does the elimination of the laws against homosexual activity (and marriage and adoption) make any sense?

            In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of those aforementioned central homosexual issues.

            To begin, a little history. For many many years in this country homosexual activity was deemed immoral and was not legal. It was only first decriminalized in Illinois in 1961. Other states eventually followed the precedent Illinois set. Also, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from its official list of psychological disorders in 1973. The APA’s controversial decision to do so was nowhere near a unanimous decision by its then members because—just as a female mind in a male body and a male mind in a female body are sure signs that something went wrong somewhere, in either nature and/or nurture—a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was widely considered to be a disorder. The associated fact that homosexuals were basically impotent with the opposite gender also was part of the equation.

            Now, why was homosexual activity deemed immoral and why wasn’t it legal? And why do so many people still deem homosexual activity immoral?

            For centuries, the position of “traditional value” people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual activity is a negative deviation from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations.

            Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to “discriminate” against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who masturbate or have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren’t hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to “discriminate” against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like “Exhibitionists offend people.” We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don’t want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

            Legal homosexual acts are bad legal and moral precedents. Let us explain in more detail.

            Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

            For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior’s coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

            To those “freedom-loving” liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone’s property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause “white flight” and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal and moral swamp liberal extremists are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democrat politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

            And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties). In either case, whether “freedom-loving” liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology. Once they’ve established the principle that negative deviations from reasonable norms are okay, to selectively apply that principle is discriminatory.

            Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

            Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than “normal,” they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually “normal” people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty—it doesn’t hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not “hurt” anybody.

            If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the “path of least resistance.”

            Indeed, over the last 40 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., etc.

            Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

            Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio—all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

            It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

            Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

            The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

            (We believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like homosexual sex. And having mentioned “race” in the preceding paragraph—homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

            Homosexuals try to “naturalize” their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Too, nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. There are genes which predispose people to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

            (There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally “mount” another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals, e.g., pet dogs, will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

            As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people: in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, be violent, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (To go to extremes to clearly illustrate a point—what if some poor guy felt a “natural/instinctual” desire to have sex with a consenting sheep—are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous, though not so preposterous to a liberal Princeton University philosopher named Peter Singer who rationalized human-animal sex. And what if there is a necrophilia-gene? Having sex with dead people doesn’t “hurt” anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?)

            “There’s a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and engaging in exhibitionist deviations or consenting-adult brother/sister or parent/offspring sexual deviations,” we’ve heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if those differences are very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong—stealing is stealing. Homosexual deviations are immoral; exhibitionist deviations are immoral; brother/sister and parent/offspring sexual deviations are immoral; all are wrong, differences or no differences.

            Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences—the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most “convenient” to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

            “But it’s love,” homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your parents or your sibling or your baby or your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love warrant different behaviors. Love doesn’t justify immoral sexual activity.

            And in addition to homosexual partners being negative deviations from the norm and setting bad legal and moral precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature’s way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

            Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings—from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

            The response to that is: allowing “unnatural” things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they can lead to social approval of other deviant sex acts. (As noted previously, a misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of man-boy sex.

            “Who are you to judge others?” we have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.—obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others. And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and “homophobic” for being against homosexual activity.

            Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. That argument is so bad, so ridiculous it could even be used by pedophiles. Pedophiles can say that if adults were just having sex with 5-year-olds we wouldn’t have a population problem! Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts (or, to get a little bizarre to make a point, necrophilia or bestiality) to control our population numbers.

            Then there is the “consenting adults” argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

          • TheKingOfRhye


            We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy,
            consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult
            exhibitionism”

            LOL…..do you not see why “consenting-adult” exhibitionism does NOT belong on that list at ALL?

            “a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body”

            What? What if someone had a heterosexual mind in a homosexual body? How can there even be such a concept as a “heterosexual body”, anyway? The mind is the thing that establishes someone’s sexual orientation, not their body.

            “If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.”

            OK, I guess whoever it is you’re copy-and-pasting that from doesn’t understand why that, or the exhibitionism example, is not comparable to the sexual conduct of two consenting people. Robbing a bank, or engaging in public nudity, is NOT an act that’s just between two consenting adults, there’s the two consenting adults, and the bank, which I’m pretty sure is not consenting to being robbed. Or the people who don’t want to see some random nudity in a public place.

            (or you could just combine the two scenarios, I guess…exhibitionistic bank robbers! That might not work too well, though…not really much of a disguise, and obviously nowhere to conceal a weapon either)

          • Joe Soap

            If you are going to plagiarize the work of others you could at least credit your sources.

          • Bob Johnson

            Apparently they don’t need a law to get married – just a court order.

          • afchief

            Then why do states have a marriage clause in the Constitutions?

          • hamfish

            I’ve done 5 minutes of internet research and even I can tell you you’re talking out of your backside.
            “Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and
            requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and
            to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other
            jurisdictions.[4] This legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and its possessions and territories”

          • afchief

            Yes, it is quite obvious that reprobate minds are very dense.

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

      • acontraryview

        “I think it is more about imposing on people’s religious freedom not to support services they disagree with.”

        Actually, it’s not. Marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws are distinct and separate. While it is legal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage in SC, it is also legal for businesses in SC to refuse service based upon a person being gay. Sexuality is not a covered category in anti-discrimination laws in SC.

        “One example is of course is the business couple who were FORCED to pay a $130,000 fine to a lesbian couple in one of the states.”

        Yes, Bowie, when you break the law you are “FORCED” to pay the consequences of your actions. Do you disagree that people should be held accountable to the law?

  • Samuel F Waddell

    Same sex marriage may be the law of a lost land but not the law of God. What can be the future of a generation that wars against God? Don’t bother to say there there is no God.

    • PietjePuk

      Care to ask yourself why David was the son in Law of Saul twice?

      • Samuel F Waddell

        Because David killed Goliath he was given Saul’s daughter Michal. Then when Saul was trying to kill David he gave Michal to another man as a wife. Later after Saul was killed David took her back as his wife. David and Jonathan were very close friend and had brotherly love of each other, which had nothing to do with sex. To be honest the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination and unnatural. Israel was very strict about this ; they knew what had happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. In the New Testament we are offered CHRIST’S forgiveness for sin and homosexual sex is forgiven by CHRIST when a person admits it is a sin and repents, turns from it and surrenders to JESUS. This goes for sinful lifestyles in general. God is patient with a person who really wants to do the Lord’s will and will help and forgive them, even when they fall and get up. But He also gives us his Holy Spirit and expects us to grow to the place where we overcome! This is called sanctification. ” Be Holy for I am Holy” 1 Peter 1:16.So the Christian life according to Scripture does not condone the gay and lesbian lifestyle or any sinful lifestyle but forgives, cleanses and transforms people into what God wants.

        • PietjePuk

          Sorry dude, but many times wrong.

          Lets start with S&G. That was a post 500 invention of christianity. Judaism doesn’t interpret S&G as having anything to do with homosexuality. If you want, I have plenty of references to Talmud and other Jewish scripture stating just that(let me know if you want to have them).. (You also might want to check up on Judges 19 and 20, very similar story, with same outcome for the city, but then with heterosexual rape. If S&G would be about homosexuality, then Judges 19 and 20 would make heterosexuality a great sin as well, which is obviously nonsense).

          Leviticus is about ritual purity. Jesus was very clear about the importance of Leviticus: It is not about what goes into the mouth (referring to shellfish, etc.) but it is about what comes out of the mouth (words). Jesus also teaches people not to judge (especially not with a cold heart), or at most, judge righteously. But then again he gives guidance about what that means: because no bad fruit comes from good trees, and no good fruit comes from bad trees, basically meaning that you will be judged by the fruits of your life.

          Matthew 19 is often quoted as Jesus giving guidance when it comes to marriage. But everybody stops conveniently at verse 4. They never include the quote of verse 11 and 12:

          11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

          Now you will say that eunuchs are castrated men, but that is already proven to be untrue because also the 3rd option is referred to as eunuchs. Apparently the difference between an born eunuch and a man made eunuch is important enough to make that distinction. The talmud and also the roman law of that time provides the context to explain why it is important. Because a born eunuch still has all his “tools” at his disposal, where a man made eunuch is a castrated male. Born eunuchs are men that do not have a desire for women. Sounds like? (again, references are available)

          Romans 1 is one of the most misquoted parts of the bible, as it only serves as an introduction to the rest of the letters. If you read Romans 2 directly after, you almost think that Paul was the first LGBT rights activist:

          2 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judges, for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit such things. 3 Do you think, O man, who judges those who do such things, and who does the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

          Besides that, Romans 1 is about temple prostitution (worshipping of other gods = Baal, which included sex in the temple with everything with a hole, brother, sister, mother, grandparents, children, men and women).

          There are two other parts in the bible (corinthien and timothy) that in some modern translations condemn homosexuality. These translations are quite liberal with the truth, as nobody knows exactly what the two key words (arsenokoitai and another one) actually mean.

          For example, at the time of Martin Luther, “arsenokoitai” was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior so it shifted to homosexuality.

          Not really a good reason to condemn a whole group of people don’t you think?

          Regarding Saul, David was not married with the oldest daughter of Saul when he got married with the youngest (after the oldest was promised, but Saul did not deliver on the promise). Saul clearly states that David was his son in law twice (not as the later translations made up one in the twice). He was still alive at that point. That can only refer to his relationship with Jonathan. There are more strong reasons to believe so. For example, after David and Jonathan made a covenant, it says: “2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house”. If you might remember Genesis 2: “24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”, it is pretty clear what the covenant was about.

          And how about the original version of the kissing story between david and jonathan, were david got “gadal”. This part is translated differently in almost every version of the bible, because most literally it means “to become large”. Obviously a translation most translators are too uncomfortable with.

          David also is very clear that he finds the love for Jonathan more beautiful as the love for women. And as the love for women in that time had never a platonic meaning, this can only mean one thing.

          We also have the love story between ruth and naomi. Also clear is the story about Daniel, as it is about two eunuchs (and you know already what that means)…

          Homosexuality is about love. Love is the greatest gift of god:

          The Greatest Gift

          1 Corinthians 13:
          Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[b] but have not love, it profits me nothing.

          4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

          8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there aretongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

          1 Corinthians 14:
          Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

          There is no condemnation of loving and caring same sex relationships in the bible.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            HOMOSEXUAL SEX SHOWN AS SIN THE NEW TESTAMENT

            ROMANS 1: 24 Therefore
            God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for
            the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They
            exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
            things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            26 Because
            of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
            natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned
            natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
            committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
            penalty for their error.

            28 Furthermore,
            just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God
            gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have
            become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They
            are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers,
            God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil;
            they disobey their parents; 31 they
            have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although
            they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,
            they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who
            practice them.

            1 CORINTHIANS 6: 9 Or do you
            not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
            deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who
            have sex with men[a]
            10 nor
            thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
            the kingdom of God. 11 And
            that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you
            were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
            God.

            JUDE 1: 5 Though you already know all this, I want
            to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered
            his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the
            angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper
            dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for
            judgment on the great Day. 7 In
            a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up
            to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who
            suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

            It is plain in GREEK and English that
            any sex other than a man and a woman in Holy marriage is a sin and forbidden by
            God. So do not be fooled by those who would lead you down the road to hell. I
            say this in the kindest way possible. There are many false teachers and false
            teaching today. A person must study the Scripture, with a humble heart, and a
            willingness to repent of all known sin. No one is perfect, but there is a
            difference in living in an unrepentant, sinful lifestyle and surrendering to
            God, in order to be changed by His power. PLEASE, for your own sake, do not
            continue in this false teaching. True Christians do not hate you! We have all
            had to deal with sin, repentance and redemption. But if someone tells you that
            you do not need to repent of homosexuality then they are, most definitely
            deceived and lying, whether they know it or not.

          • PietjePuk

            You forget Romans 2 dude, Romans 1 is only the introduction…

            2 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judges, for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit such things. 3 Do you think, O man, who judges those who do such things, and who does the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

            Don’t you read the first parts of Romans 1? It is clearly about worshipping other gods (baal). DOn’t you know that they worshipped baal with sex orchies? temple prostitution. They had sex with everything that could walk. That is referred to in Romans 1. Not really comparable to loving and caring same sex relationships….

            1 Corientien 6:9 is a current day translation/guess. Basically the meaning of the original word “arsekoinotai” is still unknown. don’t you know that the previous translation was masturbators? But as that became sociably accepted it has been changed to homosexuality.

            Same goes for your sodom and gomorrah reference in Jude 1. The original states quite something different. The word homosexuality didn’t even exist till 150 years ago.

            Don’t you know Matthew 19:

            11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

            Don’t you know the following scripture:

            Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
            “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
            and let not the eunuch say,
            “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
            For thus says the Lord:
            “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
            who choose the things that please me
            and hold fast my covenant,
            I will give in my house and within my walls
            a monument and a name
            better than sons and daughters;
            I will give them an everlasting name
            that shall not be cut off.

            Don’t you know that love is the greatest gift of god?

        • PietjePuk

          Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
          “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
          and let not the eunuch say,
          “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
          For thus says the Lord:
          “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
          who choose the things that please me
          and hold fast my covenant,
          I will give in my house and within my walls
          a monument and a name
          better than sons and daughters;
          I will give them an everlasting name
          that shall not be cut off.

        • afchief

          Don’t waste your time with this person. He is a liar and speaks lies.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            There are far too many like that these days. The signs of the times.

          • afchief

            So true!!

    • afchief

      It’s not the law of the land. It is ONLY a SCOTUS opinion. It changes NOTHING!

  • acontraryview

    What a colossal waste of time. Nothing more than attempt to pander to their constituents.

    “purporting to overturn natural marriage”

    “Natural” marriage was not overturned. Men and women are still free to get married.

    “This is saying that South Carolina should not sanction or ordain something we believe is wrong,”

    Reminds me of “Segregation today…..segregation tomorrow….segregation forever!!!!”

    ““I represent the people, and the people have shown several times that they are opposed to this”

    No, Chumpley, “the people” have not shown they are opposed to this. The vote in SC disallowing two otherwise qualified citizens from entering in to civil marriage based solely upon their gender occurred in 2006. Let’s look at the numbers: There are 2,722,280 voters in SC. A total of 1,049,568 voted on the issue, which means only 39% of the electorate even cared enough to vote on the issue. Of those who did vote, 818,663 (30% of registered voters) voted in favor and 230,674 (8% of registered voters) voted against. So the reality is that 22% of voters decided that two citizens of the state of South Carolina should be restricted from receiving a right offered to residents of the state of South Carolina based solely upon their gender. 22% is hardly “the people”.

    “I represent the people”

    Well, Chumpley, apparently you represent only SOME of the people, as 21% of the people you represent voted AGAINST the measure.

    • Unionville

      —-“Nothing more than attempt to pander to their constituents.”—-

      A state representative, elected by the people to represent their views in congress, pandering to those same people (constituents). Shocking.

      —-“”Natural” marriage was not overturned.”—-

      I agree. 5 unelected justices took it upon themselves to redefine marriage to include those for whom it was never intended.

      —-“Reminds me of “Segregation today.”—-

      It just wouldn’t be a discussion of same sex marriage without someone trying to equate disordered sexual attractions with skin color.

      —-“No, Chumpley, “the people” have not shown they are opposed to this”—-

      I didn’t realize that those who didn’t vote were showing their disinterest by not showing up. Could it be that they stayed home because they didn’t think it had a snowball’s chance in he!! of passing?

      • acontraryview

        “elected by the people to represent their views in congress”

        Well since not everyone he represents shares that view, he is not, in this effort, representing “their” views. Second, he is not in Congress. He is a member of the state legislature.

        “pandering to those same people (constituents).”

        Pandering to SOME of his constituents. Ignoring others.

        “Shocking”

        Not really. It happens frequently. This, however, is a particularly egregious example as he is basically saying; “Some of my constituents believe it is reasonable to deny other citizens access to right offered by the state – which serves ALL the citizens of the state – and harm them in the process, for no reason other than a difference of opinion. I support that.”

        “5 unelected justices to redefine marriage to include those for whom it was never intended.”

        What does their being unelected have to do with it? Would you prefer that the judiciary made rulings with concern about being reelected?

        “took it upon themselves”

        They did not take “it upon themselves”. A case came before the court. The court ruled on the case. That is their function.

        “to redefine marriage”

        Actually, it was some states that originally redefined marriage. When those states realized that the definition of marriage that had been in place for years did not exclude two citizens of the same gender from entering into marriage, they created new laws which did that. Those laws were determined, by many levels of the judiciary – not just the SCOTUS – to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Since those laws have been struck down, marriage is back to the definition it was for years – two, consenting, non-closely related, unmarried, citizens of legal age.

        “to include those for whom it was never intended.”

        While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the fact is that civil marriage is a right offered by the state. As such, any denial of that right to citizens must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons. “It was never designed for them” is not a rational, compelling, nor legally valid reason for denying citizens access to a right offered by the state.

        “I didn’t realize that those who didn’t vote were showing their disinterest by not showing up.”

        Well then you’ve learned something. People vote on the issues that matter to them. Not voting on an issue is a sign of apathy toward an issue.

        “Could it be that they stayed home because they didn’t think it had a snowball’s chance in he!! of passing?”

        The vote was on whether it should be legal to deny certain citizens of the state access to a right the state offered based solely upon the gender of citizens. I would imagine that few people thought it WOULDN’T pass, not that they had concerns that it would. Given that, if what you said were true, then it would not have passed, as no one would have bothered to vote for it since they felt that there was not a “snowball’s [sic] chance in he!! [sic}” of it not passing.

  • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

    I’ve been observing this chaotic discussion for a while and it seems that we are talking past each other because we are using one word (marriage) to describe two different things, i.e. a) marriage in the eyes of God, and b) marriage in the eyes of the State.

    Definition “a” is entirely outside the purview of the State. Theoretically, a church could solemnize a “gay” marriage and still see it as religiously invalid.

    Definition “b” is entirely outside the purview of the church so any attempt to use religious arguments to justify opposition to or even support for same-sex marriage is a non-starter.

    This red herring about “the law of the land” is irrelevant. The constitution makes it very clear that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the States. However, the SCOTUS can rule on the legality of any state law based on its reading of the Constitution. If a state law is deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, it is no longer of any effect, even if it is on the books. States can pass all the laws they want in an attempt to nullify Obergefull but they will be of no effect so long as the decisions stands. The only recourse the states have is to amend the Constitution thereby nullifying the Court’s ruling.

    The one sticky area is if the Courts decide that solemnizing marriage licenses is a public accommodation. But that is easily avoided if churches get entirely out of the business of solemnizing civil marriages of any type. If a hetero couple wants to be married in the eyes of the State, they are free to do so. If they want to be married in their church, its up to the church to decide if it’s religiously valid. Same goes for gay couples.

    We really need to get past this. The church should not be silent in the face of what it believes to be wrong, but it should leave matters of law to those elected or appointed to administer it. The same goes for the power of the State. It needs to stop legislation against “hate speech” since these laws make illegal the holding of certain attitudes or beliefs. I am opposed to “thought crime” and all the ugly connotations that carries with it.

    • Michael C

      Great comment. If people of a specific religion disagree with gay people, they’re free to voice their opinions. If specific churches disagree with gay couples getting married, they’re free to refuse to host their weddings.

      I only have two remarks;

      “The one sticky area is if the Courts decide that solemnizing marriage licenses is a public accommodation.”

      If this was going to happen, it would have happened decades ago when interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional. Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, no church has been required to officiate a marriage ceremony that they disagree with.

      Just a few years ago, a Mississippi church refused to conduct a wedding for a black couple. They faced zero legal repercussions. It was totally legal just as it’s legal for churches to refuse to conduct ceremonies for people of different faiths or couples who live together before marriage.

      “It needs to stop legislation against “hate speech” since these laws make illegal the holding of certain attitudes or beliefs.”

      I don’t know the laws of other countries, but I’m not aware of this being a thing in the U.S.

      • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

        Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

        I sincerely hope that religious practice is never deemed a public accommodation, Your example would seem to indicate that it hasn’t, at least not yet.

        As to your second remark, I must correct myself. There are no “hate speech” laws per se, but there are Federal “hate crime” laws on the books. Thus, there exists the potential for disproportionate punishment for identical crimes based on the prior speech of the perpetrator. Should an anti-gay heterosexual be punished more severely than a gay man for crimes against LGBT victims just because he voiced his animus at some time in the past? Hateful speech is still speech and is protected.

        • Michael C

          By my understanding, an existing crime would be considered a “hate crime” if the primary motivation for the crime is hatred for an entire class of people. This can be a very difficult thing to demonstrate in court and requires substantial evidence. The reason these crimes are treated differently is because they are different. The criminal is different, the crime is different, the victim is different. Our justice system does not have one law outlining the penalty for punching someone in the nose, for example. The justice system takes many different circumstances into consideration to determine a just punishment. The punishments for punching someone in the nose could vary wildly depending on the circumstances of event.

          A two year old tweet could be used to bolster existing primary evidence but would by no means demonstrate a motivation for a crime.

          • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

            That’s a good nuanced argument. We’ve had these sorts of discussions on the past. As a rule, I recall that you stand on the practical ground of what has happened or is likely to happen. For my part, I play the role of the guy in the tin foil hat. I just don’t trust that the legal system will always act in the interests of citizens. Laws are laws, but politicians are not legislated into office. And if a politician can exploit legal technicalities to achieve a popular outcome, they likely will. That’s where the seeds of my wariness about “hate crimes” come from. As with most of our discussions, we end up with “let’s wait and see.” I truly hope I am over-reacting.

          • Michael C

            The tin-foil-hat-wearers help keep things in check.

    • acontraryview

      “The only recourse the states have is to amend the Constitution thereby nullifying the Court’s ruling.”

      The amendment would have to be removing protection for equal treatment under the law provided for by the 14th Amendment. It seems so unlikely as to be impossible that either Congress, or a constitutional convention, would be able to generate the necessary support to strip away what is arguably one of the most important parts of the constitution.

      “It needs to stop legislation against “hate speech” since these laws make illegal the holding of certain attitudes or beliefs.”

      Laws regarding hate speech do not make the holding of certain attitudes or beliefs illegal. They make illegal certain ways in which those beliefs and attitudes are shared. In the US, only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by law.

      • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

        I understand your points. There is no likelihood that such an amendment would ever be passed. And you are correct: the 14th Amendment would have to repealed at the same time, an obvious impossibility. I simply state it is as the only conceivable legal recourse the states could have.

        As regards your second point, please see my response to SFBruce. I was wrong to use the term “hate speech.” You are 100% correct regarding “imminent danger,” but the issue not speech per se. It is disproportionate punishment resulting from prior statements made by a defendant.

      • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

        Also, I meant my response to Michael C., not SFBruce. Sorry for any confusion.

  • VERNR

    Who all has read Glen Becks prediction,that Dictator Obama may make himself dictator for life.I made the production in 2007

  • American4Truth

    In order for a court to have jurisdiction over you, you must submit to that jurisdiction or law. The States must not submit to an Unconstitutional law, if they do, then they are submitting to this Unconstitutional law.

  • American4Truth

    States and Congress can go up against this U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In fact, the Congress can make any decision from the U.S. Supreme Court null and void.
    Go South Carolina! Fight this perverted and deranged ruling.

  • lizk

    Good for South Carolina.