Tennessee House Panel Kills Proposed Bill to ‘Void’ Supreme Court’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

Photo Credit: Kaldari/Wikipedia
Photo Credit: Kaldari/Wikipedia

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A House panel in Tennessee has stopped the furtherance of a bill that would have defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex “marriage” and protected the rule of law in the state.

As previously reported, Rep. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, and Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet, filed H.B. 1412, or the “Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act,” in the state legislature in September to defend the constitutional amendment passed by 81 percent of voters in 2006.

“Whereas, not all orders claiming authority under color of law are in fact lawful,” the bill reads. “Whereas, unlawful orders, no matter their source—whether from a military commander, a federal judge, or the United States Supreme Court—are and remain unlawful, and should be resisted.”

“Natural marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman as recognized by the people of Tennessee remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary,” it says. “Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including [Obergefell v. Hodges], is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”

The legislaton also 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

The Tennessean reports that the House Civil Justice subcommittee heard approximately 90 minutes of testimony on Wednesday from area pastors, attorneys and former legislators on both sides of the issue before voting on the proposal. Supporters and opponents alike also stood in an overflow area to learn of the results.

“I can tell you as a student of the Constitution … that there is nothing in federal law ever, ever, ever that gives the federal courts or the federal government constitutional jurisdiction in the field of marriage,” attorney Jeff Cobble told the subcommittee.

Some who expressed support for the bill said that perhaps nullification isn’t the best angle, and preferred a legal challenge in court. David Fowler of the Family Action Council of Tennessee said that he plans to file a lawsuit to challenge the Supreme Court ruling.

Ultimately, the committee voted to strike down Pody and Beavers’ nullification proposal, with only Chairman Jim Coley, R-Bartlett, who identifies as Church of Christ, giving a voice vote in favor of the measure.

Chair Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, who identifies as Presbyterian, along with Vice-Chair Mike Carter, R-Ooltewah, who identifies as Baptist, and members Bill Beck, D-Nashville, who identifies as Baptist; Martin Daniel, R-Knoxville, who is non-denominational; John Forgety, R-Athens, who identifies as Baptist; Jamie Jenkins, R-Somerville, who identifies as Methodist; Sherry Jones, D-Nashville, who is non-denominational; and Courtney Rogers, R-Goodlettsville, who identifies as Nazarene, all voted against the bill.

Jones said that she didn’t think the bill would be successful, partly because of the costs associated with it, and expressed concern that the federal government could retaliate by yanking $8.5 billion in funding to state programs.

“When the Supreme Court sends down a ruling, that’s what we do,” she said. “Trying to go through our committee system to change that is not going to work.”

But Pody and Beavers state that they are not going to give up. They have already filed another bill that “prohibits state and local governments from enforcing, administering, or cooperating with the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal executive order or U.S. supreme court opinion unless the general assembly first expressly implements it as the public policy of the state.”

The Memphis Commercial Appeal notes that a November Vanderbilt University poll found that 52 percent of Tennessee voters “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose same-sex “marriage,” 32 percent “strongly” or “somewhat” support it and 14 percent don’t have a position on the issue.


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
  • Joshua Krug

    Head back into the desert.

  • Michael C

    Tennessean’s disapproval of the legal recognition of the marriages of gay and lesbian couples has dropped from 81% to 52% in the ten years since the marriage ban was originally voted in? Wow.

    • Bob Johnson

      I know it is wrong to extrapolate from the data….. However,….. Hope springs eternal.

  • Josey

    This is what achief has been saying all along, a ruling isn’t a law and supreme court justices do not make law they make rulings based on their personal opinions. Now sodomites can whine about this all day long but it still isn’t law. We have 3 branches of government for this very reason, next year could be a totally different ruling from supreme justices depending on who they are.

    • Andrew Kuhlman

      I think you need to retake your civics class. It is the job of the Supreme Court to be the final say in what rights are guaranteed by the constitution. They do not create laws; they issue binding opinions on the interpretation of such laws. Over forty federal judges agreed with them prior to the Supreme Court ruling (only four dissented). Also, the primacy clause makes the federal government superior to the state’s. Get over it. You lost.

      • Josey

        Which changes with every new supreme justice, they are opinions only.

        • 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

          You are correct Josey!! What has happened is that we have ceded to the courts law-making powers that they were simply not intended to possess. It is NO WHERE in the Constitution. No where! A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! It changes nothing!!! They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

          Keep spreading the truth!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “What has happened is that we have ceded to the courts law-making powers”

            That is false. Judicial rulings do not create law.

            “It changes nothing!!!”

            That is false. Judicial rulings can change the enforceability of a law.

            “Courts do not make laws.”

            Correct. Nor did they.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!!

          • acontraryview

            What did you find amusing about my showing that you are lying?

        • acontraryview

          “they are opinions only.”

          No, they are rulings. Once the court rules that a law violates protections providing by the Constitution, the issue is settled. That law is no longer enforceable.

      • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

        It is a short lived win lasting only until you stand before God.

        • afchief

          Good to see you Doug!

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            You too my friend and brother in Christ!

        • Curtis Pullin

          I wouldn’t want to be a homophobe standing before God.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Neither would I.

        • Valri

          Yeah, but that’s not gonna happen.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Yes it is going to happen.
            —————

            Romans 14:10-12New King James Version (NKJV)

            10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.[a] 11 For it is written:

            “As I live, says the Lord,
            Every knee shall bow to Me,
            And every tongue shall confess to God.”[b]

            12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

          • Valri

            We’ll see.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Yes you will.

      • afchief

        Then show me where their opinions are binding? Because what you are stating is a LIE!!!!!

        “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

        For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

        “The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

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

        Hmmmmm…….”shape public policy”? Does that mean binding? Hmmmmm……I don’t think so Tim!!!!!

        • Andrew Kuhlman

          It’s called the fourteenth amendment. Equal Protection. Every adult can enter into a contract with any other adult. That is what marriage is: a contract. Furthermore, I am Episcopalian. So marriage is under the eyes of our Lord.

          • afchief

            First when the 14th amendment was passed homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. Second, let’s use common sense here: The 14th Amendment was addressing the issue of freed-slaves, who were formerly property and never anything but property according to the U.S. Constitution, hence the 3/5 Clause. The existence of the 14th amendment was solely due to the question of how to transition slaves from property to freedom, while affording them citizenship without forcing them to be subjects — which would be in violation of the Constitution and a violation of the Natural, Unalienable, Individual Rights of every human being — that no human being may be made a subject of any other human being. Are we to believe that the authors of that Amendment would make them SUBJECTS as an answer to “How do we transition slaves from property to freed-men?” In a country that cannot make a SUBJECT out of anyone by the wording of its own written Constitution? In those authors’ words, this would be preposterous. Property > Free-Man > Subject? Again, preposterous.

            Yet this is how “Progressives” have perverted the Constitution and this is how THEY are now reading it:

            “As slaves transitioned from property to freed-men, the 14th Amendment was devised to address that transition. And their solution was to make former slaves (formerly property) into subjects, thereby depriving them of the freedom they were just granted via the Emancipation Proclamation. By making them subjects, we are also denying their inherent natural rights, which dictate that a governing body can do no such thing — anytime, anywhere.”

            As said above — preposterous.

        • Elie Challita

          Chief, is there a federal law that specifically allows heterosexual marriage?

          • afchief

            The constitution does not mention marriage. Because that is under the states’ purview.

          • Elie Challita

            So all marriage is illegal unless states specifically allow it? What about states that do not specify what kind of marriage is legal?

          • afchief

            Where are you going with this? The federal government does not regulate marriage. States do. Justice Kennedy made up a “right” based on his personal opinion not on the constitution and he unilaterally decided to change the definition of marriage that has existed in every civil society for over 2000 years.

          • Elie Challita

            The federal government is not regulating marriage now either. All I’m asking you is to answer one simple question: Is heterosexual marriage legal only because states specify it to be?
            Does this mean that no citizen can get married unless their state passes laws specifically allowing that type of marriage?

          • afchief

            Ask the states. Around 30 states have marriage between one man and one woman defined in their Constitutions. Three states have homo marriage.

          • Elie Challita

            Was marriage in these 30 states legal before they passed a law specifically stating marriage to be between a man and a woman?

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Christians need to read the Constitution and realize this is the law of the land.

      • bowie1

        Aren’t the states able to move against excessive power of the federal government to avoid turning your country into a dictatorship?

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I guess I just don’t see how protecting people’s constitutional rights is ‘excessive power’ or a ‘dictatorship’.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, not unless you want another Civil War.

        • acontraryview

          Of course they are. What do you feel is “excessive” about the SCOTUS ruling that a law violates the protections provided by the Constitution?

    • Michael C

      A Supreme Court ruling is not a law, you are correct.

      Similarly, legislation that has been found to contradict the U.S. Constitution by the highest authority responsible for interpreting the Constitution is not a law either.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      The fact that afchief says something does not make it true. Almost the opposite, really 🙂

      • afchief

        Then REFUTE what I say!! Show me WHERE in the Constitution the SCOTUS can strike down laws.

        Waiting……………………………………

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Shoe me where in the Constitution it says there are screwdrivers. It doesn’t? Okay, I guess screwdrivers don’t exist.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the mental disorder called liberalism is showing again. Here is what the Constitution says;

            Article. I.

            Section. 1.

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

            Section 8

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever

            Now what does “ALL” mean to the liberal cranium?

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

          • acontraryview

            How is that relevant? The court did not make law. The court ruled on the enforceability of a law.

          • afchief

            Why don’t you educate yourself. You are making yourself look like that liar we all know!!!!

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

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

          • acontraryview

            “”Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.”

            Irrelevant. When George Wallace decided that he was not going to abide by the court’s ruling on segregation, the Executive Branch ordered troops to Alabama to ensure that the state complied with the ruling.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Then show me the law!! LOL!

          • acontraryview

            What law would you like me to show you?

          • afchief

            The law on segregation. LOL!

          • acontraryview

            Are you saying that you want me to show you the segregation laws that were ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and that Wallace wanted to continue to enforce despite the SCOTUS ruling?

        • acontraryview

          The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

          The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:“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. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

          • afchief

            LOL! Only a liar and a mental disorder called homosexuality can find “striking down laws” that is NOT there!!!

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Strike down – definition: “to declare (a law) illegal and unenforceable ”

            Since the Constitution provides for the ability of the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of law, when they rule that a law violates the Constitution, the term that is used for describing that ruling is “struck down”. The word “uphold” does not appear in the Constitution regarding judicial rulings. Yet, when the Court rules that an existing law does NOT violate the protections provided by the Constitution, the term that is used to describe that ruling is that the Court “upheld” the law.

            If we apply your logic (and I use that term VERY loosely as applies to anything you say) then the Court is not allowed to uphold law, as the word “uphold” does not appear in the Constitution.

          • afchief

            Poor liberal homo, LOL!!! Keep trying!!!

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

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

          • acontraryview

            And that would be relevant to the content of my reply, how?

          • afchief

            LOL! I like playing with liberals and homosexuals. It is soooooo much fun showing them the truth!!! Because the truth IS the enemy of liberalism and homosexuality!!!!

            LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t explain how your reply is relevant to the content of my post. Got it. Thanks.

    • afchief

      Josey what I have been saying IS the truth!!! As a born again believer I will NOT lie. None of these liberals and homos can show you anywhere in the Constitution where the SCOTUS can strike down laws. NO WHERE! A SCOTUS ruling is only an opinion. It changes nothing!!!

      Laws can only be made, changed or struck down 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.”

      Just ask these liberals and homos to show you the federal abortion law. There is NOT one. Abortion is still against the law. Marriage is still the union of one man and one woman (accept in 3 states). There is no separation between the church and the state as is currently accepted in America. They just tell us there is, we believe it, and we teach the lie to others.

      We have to begin to push back. We must attack the lies head on. They have distracted us and they have us focusing on “religious liberty” or “conscience” or “deeply held religious beliefs.”, but those are the wrong arguments. We must stand and fight on the Truth. Courts do not make laws. A court decision does not carry the force of law, and it most certainly does not “change” the law. Abortion is illegal, homo marriage is a fraud, and religious values cannot be separated from government.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        “There is no separation between the church and the state as is currently accepted in America.”

        Bull.

        “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon
        the Christian Religion.” 1797, – The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by
        President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by
        the Senate of the United States

        “We have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.” – George Washington

        “The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.” – James Madison

        • afchief

          Sorry, but you are WRONG!!!!!! Free exercise cannot be inhibited by lawyers or judges. If it is restricted, it is not “free” exercise. Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray, and they are expressly forbidden to do so. In case you’re interested, here is the pertinent section of the First Amendment:

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

          Show me where it says separation of church and state in the 1st amendment? Saying a prayer on government property does not establish a religion. Only Congress can do that…but they can’t. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.

          Free exercise means free exercise.

          • acontraryview

            “Free exercise cannot be inhibited by lawyers or judges.”

            Correct. It can, however, be restricted by legislative action. For example, churches are not allowed to ring their bells before or after a certain hour. That is, indeed, a restriction on religious expression and it is quite legal.

            “Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray, and they are expressly forbidden to do so.”

            Since they are “expressly forbidden” from doing so then, no, Congress cannot take away the right to pray.

            “Only Congress can do that…but they can’t.”

            So which is it? They can, or they can’t?

            “Free exercise means free exercise.”

            The amendment include the word “prohibit”. Prohibiting is not the same as restricting. Your interpretation would mean that I would be able to express my religious beliefs at any time, in any manner, and in any place I care to. That is not the case.

          • afchief

            I will NOT waste my time with a liar and a person given over to a reprobate mind, Oshtur!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Again with the bearing of false witness. Unfortunate.

          • Valri

            Why is it that people leave you reasoned, calm and straightforward answers, and you respond with shrieking and name calling? You love throwing out “liberal” like it’s something people should be ashamed of, but no one’s calling you a flaming nazi gasbag, can’t you extend the same basic courtesy in your responses?

          • afchief

            Because how many times to I need to post site after site until the truth seeks in?!?!?!? HOW MANY??? What part of the below passage do you liberals and homos not understand???????????????

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

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

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Wow, you ask a lot.

          • Valri

            You seem to know a lot of people here who are liberal liars with reprobate minds. Sure there just isn’t something (terribly) wrong with YOU?

          • afchief

            You will know them by their fruits!!!

            You and others by your constant denial of the law and lying about it shows me the fruit of a reprobate mind!!!

            Very easy to spot!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But for one thing, if there’s going to be ‘free exercise’, doesn’t that mean there has to be free exercise of any religion that people want to exercise?

          • afchief

            That’s right!!! A light bulb goes off in a liberals cranium!!!

            Miracles never cease!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, then, I get to freely exercise my atheism/secularism/humanism then. (I wouldn’t call it a religion myself, but people like you keep saying it is, so there we go)

          • afchief

            Remember, the majority rules. The purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the miniority, but as George Washington said…..: “[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution… enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You seem to be under the impression that this country is a pure democracy. It’s not. Ever heard of the phrase “tyranny of the majority”? That’s why it’s not. That’s why we have things like a constitution, and three equal, separate branches of government.

          • afchief

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But when a minority’s rights aren’t being protected, every citizen is NOT being protected. You can’t protect every citizen if you’re not protecting minorities.

          • afchief

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.”

            I’d disagree with that.

          • afchief

            Then disagree! Here are all of them.

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

            A. George Washington: “[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution… enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail.37
            B. Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.38
            C. The Judiciary is now regularly anti-majoritarian.
            D. The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is not to protect the minority from the majority.
            E. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the minority from the majority; the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect every citizen, whether in the minority or the majority, from the intrusion upon their rights by government.
            F. Congress is a better guardian of the people and the minority than are the courts.
            G. Federalist #51: “The members of the Legislative department . . . are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. . . . they are more immediately the confidential guardians of their rights and liberties.39
            H. In 1875, Congress banned all segregation,40 but in 1882, the Supreme Court struck down that law.41 While the Court is often praised today for ending segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, what the Court actually did in that case was only to reverse its own position that had kept segregation alive 70 longer than Congress’ ban.
            I. Thomas Jefferson: “When the Legislative or Executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.42

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Interracial marriage not being legal. Women not having the right to vote. Black people weren’t citizens before the 14th Amendment. I’d call those errors that were not either “solitary” or “short-lived”.

          • afchief

            If you do not think something is fair, start a petition. Get it on a ballot and let the “will” of the people speak.

            The American way!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Let’s look at those things I mentioned just a little, shall we?

            Interracial marriage bans? Ended by what, a vote of the people? No, by Supreme Court decision.

            Women not having the right to vote? Ended by a vote? No, by a Constitutional amendment.

            Black people not being citizens? Ended by a vote? No, by a Constitutional amendment.

          • afchief

            BYE! We have been over this and I’m done dealing with stupidity. The SCOTUS gave an opinion in 1967 which meant NOTHING!!!! The state of Alabama voted to repeal the law in 2000 and it was no more.

            How many times do I need to tell brain dead liberals HOW laws are made, changed and removed in America? Can read?

            Does anything sink in those tiny winy little liberal craniums? Anything?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And we’ve been over the rebuttal to all that. If the opinion meant NOTHING, why were there interracial marriages taking place in Alabama BEFORE the law was finally repealed in 2000?

            You do realize that even laws that are declared unenforceable (whether it’s by a President, the Supreme Court, or whoever) ARE sometimes kept on the books? Yet no one actually follows that law?

          • afchief

            Prove it!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I ask you a question, but instead of answering it, you just say “prove it’?

            Uh, okay, whatever…..prove what? That there were interracial marriages in Alabama before 2000? That there are unenforceable laws still on the books?

            CNN story from March 12, 1999:

            “Alabama is the last state in the union to have such a law on
            its books. Although the state stopped enforcing it decades
            ago, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such laws
            unconstitutional, the fact that it has not been officially
            repealed remains a sore point for many in Alabama.” …..

            “Major Cox, who is black, and his wife, Margaret, who is white, would
            also like to see the law repealed, although they have been married for
            18 years.”

          • afchief

            Prove it!!! Prove that those two were married in Alabama?

            LOL!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Looked it up, actually those two were married in Puerto Rico. But I still think it’s clear enough from the line about how “the state stopped enforcing it decades ago”.

            Are you really going to try to tell me that there were NO interracial marriages in Alabama before 2000?

            You never even answered my question anyway.

          • SoSuMi

            Maybe she could pass…….lol

          • acontraryview

            We’re interracial couples not allowed to marry in Alabama between 1973 and 2000?

          • acontraryview

            The specific purpose of the 14th Amendment is to protect the rights of citizens from the whims of the majority.

        • afchief

          The Separation of Church and State

          In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

          The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

          Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

          Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1]

          However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

          Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2]

          In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

          Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

          [N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

          In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

          [O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

          I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

          Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

          It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7]

          Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

          [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

          Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

          Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

          Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]

          Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

          By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” [10] That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

          So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

          And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

          Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

          Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

          Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]

          That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

          [T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

          With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

          That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

          Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

          Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

          For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

          One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

          http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=123

        • Valri

          Wow, according to afchief you aren’t merely wrong, you are WRONG!!!!!!!

          So apparently what people here lack in facts they make up for in exclamation marks.

          Love the name, BTW. Early Queen albums forever.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And don’t forget those CAPITAL LETTERS TOO!!!!!!!

            Live at The Rainbow ’74, check that out if you haven’t yet……awesome.

          • Valri

            Oh yeah. Always wanted F.M. To write a whole album based on Rhye.

            I think I might know you from…another board. Ahem.

            Glad you are here saying what needs to be said.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Something about people saying some sort of things, perhaps? lol

          • Valri

            Yeah, that one where those people talk about all that stuff. The one Trump likes to call “where haters go to hate” even though most are merely trying to figure out the fundamentalist’s thought process.

      • Josey

        Thank you for speaking the truth and for teaching me the things about law and the constitution, I’ve known the very basics of how a bill is put forth and how a law goes through a long process but you have opened my eyes in deeper understanding and I believe God has gifted us all in different areas to deepen our understanding of certain things because not one person knows it all except for our all knowing God and even withstanding all the hate and criticism you have received you have stood firm with God’s help and I can see you push onward regardless, God bless you for that and thank you, keep on keeping on, your reward comes from God even though I see that you are not doing it for a reward but for the truth but know that I have learned from you and I hope that lifts your spirit for knowing that you have been used by God to teach me is a reward from Him.. I know the truth when I hear it because the Holy Spirit is my witness within, it just takes some time for it to sink in because of my human frailties, I thank God for His patience with me and I have much more to learn as we all do. John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

        • Bob Johnson

          If afchief’s view of how the American legal system works is correct, why would anyone spend millions of dollars taking a case to the Supreme Court?

          Liberty Council, American Family Association, and scores of other Christian organizations spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to prepare cases. Wouldn’t this time and effort be better spent educating the public? Instead of time wasted in court the time could be spent convincing people, like afchief does, to ignore the courts and continue as if NOTHING has changed.

          • afchief

            Then show me the law!!!!! In fact, let’s go way back…..show be me the federal abortion law.

            Waiting………………………………….

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Please don’t listen to afchief. He has no idea what he’s talking about. His own made up legal system isn’t even internally consistent.

          1. He screams, rants, and raves that those of us who believe in judicial review are “fake lawyers,” but, despite numerous requests, he has never been able to introduce me to a “real lawyer.”

          2. I’ve asked numerous times what happens, in his made up legal system, what happens when a trial court grants a motion to dismiss because a law us unconstitutional. He has never answered; he just gets belligerent and insults me.

          3. I have asked him numerous times what the difference is between “a legal system that doesn’t work like X, but everyone thinks it does,” and “a legal system that works like X.” He has yet to answer. Belligerence, name calling, etc. You know the drill.

          • afchief

            Ready? Wait for it…………ohhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, ooooohhhh show me the law today!!!!!

            Hmmmmm………….Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that “all” legislative powers belong to Congress. The concept of “separation of powers” disallows the Judicial Branch from acting legislatively, since those authorities belong to Congress.

            Legislative Powers are defined as “making law, modifying law, and repealing law.” The executive or judicial branch was never granted by the States any legislative powers.

            Prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • afchief

            You have yet to show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS can strike down laws.

            I have shown you numerous times where ONLY the legislative branch can do so.

          • acontraryview

            The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

            The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:“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. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

            “I have shown you numerous times where ONLY the legislative branch can do so.”

            The Legislative Branch of government does not “strike down” laws. It repeals laws. “Strike down” is a term applied to a judicial ruling.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!!!!! This is why homosexality IS still a mental disorder!!!! Homos can find the term “strike down” in the Constitution!!! LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            I never said the term “strike down” can be found in the Constitution. That is just another of your many lies.

            You asked where the Constitution provides for the ability of the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality, and thus enforceability, of laws. I provided it. Apparently you find it amusing when you are proven wrong.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Yes, you are a liar and serve the father of lies!!!

          • acontraryview

            Please cite a lie I have told.

          • afchief

            There were at least five fundamental constitutional violations and fallacies apparent in the ruling:

            1. The Decision usurps the Constitutional Power of the Legislature

            The Constitution has established that the only publicpolicy- making bodies in the nation are to be the elected branches directly accountable to the people (i.e., Congress and the President at the federal level, and legislatures and governors at the State level). As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #78, the judiciary was not to be involved in policy-making:

            The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (emphasis added)

            Obviously, the current judiciary disdains this original plan and today exerts both force and will; it has become the dominant policy-making branch in the federal government. Rather then confining itself to examining laws on constitutional and legal grounds (as it did 17 years ago on this issue), the current Court instead based its decision on what it personally desires the culture to become, thus (again) engaging in social engineering. As Justice Scalia accurately noted:

            Today’s opinion is the product of a Court [that] is the product of a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the socalled homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium [disapproval] that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. . . . [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring-“ as neutral observer-“ that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. . . . So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that [law school] culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” have repeatedly been rejected by Congress . . . ; that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right.

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=167

          • afchief

            2. The Decision Violates the Standards of America’s National Charter

            The standard of measurement for public policy and governmental action erected in our national charter is “the laws of nature, and of nature’s God.” Sodomy is an act against both “the laws of nature” and “the laws of nature’s God.” As William Blackstone (1723-1780)-“ the primary source of this phrase in the Declaration-“ had explained:

            As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. 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 doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures [i.e., the “laws of nature’s God”]. . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these.

            (By the way, Blackstone has been cited by the federal courts in an authoritative manner in over a thousand cases-“ more than 300 of these by the Supreme Court. Obviously, the current Court now disdains the same authority on which it once so heavily relied.)

            Justice James Wilson-“ an original Justice on the US Supreme Court and a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution-“ was the father of organized legal training in America. In the law book he authored for law students, sodomy was so disgusting-“ was such an obvious violation of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”- “ that when it came time to discuss that particular crime in the course of legal studies, Wilson simply declared:

            The crime not to be named [sodomy], I pass in a total silence.

            Sodomy was a behavior so reprehensible to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” that Wilson (along with many other Founders) was ashamed even to speak of it. (To see more about other Founders’ views on sodomy, see our book, Original Intent, p. 306.)

            Many today, however, assert that because the standard of the “laws of nature of of nature’s God” was set forth in the Declaration rather than the Constitution, that it is no longer applicable. Yet previous Courts affirmed that the Constitution could not be properly interpreted apart from the values set forth in the Declaration of Independence. According to a former Supreme Court:

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

            Furthermore, the US Federal Code also established that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are organic laws of the United States. Notwithstanding these incontrovertible facts, the current Supreme Court now feels comfortable violating explicit provisions of our national charter.

          • afchief

            3. The Decision Addresses Issues Beyond the Jurisdiction Appropriate for the Court

            Thomas Jefferson once reminded a Supreme Court Justice:

            Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the [federal] authority? . . . Such an intention was impossible. . . . [T]aking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the [federal] authority. . . . would . . . break up the foundations of the Union.

            Moral decisions were to be made by the people well below the federal level. In fact, it had been to preserve this right of the people to protect their morality and that of their communities that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had been added to the Constitution. If an issue or a subject had not been specifically enumerated in the Constitution (including its amendments), it was to be out of the reach of the Court. However, in the Lawrence decision, the Court (again) extended itself beyond its constitutionally enumerated powers and intruded into areas reserved for the people and the States.

            That the Court would (again) overreach its jurisdiction would not have surprised Jefferson, who long ago warned:

            It has long, however, been my opinion- “ and I have never shrunk from its expression . . .-“ that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution [structure] of the federal Judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped [brought under its control].

          • afchief

            4. The Decision Violates the “Fundamental Principle of the Constitution”

            Most official government documents include a title (e.g., “The Declaration of Independence- “The Articles of Confederation,” “The Northwest Ordinance,” etc.). The only title that appears at the beginning of the Constitution is “We the People”- “ a title that sets forth its fundamental premise-“ a premise that was first established in the Declaration of Independence: “the consent of the governed.” The fact that the people, collectively, were the source of all authority was such a self-evident truth that constitutional expert George Washington emphatically declared:

            [T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail.

            Thomas Jefferson, the leader of a political party often at variance with Washington’s views, agreed with this position, similarly declaring:

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

            Does this therefore mean that minorities are to be ignored, disregarded, or trodden upon? Of course not. As Jefferson further explained:

            [T]hough the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; [and] the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect.

            While the minority is not to prevail over the majority, the minority, with its constitutional guarantee of “free speech,” does have the equal right to attempt to persuade the majority to its point of view (or portions of its views). However, “equal right” is not the same as “equal power”; the minority is never the equivalent of the majority and is never to exercise control over it.

            The majority’s power is not without its own limitations, however; it is absolutely restricted in that it may not enact a policy that violates a clear, explicit, enumerated provision of the Constitution (e.g., a majority- “ no matter how large-“ could not vote to abridge free speech, or to ban trial by jury, or to reinstitute slavery, or to raise the voting age back to 21, etc., without first amending the Constitution itself ); but in all other instances not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the voice of the majority is the final word.

            Six of the current Justices on the Court boldly reject what the Founders’ described as “the fundamental principle of the Constitution” and “the natural law of every society.” Instead, they apparently consider the majority to be an inherently evil, wicked, depraved group that must be restrained at all times or else it will seek to destroy all those who hold a differing viewpoint. Under the belief that the majority is always wrong and that it can’t stop itself from violating the rights of others, the Court has therefore adopted an anti-majoritarian viewpoint. As the dissent noted:

            The Court [today] embraces Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.- This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.

            While the majority may sometimes err, as Jefferson observed, when it does, “its errors are honest, solitary, and short-lived.”

            The Courts, too, will also sometimes err; after all, they are made up of individuals just as fallible as those in any majority. As Thomas Jefferson correctly observed:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . [But] their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible-“ as the other functionaries are-“ to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            However, the difference between courts and majorities is that errors by the majority are usually shortlived while errors by the Court are usually more severe and long-lasting. (For example, in 1875, Congress passed federal anti-segregation laws; the Court, however, negated those laws and declared pro-segregation laws to be constitutional in 1896; it was not until 60 years later that it finally reversed itself and upheld the position Congress had taken in 1875; Congress had ended segregation decades before the courts did.)

            Greater confidence should be placed in a larger body of elected individuals to self-correct and reverse more quickly than a smaller body of unelected individuals- “ that is, the 535 in Congress can more promptly correct a bad federal law they previously passed than the 9 in the Supreme Court can correct a bad decision they previously made. This point was also made clear by Justice Scalia in his dissent:

            Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals- “ or any other group-“ promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. . . . [but] imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts-“ or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them-“ than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. . . . [I]t is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

            The Justices may not like the decision made by the majority of the people; it may not have been the decision the Justices would have made if they had been the legislators writing the law. Nevertheless, the Justices are not legislators- “ no matter how much they may wish otherwise. If the Justices desire to enact public policies, let them come down from their ivory tower, offer to the people their vision for the culture, and see if the people agree and elect them to office; then they would be constitutionally authorized to enact public policy. However, if they are unwilling to do this, they should stay out of policy-making- “ especially when the policies they support place them in the minority of the nation (as it did on this issue). Instead of trying to usurp the rights of the people when they found themselves out of step with the majority, the Justices should have followed the example of Samuel Adams who “when he found himself on the losing side of an issue“ stated:

            As it becomes a citizen, I will acquiesce in the choice of a majority of the people.

            Six Justices have chosen not to be good “citizens” willing to “acquiesce in the choice of a majority of the people”; rather, they prefer to place their own will above the will of the people.

          • afchief

            5. The Decision Placed the Constitutions of Other Nations above the US Constitution

            The Supreme Court, to explain why it had decided to overturn its previous ruling in the Bowers case, cited cases from foreign courts as well as foreign trends rather than American authorities or documents. It whined:

            To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. hr, Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. hr (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. hr (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary Robinson et al. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.

            Amazing! Since other nations won’t follow our Supreme Court’s decision in Bowers, let’s instead abandon our position and follow theirs!

            Notice the Court’s multiple references in the above quotation to holdings by the pro-homosexual European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, notice that the Court specifically cited the brief by Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In that brief, Robinson had argued that since other nations believed that the “criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection,” that our American Supreme Court “should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind.” She further asserted that “legal concepts like ˜privacy,” ˜liberty,” and ˜equality” are not US property but have global meaning- and therefore- “ even though these words are prevalent throughout American law-“ they should be defined “in light of foreign interpretations” rather than American ones. Robinson even cited cases from other nations that were favorable to same-sex marriages, and she ominously warned that if the Supreme Court ignored the rulings of these other nations, it would “generate controversies with the United State’s closest global allies.”

            This was the first time that the Court had cited foreign legal precedents as the primary authority for its decision. USA Today correctly noted, “The Supreme Court’s reference to foreign law . . . stood out as if it were in bold print and capital letters.” The Court’s reliance on foreign decisions instead of the US Constitution evoked this comment from the dissenting Justices:

            Constitutional entitlements do not. . . . spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct. The Bowers majority opinion never relied on “values we share with a wider civilization” but rather rejected the claimed right to sodomy on the ground that such a right was not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” . . . The Court’s discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since “this Court … should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.” Foster v. Florida, 537 US 990, n. (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari).

            These three Justices correctly assert that when the American Supreme Court addresses an issue, it should be the American Constitution that is determinant, not foreign rights or wrongs. Nevertheless, last year, Clinton appointees to the Supreme Court Breyer and Ginsburg cited international treaty provisions as the basis for their decisions regarding American policies. And when Justice Stevens similarly invoked a foreign authority as a precedent, Scalia forcefully responded that: “The views of other nations“- however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be- “ cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.” (Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas also joined Scalia in that declaration, as they did in this case.)

            Did our Founders have an opinion on invoking foreign standards as an authority for America? Yes- “ a very strong opinion! For example:

            I wish America would put her trust only in God and herself and have as little to do with the politics of Europe as possible. George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights

            Particular attachment to any foreign nation is an exotic sentiment which- “ where it exists-“ must derogate from [weaken] the affection due to our own country. Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

            Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have no- “ or a very remote-“ relation. . . . Why forego the advantages of [our] situation? Why quit [leave] our own to stand upon foreign ground? George Washington, President

            The comparisons of our governments with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell. Thomas Jefferson, President

            This wise advice obviously was not heeded by the six Justices in the Lawrence case. In fact, the week following their decision, several of the Justices went to Florence, Italy, to meet with foreign judges on a proposed new European constitution. This might have been acceptable if the Justices were attempting to move the rest of the world toward the proven American system of representative republicanism, but results confirm just the opposite- “ that other nations are moving our American Justices in their direction and toward an abandonment of our uniquely successful American principles.

            Shortly after the Court’s prosodomy decision (and before the Justices left to “work” in Europe), Justices Breyer and O’Connor went on television (ABC) to defend their reliance on views of international precedent. Justice Breyer openly questioned whether the Constitution was still relevant in this new “modern” age. As he explained, when it came to the Founders and the Constitution, “they didn’t have automobiles in mind, or they didn’t have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet; or you look at a word like ˜liberty,” and they didn’t have in mind at that time the problems of privacy.- That is, since those words don’t expressly appear in the Constitution, we will reject the timeless constitutional principles that do apply to these modern issues and instead enact a new “modern” judicially-written Constitution. Breyer also confirmed that he viewed the Constitution not as a stand-alone document but rather as one that should be integrated into and interpreted by foreign standards. As he explained: “Whether our Constitution- “ and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations-“ I think will be a challenge for the next generations. And Justice O’Connor similarly affirmed to the Southern Center for International Studies (an affiliate of the World Affairs Councils of America) that, “Over time, we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.”

            If America is to adopt the positions of other nations, then our own Constitution will eventually be abrogated in most areas; after all, the right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II), the death penalty (Amendment V), free exercise of religion (Amendment I), and a number of other traditionally American rights, liberties, and principles are not observed in many other nations.

            For these six Justices to invoke international laws and foreign trends as the basis for American domestic policy is a clear violation (again) of the oaths of those six Justices to uphold the US Constitution. Rather than uphold it, they now subjugate it and make it subservient to foreign views and opinions.

            ( Just as it has been refreshing to witness the consistent commitment of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas to American constitutional principles and legal standards, it has also been extremely refreshing to observe the number of occasions in which President Bush has stood up to the United Nations and consistently refused to submit to their demands, threats, edicts, or standards “ in areas ranging from his refusal to allow un treaties to determine US policies to his refusal to allow the UN to run the war with Iraq, or the subsequent rebuilding.)

        • afchief

          Josey read the brief from Wall Builders. If gives a brief explanation why this gay marriage opinion means nothing!!!

          The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that established homosexual marriage as national policy is unambiguously wrong on at least three crucial levels: Moral, Constitutional, and Structural.

          On the Moral Level

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

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

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

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

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

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

          On the Constitutional Level

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

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

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

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

          On the Structural Level

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • acontraryview

          “Thank you for speaking the truth and for teaching me the things about law and the constitution”

          He is not teaching you truth, Josey. Please do not be led astray by Afchief’s complete lack of understanding about our Constitution and Judicial system.

        • Cady555

          I would highly recommend a civics class. A College level, high school or even middle school level civics class would accurately describe the three branches of government and the balance of powers. The fact that some want to believe the Supreme Court has no authority or that state governments can discriminate against some citizens because of the religious beliefs of other citizens does not make it true.

          Our Constitution is probably one of the best documents ever written. Learn about it from a reliable source.

          • Josey

            I never meant to insinuate that the Supreme court has no authority but they make rulings based on laws already on the books, congress makes the laws, that is what I was referring to but it seems the potus and five of the justices are working together and throwing the 3 branches out of sync, that is a problem. They made a ruling concerning Obergefell and Hodges and put it out there as law when Congress didn’t change the law that marriage is one male and female, I feel those judges over stepped their boundaries and run shod over the congress in which the congress has allowed and now states are having to fight it and they have every right to do so.

          • Cady555

            Thanks. State laws are also subject to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court can rule that state laws violate the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.

            It doesn’t matter that states govern marriage. Likewise, states govern the issuance of driver’s licenses and nowhere does the constitution address driver’s licenses. Let’s say some people believed all red heads were too volatile to drive, and got a state law passed that prohibited red heads from driving. This would violate the Constitution’s equal protection provisions. The Supreme Court would rule that the state law prohibiting red headed drivers violates the Constitution and is unenforceable, even tho the Constitution makes no mention of automobiles or red heads.

            The state issues marriage licenses acknowledging secular marriage. This has nothing to do with religion. The state cannot deny this service to some people without due process just because of the religious beliefs of other people.

          • Bob Johnson

            Josey, “and those judges overstepped their boundaries”

            Reading this website can give that idea and reading other websites cried that the Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling was unfair. Cases that get to the court are usually pressing , current legal issues. The population is divided with large groups taking different sides and the court itself is not in agreement as to which laws should prevail.

      • acontraryview

        “As a born again believer I will NOT lie.”

        Yet you do lie.

        “Laws can only be made, changed or struck down 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.”

        Legislative bodies do not “strike down” laws. They repeal laws.

        “Courts can never make or strike down laws.”

        Correct. The courts can, however, rule that a law is unenforceable.

        “Marriage is still the union of one man and one woman (accept in 3 states).”

        That is false. Marriage between a man and a woman is legal in all states.

        “it most certainly does not “change” the law.”

        Correct. It can, however, change the ability of the state to enforce the law.

        • afchief

          Poor homo who has NO understanding of law. NONE!!! Please read and let it sink in that tiny winy liberal cranium!!!!!!!

          “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

          For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

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

          • acontraryview

            How is that relevant to whether or not a law is legally enforceable?

            When George Wallace decided that he was not going to abide by the Court’s decision regarding segregation, federal troops were sent to Alabama to ensure that the state abided by the ruling. The ruling was enforced.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Interesting……why did they send in federal troops to enforce a court decision? I thought afchief said a court decision carries no weight whatsoever, is just an opinion. blah blah blah….

          • Bob Johnson

            And States Rights supersede Federal Rights.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If that were so, what would the point of having such a thing as “federal rights” even be, really?

          • Bob Johnson

            It is sort of the middle ground. Haven’t you heard, any day now the United Nations Special Forces will usher in the NWO.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought it was WCW that ushered in the NWO….(wrestling reference)

    • acontraryview

      “a ruling isn’t a law and supreme court justices do not make law they make rulings based on their personal opinions.”

      That’s absolutely correct. Nor was any law created by the SCOTUS ruling. The result of the SCOTUS ruling was that an existing law is no longer enforceable. Because the law forbidding same-gender marriage is no longer enforceable, same-gender marriage is allowed. There is also no law which specifically says that two people of different races are allowed to marry. Yet, they are.

      “next year could be a totally different ruling from supreme justices depending on who they are.”

      That is incorrect. In order for the SCOTUS to issuing a ruling, a case challenging a law must come before the court. Since there is no law which specifically states that two people of the same-gender are allowed to marry – just as there is no law which specifically states that two people of different races are allowed to marry – there is no law to challenge, thus no case to come before the court, thus no basis for a different ruling.

      “Christians need to read the constitution”

      Agreed.

      “stop allowing themselves to be bullied into believing this has become the law of the land.”

      Christians are free to believe or not believe whatever they care to – just as we all are. No one is “bullying” Christians into believing something. The phrase “law of the land” does not refer to a specific law. Rather, it refers to something being legal throughout the land. Laws do not make things legal. Rather, laws define what is NOT legal.

      Afchief is not someone you want to rely on for an understanding of our Constitution or judicial system.

    • Elie Challita

      You’ve been taking lessons from afchief?

      SCOTUS doesn’t make laws, but if it finds a law to be unconstitutional then that law is effectively unenforceable. It is null and void, and any attempt to enforce it will be similarly struck down.

      Combining that with the fact that citizens’ rights in the US center on the idea that laws restrict rights rather than grant them, and you have to admit that gay marriage is as legal as straight marriage, because no law was passed specifically to allow straight marriage.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Oh no! Tennessee doesn’t have legislators clever or determined enough to undo the mischief of the federal courts! What if they take away the federal pork! The horrors!

    • acontraryview

      How is the court ruling on the constitutionality of a law “mischief”?

      “What if they take away the federal pork! The horrors!”

      Agreed. That is a very lame excuse for not proceeding, given that a much stronger rationale is that the state cannot choose to legally harm some of its citizens based upon nothing more than the religious beliefs of some citizens.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    So, Tenthers, what happens now? What happens when a federal law doesn’t exist, and a state legislature moves to overturn the law that doesn’t exist, but fails? Does the law that’s not there stay in effect?

    What happens when a state tries to overturn a fake law, but fails?

    • afchief

      Your right, there is NO federal law for homo marriage. None! There is ONLY a SCOTUS opinion. It changes NOTHING!!!

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Okay, great. So now answer the question.

        • afchief

          “What happens when a state tries to overturn a fake law, but fails?”

          Nothing!!! Because there is NO law!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So then why did the Tennessee legislature hold the vote at all? Do they just not understand law as well as you do?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh Mr. Make Believe Lawyer is starting to understand!!! Remember, they just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws. It simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written or removed to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create and remove laws.

    • afchief

      Good website here for you Mr. Make believe lawyer for your furthering education!

      http://courtscannotmakelaws. com/

      • TheKingOfRhye

        You’re right about that, actually. Courts can’t make laws. They didn’t. No one is pretending they did. Ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not making a law. I suppose one could call it UNmaking a law, perhaps.

        • afchief

          You know you are proving more and more that liberalism and homosexuality TRULY are mental disorders!!! You can’t read nor can you comprehend!!!!

          “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

          For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

          The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Read that last paragraph a few more times, and maybe you’ll understand.

          • afchief

            You just MADE my point!!!!! What does the SCOTUS do with it’s opinions? Do you need some help? Does that little tiny winy homosexual cranium understand what “shapes public policy” means?

            Now for the million dollar question………wait for it……..get ready…….here it comes…….Who makes public policy?

            Do you need some help?

          • Bob Johnson

            Public policy is shaped by many factors. Sometimes by government, by all branches and at every level, from my local animal control services to the Supreme Court. Public policy is also created by tradition and is subject to change over time.

            Often long held traditions, such as midnight skinny dipping at the local lake, comes into conflict with various laws and a court must get involved.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But you’re being inconsistent there. You said many times that a Supreme Court decision means nothing. Then you quote something about they “shape public policy”. Is shaping public policy nothing?

          • afchief

            Come on man think!!!!! When the SCOTUS renders an opinion it can influence the “policy makers” i.e. Congress to make and change laws.

            For example in 1954 the court ruled against segregation. In 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

            The SCOTUS help to shape policy.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Then their decisions don’t mean nothing. It’s only in a very small minority of cases that I’m aware of that a SC decision is NOT followed by either of the two other branches of government, or by the state governments for that matter.

          • afchief

            You are beginning to understand!!!! The founders wanted it this way. The Judicial is the weakest of the 3 branches. The Judges are NOT elected and do NOT represent the people. The people of Congress are elected and are CLOSEST (represent) to the people and has the MOST power. For this reason, they and they alone make, change or remove laws. Not the Judiciary branch. Still when they do make, change or remove laws, the executive branch HAS to sign it into law.

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

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

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

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

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

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

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers”????

            How is the Court disregarding that?

            This is from scholastic(dot)com…..so this is stuff they teach kids, OK?

            “The powers of our federal (national) government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The branches are separate but equal. They each have special responsibilities concerning laws, the principles that govern our nation.”

            “Judicial Branch (Supreme Court ) The Supreme Court (9 justices) and the Lower federal courts ** Interprets Laws ** Can decide if a law is constitutional Can decide if a Presidential action is constitutional Reviews court cases related to the Constitution and federal laws Reviews cases tried in lower courts”

          • afchief

            Do you remember that I told you that “they just tell us the court can remove laws, we believe it and teach it as truth? It is a lie. Not one of our key “cultural” issues has ever been changed by a vote of the people. Abortion, marriage, prayer in schools, sodomy laws, free speech…they’ve all been “changed” by “court opinions.” But they are not changed. There is NO law.

            All courts do is offer opinions. Legislatures and we the people make the laws. Supreme Court decisions are not laws—they simply tell us that they are and they teach it to kiddies.

            That is why Public schools are child abuse!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Again, you (or whoever you keep copy-and-pasting that from) are TECHNICALLY correct, in that the court does not remove laws. A law is not removed until it is, well, removed. As in taken out of the books. However, there are plenty of laws on the books that are not in effect, not enforced, so it is AS IF they are not in the books. Those laws no longer apply. Such as laws banning same-sex marriage, when they were unconstitutional. Or Alabama’s law against interracial marriage.

            You keep saying “Show me the law”. Show me where I SAID there was one! Show me where that thing I quoted SAID courts make laws.

          • afchief

            How old are you? You sound like a 10 year old!!! Why would the people of Alabama vote in 2000 to remove interracial marriage if the SCOTUS ruling in 67 was binding?

            THINK man, THINK!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why were there interracial marriages before 2000 in Alabama if the ruling was NOT binding?

            (You never answer any questions I ask you, so I’m not answering any of yours)

            Are you even reading what I’m saying? I said there are all kinds of laws on the books that are not enforced and considered not valid. Is that hard to understand?

          • afchief

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

            The discussion IS whether or not the SCOTUS can strike down laws which you liberals and homos seem to believe but cannot BACK IT UP WITH PROOF!!!

            The discussion is not whether people enforce laws or not, the discussion is WHAT IS the law!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why were there interracial marriages before 2000 in Alabama?

          • afchief

            Bye! I’m done conversing with mental disorders i.e. liberalism/homosexuals.

            A favorite Leftist mantra goes like this: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.” Facts are such “upsetting” little things…

          • acontraryview

            “Facts are such “upsetting” little things…”

            Yes, you seem to be upset by the fact that there were, in fact, interracial marriages in Alabama prior to 2000, despite a law being on the books that banned such marriages. The reason that interracial marriage was allowed in Alabama between 1964 and 2000, even though there was a law on the books which said that was illegal?

            Wait for it….wait for it…..because the SCOTUS ruled that such laws were not enforceable. Thus a SCOTUS ruling, contrary to your capitalized contention to the contrary, DOES change things. It changes the ability of the state to enforce a law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Still won’t answer a simple question, I see.

          • D.M.S.

            There were interracial marriages in 4000 BC.
            Moses married an Ethiopian.

          • Bob Johnson

            Because it is an embarrassment to the state – especially when the state is working hard to get foreign investments.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!! Liberals and homos make me laugh!!!! It truly is a mental disorder!!!

          • Valri

            LOL! And you are the one being laughed at and you still haven’t picked up on that! LOL!

          • acontraryview

            Here are some of the reasons given:

            “”These kinds of things represent oppression and slavery and discrimination against black people,” said Rep. Alvin Holmes, who introduced the bill to the legislature.”

            “”Taking it off (the books) will be a recognition of the progress that the state is making,” she (Margaret Cox) said.”

            State Rep. Phil Crigler said the bill was just racial grandstanding, since the law prohibiting such marriages is not enforced.

            Please note: “not enforced”. Why would a law that was on the books not be enforced? Oh….wait…..I know…because the SCOTUS ruled that it was not enforceable.

            THINK man, THINK!!!!!

          • afchief

            Bye! I done conversing with a liar and one given over to a reprobate mind!!! It is quite obvious!!!!

            Facts ricochet off of a Liberal/homosexual quicker than a pinball off a flipper. They have fact-retardant skin.

            The Left is hate. Revenge is its pastime. Genocide is its legacy.

          • acontraryview

            Despite accusing me on multiple occasions of lying, you have been unable to cite anything i have said that is a lie. Why do you continue to bear false witness against me?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And once again, afchief bows out when he’s backed into a corner, while still acting smug, superior, and as if he has won. Lather, rinse, repeat.

            Although I do enjoy the irony of his accusing us of being immune to facts.

          • acontraryview

            It’s sad really. I feel sorry for him that he is experiencing so much angst based on such inaccurate understandings.

          • Valri

            That’s his jam, man.

          • acontraryview

            It appears to be all he has.

          • Valri

            It usually goes that you say something, and he screams something in response usually involving name-calling and call you a liar, and you calmly respond back including some proof, and he’ll shriek something back at you upping the number of exclamation marks and capital letters, and call you a liar again, and you’ll calmly respond back with more proof, and then he will say “bye” and call you a reprobate mind and/or liberal.

            ALMOST like he does it from a script.

          • acontraryview

            I was thinking more like a 4-year old….but script works as well.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        1. The fact that something is posted on the Internet does not mean it’s true.

        2. If SCOTUS rulings don’t do anything, why is Tennessee passing a resolution?

        • afchief

          The bill in Tennessee was nothing more than an affirmation of existing law and the enforcing of both the 9th and 10th amendment rights of the citizens of Tennessee. Marriage is a State issue and out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why do you need a bill to make an “affirmation of existing law?” (Which is false anyway, as the bills prescribe several courses of action to be taken.)

            Anyway, why doesn’t Tennessee just not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? Why do they need a bill if it’s already law?

          • afchief

            Your exactly right! Tennessee does not have to do anything. There is no law for homo marriage. They do not have to issue homo marriage licences.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So I guess the Tennessee Legislature is just full of “fake lawyers,” then? And Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, the Christian legal organization, who has gone on record as supporting this bill? Is he a “fake lawyer” too?

          • afchief

            Remember I told you 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.”

            Abortion is still against the law. Marriage is still the union of one man and one woman. There is no separation between the church and the state as is currently accepted in America. They just tell us there is, we believe it, and we teach the lie to others.

            Otherwise SHOW ME THE LAW!!! Or shut up!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            More completely irrelevant, uncited copypasta.

            And I guess we’re going to have to add “I don’t take orders from you” to the long list of realities you refuse to accept.

          • afchief

            Then how come you never show me the law? How come you never show me in the Constitution where the SCOTUS can strike down laws? You have not shown me one time where courts can legislate from the bench. I posted time after time how Constitutional law works but it never sinks in that little liberal cranium. For instance, what does this mean to you?

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

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

            Does the truth every register in liberals craniums? EVER?!?!?!?!?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Then how come you never show me the law?”

            We have. We all have. Repeatedly. You just refuse to accept it because we can’t meet a condition that doesn’t exist except in your head.

            It’s like you’re demanding to see a picture of my cats, but you refuse to accept every one I show you because neither one is white.

          • afchief

            You see, those above 3 paragraphs went right through your liberal cranium. Why? Because you must believe that the SCOTUS can strike down laws. Because you must believe that two homos can marry in all states. You do not want to hear the truth. Just lies. Why? Because you are a liar!!! And serve the father of lies. There is NO truth in you. When presented with truth, you deny it. When I ask you to show me the law, you show me a court case of so and so v so and so which is NO law at all. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?!?!? Yes, YOU are a liar!!!!

            You have absolutely NO idea how Constitutional law works! NONE!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “You see, those above 3 paragraphs went right through your liberal cranium. Why? Because you must believe that the SCOTUS can strike down laws.”

            Yes I do. And so does every judge, law professor, and practicing attorney I’ve ever met.

            “When I ask you to show me the law, you show me a court case of so and so v so and so which is NO law at all. And you call yourself a lawyer?!?!?!? Yes, YOU are a liar!!!!”

            Okay, so I’ll ask you again, for the thousandth time: introduce me to a lawyer who thinks court decisions are not binding.

          • afchief

            Are you really this ignorant and dumb???? I have asked you to show me WHERE the SCOTUS can remove laws!!!! How many times????? Yet you have shown me NOTHING!!!!

            I have posted time after time after time what the role of the SCOTUS is with reputable sources, yet you do not believe them.

            YES, you are a LIAR!!!!!! And a FRAUD!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s in Marbury v. Madison. You know that one–you keep citing everywhere.

            It’s also true because the entire country agrees that it’s true.

          • afchief

            BYE! I’m done conversing with stupidity!!!!!!

  • robertzaccour

    I’m not for gay marriage but this is what happens when you let government get involved in personal matters like marriage. They have to service the wicked as well. I’ll be honest it is the fair thing to do, but all of this mess could’ve been avoided if the government just stayed out of marriage to begin with. BTW why do people feel they have to get a marriage license in the first place? The only real non-financial benefit I see is that it makes it harder to get a divorce.

    • Bob Johnson

      IRS rules, Insurance coverage, death benefits, all-in-all about 1500 state and federal laws that apply to married people.

    • Josey

      It boils down to money

  • afchief

    Ahhh the people are started to understand that a SCOTUS ruling is NOT law. It is ONLY an opinion!! It changes NOTHING! For the umpteenth time;

    “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

    The legislative branch has to AGREE to the opinion for the to be changed, made or struck down. That IS the law!!!

    • Krissy

      The Constitution established the Supreme Court as final decider of what is Constitutional.

      The Supreme Court can declare a law to be unconstitutionl whether the legislature agrees or not.

      • Bob Johnson

        This reminds me of the old story about telling jokes at a lumber camp. You know, all the jokes are numbered and everyone sits around calling out numbers.

        Well afchief will cut and paste “Article. 1. Section 1.”

      • afchief

        The Constitution does NOT state the SCOTUS is the “final decider of what is Constitutional. If so, show me where?

        The SCOTUS can declares unconstitutional, but it takes the legislative and executive branch to agree to the opinion to make, change, or remove a law. 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

    • Bob Johnson

      Yes, there always are some people who agree with your views of how our government should work. However, in this case the Tennessee legislature has killed the bill in committee. The Tennessee legislature has bowed to the Supreme Court’s ruling and will not even send the bill on for a full vote of the state legislature.

      • afchief

        Then show me the law the Tennessee legislature has bowed to?

        Waiting………………………………

        • acontraryview

          Who said they bowed to a law?

    • acontraryview

      “It is ONLY an opinion!!

      No, it is not “ONLY an opinion”. It is a ruling.

      “It changes NOTHING!”

      So you are saying that “NOTHING” changed when the court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were ruled to be a violation of Constitution? If that is true, then why were interracial couples allowed to marry when they previously had not been allowed to?

      Your statement is clearly false, as a ruling by the court can, indeed, change the ability of the state to enforce a law, as is shown regarding laws banning interracial and same-gender marriage. So, yes, a ruling by the court does change something – it changes the enforceability of a law.

      “The legislative branch has to AGREE to the opinion for the law to be changed, made or struck down.”

      First, voters can approve changes to laws regardless of what a legislative body may agree with. So, no, the legislative branch does not have to agree to the opinion for the law to be changed. Second, legislative bodies do not “strike down” laws. The phrase “strike down” refers to judicial actions. Legislative bodies remove laws, they do not strike them down.

  • acontraryview

    Well it’s good to see that more intelligent heads in TN have prevailed.

  • Reason2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • acontraryview

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

      While your statement is false, even if it were true, how would it be relevant to the laws of our nation regarding equal treatment under the law?

      • Reason2012

        Saying it’s false doesn’t make it false. Google ex-gay and be flooded with a growing number of testimonies from those who have permanently on their own turned away from homosexuality, even the most die-hard homosexual activists. If you wish to prove they’re all lying, please do so – one by one.

        Everyone already was being treated equal: every single person already had the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who was being denied this right?

        • acontraryview

          “Saying it’s false doesn’t make it false.”

          Agreed. What makes it false is that the basis of sexuality is unknown. Therefore your statement that people choosing to no longer engage in relations with individuals of the same gender proves that sexuality is not genetic is false. Please provide me with one example of a person who was exclusively attracted to people of the same gender who now claims that they are exclusively attracted to people of the opposite gender and no longer have any attraction to people of the same gender.

          “Everyone already was being treated equal: every single person already had the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender.”

          Just as when interracial marriage was illegal ever single person hd the same right to marry one person of the same race. Marriage is the right to enter into marriage with the consenting, adult, non-married, non-closely related person of one’s choosing. Since heterosexual citizens were allowed to do that while homosexual citizens were not, please explain to me how that was equal treatment under the law.

          • Reason2012

            // Therefore your statement that people choosing to no longer engage in relations with individuals of the same gender proves that sexuality is not genetic is false. //

            google ex-gay – be flooded with their testimonies that point out they are no longer homosexual. If you wish to prove they’re all liars, then prove it, one by one, for every one of them.

            And since you’re claiming genetics trump feelings, then why aren’t you rebuking transgenderism which promotes “feelings trumps genetics” and flies in the face of biological scientific fact that people are male but only “feel like” they should be female? More dishonest hypocrisy of the perversion activists.

            // Just as when interracial marriage was illegal ever single person had the same right to marry one person of the same race. //

            Irrelevant as God defined marriage as one man and one woman, without restriction on race. So race was never a restriction on the definition of marriage and it should have never been ‘illegal’ to begin with. And race is genetic – homosexual BEHAVIOR is not, as already proven. HUGE difference.

            So who is being denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender? No one. Glad you admit it.
            Who has a special right to be married to someone of the same gender? No one.
            There already IS equal treatment under the law. It’s a lie that there’s not “equal treatment under the law” but instead you want “special anti-constitutional treatment” by the law.

            But using your claim to “equal treatment” then why can’t an adult marry his sister?
            Why can’t an adult marry his brother?
            Why can’t an adult marry his mom?
            Why can’t an adult marry his dad?
            Why can’t an adult marry both his parents?
            Why can’t a man and 5 women be called a marriage?

            So much for being about “equal treatment under the law”.

            And marriage was defined by God, not the government. It’s a violation of the Constitution to redefine religious institution the government never defined to begin with, that has existed since the beginning of the existence of the human race, and pass laws to establish this new State Religion, forcing others to abandon their religious beliefs on the matter and promote the new State Religion’s beliefs on the matter, lest you be treated as a bigot and a criminal, fined and sued.

          • acontraryview

            “be flooded with their testimonies that point out they are no longer homosexual.”

            Again, show me one example – it was your claim so I’m not doing your research for you – that a person was exclusively attracted to people of the same gender and now are exclusively attracted to people of the opposite gender and no longer have any attraction to people of the same gender.

            Regardless of the testimonies of these individuals, their testimonies do not provide proof that sexuality has no basis in genetics. Your statement that they do is simply false.

            “And since you’re claiming genetics trump feelings”

            I never said any such thing. How do you square lying about what other people say with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “Irrelevant as God defined marriage as one man and one woman”

            How is that relevant to the issue of legal marriage? It was, in fact, illegal at one point for two people of different races to marry. Yet, each person had the right to marry someone of the same race. Therefore, using your logic, everyone had the same right. Yet, you say that was not equality and that such laws never should have been in place. If everyone was treated equally, why were those laws wrong? You have clearly stated that as long as everyone can do the same thing, there is no issue of equality.

            “So race was never a restriction on the definition of marriage”

            That is obviously false, as it indeed was a restriction on the definition of civil marriage. Further, while that may be YOUR view on Biblical restrictions regarding interracial marriage, that is not a view that shared by others. The judge in Virginia in his ruling on Loving v Virginia stated:

            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            Who are you to say that his interpretation is wrong and yours is right?

            “And race is genetic – homosexual BEHAVIOR is not, as already proven.”

            No behavior is genetic. Behavior is a choice. Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. Behavior is not a basis for equality under the law. Only citizenship.

            “Who has a special right to be married to someone of the same gender? No one.”

            Since anyone can marry someone of the same gender, it is not a “special” right. It is a right all citizens have.

            “There already IS equal treatment under the law.”

            There is now.

            “It’s a lie that there’s not “equal treatment under the law””

            If a person is able to marry a person of the opposite gender but not able to marry a person of the same gender, how is that “equal treatment under the law”?

            “”special anti-constitutional treatment” by the law.”

            Again, since all people are allowed to marry someone of the same gender, how is being legally allowed to do so “special” treatment? How is allowing two citizens of the same gender to access a right offered by the state “anti-constitutional”?

            “But using your claim to “equal treatment” then why can’t an adult marry his sister?Why can’t an adult marry his brother?
            Why can’t an adult marry his mom?
            Why can’t an adult marry his dad?
            Why can’t an adult marry both his parents?
            Why can’t a man and 5 women be called a marriage?”

            The law in this case is: Two, consenting, non-closely related, unmarried adults. Denying access to that based solely upon gender is not equal treatment under the law.

            As to your other examples, if citizens want to challenge the restrictions based on familial relationship and number, they are certainly free to. The State, however, can certainly provide rational and compelling reasons why two closely related citizens should not be allowed to legally marry, as well as providing rational and compelling reasons why more than two people should not be allowed to legally marry.

            Tell me, what is your rationale for disallowing two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage?

            “And marriage was defined by God, not the government.”

            Civil marriage is defined by the government. Holy matrimony is defined based upon religious belief. They are distinct and separate.

            “It’s a violation of the Constitution to redefine religious institution”

            Civil marriage is not a religious institution. It is a civil institution.

            “forcing others to abandon their religious beliefs on the matter and promote the new State Religion’s beliefs on the matter”

            Please cite one person who has been forced to abandon their religious beliefs on the matter and to promote same-gender marriage.

            “lest you be treated as a bigot”

            Supporting the harm of citizens based upon nothing more than your being intolerant of how they wish to pursue their liberty, freedom, and happiness IS bigotry.

          • Reason2012

            // The law in this case is: Two, consenting, non-closely related, unmarried adults. Denying access to that based solely upon gender is not equal treatment under the law. //

            And therein is your dishonest hypocrisy exposed: you support denying others marriage for some reasons, while claiming to be about “equal treatment for all”. Thank you for proving the point that it has nothing to do with “equal treatment for all” but is just a lie the perversion activists use to attack what God defined as one man and one woman.

            Take care.

          • acontraryview

            “you support denying others marriage for some reasons”

            I never said anything about my personal support, or lack thereof, for denying others marriage. Your saying that I did is simply another of your lies. Again, please explain to me how you reconcile lying with your supposed faith in Christianity.

            “attack what God defined as one man and one woman.”

            How does allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage “attack what God defined as one man and one woman”? Are one man and one woman no longer allowed to marry?

            Again:

            Who are you to say that the Judge’s interpretation of the Bible is incorrect and yours is correct?

            If a person is able to marry a person of the opposite gender but not able to marry a person of the same gender, how is that “equal treatment under the law”?

            Tell me, what is your rationale for disallowing two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage?

            Since all people are allowed to marry someone of the same gender, how is being legally allowed to do so “special” treatment? How is allowing two citizens of the same gender to access a right offered by the state “anti-constitutional”?

            Please cite one person who has been forced to abandon their religious beliefs on the matter and to promote same-gender marriage.

          • Josey

            don’t you just love how contrary brings in either race or calls anyone with an opposing view a liar…:) that is his pattern

          • Reason2012

            Yes, every time you call him on what he says or even implies, he then pretends he never said or implied it. He’s just trolling.

          • Reason2012

            “And since you’re claiming genetics trump feelings”

            // I never said any such thing. //

            And yet you argue against those who turn away from homosexuality and then claim they can’t do so as if sexual attraction is genetic.

            You say
            // their testimonies do not provide proof that sexuality has no basis in genetics //

            You’re being dishonest. That people continue to change in this area proves sexuality is not “genetic”. Even though you’re claiming it is while claiming you’re not claiming it is.

            Take care.

          • acontraryview

            So you that I never made the claim that genetics trump feelings and thus your statement that I did was a lie. How do you reconcile lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “And yet you argue against those who turn away from homosexuality”

            Again, another lie. I have never argued against those who no longer engage in same-gender relations. They are free to do as they like.

            “claim they can’t do so as if sexual attraction is genetic.”

            Again, another lie. I never made the claim that people cannot choose to act upon their desires.

            “That people continue to change in this area proves sexuality is not “genetic”.”

            No, it does not. Choosing not to act on one’s desires is not proof that something is not genetic. A person can be left-handed as a genetic trait, but teach themselves to write with their right hand and choose only to do things with their right hand. That does not change their inherent trait of being left-handed.

            To state with certainty that sexuality – either homo or hetero – is not genetic would require that you are knowledge regarding the function of every gene in the human genome. You do not. No one does. Therefore, it is false to say that there is proof that sexuality is not genetic.

            “Even though you’re claiming it is”

            That is another lie. I have never claimed that there is proof that sexuality is genetic. I have said several times that the exact basis for sexuality is unknown. For someone who claims to be Christian, you certainly do lie a lot. How do you come to terms with that?

          • Josey

            Great post but then how would they get all those bigoted Christians who bring light to their dark deeds and call it as God calls it removed from positions in government, public servant jobs, etc.? And how would they shut us up so they can “feel normal or ok” in their perversions and keep trucking down that wide road that leads to hell? Satan wants their souls and we as children of God are irritants to those demoniacs who can’t shut us up so they cry injustice or inequality because they have bought the lie satan has fed them. They can be free for whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “So race was never a restriction on the definition of marriage by God in
            general and it should have never been ‘illegal’ to begin with.”

            A lot of people sure thought it was years ago. A lot of people in the past used the Bible to justify bans on interracial marriage. But anyway, marriage is not “defined by God”, at least not in the law of this country. We do have freedom of religion in this country, that means that I’m free to believe in any religion, or even none.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, and a lot of people also “think” the Bible condones homosexual behavior to. The Bible is quite clear what marriage is and it in no way even hints that a black person shouldn’t marry a white person.

            Marriage existed before this or any country ever did. The government cannot start re-defining what it never defined to begin with – they can only offer a contract to deal with legal aspects of it after the fact.

          • Valri

            Marriage also existed before the Bible.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Nothing or no one predates God and His Holy Word.

          • Valri

            If you think His Holy Word is the Bible, then yes, there is plenty that predates it.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            God and His Holy Word are one in the same.

          • Valri

            The world existed more than 2000 years ago. The Bible did not.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            God’s Word is recorded IN what we call The Bible. God’s Word is eternal just as He is. God and His Word are one in the same.

          • Reason2012

            Of course marriage existed before there was WRITING. And then when writing came about, it was written down.

          • Valri

            The point is, Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage, and never has.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yes, and since this is a secular country, we’re not bound by any particular religion’s definition of what marriage is. Marriage is no Biblical invention either, you know. Societies that never even heard of the Bible had marriage.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You seem to be saying that before SSM was legalized, everybody had the same rights (as in the right to marry a person of the opposite sex), but now that it is legal, homosexual people are getting some sort of special treatment? That’s just not true. Everybody had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, now everybody has the right to marry someone of the same sex as well. Where’s the special treatment?

          • Oboehner

            “What makes it false is that the basis of sexuality is unknown” Un-admitted is more appropriate.

          • acontraryview

            Actually, given the amount of research that has been done in the area and that none has been able to definitely determine the basis for sexuality, “unknown” is the correct, and most appropriate, description.

          • Oboehner

            Yeah, research like the fraudulent “gay gene”. The old “science” label, the most effective propaganda tool in use today.

          • acontraryview

            There has been no single gene identified as a basis for sexuality – either homo or hetero. If you would like links to various research efforts that have been, and are currently being, done on determining the basis for sexuality, i’d be happy to provide them.

          • Oboehner

            I didn’t say there was, just a fraudulent claim there was by some sodomite “scientist” desperate for acceptance.
            Had enough propaganda on the subject in psychology class.

          • acontraryview

            Goodness knows people make claims all the time that are not backed by actual science. The one you mentioned is an example, as is the claim by some that sexuality has been proven to have no genetic basis. Those claims, however, do not change the fact that the basis for sexuality is unknown.

            What “propaganda on the subject” did you receive in psychology class?

          • Oboehner

            Ex-gays have the genetic thing covered. There was perfectly good science before gays had it removed.
            Psychology class: “Here is a CT scan of a hetero male, here is one of a gay male, see the difference? That proves they were born that way.” No, there could be many explanations for the difference, perhaps one guy had a head ache, maybe addictive personality shows up differently, maybe…

          • acontraryview

            “Ex-gays have the genetic thing covered.”

            No, they don’t. Choosing to not behave in a certain way does not prove that sexuality has no basis in genetics.

            “”Here is a CT scan of a hetero male, here is one of a gay male, see the difference? That proves they were born that way.””

            LOL. Where did you go to school?

          • Oboehner

            Choosing to behave in a certain way does not prove that sexuality has any basis in genetics. Pavlov had that covered with his dog experiment.
            I was attending a government university.

          • acontraryview

            “Choosing to behave in a certain way does not prove that sexuality has any basis in genetics.”

            Agreed. Nor does it prove that it is not.

            “I was attending a government university.”

            Well any class you attended where they cited a CT scan as proof that sexuality is born trait was being taught poorly.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said, there was good science on the subject prior to the militant gay lobby having it scrubbed.
            Being poorly taught pretty much sums up the government university system.

          • Valri

            What makes you think a severely marginalized group such as homosexuals – ESPECIALLY in the 1970s, when they had nothing in terms of organization – would have the power to SUCCESSFULLY lobby an orgazation like the APA? This must be why you’re so backwards on evolution. You think it can be manipulated by opinion, and it cannot be because it’s fact.

          • Oboehner

            Ah…., because it’s historical fact.
            I have to admit, I saw evolution in action, I looked at some photos of Hawking. Looks like he’s evolving into something.

          • Valri

            Oh…well, since it’s a historical fact, you should have no trouble showing your proof then, right? Keeping in mind that Newsweek tommyrot story you keep trotting out is long debunked and an opinion piece anyway…

          • Oboehner

            I have, piles of it, far more than you have about evolutionism.

          • Valri

            Well, bring it on then, or admit you are a liar.

          • Oboehner

            I already have, you and your exploding dot cult just keep denying it.

          • Valri

            I don’t believe in an exploding dot, Oboehner. No one does. That’s why it’s nothing more than a big, ridiculous strawman you alone wear on your shoulders.

          • Oboehner

            Lies and denies – “About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point.” – University of Michigan

            “If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.” – National Schools’ Observatory
            Voila, the exploding dot no one (but the evolutionist) believes in.

          • Valri

            I see, and is there some document somewhere that every scientist signed to show that every single one of them believed that?
            No?
            Then what you have is a strawman. Bye.

          • StanW

            Every single scientist? So you believe that consensus is science?

          • Valri

            You can’t put all scientists in the same box belief-wise. There are many theories about the origins of the universe.

            However, you CAN put all fundamentalist Christians in the same box belief-wise. In fact if any one of them DARES question anything they get kicked out!

          • StanW

            That is a lie about Christians. There are MANY different beliefs.

            You prove once again that you know NOTHING about Christians.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            What about us fundamentalist Christians who are scientists. Doesn’t your hypothesis violate the Law of Non-Contradiction then?

          • Valri

            If you are a scientist and a fundamentalist Christian, then you ARE a contradiction, if you believe in a 6000 year old earth and disbelieve evolution!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Tell it to Michael Faraday – the greatest experimental scientist in history – and a fantastic fundamentalist preacher. One amongst many!

            Methinks that both science and history are weak points with you. In fact, what does an 8th grade educated woman living on welfare in her parents’ basement know about science, history, or Christianity?

          • Valri

            Michael Faraday – 1791-1867
            So, no, definitely not a “fundamentalist”. Fundyism has barely been around 100 years. I don’t think you’d have seen Faraday preaching about a young earth.

            Are you quite certain you’re a scientist? It seems pretty apparent to me that you’re an end times, tongue speaking, snake waving, fundamentalist Christian. Shame we can’t see your tinfoil hat collection.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Fundamentalism has been around a LOT longer than 100 years, unless you are just thinking of a more recent strict theological view, not a foundational hard-core fire and brimstone view. Faraday made me look like a docile creature by comparison. All he would have preached to you was Hell, Hell, Hell – always in love for the state of your soul.

          • Valri

            Um, no.

            https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Gotcha – that’s a strict movement that began in the late 1800’s actually – just don’t quote Wiki with me. 🙂

            Nevertheless, if Faraday had been posting today, he would look just like any other of your fave fundies. Except he would have been stricter than us. 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh, and based on your definition, I am not a fundie, since I am a Mere Christian and an intellectual, love creeds, scholarship, and philosophy, have respect for the historical Church, love orthodoxy and orthopraxy, am not KJV, believe that one of the Church’s obligations is to influence the culture not recede from it, do not get overly hung up on reading the tea leaves (prophecy), etc.

            If you had to describe me theologically, it would be evangelical holiness-Wesleyan. (The OLD Wesleyan.) But, I am non-dogmatic on issues outside of Mere Christianity. I even attend a Charismatic Episcopal Church that came out of the pro-life movement, although I am generally non-denom.

          • Valri

            I can respect that. Do you hate Catholics? The last part of my fundie litmus test. Oboehner does. Trumpy does.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I am married to a Catholic, Val, and I spend many hours a week on the sidewalk with Catholics. I am also tied heavily in with the Knights of Columbus and their ultrasound machine program for CPC’s, despite my not being Catholic. I frequently attend a Catholic church for pro-life ministry, and I am on the Missions Team (serving poor Americans in shacks) for one Catholic Church. I am a Mere Christian, a basic Jesus freak, if you will – I get along with anyone who holds to the core essentials of the faith – which define (rigid) orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I also believe in the core fundamentals of engineering. 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh, BTW, I have never spoken in tongues (does memorizing Bible verses in French count? :-)) and I am scared to death of snakes. When I did my marathon swimming, it was always snakes in rivers and lakes that scared me the most. One time, just before a 10 hour swim, I went to the bathroom and right near the building was a HUGE dead snake with his head mauled off by a wild animal, I suppose. That is really not a sight one likes to see when getting ready to get into the water. But, on the plus side, I did swim fast. 🙂

          • Oboehner

            LOL, now THAT is a straw man. Don’t go away mad…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s real classy….insult someone who’s most likely smarter than you and me and a couple other people put together……

          • Valri

            He has a few choice expressions for homosexuals that he brings out from time to time as well, although they usually get deleted.

          • Oboehner

            I doubt it, if he actually thinks evolution is factual…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Not to mention also classy to mock someone’s serious disease….

          • Oboehner

            Why on earth would that disease exist? One would think it would have “evolved” away by now.
            On another note, do I feel bad for poking fun? Not in the least, he’s done far worse.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Uh….what? What has Hawking done that is so bad, in your opinion?

          • Oboehner

            Always the “you don’t understand evolution” apparently nobody else does either.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re the one that kept asking if anyone had seen a bacteria turn into an elephant or however that went. And I forget now, aren’t you one of those guys that says “evolution says that life evolved from nothing”? Those just demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. Like I’ve said before, at least get what the theory says right, if you’re going to criticize it.

          • Oboehner

            So you’re one of those guys who pretends not to believe in the origin part of the show, Correct me if I’m wrong – but didn’t all life originate from some ooze and a single-celled organism? You know life a bacteria?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The point was, regardless of what I believe, that that’s not a question that evolution deals with. That’s abiogenesis, which seems believable enough to me. Ever heard of the “Miller-Urey experiment”? They reproduced the conditions that were thought to exist when life originated, and they produced 20 different amino acids, the building blocks of life. But one could believe some god started the whole process, (like many Christians do, actually) or aliens, or whatever, and evolution would still be valid, because that talks about what happens after that.

          • Oboehner

            You mean the “experiment” which was conducted under perfect conditions (which hardly represented the actual conditions) – and yet were still unable to produce life?

            But one could believe that life spontaneously appeared started the whole process, (like many atheists do, actually) or aliens, or whatever, and evolution would still be invalid, because that speculates about what happens after that according only to their religious view.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hardly represented the actual conditions? How do you know that? They made their best guess of what the conditions were, it’s very possible the conditions were similar but maybe one key thing was not there, and that’s why life was not produced. Still, they DID produce the basic building blocks of life, so that’s at least getting close.

          • Oboehner

            They never will create life, it doesn’t work that way.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re basing this on all your years of scientific experience, I am sure……….

          • Oboehner

            Doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            I think you clearly need to learn about evolution if you’re going to complain about it. What you describe here is abiogenesis.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            What did Stephen Hawking do that was “far worse”?

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            Congratulations, that was the worst and most evil thing I have ever seen someone who claims to be a Christian say about another human being.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzz…..

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            Yeah, I know how tiring it must be saying something so utterly disgusting about a person with a horrible, debilitating disease.

          • acontraryview

            “Like I said, there was good science on the subject prior”

            Really? So you are saying that at one time there was good science on the basis for sexuality, but somehow that science no longer exists? So in the past we knew the basis of sexuality but the “gay lobby” got that science scrubbed? Please, tell me more about his “science” that existed regarding the basis for sexuality.

            “Being poorly taught pretty much sums up the government university system.”

            That seems quite evident in your case.

          • Oboehner

            It still existsd, it’s just not PC enough to mention anymore.
            Sexuality is learned behavior exactly like Pavlov’s dog and the bell.

            “That seems quite evident in your case.” One would have had to attended government university to come up with something so profound!

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again: Please, tell me more about this “science” that existed regarding the basis for sexuality.

            “One would have had to attended government university to come up with something so profound!”

            But I didn’t. I attended a private university affiliated with the Presbyterian Church.

          • Oboehner

            Ok, sexuality is learned behavior exactly like Pavlov’s dog and the bell.
            Presbyterian, figures – watered down religion.

          • acontraryview

            “Ok, sexuality is learned behavior exactly like Pavlov’s dog and the bell.”

            Sexuality is not a behavior, so no it is not “exactly like Pavlov’s dog and the bell”. Pavlov’s experiment had to do with a sound producing a physical response based upon another activity that was an innate part of the dog – eating.

            I hope you applied for a refund from that college you attended.

          • Oboehner

            My bad, it’s learned exactly like Pavlov’s dog and the bell. After all salivating isn’t a behavior either. Just like one man’s poop chute is producing another man’s physical response based upon another activity that was an innate part of the man – having sex.

          • Valri

            But of course straight people never engage in that form of sex, do they.

          • acontraryview

            “it’s learned”

            Behavior is learned. Sexuality is not a behavior.

            “After all salivating isn’t a behavior either.”

            Salivation is a natural reaction of the body to eating. It provides moisture to help in the intake of food. A sound was produced that was associated with food. Over time, the sound was sufficient to produce salivation because the sound became associated with food. In order for that happen, a sound was associated, over and over, with the presentation of food. All animals eat. With that said, had Pavlov presented food that the dog innately found unappealing, no matter how many times he did that, salivation would not have been a result of hearing the bell, because there was no pleasure derived with what was presented in concurrence with the bell ringing.

            What you are falsely suggesting is true is if a person is presented with sexual information they will eventually adopt that sexuality. That is false. Just as Pavlov’s dog would have found some food to be pleasurable and other food not, humans are innately attracted to members of either the opposite gender or the same gender. Showing a heterosexual male pictures of two men having sexual relations would not be pleasurable to that male, no matter how many times they were shown. That person would not “learn” to become homosexual. in the same vein, showing images of heterosexual sexual relations would not be pleasurable to a homosexual male. That person would not “learn” to be homosexuals. Further, for your assertion to be true, every person would non-specific in their sexuality until they start to be exposed to certain types of sexual stimulus. That is also false.

            You really should apply for a refund from that college you attending.

          • Oboehner

            “Over time” Throw in a sexual addiction, or a domineering mother with no father figure, and over time ones “sexuality” will adapt. Pete Townsend of The Who had a self proclaimed addiction to having sex, first with women, then over time it switched to men.

            “humans are innately attracted to members of either the opposite gender or the same gender.” “That is false.” Human’s are attracted for the purpose of procreation, a deviation from that due in part to the things I mentioned earlier, leads then to be gay. However, even the majority of gay “couples” have a dominant male role individual and a submissive female one. Then we have the overtly feminine role, casting a nasty shadow on the whole “attracted to the same sex innately” fallacy.
            “Further, for your assertion to be true, every person would non-specific in their sexuality until they start to be exposed to certain types of sexual stimulus. That is also false.” That is false, by instinct people are attracted to the opposite sex at the beginning.
            Any human with the right ingredients, can learn to be gay (Like Pavlov’s dog and the bell), and any with the right ingredients can learn not to be as well.

          • acontraryview

            “Throw in a sexual addiction, or a domineering mother with no father figure, and over time ones “sexuality” will adapt.”

            Please show me the research that backs up your claim.

            “Human’s are attracted for the purpose of procreation”

            Please show me the research which backs up your claim. I’m pretty sure that young children who are attracted to someone of the opposite gender are not thinking about procreation.

            “a deviation from that due in part to the things I mentioned earlier, leads then to be gay.”

            Please show me the research which backs up your claim.

            “However, even the majority of gay “couples” have a dominant male role individual and a submissive female one.”

            Please show me the research that backs up your claim.

            “by instinct people are attracted to the opposite sex at the beginning.”

            Not homosexuals.

            “Any human with the right ingredients, can learn to be gay”

            What ingredients would those be and how would they “learn” to be gay?

            “(Like Pavlov’s dog and the bell)”

            As pointed out, your analogy is false.

            “and any with the right ingredients can learn not to be as well.”

            What ingredients would those be and how would they “learn” to not be gay?

          • Oboehner

            If I say the sun is bright, will you ask me for the research which backs up my claim?

            “Not homosexuals.” Them too.

          • acontraryview

            “If I say the sun is bright, will you ask me for the research which backs up my claim?”

            Since that is already proven, no, I would not. Nor does your puerile question provide answers to my questions about the research that exists which backs up your claims that certain things are true. But, I assume that since you have no proof, your only choice was to attempt to deflect. Unfortunate. Not surprising, but still unfortunate.

            “Them too.”

            Please cite some examples of homosexuals who were instinctually attracted to people of the opposite gender but then chose to change their instinctual attraction.

          • Oboehner

            “Please cite some examples of homosexuals who were…” Ellen is a case in point, she obviously takes the male role in her “relationship” as evidenced by her hair and wardrobe. Pete Townsend of The Who (as I mentioned earlier) wrote a song about his addiction to women, no because of his sexual addiction, he is gay.

          • acontraryview

            “Ellen is a case in point, she obviously takes the male role in her “relationship” as evidenced by her hair and wardrobe. ”

            LOL. So then any woman who has short hair and wears pants is taking on the “male role” in a relationship? THAT’s your proof? Too funny.

            And, by the way, the question was: “Please cite some examples of homosexuals who were instinctually attracted to people of the opposite gender but then chose to change their instinctual attraction.”

            You have failed to provide any such examples.

          • Oboehner

            If you are too biased to see that which is plainly in front of you there is no point to this.

            “You have failed to provide any such examples.” Your failure to comprehend it is yours alone.

          • acontraryview

            “If you are too biased to see that which is plainly in front of you there is no point to this.”

            Hmmmm…let’s see. You have stated that, despite having absolutely no information about their personal life at home, you are certain that Ellen takes the “male” role in her relationship based upon the clothes she wears and her hair cut. And you are suggesting that I’M biased? Hilarious. By the way, how would taking the “male” role manifest itself in their relationship? What does taking the “male” role mean?

            “Your failure to comprehend it is yours alone.”

            Since you have haven’t provided any examples, there is nothing to comprehend or not comprehend.

          • Oboehner

            ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’ – Jonathan Swift

          • acontraryview

            Nice quote. Get back to me when you have some answers to my questions.

          • Oboehner

            Get back to me when your thought processes can ascertain the obvious.

          • acontraryview

            Ok, I’m getting back to you. It’s obvious that you can’t back up your claim and it’s obvious you can’t answer basic questions about your claim. Nothing could be more obvious.

          • BobRumba

            Pete Townshend is not gay. In fact no one is strictly gay or straight, we all fall at some point along a continuum. If you’ve read Pete Townshend’s autobiography, you’ll know he’s not gay – at the most, you could say he is bisexual as he expresses a sexual feeling towards Mick Jagger at one point.

          • Oboehner

            Was attracted to the same gender.

          • Oboehner

            If I say the sun is bright, will you ask me to “show the research that backs up your claim”?

            “Not homosexuals.” Please show me the research that backs up your claim.

            “As pointed out, your analogy is false.” Please show me the research that backs up your claim.
            “What ingredients would those be and how would they “learn” to not be gay?” What ingredients are there when someone kicks a heroin habit? Alcohol? Cigarettes?

          • acontraryview

            “If I say the sun is bright, will you ask me to “show the research that backs up your claim”?”

            Since there is already proof of that, no, I wouldn’t.

            “”Not homosexuals.” Please show me the research that backs up your claim.”

            Just ask any homosexual.

            “”As pointed out, your analogy is false.” Please show me the research that backs up your claim.”

            You are really being juvenile at this point. The analogy is false because Pavlov’s dog experiment involved creating a behavioral reaction to a certain stimulus. Sexuality is not a behavior.

            “What ingredients are there when someone kicks a heroin habit? Alcohol? Cigarettes?”

            Sexuality is not a “habit”. You were the one who stated “and any with the right ingredients can learn not to be as well.” It’s your claim. If you can’t explain it, then you can’t explain it. No worries.

          • Oboehner

            “Just ask any homosexual.” Right after I ask a pedophile who will give me the same answer, which we all know is BS.

            The analogy is true because Pavlov’s dog experiment involved creating a behavioral reaction to a certain stimulus. Sexuality is a behavioral response to outside stimuli as well as the mental state.
            Deviant “sexuality” is the same, it carries the same ingredients as any other addiction.

          • acontraryview

            “Right after I ask a pedophile who will give me the same answer, which we all know is BS.”

            Given that the act of pedophilia is a crime which makes it much different than homosexuality, your comparison doesn’t hold water. Why would a homosexual not be truthful being attracted to someone of the opposite gender early in their life? What is your basis for stating that homosexuals saying they were never attracted to people of the opposite gender is “BS”?

            “Sexuality is a behavioral response to outside stimuli”

            Sexuality is not a behavior.

          • Oboehner

            “Given that the act of pedophilia is a crime which makes it much different than homosexuality” Legality has nothing to do with “sexuality” as you have presented it.

            “Sexuality is not a behavior.” Again, sexuality is a behavioral response to outside stimuli as well as the mental state.

          • acontraryview

            “Legality has nothing to do with “sexuality” as you have presented it.”

            The legality of an action would most certainly have an impact on how one would answer a question, which was the point of discussion. I’ll ask again: Why would a homosexual not be truthful being attracted to someone of the opposite gender early in their life? What is your basis for stating that homosexuals saying they were never attracted to people of the opposite gender is “BS”?

            “Again, sexuality is a behavioral response”

            No, it is not. Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. It manifests itself long before people are exposed to stimulus. What you are suggesting is that if a heterosexual were exposed to images of two people of the same gender having sexual relations, or sexually explicit pictures of a person of the same gender, that somehow that would result in the heterosexual being homosexual. That is simply untrue.

            Please note the word “stimulus”. A heterosexual is not going to be stimulated by sexually explicit pictures of people of the same gender. Nor is a homosexual going to be stimulated by sexually explicit pictures of people of the opposite gender.

          • Oboehner

            “The legality of an action would most certainly have an impact on how one would answer a question, which was the point of discussion.” Legality has nothing to do with your “sexuality” discussion, would a homo not be attracted to a member of the same sex simply because it was illegal?
            Again, sexuality is a behavioral response identical to the dog and the bell, I really don’t think the bell was the reason for the response other than association – like the gay man and the association to “getting off”, or the female for whatever need they are looking to fill.
            “A heterosexual is not going to be stimulated by sexually explicit pictures of people of the same gender. Nor is a homosexual going to be stimulated by sexually explicit pictures of people of the opposite gender” They would with the right type and amount of conditioning with the right stimulus.

          • acontraryview

            “Legality has nothing to do with your “sexuality” discussion”

            It has to do with the likelihood of answering a question, which was the point being discussed.

            “would a homo not be attracted to a member of the same sex simply because it was illegal?’

            No, he/she wouldn’t. However, the admittance of such attraction would be influenced by the legality of it, which was the point being addressed.

            “Again, sexuality is a behavioral response”

            Sexuality is no more a behavior than eye color is a behavior. Sexuality is a trait, not a behavior.

            “They would with the right type and amount of conditioning with the right stimulus.”

            What type of conditioning and stimulus are you suggesting that homosexuals go through that causes them to cease being heterosexual and turn into homosexuals?

          • Oboehner

            Sexuality is no more a trait than platform shoes, it is a conditioned behavioral response.
            The contributing factors can range from being molested or just exposed to sexual behavior as a child, to an over domineering mother to just plain sexual addiction.

          • acontraryview

            “it is a conditioned behavioral response.”

            Please explain what conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl? What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on boy?

            I’ll ask again: What type of conditioning and stimulus are you suggesting that homosexuals go through that causes them to cease being heterosexual and turn into homosexuals?

            “The contributing factors can range from being molested or just exposed to sexual behavior as a child, to an over domineering mother to just plain sexual addiction.”

            What proof can you provide that those events result in determining a person’s sexuality?

          • Oboehner

            A young boy having a crush on a girl is natural behavior. There was a girl that spoke at a talk show when the topic was “how wonderful lesbian ‘parents’ were”. She got up from the audience and stated she was raised by lesbos then proceeded to go off on how that ruined her life and the struggles she had to go through because of that. Too bad the producers didn’t like that and cut to commercial, it would have been interesting to hear all of what she had to say, but gays really don’t want any truth other than theirs to get out. Before she was cut off, she stated she went through a lesbo phase because that is what she learned from her surroundings. It is learned, do you really think the heroin addict is born with a propensity for the needle?

            “I’ll ask again: What type of conditioning and stimulus are you suggesting that homosexuals go through that causes them to cease being heterosexual and turn into homosexuals?” The answer is the same.

          • acontraryview

            “A young boy having a crush on a girl is natural behavior.”

            For a heterosexual boy it is. Just as it is natural for a homosexual boy to have a crush on another boy.

            “She got up from the audience and stated she was raised by lesbos then proceeded to go off on how that ruined her life and the struggles she had to go through because of that.”

            Are you referring to Heather Barwick, a 31-year-old, married to a man, mother-of-four from South Carolina? The one who said that her biological father ‘wasn’t a great guy,’ and ‘didn’t bother coming around anymore’? The one who said ‘My father’s absence created a huge hole, and I ached every day. I loved my mom’s partner, but she could never have replaced the father I lost’? The one who’s pain was caused by an absent father, not by the fact that she was raised by two women? Is THAT the person you are referring to?

            How would her experience be relevant to our conversation?

            “do you really think the heroin addict is born with a propensity for the needle?”

            The likelihood of becoming addicted has indeed been shown to have a basis in genetics.

            “The answer is the same.”

            You never provided an answer.

            I’ll ask again: Please explain what conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl? What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on boy?

          • Oboehner

            “Are you referring to Heather Barwick” Nope.
            Her experience is relevant she stated her lesbo phase was as a result of – say it with me now – learned behavior.

            “You never provided an answer.” “The contributing factors can range from being molested or just exposed to sexual behavior as a child, to an over domineering mother to just plain sexual addiction.” I did, you just seem to have a reading disorder.

          • acontraryview

            “Nope.”

            Then who are you referring to?

            “”The contributing factors can range from being molested or just exposed to sexual behavior as a child, to an over domineering mother to just plain sexual addiction.” ”

            Those items are not “stimulus”. Try again.

            I’ll ask again: Please explain what conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl? What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on boy?

          • Oboehner

            Her name was only briefly mentioned on the show, then she was silenced by a commercial.

            No conditioning needed that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl, it’s natural law.

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again: Who are you referring to?

            “No conditioning needed that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl”

            You said that sexuality “is a conditioned behavioral response.” So I’ll ask yet again: Please explain what conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl? What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on boy?

          • Oboehner

            Hetero is the default, go be obtuse with someone who has the time for your sandbox mentality.

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t cite who you are referring to, then your claims have no basis.

            “Hetero is the default”

            If you can’t explain your own statement, then you can’t. No worries.

          • BobRumba

            He can’t.

          • acontraryview

            I know. It’s unfortunate.

          • Oboehner

            Why don’t you explain why it’s not.

          • acontraryview

            You made the claim. The burden of proof falls on you.

          • Oboehner

            “Just as it is natural for a homosexual boy to have a crush on another boy.” This statement? No, that was you.

          • acontraryview

            “This statement?”

            Nope. Not that statement. The statement by you of: “sexuality is a conditioned behavioral response.” and my follow up question: Please explain what conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on a girl? What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on boy?

          • Oboehner

            “What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 6-year old boy having a crush on boy?” Do give an example, I need more information – or is that hypothetical?

          • acontraryview

            “Do give an example”

            Do you want me to name a person who had a crush on someone of the same gender when they were 6? How would that make a difference?

          • Oboehner

            Does a 6 year old really even know what a crush is? Seriously? All they need then is some queer to encourage them to be gay, then what began as an innocent friendship would be perverted.

          • acontraryview

            “Does a 6 year old really even know what a crush is? Seriously?”

            Yes. Do you not have children? Have you not ever heard of a 1st grader having a crush on someone? If it makes it easier for you, I’ll change the age to 9.

            I’ll ask yet again, and perhaps you will actually answer my question rather than deflecting: Please explain what conditioning has occurred that would result in a 9-year old boy having a crush on a girl? What conditioning has occurred that would result in a 9-year old boy having a crush on a boy?

            “All they need then is some queer to encourage them to be gay”

            So you are suggesting that sexuality can be determined based upon “encouragement”?

          • Oboehner

            Yes I do have kids, kids like everyone else haven’t a clue as to the whole “crush” thing. If a nine year old had a “crush” It probably would have started as just a friendship and through some bleeding heart the child was brainwashed into thinking they were gay (as I mention earlier).

            “So you are suggesting that sexuality can be determined based upon ‘encouragement’?” Encouragement, conditioning, recruitment, whatever.

          • acontraryview

            “Yes I do have kids”

            They have my condolences.

            “It probably would have started as just a friendship and through some bleeding heart the child was brainwashed into thinking they were gay (as I mention earlier).”

            What “bleeding heart” would have so much influence in the life of a 0 year old as to be able to “brainwash” them into thinking they were gay?

            “Encouragement, conditioning, recruitment, whatever.”

            And your basis for believing that is the case, is?

          • Oboehner

            Your desperation to approve a deviant lifestyle choice is showing.
            Young children have for years viewed members of the opposite sex as “icky”, that doesn’t mean they are gay.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t explain what “bleeding heart” would have so much influence in the life of a 9 year old as to be able to “brainwash” them into thinking they were gay? Got it. Thanks.

            So you have no basis for believing that sexuality can be determined by “encouragement, conditioning, recruiting, whatever”. Got it. Thanks.

            “Young children have for years viewed members of the opposite sex as “icky”, that doesn’t mean they are gay.”

            Nor did I ever suggest that it did. Your desperation is showing.

          • Oboehner

            So you really don’t care about the truth, you’re more interested in your agenda. Got it, thanks.
            Can’t see what’s right in front of you. Got it, thanks.

          • acontraryview

            Quite the opposite. I’m very much interested in the truth. I’m just waiting for you to provide some that you think backs up your statements.

          • Oboehner

            It’s out there, don’t trip over it.

          • acontraryview

            Then it should be quite easy for you to provide it in order to back up YOUR claims. But, as I’ve seen, you fail to do so. Oh well.

          • Oboehner

            I guess I’m the only one making claims?

          • acontraryview

            Oh gosh, no. A lot of people make claims. You do not, however, appear to be able to back yours up.

          • Oboehner

            When you point fingers, four point back at you.

          • acontraryview

            Did you have a point?

          • Oboehner

            What say we go with the science that had gay on the list of mental defects, then you can provide some legitimate reason as to why it was removed.

          • acontraryview

            “What say we go with the science that had gay on the list of mental defects”

            What “science” are you referring to?

          • Oboehner

            Now I really see this conversation is meaningless, you can’t seem to be able do any critical thinking nor can you use a simple search engine. Bye.

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t back up your claims, then you can’t. No worries. It is, however, childish to attempt to blame me for your inadequacies.

          • Quantz

            So you’re suggesting going back in time to when they had erroneous information which was more in line with your prejudices?

          • Oboehner

            No back in time when they had correct information that was scrubbed due to extreme pressure by gay activists – you know their usual play book, vile attacks and death threats.

          • Quantz

            Yeah right.
            Not into revisionist history and conspiracy theory, sorry.

          • Oboehner

            Or truth.

          • Quantz

            Not truth. Hate.

          • Oboehner

            Truth, not hate – hate is reserved for anyone who disagrees with militant gays.

          • Quantz

            No, it’s hate.
            Did your Jesus tell you it was ok to hate on “militant gays”?

          • Oboehner

            If I have to explain you wouldn’t understand.

          • Quantz

            Maybe not, but at least I will understand how you have misunderstood.

          • Oboehner

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

          • Quantz

            I think it started when you decided to believe that was God talking.

          • Oboehner

            You can prove he wasn’t?

          • Quantz

            And a complete lack of understanding about how burden of proof works. No surprise.

          • Oboehner

            Yup, no surprise.

          • Quantz

            Does a 6 year old really even know who Jesus is? Seriously? All they
            need then is some fundie to encourage them to be Christian, then what
            began as an innocent friendship would be perverted.

          • Oboehner

            Try to stay on topic.

          • Quantz

            Your kind would be LOST without indoctrination.

          • Oboehner

            You are lost with it.

          • Quantz

            I’m not the one teaching my children to call innocent people queers and perverts.

          • BobRumba

            Your idea of sexuality being similar to a Pavlovian response is at once shocking, hilarious, and bizarre. I wonder if you have any proof of it.

          • Oboehner

            The proof is right in front of you, despite your desperation to not believe it.

          • BobRumba

            If the proof was right in front of me, I’d see people using Pavlovian techniques to turn from one sexuality to the other. Not happening. Don’t you think the fraudulent “ex-gay” organizations would have tried using them?

            Desperation? Your department entirely.

          • Oboehner

            fraudulent “ex-gay”
            Desperation? Your department entirely.

          • BobRumba

            When Exodus International, the biggest “ex-gay” organization in the world shuts its doors, admits fraud, apologizes to the entire LGBT community and defers to the medical world about its findings, no, I would say you have to own not just the desperation but also the hate and ignorance involved.

          • Oboehner

            So since we’re painting with a broad straw man brush let’s also say, because the “gay gene” was a fraud, all of the gay crap is a fraud.

          • BobRumba

            I’d say you need to learn what a strawman is, and if you think homosexuality is “crap” you need to acknowledge the simple fact that it has always existed and also occurs throughout the animal kingdom. That is some serious, major denial of basic biology you have going on there, bud.

          • Oboehner

            There are a lot of things that occur in the animal kingdom (which they do by instinct), such as eating their young, that doesn’t give carte blanche to humans to do the same crap.

          • BobRumba

            Wow, you masterfully missed the point there, didn’t you?

            The point isn’t that humans should imitate them. The point is that it occurs naturally, which sort of shoots down your ideas that people choose it.

          • Oboehner

            It occurs in the animal kingdom out of reproductive instinct, not from some perverted desire. So your “point” is moot.

          • BobRumba

            Reproductive instinct? Despite the fact reproduction isn’t possible? Wow. Big screwup on your God’s part then.

          • Oboehner

            Just because they get it wrong sometimes, doesn’t mean they actually wanted it that way or were doing anything but blindly following instinct with a targeting error, sorry God didn’t screw up.

          • BobRumba

            A TARGETING error???

            The excuses you make are getting more unbelievable all the time. How about this, you find someone attractive and fall in love? Happens every day for straight people, why would gay people do it backwards just to be “different”?

          • Oboehner

            A whitetail buck is in the rut and smells estrus, he acts on instinct and may act in the wrong place “targeting error”, that doesn’t mean he found the doe attractive and fell in love – the animal kingdom was the analogy YOU were trying to sell.
            Gay people do it out of a mental issue.

          • BobRumba

            Ted Haggard.

            You lose.

            Wow. That was easy.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, an addict not born that way.

          • BobRumba

            LOL, convenient excuse, isn’t it.

          • Oboehner

            Yes, the “born that way” excuse is convenient, none of them wants to admit they are just mentally sick perverts.

          • BobRumba

            Nor does the entire medical profession nor mental health experts worldwide. Sucks to be you.

            To believe this is perversion requires nothing less than a hate-based, cultish fundamentalist religion.

          • Oboehner

            “Nor does the entire medical profession nor mental health experts worldwide.” Hardly, but popular beliefs are always entertaining. To believe this isn’t perversion requires nothing less than a ignorant, touchy-feely progressive BS with a healthy dose of rabid pervert selfishness.

          • BobRumba

            Yeah, I’ve heard about you, the guy who dismisses established facts with a wave of his hand calling them “popular beliefs”. And yes, isn’t it perverted and selfish of me to not judge other people with a radically unbalanced misinterpretation of Christian teachings as you do?

          • Oboehner

            Established facts, repeating that over and over still doesn’t make it true.

            “radically unbalanced misinterpretation of Christian teachings” Please do elaborate, I’m loaded with anticipation.

          • BobRumba

            Not hard to google “Disqus Oboehner”.

            Hatred of gay people, hatred of Catholics, hatred of transgendered people, hatred of science, hatred of evolution, belief in a young earth – I guess you missed that part where Jesus preached love. And made up the part where he said to fight hard against science.

          • Oboehner

            Not hard to embellish either I see, gay people are not born that way, catholics contradict the Bible they claim to believe, science is great – it’s people claiming their religion is science is what I disagree with, evolutionism is a religion that is being taught in government schools (so I take it that religion being taught in school is ok with you).
            I never said hate, you did. I never fought real science, attempting to lump your religion in with real science is fraudulent, but you apparently like fraud.
            Being that you haven’t a clue about what Jesus taught, I’ll ignore that part of your rant.

          • BobRumba

            Gay people are born that way, or it develops in early life, either way not a choice. Established science.
            Catholics follow the Bible, in fact they canonized it. Established history.
            Evolution (not evolutionism) is science and taught in schools for that very reason. Established science.
            Religion being taught in schools is fine as long as it’s in a comparative religion class.
            Hate is the word I used and for a good reason. I’ve seen you call Catholics Mary worshipers, seen really derogatory words for homosexuals including perverts. When you can’t back anything up you resort to name calling. Not very Christian.
            Evolution is real science, and if you think “real science’ is something else, you’ve never stated what it is. If evolution were fraud, science – not Christianity – would have exposed it as such.
            Jesus taught love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, and tolerance. All the things you oppose. Did I miss anything?

          • Oboehner

            “Gay people are born that way, or it develops in early life, either way not a choice.” established BS, there is no science involved, just perverts demanding acceptance.

            The old “catholics canonized the scripture” fallacy. Catholics ignore the Bible constantly, one example – bowing to graven images of Mary, or worshiping (as you claim I can’t back up). “You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
            or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
            or that is in the earth beneath,
            or that is in the water under the earth;
            you shall not BOW DOWN to them or serve them;” – right from the Vatican website.
            Then there is Luke 11:27-28

            Given they aren’t born that way, what else would you call them? They are mentally challenged sexual deviants. That is biblical.

            “Evolution is real science” Nope, religious belief, there is NO proof anything ever “evolved”, none.

            “and tolerance” Not in your wildest imagination. “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
            And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind” Romans 1:26-28 Doesn’t sound like tolerance to me, like I said not a clue.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            What I would like to know is why you think homosexuality constitutes a “sexual addiction” but a straight relationship doesn’t. Has it escaped you that you’re fixated on sex and nothing else? You think homosexual couples are incapable of loving one another? Well, I have news for you. They have measured the pleasure zones for both and they are identical.

          • Valri

            “Sexuality is learned behavior exactly like Pavlov’s dog and the bell.”

            So you think you could learn to be sexually attracted to men if you were “conditioned” enough to do so? Wow. I’ve never been more looking forward to one of your answers than now.

          • Oboehner

            Yup.

          • Valri

            Well then, welcome to homosexuality, Oboehner. Because you either always were and can never be anything else, or you never were and never could be.

          • Oboehner

            Nope.

          • Valri

            The idea that you could condition someone into being attracted to something they’re not has to be a new high in lows for you.

          • Valri

            “Ex-gay” doesn’t exist. Exodus International was the largest organization of that type, and they closed their doors, admitted fraud, and apologized to the LGBT community. Science knows you cannot change your sexuality.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            You are right. You can’t but God can and does.

          • Valri

            False. God cannot change anyone’s sexuality and does not do so.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            There is nothing God cannot do. There are those He has done just that for. Do you think they are liars?

          • Valri

            That depends. If they are saying they were attracted to the same sex and are now attracted to the opposite sex, then yes they are lying. If “therapy” has told them to simply abstain from sexual encounters, they are simply naive because that is not “curing” then. A person’s sexuality is the hand they were dealt in this life, and as unchangeable as their eye color.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            God said same sex sex is a sin. God does not create, cause or tempt one to sin. No one is born homosexual just as no one is born a murderer, child molester, thief, etc etc.

          • Valri

            God said no such thing. A book claiming to be God’s word makes a few vague references to it. And homosexuality isn’t chosen, is not a disease, requires no cure, and cannot be changed. It is disgusting in the extreme to compare homosexuals to murderers and child molesters. Homosexuals are consenting adults.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            The fact that homosexuals are consenting adults changes nothing. It is a sin before our Just, Righteous and Holy God.
            ============
            Leviticus 18:22 New King James Version (NKJV)

            22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

            ————

            Romans 1:18-32New King James Version (NKJV)

            God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

            18 For
            the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
            unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and
            changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
            corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

            24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who
            exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the
            creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise
            also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their
            lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and
            receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

            28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[b] unmerciful; 32 who,
            knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such
            things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of
            those who practice them.

          • Valri

            Ridiculous, hateful, and completely contrary to modern science.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            God and His Holy Word are none of those things that you claim.

            God and His Word is THE TRUTH of Creation and the life that we all live.

          • Oboehner

            I wonder how many death threats had to be given for that to happen. With that logic, science doesn’t exist because Piltdown Man was an admitted fraud and apologized for.
            BTW, I could give two craps about “Exodus International”, there are plenty of ex-gays who can speak for themselves.

          • Valri

            Well, that is the paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theory explanation, and knowing your penchant for those I am not surprised. The other possibility is reality caught up with them and they were probably tired of being sued for ineffectiveness.

            I wonder how many of those “ex-gays” who can speak for themselves are fundamentalist Christians. And how many sneak around Ted Haggard-style on Saturday nights while they speak in tongues at the cult of the talking snake the next morning?

          • Oboehner

            You really should seek help with your unhealthy obsession with talking snakes and exploding dots.

          • Valri

            Hey, just being honest and transparent. I notice you’re very good at sneering and attacking science but you’re an absolute coward when it comes to telling anyone what side YOU represent. Because we know it, don’t we? Some fundamentalist snake handling, tongue-speaking, science-denying church that can’t wait for the rapture to fulfill your paranoid revenge fantasy.

            Just TRY to deny it.

          • Oboehner

            I don’t attack science, just religion being fraudulently passed as science.
            Whatever exploding dot worshiper.

          • Valri

            No, you attack science, and try (and fail) to make it indistinguishable from your cult of the talking snake.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Says the gal who quotes some guy’s opinion on RationalWiki as proof that human life begins 5 minutes after the abortion has concluded.

          • Valri

            I stand by RationalWiki. Proudly, too. However, I did nothing along the lines of what you suggest.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, you do wiki’s but not peer-reviewed science. BTW, they are laughing about you again on LAN with your wiki source.

          • Valri

            Of course I do peer reviewed science, but that’s not what you provide. You provide quote mining, which is dishonest and makes you look bad, which is why bring laughed at by the likes of you and your delusional girly friends is like praise from Caesar. If they find RationalWiki funny, I’ll bet they find Webster’s dictionary a laff riot.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, those peer-reviewed embryology textbooks are not good enough for you, but some pro-abort’s opinion that life supernaturally begins 5 minutes after the abortion has concluded makes perfect sense to you. 🙂 I am actually surprised you did not flag those science-y quotes – you simply cannot handle the truth. Back to LAN, where the Val-Party is going on. 🙂

          • Valri

            Your little “5 minutes after the abortion concluded” thing is hogwash, Crazy. I never said any such thing. You’ve been told that twice now. And both you and your buddy Winteryknight are expert quote miners.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You can deny it all you want to, Val, but everyone on LAN knows you said that. That’s what you get for quoting some guy’s opinion on RationalWiki instead of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You should take some course in logic so that you can think more rationally – seriously, it would be good for you.

          • Valri

            Is that right, Crazy? Well, since everyone on LAN knows I said it, they should have no problem linking me to my words, should they?

            Linking people to their words is really not difficult, Crazy. Which is why it gives me great pleasure to expose you for another lie. The one where I supposedly quoted RationalWiki. The way I remember the conversation, and the way history remembers it (link is coming), it was Wikipedia you were having trust issues with. I said if you were willing to NOT quote from Conservapedia, I would be willing to NOT quote from RationalWiki and we should be able to meet in the middle with Wikipedia.

            And here’s where everyone who’s interested can read ALL about it!

            http://christiannews. net/2015/10/07/california-governor-signs-bill-legalizing-assisted-suicide/

            Just search the document for the words “Rationalwiki” and “Conservapedia” and you’ll see Crazy’s lie. Or rather, you won’t see what he claims I said.

            I think that YOU think it doesn’t matter if you lie, all that matters is that you be believed. Now you’re learning the hard way why that doesn’t work.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Gosh, Val, looks like you are coming unhinged tonight. You are doubling down on substituting someone’s opinion on RationalWiki with peer=reviewed science?!?

          • Valri

            Really, you’re going to continue to play the RationalWiki card right after you’ve been busted for lying about it?

            I am very very hinged, thank you Crazy. I’m not the one being voted on for Fundie of the Year.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Don’t blame me that you admitted that someone’s opinion substitutes for “that science-y stuff” in your dark ages world.

          • Valri

            Maybe that’s because abortion is a matter of opinion. And science hasn’t got the consensus on the subject you seem to think it does. Life, life, life is all I hear you say, but never once do you talk about personhood.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Abortion is a matter of opinion in the same way that slavery and Jew gassing were. You cannot see it, because you would have been a slaver and Jew gasser, Val. Your ancestors denied “personhood” to black people too.

          • StanW

            If abortion is a matter of ‘opinion’, then one can easily say that murder, rape, and child abuse are matters of OPINION as well!

          • Valri

            One could say that if one was an idiot.

          • StanW

            No, that is the logical conclusion of your statement. If you can declare a topic as opinion, others can as well.

          • Valri

            If it was not a matter of opinion, it would be illegal across the board, Stan. I know you don’t like the fact that yours isn’t the only viewpoint here but that’s probably why you are a fundamentalist.

          • StanW

            Again, projecting your own inadequacies on the rest of us. How boring you are.

            If a person thinks an action is wrong, and another thinks the same action is OK, then you have a difference of OPINION. Slavery is a good example. Many were against it, even while the government and the courts and some people said there was no issue and that it was ‘settled’. Abortion is an opinion to some that have no courage of their convictions. Others of us KNOW that the deliberate killing of a child is WRONG. Just like so many people knew that the enslavement of another person was WRONG.

            Pro-aborts such as yourself need to learn that you are once again on the wrong side of history.

          • Valri

            “Abortion is an opinion to some that have no courage of their convictions. Others of us KNOW that the deliberate killing of a child is WRONG.”

            Whether you like it or not Stan, that’s a statement of opinion.

            And if you feel that strongly about it, what are you wasting your time talking to us stupid pro-aborts for? Why aren’t you taking your fight to the streets? How come I’m not seeing you on the corner of the street with a bullhorn annoying passersby?

            Also, you DO know this thread is about gay marriage, right?

          • StanW

            I am responding to you and the idiocy you post, Valri. And I do much outside of this board to end abortion, mostly through my work with young women that have troubled and unexpected pregnancies.

          • Valri

            Oh, so what do you do to them, Stan? Shame them? Guilt them into joining your version of hateful, repression-oriented fundamentalism?

          • StanW

            hahahahaha, we thought about doing that. But we found that supporting them and loving them and helping to take care of themselves AND their children worked better.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Oh, that is just your opinion, Stan.” — Valium

          • Valri

            Translation: “This very complex and divisive issue is really not open for discussion at all. Unless you accept WorldGoneCrazy’s insistent foot stomping and tantrums and holding his breath until his face turns blue, you are going to DIE, to be thrown in the lake of fire forever because Jesus so there ha ha ha ha ha ha.”

            Yeah, always with the jew gassing, eh, Crazy? Jew gassing and ice cream flavors. The two things you are most famous for.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s a “yes” – thanks, Val!

          • Valri

            No it isn’t, Crazy. I know how find you are of speaking on behalf of others, but if it was a yes, I’d have said it was, thank you very much.

          • Oboehner

            Your cult of the exploding dot isn’t science, sorry.

          • Valri

            Your strawman of the exploding dot isn’t my belief, sorry.

          • Oboehner

            It has to be, otherwise you would have offered up something else when asked.

          • Valri

            You mean other than all the accepted science which no one except you has the gall to question?

          • Oboehner

            The gall to see the truth, how awful. You offered nothing else, so exploding dot it is.

          • Josey

            It is not unknown, the Bible has made it known that it is a sinful and rebellious act against God’d design, no scientist can prove that anyone is born that way. To say one is born that way insinuates they can’t help themselves, a lie and then to say they can’t help themselves from being attracted to the opposite sex makes it seem normal which it is not normal but as God’s word says it is an unnatural act, God didn’t design humans this way.

          • acontraryview

            “the Bible has made it known that it is a sinful and rebellious act against God’d design”

            The Bible is not scientific nor is something being labeled a sin a proof source for its basis.

            “To say one is born that way insinuates they can’t help themselves, a lie”

            Then you are saying that Jesus lied, as the Bible quotes him as saying homosexuals “were born that way”. Matthew 19:12.

            “God’s word says it is an unnatural act”

            No, that was written by the authors of the Gospels. You have chosen to believe that their words are God’s word. There is no way to state that with 100% certainty. It is a matter of faith.

            “God didn’t design humans this way.”

            Unless you are God, Josey, you can’t say that with 100% certainty. Are you God?

          • Josey

            If they were born Eunuch’s they are not engaging in sodomy so that scripture does not in anyway support sodomy…definition of a Eunuch: a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women’s living areas at an oriental court. And any man that was born who chose to live as a Eunuch did not have sexual encounters of any kind.

            And no I am not God but I believe God and what He says as absolute in His word and I know with 100% certainty in whom I believe in! 1 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

            John 1:1-5 vs1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

            Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

          • Josey

            And in John 1 verses 5-10 is a reference to Christ as the living word of God and I’ll add that God cannot lie. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

          • acontraryview

            “a man who has been castrated”

            In Biblical times, the term “eunuch” was not limited to those who had been castrated. In Roman times, the term eunuch referred to men who did not have, were incapable of having, or had no desire for, sexual relations with women. Three distinct situations, as Jesus is quoted as talking about.

            “For 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.”

            “made eunuchs by others” – males whose testicles have been removed – in other words – castrated

            “live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” – celibate priests who “live like” a castrated male

            “born that way” – homosexuals – sexual organs intact but no desire for sexual relations with woman. The incidence of men being born without testicles is so extraordinarily rare as to not be worth mentioning as a separate category.

            Again, in Roman times, homosexual men were frequently used to watch over women, as the nobles of the time knew they were perfectly suited for doing so, as they would have no desire for sexual relations with them.

            While I realize that factual history does not fit into the narrative that you support, it nonetheless is the truth.

            “And no I am not God but I believe God”

            You have chosen to believe that the Bible contains the word of God. That you have chosen to believe that, does not mean that it does. Every person of faith believes that the text they have chosen to believe in contains the “word of God”. Clearly they cannot all be correct and clearly none of them can prove that their view is correct. It is a matter of faith.

          • Josey

            I didn’t say all Eunuchs were castrated but what I did say in order to be a Eunuch there was no sex involved, your reference to Roman times where you say homosexuals were used to watch over women doesn’t justify homosexuality in the eyes of God and they were not true Eunuchs if they engaged in homosexual behaviors, Romans also worshipped idol, were gluttonous, etc. And yes I have chosen to believe God’s word and the Bible as the Infallible inspired word of God spoken to and written down by those God Himself chose to use to guide us and the Bible is the only religious book that does not contradict itself as the many religious texts you referenced which could not save or change a life or set one free as God did for me,
            I have my own personal experience with God where I was lost and walking in darkness and was changed the moment I repented and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart, changed from night to day, only the Spirit of God could deliver me from the demonic lifestyle I was partaking in, that was His doing not mine, I know where I was, I know how messed up my life was and I couldn’t fix it but He did, no religious text could have set me free from the demons that held me captive either, He changed me instantly just as Jesus cast out the legion of demons out of the man in gadarenes, the old desires were gone and new righteous desires and a hunger for more righteousness took their place. I became a newborn babe in Christ, things I could not understand before suddenly made sense, that was the beginning of a new work only He could bring about and no preacher or Christian was involved in that work because I didn’t associate with Christians, I was full of demons and hateful toward anyone that proclaimed God. I know now and believe God wanted to do what He did in me and for me so that no one but He was glorified and that was over thirty years ago and also so no doubt as to what He did for me could come in through the deceptions of people who twist His word. I also immediately had a love for Christians and the Jewish people and a desire to share the gospel that I once despised. That is not something a book did for me or a human being, psychiatrist, a pill,whatever this world tries to counterfeit with, only almighty God through the work of the cross and Holy Spirit, He showed me so much mercy that I didn’t deserve and I love Him with all of my heart for that, He reached down and touched me when no one else would or could, He was there for me then and will never leave or forsake me now. That is true peace!

          • acontraryview

            “I didn’t say all Eunuchs were castrated”

            Here’s what you posted: “definition of a Eunuch: a man who has been castrated”. So, yes, you did say that castration defined a eunuch.

            “doesn’t justify homosexuality in the eyes of God”

            Again, Josey, unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty what God finds justifiable and what God does not. You are basing your views on your decision to believe that the Bible contains the word of God. That is a matter of faith, not fact.

            I’m pleased that you have had such a tremendous turn around in your life. I have a strong belief in God and have also experienced what I believe is his mercy, guidance, and protection.

          • Josey

            And no, I also said some choose to live a life w/out sexual relations or to be married as the apostle Paul did so that he could dedicate his entire life to Christ w/out distraction, Paul chose that as God gave him the desire for that lifestyle and he wasn’t castrated to live like that, it was a choice. And that definition I gave of a Eunuch comes from the dictionary but I never limited it to that only as you declare. And I am done with conversing over this with you, I’ve said all I am going to say about it.

          • Josey

            the old race card again…pffft…two very different things, one is born with their skin color and can’t change it and the other chooses homosexuality and as with any choice that choice can be undone through Christ.

          • acontraryview

            What is your basis for stating that sexuality is a choice? Are you aware of any homosexuals who have stated that they simply chose to be homosexual? What reasons would people have for making such a choice? Could you simply chose, today, to be romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender? When was it in your life that you were sitting around asking yourself: “Should I be straight or gay? Straight or gay? I’ll choose straight.”?

          • Josey

            They lust after one another, I don’t know their reasons, maybe they were sexually abused by the same gender as children or maybe they were bullied in school, or maybe they just like the perversion of it, sticking it where fecal matter comes out, sorry for the gross truth but there could be many reasons, maybe mommy dressed them in their opposite gender’s clothing but one thing I do know it is a choice they make for they can say no.

          • acontraryview

            “They lust after one another, ”

            Yes they do. Just as heterosexuals lust after one another. Did you have a point?

            “I do know it is a choice”

            Again, Josey, what is your basis for saying that people simply choose to be homosexual? You have provided no reasons why someone would make such a choice. I’ll ask again: What reasons would people have for making such a choice? Could you simply chose, today, to be romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender? When was it in your life that you were sitting around asking yourself: “Should I be straight or gay? Straight or gay? I’ll choose straight.”?

            “sticking it where fecal matter comes out”

            You do realize that not all gay people do that….particularly lesbians…right?

            “for they can say no.”

            Anyone can choose to engage or not engage in a particular behavior. If a male heterosexual chooses to be celibate, does that mean that he is no longer heterosexual? Choices regarding behavior do not impact the underlying trait.

          • Valri

            It is completely ludicrous to pin the act of sodomy on homosexuals.

            Consider that lesbians, who make up 50% of the homosexual population, likely don’t engage in it at all.

            Now consider that MANY gay men don’t engage in it either. Some people find it uncomfortable and painful.

            Finally, look at how many STRAIGHT couples practice it!

            And why are you focusing so much on a sexual practice anyway? You wouldn’t do that with straight couples, many of whom engage in kinky practices.

    • afchief

      Well said!!!

      • Reason2012

        Glad it was a blessing!

    • Josey

      Praise God for those that are turning to Christ and away from homosexuality…amen

      • Reason2012

        Amen indeed!

  • FoJC_Forever

    Homosexuality is getting much press and attention, and the Devil is using that to keep people from seeing their own Sin and turning to the LORD for redemption. Just because someone is ardently against homosexuality, doesn’t mean they are pursuing Truth and living by Faith each day. The major sins are often used as a diversion to keep people in Darkness.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • Josey

      true all are sinners and have fallen short of God’s glory and are in need of Christ’s redemption and forgiveness and God is no respecter of persons, I have to ask God for forgiveness for things that seem small on a daily basis but sin is sin in God’s eyes even after being born again He’s still doing a work in me daily and I submit to that work. But I get your point that sodomy or homosexuality is something that Christians focus on in others as a comparison but that doesn’t fly with God if they are not receiving His chastisement of sin in their own lives but the promotion of sodomy by our country and politicians with the lighting up the white house in the rainbow colors and the forcing it down Christian’s throats by forcing them to quit jobs, pay fines, etc. for standing against it is a line America crossed that may not be reversed which brings judgement just as killing of babies, adultery, lying, idol worships, etc. Every Time in the Bible where sodomy is referenced God’s judgement falls. Why? Because it is a slap in His face and open rebellion against His creating us male and female where all the parts fit together and where He said to multiply, homosexuals cannot obey that and it’s just nasty and bad for one’s health, not to mention has nothing to do with love but lust, same could be said of fornicators and adulterers.

      • FoJC_Forever

        It’s not the “final blow”, but one of many sins acceptable in a fallen society. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making light of the sin itself. But, the followers of Jesus (the) Christ need to watch that they don’t fall into the carnal trap of being overly concerned about what someone else does or doesn’t do, because the Devil will use it to get attention off of God. He tried this with Jesus in the wilderness, and quoted Scripture to force it to happen.

        When a person has been entrenched in an issue for a long period of time, they can feel like they are giving up or giving in to it, if they move their attention onto other things into which the LORD is leading.

        Be wise and don’t fool yourself into thinking, just because you can recite some or all the doctrinal Truths about Christianity, that you are doing and seeking what the LORD is directing each day. Many do this and don’t know the LORD at all. They even do “mighty works for God” and are not in Covenant with Him through Jesus (the) Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

        I’m not judging you, nor declaring something about you personally. Just doing what the LORD is directing – warning others of the Devil’s traps and strategies.

        • Josey

          No, thank you, and you’re right…this scripture comes to my mind and should have us trembling and asking God to create in us a right spirit for none of us are exempt from falling, the Bible even says take heed lest you think you stand, we need to be watchful and guard our hearts and minds with God’s help ’cause we can’t do it in our own strength but here’s the scripture that has come to my mind. Matthew 7:21-23 vs21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Then Jesus goes on to say in verses 24-27 these words: 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

          And I personally have been asking the Lord for understanding concerning this passage for I tremble before Him at the thought of thinking I’m doing His will and then to be turned away in the end. Makes me wonder how many are doing things that they think are right or good such as the works mentioned in these passages only to find themselves cast out as not being known by the Lord Jesus. What do you think about this?

          • FoJC_Forever

            We need to learn from the actions of Mary, as she sat at His feet and listened to Him, rather than like complaining Martha worried about what others are doing. I’m not picking on Martha, but pointing out the difference between the two. Jesus said Mary was doing what she needed to do, rather than just being “busy about many things”. We often think and feel that us doing many different things is accomplishing God’s Will. In Truth, when we are doing as He has instructed, whether it’s being still before Him or doing a work He has called and enabled us to do, this is what is most important. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. We are to follow Him, alongside Him, working the Will of the Father, as the Holy Spirit empowers and leads.

            If the LORD tells us to do 10 things, then do 10 things. If He tells us to do 2 things, then do 2 things. Remember the parable of the servant who did everything they were supposed to do, but was still considered an unprofitable servant? His point is that we’re not accepted into the Kingdom of God because we work hard – no matter how much we do and how hard we work, we are not more righteous before God. We have to cease from our own works and do the works He has empowered and called us to do, regardless of scope and impact. It’s not the amount and the busyness of what we do for the LORD, it’s the willing obedience of a heart tender before the LORD and open to His Word and Will.

            Jesus is more interested in us getting to know Him by communing with Him through His Spirit, than He is about how much work we do under the pretense of His name. Only the Holy Spirit can lead a person to and impart Salvation, and only by His leading can we be where we need to be and saying what we need to say so as to impart the Word of God to that waiting soul. As we get to know Jesus, we are led where we need to be to accomplish His Will in the earth.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Watch for this strategy:

        A homosexual comes into your business and starts talking to you about your service or products. They act normal to their outward gender, intentionally. You’re kind and helpful, focusing on serving them in whatever particular business you do or work at. However, you can sense something evil, something sinful about them and the slightest apprehension is noticeable, because the devil controlling them makes them aware that you can sense his presence. He then prompts them to mention they have a spouse (opposite gender spouse) and they watch your reaction closely. If your apprehension subsides, even in the slightest, at the mention of their “spouse”, then they mark you as being homophobic and communicate that to all the friends in their network.

        I’m not telling you this so you will hide your beliefs, just to warn you about a common strategy employed by demons to “root out” and identify those who love the LORD to those who are following the Devil’s lies.

        • Valri

          It’s shocking to me that in this day and age you would attribute homosexuality to demons. Do you distrust the scientific/mental health community?

    • BobRumba

      Homosexuality isn’t getting more press, it’s gaining acceptance as it should since it’s been around since forever.

  • http://twitter.com/cpmondello Corey Mondello

    50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it’s time to let LGBT show them how it’s done

  • Joe Soap

    Pass a law that says we don’t have to obey the law. Impressive. The dumb is strong in this one.

  • Elie Challita

    Might as well pass a bill reinstating segregation or taking away women’s suffrage. SCOTUS decisions are only voided in two ways: Either by a constitutional amendment (which cannot be passed by a single state) or by a later SCOTUS decision.
    Nowhere does the constitution specify which areas SCOTUS may rule on: In fact, such a limitation would be counterproductive because of the wide variety of cases the court has had to preside over.