Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended for Ordering Probate Judges Not to Issue Same-Sex Licenses

Moore

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended from the bench and now faces possible removal for ordering probate judges not to issue licenses to homosexuals after an organization that creates lists of “hate groups” filed an ethics complaint against Moore.

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

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

“[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenadae requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”

“[T]he injunction and the stay or the lifting thereof can only apply to the sole defendant, the Alabama attorney general,” Moore said. “I urge you to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution and the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. So help you God.”

Moore also wrote a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley, urging him to “uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity.”

“Be advised that I will stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority,” he stated.

  • Connect with Christian News

Bentley issued a statement soon after, vowing to fight to defend Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

“The people of Alabama elected me to uphold our state Constitution, and when I took the oath of office last week, that is what I promised to do,” the governor said. “The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution.”

As confusion ensued over Moore’s letter to probate judges, one judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the full Alabama Supreme Court for further guidance. In March 2015, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.

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

But the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a judicial ethics complaint against Moore over his letter to Gov. Bentley, and the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) submitted 28,000 petition signatures to the JIC calling for Moore’s removal.

In January, Moore sent another letter reinforcing the full court’s order six months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” he wrote on Jan. 6.

But he also noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive.

“I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court, which continues to deliberate on the matter,” Moore wrote.

On Friday, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against Moore as a result of the SPLC complaint, and suspended the chief justice while he faces a trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

“Clearly, probate judges could no longer exercise a ministerial duty to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based solely on their same-sex character,” the JIC wrote, stating that Moore was “bound by the United State Supreme Court’s interpretation and application” of the U.S. Constitution.

“Moore has disgraced his office for far too long,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen in a statement. “He’s such a religious zealot, such an egomaniac that he thinks he doesn’t have to follow federal court rulings he disagrees with. For the good of the state, he should be kicked out of office.”

In 2003, SPLC co-founder Morris Dees became the central opponent against Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments on the state Supreme Court grounds, arguing that the chief justice “placed this monument here to acknowledge the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men.”

In addition to taking issue with Moore, SPLC has been known for compiling its list of what it calls “hate groups” due to their biblical stance on homosexual behavior, including Focus on the Family and Family Research Council among its over 1,000 listed organizations.

In 2012, Roy Corkins, who was arrested after entering the offices of Family Research Council with a loaded gun, numerous rounds of ammunition and over a dozen Chick-fil-A sandwiches, told the FBI that his planned massacre was motivated by the “hate group” list on the SPLC website.

“How did you find [this organization] earlier?” an investigator asked in recorded video footage. “Did you look it up online?”

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins replied. “I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

Tony Perkins, who leads Family Research Council, said that while the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes Christian organizations as “hate groups,” it is instead the Center itself that is being hateful and inciting hatred with its actions.

In response to Friday’s announcement of the ethics charges and his subsequent suspension, Moore remarked that the JIC has no jurisdiction over the matter and pointed to homosexual activists who seek to remove him from office.

“The Judicial Inquiry Commission has no authority over the Administrative Orders of the Chief Justice of Alabama or the legal injunction of the Alabama Supreme Court prohibiting probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” he said in a statement.

“The JIC has chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda,” Moore continued. “We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail.”


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
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    I would think that failing to recognize a US Supreme Court ruling as binding on the state of Alabama would be grounds for removal of Chief Justice Moore.

    • Brosky

      Perhaps you should read the Constitution. The US Supreme Court’s failure to recognize the Constitution as binding should be grounds for removal of all the traitors and tyrants who dishonor their oath and their office, the Constitution, and most importantly, the Creator of the Heavens and Earth.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        Perhaps you should read the Constitution. It makes no mention of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. In fact, the first amendment gives everyone the right, in your words, to dishonor the Creator. That would be called freedom of speech

        • Brosky

          You should go re-read the Constitution. It does mention the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. In Article VII, the Constitution states: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of >>our Lord<< one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth…."

          You should also re-read the First Amendment. First of all, it gives you no rights, your Creator gave you those. Second of all, it prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. It certainly DOES NOT give you the right to dishonor the Creator. Ironically, the Creator himself have you that right. But he also warned you of the consequences….

          • StillBetter&Better

            Um… That was common convention, it ascribes nothing religious to the constitution.

            Good grief…

          • Brosky

            So you admit you were wrong when you said the Constitution does not mention the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth? Thanks!

          • acontraryview

            Not at all. using “the year of our Lord” as a dating reference does not equate to “the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth” being a part of the body of the Constitution.

            The Constitution that was signed by the founders makes no mention of religion.

          • StillBetter&Better

            Nope. Not at all. It never says that.

          • Gal5:22-23

            The dating convention of the day is not part of the constitution, its the stamp they would nowadays put on the document.

            And no creator of any kind mentioned in the first amendment.

      • BarkingDawg

        What specific part of the Constitution did the Supreme Court fail to recognize?

      • acontraryview

        “The US Supreme Court’s failure to recognize the Constitution as binding”

        In what way did the Supreme Court fail to recognize the Constitution as binding?

        • Brosky

          By inventing a “right” to murder babies, by inventing a “right” to homo marriage, etc.

          Way to ignore my devastating response. As you were.

          • acontraryview

            What part of the Constitution forbids abortion or the right of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

          • Brosky

            Thanks for putting your ignorance of the Constitution and how it works on display.

            Start by re-reading the Tenth Amendment. Then explain which part of the Constitution empowers the federal government to overturn a state law prohibiting murder. Or to overturn marriage.

            Thanks.

          • Gal5:22-23

            You don’t understand the 10th amendment. A marriage civil contract is no different than any civil contract, still has to obey the same rules particularly since it is federally recognized. A state can no more make a contract restricted by sex than it can by race, ethnicity or religion. The federal government most certainly does have the right to regulate civil contracts no matter where they are registered.

          • Brosky

            A marriage is not a simple “contract.” This degrading of the institution upon which society is based is one of the main reasons we must reverse the court’s ridiculous ruling claiming to create a homo “marriage.” This is a threat to civilization. It may all be a moot point. God will not be mocked indefinitely. There will be hell to pay. Literally.

          • Gal5:22-23

            You don’t know what you are talking about, the only reason that the federal government is involved is because it is a civil contract. My state has made that clear from its first mention:

            Laws of Washington p 691

            An Act to Regulate Marriage

            Sec. 1 Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Washington, That marriage is declared to be a civil contract.

            – [ ] passed April 20, 1854

          • Brosky

            I never said marriage was not a contract–it is. It is a very specific type of contract. Only members of the opposite sex may enter into such a contract. Period.

          • Gal5:22-23

            And you can wish restrictions like that were possible all you want but the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, makes such wishes unconstitutional.

            That was the sole question before the SCOTUS concerning marriage equality – could there be sex based requirements to register with a spouse? And because of the very purpose of the 14th amendment the court decided that such licensing restrictions on the civil contract interfered with citizens right to life, liberty and property since from the very first debates about the 14th amendment it was clear that both those and the means of achieving them – such as civil contracts -were the specific intent of the amendment.

            You can no more limit who can license the contract by sex than you could be race, religion or ethnicity, Period.

            Now, if your particular beliefs say you can’t marry someone of the same sex then you will never be forced to do so – your religious freedom is intact. But every other citizen has a right to not practice your beliefs.

          • Brosky

            If you realized how ridiculous you sound you would have stopped ages ago. Do you REALLY believe the framers of the 14th amendment thought sodomites were going to pretend to be “married” under the amendment they created? They would have been locked in a rubber room, and for good reason. You are of your father the devil.

          • Gal5:22-23

            Their intent was equal protections for all citizens while respecting their civil rights.

            And since you can’t provide a Constitutional justification of your desires further discussion is pointless.

          • Brosky

            The Constitution does not grant the regime or its imposter supremely wicked court a shred of authority over marriage. Plus God already defined marriage. What five wicked kooks in robes think is pointless.

          • Gal5:22-23

            And now that the ‘completely not legal related ‘reasoning’” has come out there is nothing more to discussion. You want what you want regardless of what the law or constitution requires. If you had said that from the beginning there would be no discussion because you would have known you’d lost before you opened your mouth.

          • Brosky

            hahahah! Sodomites can keep pretending. God will have the last laugh.

          • Gal5:22-23

            Hard-hearted hopes like that make me think of James 2:13

            No one is getting in to heaven other than under God’s undeserved gift of Grace. Hoping someone else isn’t is probably the best to not themselves.

          • Brosky

            Psalm 2King James Version (KJV)

            2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

            2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

            3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

            4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

          • acontraryview

            “Do you REALLY believe the framers of the 14th amendment thought sodomites were going to pretend to be “married” under the amendment they created?”

            How is that relevant?

          • Brosky

            Do words mean what they are supposed to mean, or what 5 kooks in black robes claim to imagine they mean?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Does the 14th amendment mean what it actually says, or what you imagine it does?

          • Brosky

            It means what it says

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s what I keep trying to say!

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

            Don’t state laws banning same-sex marriage do just that?

          • Brosky

            No

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So……you’re either saying homosexuals aren’t citizens or that marriage isn’t a “privilege or immunity”?

          • Brosky

            right.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Which one? Both? Either way, you’re wrong.

          • acontraryview

            The words of the 14th Amendment are very clear:

            “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            That covers all laws. Including marriage laws.

          • Brosky

            What a retarded argument. A homo can get a marriage, but because marriages can only exist between people of the opposite sex, they need to find an opposite sex partner.

          • james blue

            Gay marriage no more changes heterosexual marriage than mini golf changed golf.

            if heterosexual marriage is under threat it is because of the way heterosexuals treat it, not gay’s marrying each other

          • Brosky

            It is under attack by Satan, the ruler of this world. The good thing is I already know who wins 🙂

          • acontraryview

            “Thanks for putting your ignorance of the Constitution and how it works on display.”

            What ignorance is it you are suggesting that I have put on display?

            “Start by re-reading the Tenth Amendment. ”

            I’m quite familiar with the 10th Amendment – no need to re-read it.

            I’ll ask again:

            “What part of the Constitution forbids abortion or the right of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?”

            The Federal Government does not “overturn” things. The judiciary can “overturn” a previous ruling. Marriage has not been “overturned”. It still exists.

            If you are going to argue legal and constitutional issues you really should gain a better understand of both before continuing.

          • Gal5:22-23

            ‘murder babies’? You mean abortion? Sorry the Abrahamic religion says that life starts with the breath just like with Adam. Biblically, pregnant women are condemned to death, a means of causing an abortion is described, criminally causing an miscarriage is a fine, not a murder. Not until a baby takes it first breath is it ensouled or capable of being ‘murdered’.

            And the only ‘right’ recognized was one long recognized, the right to contract, and the right to equal access to contracts. Civil marriage is just a contract.

          • james blue

            Do you see the constitution as a document to protect freedom or a document to justify limiting freedom?

          • Brosky

            It’s a document creating a government and giving it a few delegate powers. Neither involvement in marriage nor involvement in murder are among those powers.

          • james blue

            So government cannot ban gay marriage?

          • Brosky

            There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” It would be like banning unicorns. But no, the federal government cannot ban “gay marriage.”

          • james blue

            There is such a thing as gay marriage, you may not like it, but it does exist

          • Brosky

            Like unicorns exist.

          • james blue

            False argument, unicorns do not exist—gay marriage does.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But if there were unicorns, they should have the right to marry other unicorns of the same sex, dangit!

          • james blue

            there’s plenty of homosexual behavior in the wild, but if you are going the silly route there’s also 100% out of wedlock breeding for the heterosexual animals…..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Those damn non-existent, immoral unicorns!

          • Brosky

            Just because it exists in your mind doesn’t mean it exists. It cannot possible exist. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that hot cold exists because 5 crooks in silly looking robes said so.

          • james blue

            No it exists in reality, there are gays married to gays.

          • Brosky

            Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better…. It’s still impossible no matter what the perverted kangaroo courts claim.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If gay marriage doesn’t exist, what were all those votes and bans and reversals and court cases, etc, etc, about? Lot of fuss about something that doesn’t exist…..

          • Brosky

            We didn’t want our governments to be a party to perversion and more sin.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The government isn’t in the business of judging what is and what isn’t “perverted”. Well, I suppose they do to some extent, with obscenity laws, and such, but I’m one of those libertarian sorts (socially at least) who thinks they shouldn’t. Also, you do realize we have a thing called freedom of religion in this country? This secular country that recognizes no official religion? We don’t make our laws and court rulings based on what the Bible, or any other ‘holy book’, or any religion says.

          • Brosky

            Just because you are willingly ignorant does not make America secular. Almost everyone I know trusts in God and God alone. Repent and be saved.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Just because you are willingly ignorant does not make America secular.”

            I’m not ‘willingly ignorant’, but you’re right anyway. That’s not what makes America secular, it’s the Constitution that does. (1st Amendment and the part in Article 6 about “no religious test”)

            “Almost everyone I know trusts in God and God alone.”

            Well, okay, uh, good for them, I guess. What does that have to do with my point? Something like 70% of the population of this country are Christians. That doesn’t make it any less secular. All that word means, in reference to a country, is that it is “officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.” (wikipedia)

      • Slidellman4life

        Perhaps people should be familiar with federal law. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves in the evidence of bias, which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan demonstrated when they officiated same-sex wedding ceremonies. Their refusal to do, in reality, makes Obergefell illegitimate.

        • Gal5:22-23

          performing a legal local marriage doesn’t prevent a judge from ruling on the federal aspect of marriage contracts. And the sole question before the court was if same sex civil contracts were protected federally under the 14th amendment, not on the legality of same-sex marriage contracts.

          No need to recuse.

          • Slidellman4life

            performing a legal local marriage doesn’t prevent a judge from ruling on the federal aspect of marriage contracts.

            And you have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Brosky

          It certainly makes the ruling illegitimate along with 100 other things.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Would it have made those judges any less biased if they had refused to officiate those weddings? After all, officiating weddings is generally part of a judge’s job….

          But I’m guessing you wouldn’t have complained about their ‘bias’ then.

          • Slidellman4life

            Would it have made those judges any less biased if they had refused to officiate those weddings? After all, officiating weddings is generally part of a judge’s job….

            It generally is not a good idea to be officiating same-sex wedding ceremonies when you have cases addressing that issue pending before your court.

            I honestly don’t know, but I wonder if any of the 4 judges that voted no on Obergefell had given an opinion or made any statements against same-sex marriage before….

            If they did, it would not be relevant. This is about actions, and how they would conflict with existing federal law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “This is about actions, and how they would conflict with existing federal law.”

            The weddings that those judges officiated didn’t conflict with any federal law, did they? But how is this just about actions? If one of the Supreme Court justices that had voted no on Obergefell was a well-known opponent of same-sex marriage, how that would be any less of a bias?

          • Slidellman4life

            Wow. You sure know how to turn yourself into a pretzel in order to defend the indefensible, huh? But, hey! As long as the ends justify the means, right?

            Here is the statute in question.

            28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

            (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
            (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
            (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
            (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
            (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
            (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
            (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
            (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
            (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
            (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
            (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
            (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
            (d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
            (1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
            (2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
            (3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
            (4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
            (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
            (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
            (iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
            (iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
            (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
            (f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I guess I misunderstood you there, I thought you meant that the weddings themselves were in conflict with federal laws, sorry about that. Well, Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s actions in officiating those weddings wouldn’t fall under anything in (b), so I guess you’re saying just that their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by them….

            Meh….I still say it’s a judge doing their job. The weddings were legal in the jurisdictions where they were performed.

          • Slidellman4life

            That is not the point. The question is, by officiating these ceremonies, especially at a time when that very subject was pending before the court they are a part of, could their impartiality be reasonably questioned?

            There’s only one answer to this, and that’s an obvious YES.

            I expect you to disagree, but that’s only because, as I said before, for you, the ends justify the means.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, here you go, just found this, it kinda sums up what I was just thinking:

            “Despite calls from socially conservative groups on Supreme Court
            Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases because they have both officiated at gay weddings, legal experts say it’s not necessary.

            University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Kermit Roosevelt told The Christian Post that it’s both unrealistic an unhealthy to expect that judges will not have opinions on the issues they must decide upon.

            “There’s a widespread misperception that it’s somehow improper for
            justices to have opinions about legal issues — whether there’s a
            national right to same-sex marriage, whether there’s a right to
            abortion, whether Congress can require people to buy health insurance — before they hear cases about those issues,” Roosevelt said.

            “We select justices because they are legal experts; of course they will have opinions on those issues. We can ask them to keep an open mind, but we can’t ask them to have an empty head, and we wouldn’t want them to, either,” the law professor explained.

            “It’s wrong for judges to prejudge factual questions before hearing
            evidence, but they should have pre-existing opinions about legal
            issues,” he added.

            According to Kara Loewentheil of Columbia Law School, “the justices
            recuse themselves most commonly when they have a financial stake in the litigation or issues closely associated with the litigation, when they have close relatives who are parties or lawyers involved in the case.”

            But Loewentheil says that in this case there “is no reason for Kagan or Ginsburg to recuse themselves.”

            “The justices in question performed an act, at the request of a
            third-party, which was lawful in the state where and when it was
            performed,” she explained.

            “They have no financial interest or other inappropriate stake in the
            outcome in the case, and have no obligation to recuse themselves.””

            (www newsmax com/US/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Ginsburg-gay-marriage/2015/03/04/id/628309/)

          • Slidellman4life

            A couple of opinions. So what?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A couple of opinions about this very issue we’re talking about, from people who should know about this kind of thing. Do you have any rebuttal to those points, any kind of argument against what they said?

          • Slidellman4life

            They are opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. They could be worth as much as mine, except I don’t deal with cognitive dissonance and hyperbole. It’s about what the law says, not what you wish it to say. If you don’t like a law, you work to change or repeal it. You don’t just ignore it and then rationalize what you did.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            We’re not arguing about what the law says. You posted it yourself, I can see it there as plain as day. The thing is that I don’t think Kagan and Ginsburg violated it, and you do. What exactly was “hyperbole” about those opinions? Do you have any SPECIFIC arguments against what they said? Like the guy from Penn said, of course judges WILL have opinions on matters like that, it’s probably unavoidable.

            You accused me of thinking the ends justify the means….I don’t think I think that any more than you do. You mean to tell me, if the situation had been reversed, let’s say Obergefell went the other way, 5-4 against, and two of the judges that voted against it showed some sort of bias AGAINST same-sex marriage – let’s say they pulled a Kim Davis and refused to have anything to do with a same-sex marriage, in a jurisdiction where it was legal even before the decision – you would have STILL complained about their “bias” then?

          • Slidellman4life

            The thing is that I don’t think Kagan and Ginsburg violated it, and you do.

            That’s only because you are in favor of same-sex marriage.

            You accused me of thinking the ends justify the means

            And you have given me less than nothing for me to think otherwise.

            Right! Like, oh, say….the 14th Amendment, for example.

            The 14th Amendment does not mention sexual behavior. It was a man in a black robe, Anthony Kennedy, who decided it did.

            Like, for instance, making an appeal that eventually results in the law in question being ruled unconstitutional.

            Don’t need to. The ruling in question was never legitimate in the first place because Ginsburg and Kagan broke the law by refusing to recuse themselves.

            Bye bye idiot.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “The 14th Amendment does not mention sexual behavior.”

            I know it doesn’t. It doesn’t need to. People often say it only applies to race, or something similar….it doesn’t mention race, either, not once.

            “Don’t need to. The ruling in question was never legitimate in the first place because Ginsburg and Kagan broke the law by refusing to recuse themselves.”

            I think I lost you a little bit there, maybe my fault….when I said “Like, for instance, making an appeal (etc),” that was referring to the appeals and such that led up to Obergefell and getting DOMA declared unconstitutional. Not a suggestion for someone to appeal Obergefell itself.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Also, I just can’t resist this….

            “It’s about what the law says, not what you wish it to say.”

            Right! Like, oh, say….the 14th Amendment, for example. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
            privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
            State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
            process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
            protection of the laws.”

            “If you don’t like a law, you work to change or repeal it.”

            Like, for instance, making an appeal that eventually results in the law in question being ruled unconstitutional.

  • acontraryview

    No surprise there.

  • http://blogcritics.org/author/Jet/ Jet Gardner

    Keep in mind here that the question behind all the smoke screens is that Pope Roy Moore blatantly thinks he can defy the United States Supreme Court whenever he feels like it and at his whim. He was already removed from office for that very reason 9 years ago and apparently he hasn’t learned his lesson.

    • Brosky

      The Supreme Court has radically overstepped its constitutional bounds and its pretended acts of legislation are null and void.

      • Theodore Fenton

        It’s called “Supreme” for a reason.

        • Brosky

          The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is called Supreme Law of the Land for a reason.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And it’s the job of the Supreme Court to say what is unconstitutional.

            “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

            – Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

          • Brosky

            M v. M was precisely the sort of decision the framers feared would lead to a judicial oligarchy. So when the court ruled blacks were property, that’s what the law is? Also if the courts decide what law is, we live under the despotism of 5 fools in black robes. Use your head.

          • acontraryview

            “Also if the courts decide what law is”

            They don’t. They rule on the constitutionality, and thus enforceability, of law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How is same-sex marriage being legal “despotism”? How does it affect you?

          • Gal5:22-23

            The constitution stated they were considered 3/5 of a person, go read Dred Scott, it isn’t about what the comic book versions you hear make you think.

            There was no contest that slaves were property and the court ruled that someone couldn’t be freed without the owner’s consent because that would be government theft of property. That’s why an amendment to the constitution was needed, to remove the notion that people could be property at all.

          • Brosky

            BTW ALL federal legislative powers are reserved to Congress and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

          • acontraryview

            Very true. Did you have a point?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not arguing with any of that. Ruling a law unconstitutional is not a legislative power.

      • Kyler Phoenix

        So, you know more than them about the law? How?

        • Brosky

          It seems that anybody that can read knows more about the law than them. Have you read the Constitution? Which part gives the feds or the court power over marriage? Which part creates a “right” to a homosexual “marriage,” something that goes not and cannot even exist?

          • acontraryview

            The court has the power to rule on the constitutionality of any law – marriage or otherwise. If it did not, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            The 14th Amendment requires equal treatment under the law. Therefore, unless the state can provide rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons why two citizens should not have access to a right the state offers, the state is not allowed to restrict access to that right. The right is not to “homosexual marriage”. The right is to marriage.

            “something that goes not and cannot even exist”

            You are correct. Homosexual marriage does not exist. Marriage exists. Sometimes it is between two people of the opposite gender – sometimes it is between two people of the same gender. Regardless, it is simply marriage.

          • Brosky

            Marriage was never a right under the 14th Amendment or anything else. It is an institution. Homosexuals cannot be married. Their sinful acts cannot under any circumstances be compared to a marriage, which is, always has been, and always will be, an institution between a man and a woman with the primary goal of creating and nurturing future generations.

          • acontraryview

            “It is an institution.”

            Civil marriage is a legal contract. Not an institution.

            “Homosexuals cannot be married.”

            Reality differs.

            “Their sinful acts cannot under any circumstances be compared to a marriage,”

            Who is making such a comparison?

            “which is, always has been, and always will be, an institution between a man and a woman ”

            That, of course, is not true. The idea that marriage is between a man and only one woman is relatively new in history. For much of history, and still in some places, marriage was between one man and several women. In addition, marriage often occurred as a means to political and monetary ends.

            The only goal of civil marriage is to create a legal status between two individuals. Nothing more. Being married does not carry a requirement of procreation, nor does procreation require that a couple be legally married.

          • Phaenius

            You notice it is still FEMALE and MALE and not CAT AND FEMALE HUMAN or DOG AND MALE HUMAN nor MALE TO MALE or FEMALE TO FEMALE contact contract.

          • Gal5:22-23

            The right to enter a contract in keeping with recognized federal civil rights is most certainly protected under the 14th amendment. When it was introduced to congress the senator doing so said its purpose was to insure all federal rights were present in all states.

            And maybe in your religion or denomination same sex couples can’t marry, but in many they can and the government must remain neutral regarding religion, the SCOTUS can’t even rule with a religious bias.

            And this was only about at citizens access to the civil contract of marriage, and again, if one citizen can enter it with a husband they all can, and vs versa for a wife.

          • StillBetter&Better

            Does marriage convey protections, benefits, and immunities to citizens?

          • Slidellman4life

            I love how these people spout off about something they have never actually read.

            Marriage is actually addressed not in the 14th Amendment, but in the 10th:

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

            In other words, marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. Any federal judge who believed they had the authority to rule on this issue was in fact engaging in judicial activism. Period.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            First off, it is a federal issue, because the federal government gives benefits to married couples. That doesn’t matter anyway, though, the 10th doesn’t mean states can have laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

          • acontraryview

            I didn’t see the marriage in the section of the 10th amendment you cited. Yet, you say marriage is “actually addressed” in the 10th amendment. Did you forget to post the part where marriage is “actually addressed”?

            “Any federal judge who believed they had the authority to rule on this issue was in fact engaging in judicial activism. Period.”

            If the judiciary were not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment – “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – be secured?

          • Elie Challita

            The federal government already has the power to regulate marriage: The 14th Amendment addressed interracial unions, and much more recently conservatives supported DOMA, which was a federal prohibition against homosexual marriage.

            Don’t blame us for getting the fed involved in marriage, you lot started the trend 🙂

          • Slidellman4life

            The 14th Amendment addressed interracial unions

            No, it didn’t. Nine men in black robes got together and decided it did. I actually read it, however, and funny thing, it doesn’t mention sex (the act) or marriage at all.

          • Elie Challita

            It doesn’t enumerate any specific rights, that’s true. But it does say that, and I quote, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.

            Marriage is a privilege. You’ve chosen to define it as an institution between a man and a woman, but a more accurate description would be a voluntary and legally recognized union between consenting adults. I don’t see any reason, beyond your own religious belief, why all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage should only be limited to heterosexual couples.

          • Slidellman4life

            It doesn’t enumerate any specific rights, that’s true.

            Then we agree on something.

            I don’t see any reason, beyond your own religious belief, why all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage should only be limited to heterosexual couples.

            You already know the answer to that question. It has been explained by many innumerable times. Don’t play dumb with me….unless you actually are. In which case having things explained to you means nothing.

          • Elie Challita

            Nice cop out you got there 🙂

          • Slidellman4life

            What cop out? People get tired of making the same responses to the same strawman challenges.

            “Oh, same sex marriage isn’t going to hurt anybody.”

            Well, surprise, Mick Fleetwood, it has. And unless you have been in a coma this past decade you know good and well what I am talking about.

            Enough.

          • Elie Challita

            Right. Another non-answer.
            I swear, trying to get an fact out of you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

          • Slidellman4life

            Stop playing games. This stuff has been gone over time and time again. You don’t like the fact I will allow for your intellectual dishonesty? Build a bridge and get over it.

          • Elie Challita

            Intellectually dishonest? Sir, you wound me. I’m only asking you to provide but a single proof of your assertions. It’s not my fault if your position is so weak and false that you have to deflect in a manner that would make Donald Trump seem like an honest and decent person.

          • Slidellman4life

            Would it make a single bit of difference if I did? Yes or no.

          • Elie Challita

            It would, if you actually had a point

          • Slidellman4life

            Your snark is not an answer.

            Truth is, you merely confirmed what I said in the beginning : You are being intellectually dishonest.

            Bye.

          • Elie Challita

            Unlike you, my friend, I am actually a fair and honest person. I simply happen not to follow your religion, so most of your superstitious arguments against gay marriage don’t faze me.
            Now, do you have any non-religious arguments against it, or do you concede that your entire opposition is built on nothing more than fairy tales?

          • Slidellman4life

            “Unlike you, my friend, I am actually a fair and honest person. ”

            Which is in and of itself a lie.

            The rest of your post indicates you *are* aware of the arguments made.

            You ever hear the proverb, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging?”

            You should heed that.

          • Elie Challita

            I never said that I was unaware of any arguments. I am, however, unaware of any valid non-religious argument. My opposition to your position, frankly, is based on the fact that all your arguments boil down to “Allah told me to!”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I notice that in his entire response, there’s no actual answer.

          • Dennis Stewart

            The 14th Amendment was and is barren of pampering perverts or their fruitless and fatal perversions because that would endanger the general welfare. It dealt with skin color not sexual perversion.

            Homo’s account for EXPONENTIAL SHARES of all inverted and perverted anti-sexual diseases far in excess of their trivial percentages of the general population before even considering the granddaddy of them all HIV/AIDS WHICH IS NOW – thanks to homo promiscuity the number 1 infectious disease cause of death in the world. Homo’s have life spans decades less than normal people.

            The 14th Amendment dealt with the color of skin not a salute to sodomy which is the homosexual monogamy. Homo’s aren’t in love with other people. They are in love with a degenerate act [direct contact with fecal matter] with up to 1,000 people in a homo’s truncated lifespan. Skin color is genetic sexual perversion isn’t. There are many former homo’s. There are no former black people.

            Also, is redundancy the same as and equal to complimentary? Are two circles the same as one square and one circle? The purpose of an electrical extension cord is to “marry” or connect current. How effective would an extension cord be if it had 2 receptacles vs. one receptacle and one plug OR 2 plugs vs. one plug and one receptacle? Plugs are analogous to penises. Receptacles are analogous to vaginas.

            By the way, did the 14th Amendment [solely constructed for the benefit of skin color] erase or eviscerate in any way the 9th and 10th Amendments part of the original Bill of Rights?

            The exaggerated size of the homo population has been laid to rest in July 2015 when the federal government [in conjunction with the CDC] revealed that only a puny; irrelevant; obnoxious; hateful; bigoted; victimizing 1.6% of the general population are homo’s. That’s 0.8% for homo men and 0.8% for homo women. Has any pampered and perverted minority group ever caused as much havoc?

            What kind of a moronic; malevolent and Marxist madness would permit 1.6% to dictate to the 98.4%. What we have here is akin to a malignant in-grown hair on the tip of the dogs tail wagging the entire dog to death. Or an ever metastasizing malignant melanoma being treated like a skin rash or a temporary case of teenage acne when it is destructive in every way., No civilization, culture or country in human history has ever sought, secured and kept preeminence after having pampered homo perversion.

            That’s why just two of the goals within THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA state: “Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.” And “Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions.” You should see the other 43 goals all of which have been fully accomplished thus in part reflecting the rotting of America from the inside-out.

            Stand-by for the Whiter Knuckle ride. All that can be said is thanks for “coming out”!

          • acontraryview

            The 14th Amendment applies to all laws. At the time of its passage, there was debate regarding limiting its application to race. It was decided that such language would not be included as all citizens were entitled to equal treatment under the law and that protection was not based merely on race.

            As to the rest of your post, while you are certainly entitled to your opinions, they are irrelevant to the protections provided by the 14th Amendment.

          • Dennis Stewart

            Shallow and convoluted non-response. Why don’t you try answering the questions that were asked?

          • Elie Challita

            Alright skippie, you can get off your high horse now. All citizens should benefit from the same rights, regardless of how large a portion of the population they make up, or what their lifestyle habits are.

            As for your Marxist Manifesto Mumbo Jumbo, McCarthy’s called and he would like to sue you for copyright infringement.

          • Dennis Stewart

            Hey mutton head…what you know about what you think you know could fit into the head of a pin with enough room left over for each of the current 7.3 billion world wide inhabitants each to own and occupy 100 Centillion sg. mile estates. All rights carry with them equally commensurate responsibilities. Any right without a responsibility isn’t a right. It’s a wrong. As an example, you have the right to teach math. However, since you need to know how to count to teach math – and since you demonstrate that 2+2 isn’t ALWAYS 4, you lose your right to teach. Now use your the one brain cell in your otherwise intellectually insolvent; academic anemic; and historically deprived empty head and go sandra fluke your self. There is no such thing as a transgender. All there is are boys and girls who eventually become men and women. However, there are the inverted and perverted anti-sexual disorientated who belong in cages or insane asylums because they endanger the general welfare. Transgenders don’t exist. Sexual perverts exist!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “inverted and perverted”?

            Sounds like if someone has kinky sex while upside down.

          • Dennis Stewart

            Referring to the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition here are JUST FEW proofs: Dysfunction is defined as: “impaired or abnormal.” Invert is defined as: “one characterized by inversion; esp. HOMOSEXUAL and to reverse in position order or relationship.” Inverse is defined as: “something of a contrary nature or quality.” The Crime Against Nature is defined as: “Sodomy”. Pervert is defined as: “to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right: CORRUPT: to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted: MISDIRECT: to divert to a wrong end purpose: MISUSE: to twist the meaning or sense of MISINTERPRET.

            Now here are just a few of the ugly and evil inhumane and dehumanizing homo behaviors that meet these definitions: fisting; rimming; bare-backing; bug chasing; taking the express; circuit parties; brown showers; golden showers; tossing the salad; fulsome street parades etc and lets not forget the driver SODOMY. Sodomy in the main is when one hallucinogenic male pervert jambs his penis [an act of self loathing rage and hate] up into the fecal matter contaminated rectum of yet another hallucinogenic male pervert easily the equivalent of playing in; eating from and living in unflushed toilets.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You seem to have a real problem with the idea that, as you put it, “2+2=5.” I wonder, then, why you keep saying that there are times when “equal protection” means something other than what it means other times.

            In short, I believe that when the 14th Amendment says “equal protection” it means for everyone, and not just on race because it doesn’t sat “race” in it. Or do you believe that there are times when 2+2=5?

          • Dennis Stewart

            You’re beyond confused. You’re convoluted. If Muslims [based on their religious beliefs] are not forced to pacify, pamper, and pander to homo’s, why aren’t Christians against homo’s, why aren’t Christians who represent 70-80% of the general population given the same “sane” equal protections? Do homo’s own and operate bakeries or are they not given equal protection to own bakeries?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And you call me convoluted?

            Okay, let me try to answer the question you’re trying to ask. You want to know why public accommodation non discrimination laws don’t violate the Free Exercise Clause, is that correct? (Equal protection has nothing to do with this matter.)

          • Dennis Stewart

            You are a floundering mess. Stop sniffing glue. You have no understanding of terms or definitions.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “The 14th Amendment dealt with the color of skin”

            Where exactly in the 14th does it mention skin color?

          • Dennis Stewart

            Look at the date of the 13th and 14th amendments and ask yourself what events in American history spawned them. It wasn’t the Sodomy saluting Stonewall riots.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not denying any of that. I guess I just think the amendment means what it says. Crazy, huh?

          • Dennis Stewart

            Yes! Crazy! If what you say is true, then the 14th Amendment erased; nullified and neutered the entirety of the first ten Amendments which are called the Bill of Rights. If not all of them, which parts of any of them?
            The Bill of Rights are sacrosanct are they not? How could any of them in any way could ever be perverted by a perverted 1.6% of the general population when at the time of the 14th Amendment Sodomy was considered a grave Crime and which it has become even more grave since its decriminalization. Is 2+2 always 4? Or is it some other answer depending on the situational chaos prevailing at any given time via diabolical disorientation and the dictatorship of relativism?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Is 2+2 always 4?”
            Not if you’re in a base-3. Then 2+2 is 11, actually.

            “the 14th Amendment erased; nullified and neutered the entirety of the first ten Amendments”

            How does it do any of that?

          • Dennis Stewart

            I’m sorry. I forgot that you got straight F’s at the University of Moron thereafter claiming discrimination then being admitted to the University of Nit Wit whereby you again distinguished your self with straight F——–minuses.

            Proof is you can’t read. You misstated what I didn’t say. Typical from your less than human ilk! Congrats are still in order. When the round up begins, you have made the cut.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You were suggesting that thinking the 14th Amendment means just what it says erases the entire Bill of Rights. I asked for an explanation of that statement. (After all, I haven’t seen anyone being forced to quarter soldiers in their home lately, for one thing….) But, now I see you’re just here to throw insults around, so I suppose I shouldn’t have had any hope for something like a straight answer to an honest question!

            How can someone misstate what someone doesn’t say, anyway?

          • Dennis Stewart

            You morons do it all the time. You didn’t answer the question because you can’t answer it without showing your convolution. So, let me ask it again in a different way that better befits the intellectually insolvent; the academically anemic; and especially the historically deprived whose powers of credible discernment were absent at birth or have atrophied into non-existence. Does the 14th Amendment nullify; erase; or neuter any of the first Ten Amendments [the Bill of Rights] in any way?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Maybe I’ll answer a question from you if you demonstrate that you are capable of doing it without tossing several different insults my way every time. If you can’t do that, I’m done talking to you.

          • Dennis Stewart

            Who cares. Don’t let the door hit you in the ars on the way out!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, I ain’t going anywhere…..just waiting to see if you can talk to someone with an opposing viewpoint without insulting them.

          • Dennis Stewart

            You went and don’t know it.

          • Phaenius

            OOPS…on the list of Biblical principles, I can’t remember bringing up on this string with you that the Torah law where Moses said that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a matter be established (in reference here to capital punishment where “in the mouth of one witness shall NO man be put to death,” is applied in Article three Section three of the Constitution concerning treason requiring two witnesses.

          • Dennis Stewart

            And?

          • Phaenius

            That was it, carry on.

          • Dennis Stewart

            Please say what you mean if you mean what you say.

          • Phaenius

            Dennis, I was answering TheKingofrhye who wondered what BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES America was founded upon: Here is his question:

            “Exactly what principles that the country was founded on are strictly Biblical principles, and shared with no other religion or way of thought? Serious question there, I’ve asked that a few times now, and no one seems to answer me.”

            So unless you read my first several comments, this last was just a wrap up of the principles from the Bible this country was founded upon.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I still ain’t quite buying it, though. You said something earlier about how liberty is the liberty to “do what is right in the eyes of God” (or something like that)? How can that be, in a secular country with freedom of religion ?

          • Phaenius

            LIBERTY is the freedom to do that which is RIGHT in the EYES OF GOD. Taking from what John Locke said that GOD/CREATOR put us on this earth to LIVE and to not quit our station before the time. What amounts to Suicide he said is NOT LIBERTY but LICENSE. Since Liberty means we cannot kill our own innocent lives, in that this is LICENSE, then we cannot DELEGATE to another any control over our innocent lives whether or not THEY want to take it or leave us alone, and Jefferson took this concept of an inability to delegate our lives to another and come up with INALIENABLE or UNALIENABLE right to life. It is possible in an atheist reality to DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT, and figure out what is RIGHT, but the Bible says in the proverbs, “there is a WAY that SEEMETH RIGHT unto a man but the ends thereof are the ways of DEATH, and the more Biblically minded founders figure then that we cannot have confidence in what WE think is right but the Christian worldview is a good guide for what is right in that this is what is right in the EYES OF GOD, the founders decided that the people need to have the LIBERTY to learn this from their own preachers or religious teachers or to study to learn it from the scriptures themselves, and encouraged the PEOPLE to educate their children to read, and that from the Bible where SELF DISCIPLINE principles are laid out. It was actually more economical for government that the people had SELF DISCIPLINE and having experience where evil things happen when one faction of Christianity compelled folk to do what THEIR VERSION of obligation would be, the did not want ANY teacher of RELIGION getting power and that over the other factions. Here is where your FREEDOM OF RELIGION is…for the people to be able to study the demonization’s understood obligations (which is RELIGION such as CHARITY and keeping one’s SELF unspotted from the world. All the denominations respected the TEN COMMANDMENTS and these were deemed innocuous to encourage the people in self discipline by honoring these tenets…you see the government was not forbidden to endorse the Christian world view, but it WAS FORBIDDEN TO DO RELIGION, which the Bible says is CHARITY and EDUCATION.

            But what is our government doing today BUT RELIGION because WELFARE AND ENTITLEMENTS are CHARITY, and they have forced a PUBLIC EDUCATION on the people, taking money FROM the families that could have used it on their own private schools, so that an added burden is placed on the parents to not only pay the general school taxes but to get money from somewhere to pay for the private schools. And since the LIBERALS and COMMUNISTS (SOCIALISTS) have incremented the definition of RELIGION as being the BELIEF SYSTEM, they in usurping the eduction from the parents have decided that they have been mandated to divest ANY CHRISTIAN TENETS from education. We ourselves would not have our children study Catholic doctrine, or they Baptist doctrine, and being led as slaves to cough up money beyond the ten percent threshold GOD deems slavery (1 Samuel 8:15-17) to pay for RELIGION (charity and education according to what the GOVERNMENT deems appropriate) we pitifully fight over somehow getting our money back (vouchers) or some such way to educate our children in our own private institutions if ever possible.

            YOU TELL ME how this nation is SECULAR when government has USURPED RELIGION and is DOING RELIGION giving largesse to people we do not wish to support and teaching our children TENETS that are NOT what we would desire them to learn (evolution and how SUICIDE ought to be a right, or that abortion ought be a RIGHT when this is LICENSE and governments are NOT CRAFTED TO PROTECT LICENSE or the murder of innocent lives, whether in suicide or in abortions). Self Discipline is we keeping OURSELVES untouched by the world rather that government forcing us to change behavior by withholding this or that moneys for that which government is never to have been participating in the first place.

            Again, face it, YOUR SECULAR GOVERNMENT IS THE MOST RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT IN THIS WORLD the day it decided to usurp CHARITY and steal from the people to do CHARITIES OF GOVERNMENT’S OWN CHOOSING. Christians were considered ATHEISTS because they did not recognize but one GOD, and it is IRONIC that we desire GOVERNMENT TO GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF RELIGION or OF CHARITY AND EDUCATION.

            The government is SECULAR only in it being responsible for ONE THING and that is to protect the PEOPLE, Theists, pagans or atheists, in their LIBERTY, for John Locke believed that even NON THEISTS would respect innocent lives, even to the point of protecting the unborn from abortion. The Christians would be free to do that which is RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD, and the NON THEISTS who have no innate morality could borrow from the Christian religion and practice THAT without necessarily believing in our JHVH/JESUS, and the PAGANS, who come here are encouraged to integrate into our society by pulling out their religions and drawing from their world view the tenets, the simple things in the ten commandments for instance, and emulate those Biblical virtues but in the name of their own world view…and Christians who CAME UP WITH LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE would not use the force of the community to force anyone to become “Christian” as they did in the old world. ALL benefitted from the concept of the FREEDOM OF THE PRESS initiated by Leonard Busher of England who published his plea for Liberty of Conscience declaring that no one can FORCE ANYONE to convert to this or that belief, and those THINKING THEY could just only bring confusion strife, and danger to their citizens.

            I appreciate that you have not threatened me with violence and you notice I am doing double duty to try to answer your questions without threatening you. However, if you were Muslim, I am aware that folk of that world view will NOT integrate, nor take their tenets that might appear to be the same as ours, and practice them toward the infidel…only fellow Muslims are treated with a modicum of peace (unless the Shiah is looking at a SUNNI or vice versa.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “incremented the definition of RELIGION as being the BELIEF SYSTEM”

            Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. That’s the definition I’m using when I’m talking about the country being a secular one. The definition of that being they endorse no particular religion, or even a lack of one. When I say that it’s a secular country some people seem to think that means an atheistic one, but there’s a huge difference there.

            “the NON THEISTS who have no innate morality”

            Wait just a minute there….how do non-theists have any less of an “innate morality” than theists? Believing in a god is not the only source of morality. And what IS “innate morality”, anyway? What makes theists’ morality any more innate that anyone’s else’s? If you’re deriving your morality from from a certain theistic religion, you still have to learn it, or be taught it. There are non-theistic religions that have moral codes, and there have been atheist philosophers and such that have very well-defined ideas about morality.

          • Phaenius

            The people who try to rewrite the history of the founding of this country have incremented the definition of RELIGION.

            It fits your purpose so you choose to not acknowledge that the founders had a different definition of RELIGION than many have today, and to their philosophy of having the constitution a LIVING contract, attempt to interpret the constitution to this new comprehensive definition.

            That makes you and these Liberals rather dishonest, and denying the original definition of RELIGION, you create a monster that makes GOVERNMENT YOUR MASTER and government was NEVER to be the master of the people…and the only way to do THAT is to recognize that there is indeed a LAWGIVER, and it is GOD and if GOD gives you an unalienable (undelegateable) right to your innocent life, so that NO one can take that away from you, because only GOD can take away your innocent life, but it is the responsibility of government to use the force of the community to SEE to it that such innocent lives are left inviolate. These are the understandings never taught to the general public, though among the smaller group of rather more sophisticated academics some even dare to discuss it…but the general public CAN have access to the original writings…and yes indeed even then folk were fighting the battle to maintain the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS approach. It was Locke’s approach among a few other of the political writers of the age that the founders attached to and why Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence was so close to Locke’s Second Treatise of Government which, by the way, has a real useful rule of thumb to determine when to defend yourself by force against force and when you let government come in to pursue the violator of your rights of Liberty or Property.

            That is the rub, you keep presuming NO supernatural involvement. In fact all of this argumentation we are indulging in, like force, will not cause you to be persuaded. It is out there and what you get in bits and pieces from this and other communications with others, the Biblical instruction says it is GOD who takes the simple GOSPEL and turns the heart to an enlightenment that they are indeed the elect, predestinated to hear the gospel in whatever time or manner God desires, that you are an object of His absolute mercy. Try as you may, and by knowledge already of false brethren that I have been experienced to meet, you cannot by your MERIT obtain to the salvation that the Bible speaks of through Christ.

            Too many of us have experienced this enlightenment. The Bible says itself that there is a witness of the Spirit of God that we are Children of God. There is no innate morality in even the believer who learns it from, in this age, the scriptures. We have no more marvelous sign gifts to the Jews according to the Bible today, and this until the end of the church age, when such will return to bring in the Jews finally under the Rule of God, along with some surviving gentiles of the great tribulations.

            You don’t believe it? Well said, It is with GOD that Belief comes about, contrary to what you hear by even some denominations called Christian. If God does not DRAW you to Jesus, you will not be saved no matter how much I protest this truth to you. There is only ONE credibility giving gift the Christians of today possess and it is called AGAPE or unconditional love. Ironically EVERY MAN knows of it, can reproduce it in art, and you can see some amazing demonstrations of it and about it in the arts, and why Jesus had such respect for HYPOCRITES, which JUST HAPPENS TO BE Greek style actors of the time, the ones who wear the THESPIAN masks and who could so amazingly interpret whatever character other gifted in the arts can produce. Even songs, plays, novels, songs demonstrate an existence of AGAPE or unconditional love, of the type that makes a GOD HIMSELF a sacrifice for the right to garbage collect among entities He is going to salvage, and why He can choose among us all to save some. None of us is deserving of it, and even I cannot claim to have had some spark of merit that sets me above Hitler. Even to Christians this is a hard saying, but respect for the Bible is slow BECAUSE of the incessant assaults the likes of you make…and bow since this will actually be your only accomplishment as a tool for Satan. I have tired being a tool of Satan once I understood what Jesus meant when He said this in John. “IN THIS shall ALL KNOW that YE ARE HIS DISCIPLES when YE HAVE LOVE (agape) ONE TO ANOTHER.” We have it but we need to practice it on each other day by day till we can learn to communicate with one another this AGAPE. It is always a tough love scenario, especially when one finds a son who is desiring the affections of men rather than that which is natural, and we NEVER accept the sin, though we can accept the sinner until he changes or God takes His life.

            The usual “well defined ideas about morality” is usually that which is more righteous than God. One such thing is you must respect the beliefs of others. If that means not to kill them just for believing something different is not a problem but it usually means you must not DISS that belief by comparing it to GOD’S morality and most of this POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is majority in that error. You can’t HATE…and for many you must not hate IDEAS, and when the Bible negates a behavior that is considered by your ‘well defined idea about morality” as HATE SPEECH…a no no. By daring to say that there is but one GODS (ELOHIM is a plural for GOD implying the TRINITY, though it is ELOHIM as JHVH that is ONE) you diss about a hundred other world views.

            Jude 1:22-23 (KJV)

            22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

            23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

            NOPE the Atheist has no innate moral code, BUT while ATHEISTS by Biblical definition are FOOLS, they are not always STUPID, and know a good beneficial rule of thumb when they see it, and as I said in some post earlier, even JOHN LOCKE in his Second Treatise of GOVERNMENT presumed that he could find a lowest common denominator that both THEISTS and RATIONALISTS (non Theistic) could have. He felt confident that would be the common sense respect for innocent life, but he never derived it by rational means but by saying from the start that what amounts to suicide is NOT LIBERTY but LICENSE for God/Creator put us on this earth to LIVE and to not quit our station before the time. He did NOT trust atheists in a free society nor Catholics. The latter because at the time the Vatican was a state and the POPE was out to undermine all of the rather limited free states then extant, but the former was suspect because they had NO one to ground their oaths upon, thus by suspicion, unable to be trusted with a profound promise.

          • Dennis Stewart

            Thank you for that context.

          • Phaenius

            🙂

          • Phaenius

            HEY…sorry Dennis, I noticed that my comment beginning with OOPS was addressed to YOU instead of TheKingofRhye I was in conversation with…and now I understand your reply – LOL. Could I get any mercy from you if I mention that I was OLD?

          • Dennis Stewart

            Not a problem. Thank you for your care and consideration.

          • Phaenius

            In the beginning there was just a man and God (the author of the principles our country was based on) saw fit to make out of that one man two complementary individuals with parts that actually fit together to replace that ONE MAN. Marriage was based on the concept that those two complementary parts be able to come together to make a whole, also for the sake of conception. Contrary to popular opinion there IS SUCH A THING AS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, one that actually accomplishes the very definition of marriage. A HOMOSEXUAL BIOLOGICALLY DEFINED MAN can marry a LESBIAN BIOLOGICALLY DEFINED WOMAN. What they do outside of their MARRIAGE is fornication and adultery.

            LIBERTY is the freedom to do that which is RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD, and that is what the AMERICAN FREEDOM IS and what GOVERNMENT ONLY IS ALLOWED TO DEFEND. There are other nations in this God forsaken world that agrees with what you think, and I think you need to go there and leave what is right for those who are starved of any place that understands what RIGHT is.

          • Elie Challita

            Thank goodness that we don’t in a Christian theocracy under your rule, then.

          • Phaenius

            OH…in order for it NOT to be a “theocracy” (need a prophet for such a thing and the bible indicates no prophet since John the apostle till the end of the church age at the rapture) government was deprived of all things RELIGION (obligation such as charity and education) so that the PEOPLE could do such things without hindrance. This of course was a BIBLE PRINCIPLE that forbad government that responsibility though the socialists usurped the rights even as they have done in America now that we have WELFARE and government public schools (Luke 3 had John the Baptist tell three groups of newly repentant righteous people what to do when they asked him, and only to the PEOPLE did John say to do what was seen in James one as RELIGION, the other two groups were government interfaces with the people such as soldier/magistrates which he told to not harass the people and heavens to Wisconsin Public workers Unions….be content with their wages. The other government entity was represented by the tax collectors to whom he told to take only that which was due (1 Samuel 8:15-20 has God say that the king taking ten percent is a government (king) enslaving the people. God considered the people HIS SLAVES when they gave the tithe, and 1 Cor. 7:20 encourages those who have been made free to USE THEIR FREEDOM, basically to remain free and other parts of the Bible tells us to remove the shackles of those in bondage because if God bought us with a price then we are HIS slaves and we are never to be slaves of men again. It is a bit impossible without a prophet to live in a theocracy and the only one in the future is that when in the tyranny of righteousness during the Millennial Kingdom seven years after the end of the church age Jesus is ruling on earth through the church age saints over those surviving the tribulation who come into the thousand year kingdom child bearing alive. So you are safe as long as THIS Baptist is on guard not to have a theocracy…Just let the rest of us be able to do that which is RIGHT in the EYES OF GOD, such as not murdering queers, and justice being used against those who abuse children by a government crafted to protect the innocent life of the people, their LIBERTY TO DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD, and to have property, which Jefferson expanded to be that even beyond bare subsistence with the excess to be used by the people TO DO THE RELIGION (of charity and educating our own children on our own dime) and the rest to invest in commerce which was the health of a community. Yep, we didn’t sign up for a theocracy but what we had WAS BASED ON BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES and is the only nation in history and geography that allowed us the right to LIBERTY.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Exactly what principles that the country was founded on are strictly Biblical principles, and shared with no other religion or way of thought? Serious question there, I’ve asked that a few times now, and no one seems to answer me.

          • Phaenius

            Perhaps I can assist here. If you are familiar with Jefferson and his draft of the Declaration of Independence you might be aware that the English near Christian John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government appears to be nearly whole cloth in that draft. This Second Treatise followed his first Treatise where he Biblically reasoned the demolition of the popular DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS. Having the reason for even having a government panting on the floor and rather than reviving it on the more primitive SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST or better MIGHT MAKES RIGHT concepts, in the burgeoning age of REASON he sought to find the lowest common denominator that THEISTS and NON THEIST rationalists might meet.

            Locke reasoned that the Creator/GOD author of the laws of nature put us on this earth to LIVE and as HIS CREATURES we being his creation (taken from Ephesians 2) were to be about HIS business and not that of another and in that we are to LIVE we are NOT to quit our station before the time. In that we do NOT have a moral right to off ourselves prematurely, we apparently have no such right over our INNOCENT LIVES to delegate to another. Jefferson picked up on this and developed his version of the thought that surely was in the minds of the other founders that we have an INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE, as spelled in his first draft. This draft was redacted to include UNALIENABLE right to life (at this setting I still am not sure of the difference) as well as them taking out Jefferson’s paragraph concerning the evils of the institution of slavery.

            In that Locke talked of the aim of government to protect INNOCENT LIFE (this being the lowest common denominator he felt both Theists and Non Theists could agree, apparently not understanding the heartlessness of an age like we exist in today), also there was LIBERTY, or that which we do to order our lives according to the mandate to LIVE, and since Locke mentions GOD and that of the JHVH version, GOD is prominent in the definition of this American Freedom we can call LIBERTY, because Locke set this in contrast with LICENSE when he said that what amounts to SUICIDE is NOT LIBERTY but LICENSE. So LIBERTY is the freedom to do that which is RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD, and the Bible amens this with two proverbs that say, “there is a WAY that seemeth RIGHT unto a man but the ends thereof are the ways of DEATH,” and one of the complaints God had of the folk in Joshua and Judges was that the people in their THEOCRACY opportunity DID THAT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN EYES. It is ironic that Jesus has a remedy for that plight in the proverbs by saying, I am the WAY and the TRUTH, and the LIFE and no man cometh unto the Father but by ME.”

            The other unalienable right was that of PROPERTY, but where Locke has it a right for man to maintain his innocent right by obtaining and keeping property that will benefit to subsistence of that innocent life, he expands in with his PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS to allow man to have prophet to use for charity, thus fulfilling the admonition of John the Baptist in Luke three where three groups of people come to him asking what to do in their new righteous lives, he says to the general PEOPLE, in contrast to the other two groups that represent interface of government with the people such as TAX COLLECTORS and SOLDIER/MAGISTRATES, that THEY, the people, ARE TO DO CHARITY using the same type of assistance as found in the ONLY DEFINITION OF RELIGION IN THE BIBLE in James one which was essentially CHARITY AND EDUCATION (self discipline or the keeping ONE”S SELF unspotted from the world, in that such precepts for self discipline had to be learned and the educators of today claim their task is to provide that which allows the children to make life decisions – but being government, these teachers are actually usurping the responsibilities of the parents to train their OWN children on their OWN dime so that they can be great citizens of the community). It is ironic that this definition of RELIGION differs with the modern more comprehensive definition that was foreign both to the Bible and the opinions of many of the founders, in that today we consider RELIGION to include both OBLIGATION or the Bible Definition AND the belief system properly called WORLD VIEW. The Liberals have had a hay day in destroying the Biblical principles our country was founded on as they use THIS definition rather than the BIBLE ONE to purge everything PUBLIC from the Christian concepts, or the belief system which as you desired to have demonstrated, led to the formation of this Great American Experiment.

            Now it is a BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE that the LAW we know of as the TEN COMMANDMENTS can be emulated by those who were not JEWS or Christians:

            Romans 2:14-15 (KJV)

            14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

            15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

            So not only can Locke consider the protection of INNOCENT LIFE the lowest common denominator between Theists and Non Theists, but also the law which Locke says is the law of nature which all municipal laws that are RIGHT are derived from, regulated by as well as interpreted by, might be emulated by folk who are of different world views. So as a means to follow the Admonition of Paul in Romans 12 where he tells the Christian that if all possible and as much as “leith in us” to live in peace with all peace with all men, we can allow those willing to integrate into America by not changing us but by emulating from their own tenets of their world view the virtues as found in the Bible…at least the Bible was confident of that. Islam seems to be the only one that cannot. As far as Socialism and Communism they unabashedly usurp and own the parts where government does the CHARITY (welfare and entitlements) and owns the means of educating the people’s children. The Bible sort of prohibits government from this for this is the reason for government in the first place to protect our rights to innocent life and to able to have the Liberty of conscience to do that which is right in the eyes of God, and even allow the world’s religions opportunity to drag out of their own chests of tenets similar ones and compete who can train their own children to be the better citizen of the community (rather than control the religion of all the people). To keep government from invading the church’s responsibility that is why our constitution chained the governments down to just protecting our rights to do right.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “LIBERTY is the freedom to do that which is RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD”?

            Liberty is partly the freedom to believe in whatever god you want, or none at all.

          • Phaenius

            Liberty of conscience was brought over into America by the Baptists of Rhode Island. In England near that time a persecuted Baptist preacher wrote a pamphlet as a plea to King James for this Liberty or Conscience. This plea also contained the first known English printed document that asked for a FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, not only for the ruling religious authorities of England but even for the very PAPISTS that had done damage to our Baptist brethren in England up to that time, but now it was some of the mainline Protestants doing the persecution. When there were some Baptists being held in the common jail of one of the Anglican parishes in Virginia, and that was because they arrogated the right to speak to a Virginia native traveler about matters of Christ, they reasoned as pressing our RELIGION down their throats. Patrick Henry heard about that, came into the assembly where the trial was being had, and denounced this at a time where the liberty of conscience was being sprung up all over the colonies, and in their embarrassment at what they were doing they let the Baptists go.

            Now check out the five or so commandments that deal with the daily doings of one person to another and see if indeed they are so terrible as to take from the public view. The early founders were allowing such displays of the commandments even that found in the Capital itself as a means to encourage the PEOPLE to develop the principles that allows for SELF DISCIPLINE so that the governments would not HAVE to imply draconian police presence when the people were looking over their shoulders at an all knowing and seeing DEITY rather than around the corner in some look out for some constabulary.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Now check out the five or so commandments that deal with the daily
            doings of one person to another and see if indeed they are so terrible
            as to take from the public view.”

            That’s kinda what always gets me, when people say things like “the country was founded on Christian principles” or even that our laws are rooted in the Ten Commandments. (maybe you’re not saying that yourself, but I have heard it more than a few times!) Yeah, okay, the “thou shalt not kill” and the like….those are fine and good, but they’re not really strictly Christian beliefs. You don’t have to be a Christian (you don’t have to believe in any religion at all, in fact) to believe that killing, lying, stealing, and adultery are bad, and that honoring your parents is a good thing. As for the rest of the Ten Commandments, they’d mostly be unconstitutional and/or unenforceable if they were regular laws.

          • Phaenius

            Folk thought that the Divine Right of Kings was a Biblical mandate, when it was not to have anyone above the law of the land. So the founders took what the Bible DID say and freed up a bunch of folk from that which government should not have been involved with in the first place such as charity and education. NOW we are the most religious country in the world today because the government has taken or usurped the RELIGION of the people which the Bible defines as CHARITY and SELF DISCIPLINE or EDUCATION (in that the educators themselves say that they teach things for kids to be able to make life choices), two things that the founders thought the people ought to do if they desired to do it at all, So even if you are not “religious” actually there are people who want GOVERNMENT to come in and FORCE the people to do charity by actually stealing the money from them and doing it themselves (governments). This drives up the cost of government which would be much smaller if all that money folk think ought to go to feed the poor went instead where it was SUPPOSED to and buy the tanks and the capital or large expenditure type weapons, once being the ships and cannons and the reason there is something called admiralty law. What do you think all of these touchy feely laws are coming from but that folk think they are more righteous than God and are willing to force THEIR moral values on those that would rather have done what GOD wanted us to do. In God’s NATURAL world, things are much more simpler like there are really TWO sexes, male and female, and marriage was that which allowed the male and female to legally conjoin for the sake of children (or companionship.) The New Testament took out much of the ordinances that we are uncomfortable with in the Old Testament, and put the fate of fornicating homosexuals in HIS hands and not have a draconian police force come in inquisition style to ferret out “queers.” God provided a CLOSET for the saint and the sinner. For the saint to pray in a manner so as not to garner any praise of applause for being so goody goody, and for the sinner a place for them to do that which is evil in the sight of God for surely in that closet GOD definitely knows what is going on. Now you see these folk leaving their closet, and forcing us to change what is normal and simple in their desire to have their abomination which is obscene (a Greek play phrase where lots of things that might be immoral but necessary for the story would be played off stage for the audience to hear but not see) to be considered normal and a protected behavior when in fact it is sin as fornication and adultery are to the heterosexual and not much different for them as well but just a variety of sin. Most of the moral laws in the early history of America had to do with OPEN drunkenness, or fornication, or adultery, and sodomy, and not much was spent to in a manner of the inquisition pursue one into the bedroom.

            A dirty secret so to speak is that Baptists never fared well with Religious run governments and knowing that salvation is in the hands of God ANYWAY and we never being able to change folks opinion by force of the sword, were we to just be able to as a people go about and witness of the gospel to folk, those of the elect would be saved, and those NOT of the elect in finding tenets to emulate the virtues anyway in their world views would pretty much do the same as we do and compete on how GOOD we can be to one another. Hey…if a Hindu through his own charity on his own dime helped me a Christian when I was down and out, I STILL would be benefitted even though works don’t earn salvation in my system, yet I am blessed, refreshed and on my feet to render aid by means of my new found resources I obtained by labor of my own hands, now being able to work after the Hindu’s gift refreshed me. And I benefit when the atheist collects my garbage. In this manner the Christian based principles America by good fortune was able to provide is not a real threat to people’s of any persuasion if only they could look within as that scripture I mentioned above by Paul and compete with us in attempts to emulate unconditional love. The Bible principle that folk who pretending to be Christian do good works, and that of the sincere doing the same, DOES better society, though the righteous application alone gains merit with God. We all still have to live in the same world. But there is no benefit to acknowledge an abominable act acted out in public to the scandal and unease of every one else not considering it right, and there is not a good history for a society so embroiled in immorality ever surviving for long.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “What do you think all of these touchy feely laws are coming from but that folk think they are more righteous than God”

            OR, those ‘folk’ don’t believe in a god in the first place, or believe in a different one, or don’t believe the same things you do about him.

          • Phaenius

            These are the folks putting government in charge of even more invasive and punitive attempts to change behavior of righteous folk who going about doing RIGHT things. The more the government usurps the responsibilities of the people the more invasive they are because essentially government is a GUN. Sure, full of irony, the GUN usurps the people’s responsibility to educate their own children on their own dime, brainwashes them in giving no real education of what this country was founded upon and why, and then REFUSES to have their LITTLE GUN AGENTS called teachers to protect our most precious resources, our children, by not allowing the teachers to have guns. The government gets into medical industry and then by virtue of withholding MONIES, money, ironically, that government is NOT supposed to take from the people for such purposes, to change behavior that the Bible tells us is the RELIGION of self discipline where in James 1 the only definition of RELIGION we are told to keep OURSELVES unspotted from the world.

            Again. Governments are allowed, in America, from the founding, to have precious little responsibilities so that the people in their diversity could be allowed the liberty, not the license, to do that which is RIGHT, but as the wisdom in the Bible says that “there is a way that SEEMETH right unto a man but the ends are the ways of death,” those things leading to the deaths of innocent people are to be discouraged, first by being taught self discipline by the private societies and parents who themselves are taught from the Bible what God considers RIGHT things, and this because government protects them in this right to DO RIGHT. You see the Biblical principle that you requested was that FREEDOM was not the real goal of a people for FREEDOM, according to John Locke, was a dichotomy of LIBERTY (or the freedom to do that which is right in the eyes of God that leads to the preservation or protection of innocent life) and LICENSE or the complementary subset of raw freedom to do that which is deleterious to innocent life or at best (in the ranges of such freedoms) indifferent to the protection of innocent life. Among these FREEDOMS deemed LICENSE are murders, rape, abortion, suicide, homosexual DEATH styles, fornication, adultery, and self mutilation. These latter are indeed FREEDOMS but they result in the deaths of innocent people, and at best added costs to society to remedy the damage such FREEDOMS render, and of these GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT CRAFTED TO PROTECT. In that with the concept of LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE, government is not meant to take more money from the people and then withhold their select distribution of largesse to manipulate the behavior of the people, or use the force of the community to keep people from thinking unwise things. It is not difficult to understand that while people can do a host of silly things and be free to do that and government defends the right to do them, or even believe them, but many of those, however, when they have the result of DEATH or usurpation of the true LIBERTIES of others or the forbidding of them, the governments are not beholden to protect. Governments not having draconian police forces are not obligated to establish inquisitions that pursue folk into their bedroom, but only when such behavior spills over into DEATH or public demonstrations of obscene behavior, would governments even dare to interfere.

            When folks don’t believe in God then they can borrow the morality from their Theists neighbors and compete doing good things toward others, and even the Bible speaks of deeds of unbelievers to the general public. The Bible speaks of people who will NEVER be righteous in the manner that believing in Jesus produces and the admonition here is as follows:

            Romans 12:9-21 (KJV)

            9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

            10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

            11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

            12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

            13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

            14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

            15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

            16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

            17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

            18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

            19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

            20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

            21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

            And these admonitions are given before Romans 13 that tells the saint to submit to all authorities that are GOD ORDAINED for such authorities are not a terror to good works, and these are the ministers of God to avenge evil being done to good people, and we are to understand as Locke brings up that governments that protect the good and pursue the evil works do so at much expense and it is right to take some of our property and give it to them for THESE PURPOSES. But when governments are terrors to GOOD WORKS as is our governments from local, state and Federal are doing now, we continue doing the good works even when we are punished for it is better to be punished for doing good works than to endure punishment when WE do evil. Our country based on BIBLICAL principles, due to corrupt administrations and more corrupt schools and your corrupt average Joe, is now in danger of not being a GOD ORDAINED AUTHORITY over the righteous and you will see a lot more of the types of things suffered by those government employees such as that in Kentucky refusing to acknowledge governments of enabling LICENSE, and she was punished.

            A righteous government can suffer many things of the people doing and thinking things that are not Biblically sound behavior or truths a whole lot more than evil governments who allow the LICENSE and pursue and persecute the good, for in those governments ALL suffer, even those of the casual followers after your “those ‘folk’ don’t believe in a god in the first place, or believe in a different one, or don’t believe the same things you do about him.” Some of these even kill homosexuals and have THEIR OWN TWISTED VISION OF RIGHT LIVING.

            Governments out of line are notorious in overtaxing the population. God’s definition of SLAVERY by government is when the KING taxes even the wealth makers such as farmers and ranchers but TEN PERCENT of the increase. GOD takes a tenth from the righteous because we are proud to be his servants or slaves, and as far as true freedom is concerned, the type Locke, Jefferson and I deem LIBERTY, we are no longer as SLAVES OF GOD to be the slaves of men, especially of those who are MADE FREE such as our black brethren. Too bad the churches have not put up a fuss on THIS issue as seen in 1 Samuel 8:15-17. I am not saying that we, ourselves have been wise, because we abandoned politics early on because it was so “dirty,” and are waking up almost if not too late, and in this we share a bit of the blame.

          • Gal5:22-23

            Civil marriage is a civil contract and yes the feds have jurisdiction over contracts, particularly ones they recognize like marriage. And if one citizen can register with a husband then they all can, same with a wife.

            All the court did was say a licensing restriction on that civil contract was unconstitutional as per the 14th amendment, the sole question before the court.

          • james blue

            Can a state ban heterosexual marriage?

          • Brosky

            Rofl. What a dumb question. Marriage precedes the state. It goes back right to the beginning. Pretended acts of legislation made by satanic fools in black robes mean nothing in the big scheme of things.

          • james blue

            You asked— “Have you read the Constitution? Which part gives the feds or the court power over marriage? Which part creates a “right” to a homosexual “marriage,” —

            So you obviously think states have the right under the constitution to define marriage, They can ban gay marriage, they can ban polygamous marriage, so why not heterosexual marriage?

          • Brosky

            States can’t have rights, only privileges. Only people have rights. Sodomy and pretending to have a sodomite “marriage” legitimized by our government are not among those rights.

          • james blue

            Nice dodge,

            Why are they “not among those rights”?

          • Brosky

            It’s a question based on a false premise. Sodomites can’t have a “right” to marry each other anymore than a thief has a “right” to have the government recognize his thievery as charity. It’s a ridiculous idea.

          • james blue

            WHY do they not have the right to marry?

            Do heterosexuals have the right to have their marriages recognized?

          • Brosky

            Recognition by God is the only thing that matters. The state legitimizes itself and makes itself a party to apostasy and evil by giving a veneer of legitimacy to a lie like “homosexual marriage.”

          • james blue

            So those who do not share your faith have to abide by it?

          • Brosky

            Truth is Truth regardless of your decision to remain willingly ignorant.

          • james blue

            That didn’t answer the question asked.

          • Brosky

            You can’t ignore the Laws of God, which are written in every heart, any more than you can ignore the laws of gravity by jumping off a building, and not expect to have to deal with severely negative consequences.

          • james blue

            Of course you can, Atheists do it all the time. Closing your eyes doesn’t mean the world around you doesn’t exist.

          • Brosky

            You missed the second part of my statement… The

          • james blue

            Didn’t miss it at all, it was a silly comparison.

          • Phaenius

            Atheists don’t ignore that which is written in their heart nor that announced by those who have the law of God in their hearts, because they have no other uplifting tenets and seek to copy or emulate those of the righteous…but then they try to become MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN GOD the source of ALL the political correctness.

          • james blue

            ???

          • Phaenius

            Were you to stop with the mere fact that folk can ignore the laws of God, and that means also the special class called Atheists, your point might be taken, but the general public does it understanding the possibility of retribution, but the Atheists tend NOT to expect retribution which is unreasonable in a GOD REAL WORLD, like what we have.

            The Atheist ignores the written law of God and endures that which is written in the heart, and the negative consequences follows, not only to himself, if that was the only issue, but to the rest of the world that the atheist negatively affects whether intentionally or not.

            You have THREE question marks and I am not sure if that is for emphasis or you perceive three parts to my comment, and I did not address any question concerning the “more righteous than God” phenomenon, but I will if that also is questionable to you.

          • james blue

            The statement was made that “You can’t ignore the Laws of God…and not expect consequences” (the implication being punishment from God) to which I replied you can, Atheist do it all the time and in fact some believers do as well. Atheists do not believe in God so do not expect consequences from him.
            Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they or their actions do not exist.

            The point has nothing to do with what you think about God

          • Phaenius

            “Were you to stop with the mere fact that folk can ignore the laws of God, and that means also the special class called Atheists, your point might be taken,”

            I conceded that.

            But folk called ATHEISTS cannot be called such if they “are not thinking about God.”

            Atheists indeed do not believe in God (perhaps – not having been an Atheist), and purport that they expect no consequences as an easy point in the “reality” pretended in argumentation.

            You say some believers and Atheists expect no consequences from him (God), and I think you have a concedable point there as well because even Jesus implies that believers may order their lives without considering GOD and His demands, and a practiced ignoring of the idea of God might exist among Atheists of the moment.

            It just that there does not seem to be any society who naturally does not believe in some supernatural phenomena, and true Atheists are PRACTICED AND DELIBERATE deniers of the Creator, and by effort of PURE WILL force themselves to live lives unencumbered by thoughts of retribution but because of their occupation with LICENSE brings them into conflict with true realists they protesteth too much. But we are dealing with ATHEISTS and not the fact that even these folk in emulating Christian morality or that found in the hearts of men that emulates the law of God, they are incapable of doing meaningful things even a “charity” (not true unconditional love in that Jesus says ONLY the Christian has that capacity) finds itself beneficial to even me when an Atheists assists me in some endeavor or rescues me from some danger.

            Forgive me, I always go beyond the stated remarks. You can choose above that which answers your objection.

          • james blue

            How are Atheists incapable of doing meaningful things. Do you know what “empathy” is?

          • Phaenius

            Actually I said the opposite (not faulting you for not following some difficult sentence structures). I am BENEFITTED MEANINGFULLY when assisted by a saint by some charitable act as well as I am benefitted when some ATHEIST attempts to do charity so actually there is HOPE in living civilly with even ATHEISTS if the following admonition in Romans 12 is indicative:

            Romans 12:18 (KJV)

            18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

            That is why it was with BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES we make secular the responsibilities of government by not having them do the RELIGION of the people, and it is ironic that folk not WANTING to acknowledge America to be Based on Christian principles seeking to “educate” away such suggestions by saying the prohibition of government to do religion is to take away the belief systems and even mention of God have actually made America possess the most RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT in the world when they do the CHARITY (welfare and entitlements – please mark these words) and EDUCATION.

          • Phaenius

            Had a power failure and don’t see the answer I have in your “The point has nothing to do with what you think about God”

            It MIGHT show up in your computer but in lieu of that, I want to make this remark.

            Though this is a public forum, I hope I am not offending you in any way in that I WAS the one interrupting your original thread and some folk consider this rude…and I suffer from a trace insensitivity at times. like your atheist who does not expect consequences from God, or as the some odd Christian who orders his life without considering God.

            I am hoping you have a great day as I hope for this hint of rain to be expressed abundantly in our parched section of West Texas. I am also old and might take a nap. I will get back to you were you to make any additional comments. Thanks for the discussion.

          • Phaenius

            You misunderstand the real debate. The HOMOSEXUAL who does not share our faith WANTS TO DEMAND THE CHRISTIAN TO RECOGNIZE THEIR ABOMINATION and to not teach, preach otherwise, nor have legitimate institutions that try to assist the HOMOSEXUAL back into the straight life, to corrupt our hard won infrastructure that WE THE RIGHTEOUS FOLK can actually DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD. That is why we say that if they cannot listen to our analysis of the reality of such a relationship as being an abomination to God, the author of the principles that established our Nation…in that Christians like the Baptist actually brought about a SECULAR NATION so as to keep governments out of doing our RELIGION (defined ONLY in the Bible in James 1 as charity and education which our nation is actually DOING in every government entity from FEDERAL, STATE to LOCAL at this setting, and the Bible contrasts it with the belief system….that which provided principles for our government to abide by for the Liberty of all), then they are free to go and seek out other nations to corrupt themselves in with the blessings of such a state.

          • james blue

            Quite a word salad there..

          • Phaenius

            With a dressing seasoned with love (agape of the unconditional love variety).

          • Phaenius

            Homosexuals under the equal access principles DO HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY. A homosexual God given biological definition of a man may indeed marry a Lesbian God given biological definition of a woman…any day of the week. In fact…some HOMOSEXUAL/LESBIAN may indeed marry HETEROSEXUAL FOLK of the opposite biological sex. Where is the prohibition of marriage.

          • james blue

            Are you being deliberately obtuse?

          • Phaenius

            This is the extent of the equal access. There cannot be a claim of denial of rights on THIS ISSUE where marriage can ONLY be considered between people of opposite sex, when indeed folk with a SIN (which is what homosexuality is for it is not a SEX but an urge and abuse of plumbing) have in their reality have access to the right application of marriage all along…but not to each other of the same sex which puts it out of the range of marriage but some sort of contractual arrangement could possibly be made under a different name. Their insistence on calling it marriage seems more the state defined by obtuse than my mere statement of fact.

          • james blue

            Why can marriage ONLY be considered between people of opposite sex?

          • Phaenius

            In that the MARRIAGE was contemplated as an enduring institution between folk of the opposite sex originally, recognizing that before God their union would be considered HOLY, and not mere fornication, we had a rather reasonable world without confusion. Things are already complicated in life as it is, and most societies long for peace, and is why we appoint PEACE OFFICERS to KEEP that peace.

            The Homosexuals as well as Heterosexual sinners (theirs being of fornication and adultery where Homosexuality is mere fornication) have their closets (bedrooms being the maximum secure hide away) to sin away from the sight of men and under the direct gaze of GOD. They needed no institution to accomplish the physical act of abuse. Even for a man who has an emotional love for another man’s soul as evidenced in the Bible concerning UNCONDITIONAL LOVE or AGAPE among Christians, and is the type that the Bible speaks of concerning King David and Jonathan, there is that institutionally unencumbered expression available, if you want to talk of freedom.

            BUT it is a spit in the face at conventions and a parody of reality to expect an institutional recognition for an act of sin, the physical act involved with homosexuality. Societies cannot endure this type of activity and are already barely enduring the HETEROSEXUAL sins of fornication and adultery as these war against families. This is the consideration part. NOW these folk engaged in such things can DO IT and CALL IT MARRIAGE IN THEIR CLOSETS all they want, but they will not get away with it by right thinking folk, and by RIGHT THINKING, if not the RATIONAL understanding of what is demanded, then it is the GOD demonstrated denial of such a thing existing…though the sexual act is recognized but deemed abomination.

          • james blue

            So Atheists cannot be married?

          • Phaenius

            Well James, you must be getting tired as I am (but I am old).

            If a homosexual biological male can MARRY a lesbian biological female, then a biological male Atheist can marry even another atheist who is a biological female. Sans the belief in God and any consideration of HOLY, then these might have considered the benefits of a contractual agreement involved with marriage outside of just the physical conjoining. The Bible mentions the predicament of having a believing spouse married to a non believing spouse, whether that be a person who is pagan or atheist. The believing spouse is admonished to stay with the unbelieving spouse so the children will be holy (not bastards). So there are lots of arrangements and scenarios except for the one of one sex marrying another of the same sex. It is quite possible that children born to these may become Christians so why should they suffer just because their parents are atheists or pagan.

          • acontraryview

            “Sodomites can’t have a “right” to marry each other:”

            Why?

          • Brosky

            Because it’s impossible. Marriage requires a man AND a woman. This is pretty basic stuff.

          • acontraryview

            Civil marriage in the US does not precede the states.

          • Brosky

            Marriage precedes the states.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            The Ninth Amendment for one. Actually it does exist. It has for a very long time. You dropped out of school didn’t you?

          • Brosky

            Don’t be ridiculous.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Refute me.

      • BarkingDawg

        What legislation did the Supreme Court enact?

      • acontraryview

        For example?

    • Luke Sulla

      I think he learned his lesson in spades. All this drama has been more than helpful to raise funds for his and wife’s pet project foundation. They couldn’t buy all this publicity. They are laughing and crying all the way to the bank.

  • jimrussell

    The never ending goal to be # 1 Republican Alabama, proving we are dumber than #2 Republican Mississippi.

  • Theodore Fenton

    May his removal be swift.

  • Brosky

    The Soviet Poverty Law Center is a hateful, evil organization determined to destroy America. May God have mercy on their souls. Pray for Judge Moore. The people overwhelmingly support him!

    • Theodore Fenton

      Southern Poverty Law Center is an asset to all freedom-loving Americans.

      • Brosky

        HAHAHAHAHAAHAH! It is a hateful scam to con people out of their money for con man Morris Dees while attacking freedom.

      • Charles

        SPLC? Morris Dee’s? The same perv that tried doing his 16 year old step daughter? THAT Morris Dee’s?

    • Kyler Phoenix

      No they dont.

    • lee metzger

      You have that right. They defend everything perverted and hate anything that is morally upright and good

  • Jolanda Tiellemans

    And still some say they are not discriminating or hating homosexuals. And it is all happening since SSM became legal in all 50 states.

  • Georgie Franklin

    The real question is how dumb are the people of Alabama to elect this doofus twice?

    • OldBut YoungMoney

      How are they stupid? The supreme court overreached and they know it.

  • lee metzger

    So are morally upright people every going to organize a massive protest against Washington DC, demanding an end to the oppression of people who refuse to go along with with gay lifestyle? It’s disgusting what they DO, and it’s disgusting that people must affirm something that they could care less about in real life whatsoever. They want to destroy every traditional, normative gender distinction and replace it with absolutely NO moral restraints whatsoever. What they want is no different than removing all traffic lights from dangerous intersections everywhere, guaranteeing total chaos, not to mention extreme danger, at those intersections. Normative homosexual behavior destroys human lives, and riddles their bodies with std’s, and we’re supposed to head-nod this insanity? I don’t think so……

    • Theodore Fenton

      What makes you think gay people aren’t moral people?

      • lee metzger

        Sexual fluidity is a war on morality. You cannot present your body as an amusement park for sex and be considered a moral person. Because you’re not. Moral individuals don’t acquire and spread std’s like wildfires, and THIS gay men especially do with impunity

        • Theodore Fenton

          Then, it’s a good thing that they can now legally marry.

          • lee metzger

            Show me a monogamous gay man, and I’ll show you an imposter. They could care less about marriage, as they have nothing but scornful disdain for ALL traditional, moral boundaries and constructs. Anyone who denies that to be true is a liar, period…..

          • BarkingDawg

            You seem to know a lot about it. . .

          • lee metzger

            More than I should, but I now look to God for my identity, and it’s all good…..

          • BarkingDawg

            Ah, so you are a self hating gay man. That explains a lot.

          • lee metzger

            On the contrary, I love life more than ever, and am very happily married to a woman, and have been for 28 years.

          • BarkingDawg

            but you are gay. You just admitted it.

          • lee metzger

            ANY behavior can be changed, and that’s basic psychology. If I’m a jerk as a teenager, nothing says I have to be that as an adult. If I prefer blondes as a teenager, nothing says I can’t prefer brunettes later on. Contrary to the lies your side puts out, no one is forever gay. You can keep on hitting that “nail” all you want, but you’re hitting it with a hammer made out of cotton. It’ll never fly to anyone who is intelligent and knows better. An excellent facebook site speaks for itself. “Ex-homosexual thorugh Jesus Christ.”

          • Theodore Fenton

            Anyone can choose to stop having sex with men or stop having sex with women; however, sexual orientation is not changeable.

          • Theodore Fenton

            You obviously have been hurt in the past, but you shouldn’t allow your anger to consume you.

          • lee metzger

            do any of you have an original thought? I don’t have an ounce of anger in my body except against behavioral choices which cause someone’s body to deteriorate, little by little, and the LGBT community knows that reality better than any other…..

          • acontraryview

            “I don’t have an ounce of anger in my body except”

            The word “except” is a statement that you indeed do have anger.

          • StillBetter&Better

            24 years, Bub, one partner. You generalize too much.

          • lee metzger

            there are exceptions to every rule. You know very well that gay men are hardly known for their monogamy. Anyone who denies that is simply a liar.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Here’s yet another exception. My spouse and I have been together for almost 37 years in a loving, committed, monogamous partnership. We complement one another. He is my soulmate, my rock. Our bodies are not deteriorating, aside from the normal progression of age. The only thing we chose is the date of our church wedding ceremony, November 14, 2015. Love won. Time to get a life and move on.

          • lee metzger

            Doesn’t matter buddy, my main point still stands. Gay men are hardly known for their monogamy, and ominous HIV stats prove that. NOW young gay men are getting syphilis at extremely high numbers, so assuming you’re telling the truth (and I have no way of knowing that, especially with so many cases of gays lying in order to advance their agenda) you’re still in the category of the exception and not the rule.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Gay men are hardly known for their monogamy”

            Well, let’s not let them get married then, that will solve that, huh? Uh, wait a minute…..

          • BarkingDawg

            Belated congratulations.

          • StillBetter&Better

            Who cares?

          • Gal5:22-23

            According to the decades running Givernment Social Survey the median number of lifetime sexual partners for heterosexual men is 6 and for homosexual men 7.

            Yes, about 25-30% of men are highly promiscuous, straight or gay, and yes, for gay men so inclined it is much easier for them to find willing partners.

            in the end though the relative proportion of promiscuous people is about the same gay or straight.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I know a hetero guy who has girlfriend nr 9. So yeah hetero man are very monogomous.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Sorry my friend don’t want his pic on the internet, or I could show you a monogamous gay man.

          • james blue

            Have you seen the heterosexual divorce rate?

          • lee metzger

            We don’t do away with cars because so many people get killed in them. The problem is how they’re driven. So too marriage. How many divorce because they refuse to keep their marriage vows and repeatedly cheat on their spouses? That’s not the fault of marriage, but irresponsible and promiscuous human beings. I’ve been in 4 different churches in my life, and you can literally count on 3 fingers the number of married couples who have divorced in those churches. The difference is God, and conducting your marriage along the principles for it that He established in scripture. The Godly man loves his wife with an unconditional love, and can’t do enough to make her happy. The Godly wife loves her man with an unconditional love, and can’t do enough to make him happy. Those two things alone when put into practical use in any marriage will relegate the word “divorce” to a dictionary. Guaranteed.

          • james blue

            That would be a good response if I was arguing to do away with marriage because of all the cheating heterosexuals do, but seeing as I’m not….

            The point being that married heterosexuals cheat just as much as married gays would, but to go beyond that you compared single gay men to married gay men in regards to monogamy when the proper comparison would be single gay men to single heterosexuals and we both know there are very few heterosexual virgins or heterosexuals who only had one partner in their lives entering wedlock

        • StillBetter&Better

          You don’t get to decide that for anyone but yourself.

        • acontraryview

          Morality is fluid.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        I’m guessing he’s one of those people who says anyone that doesn’t have the same morality as him doesn’t have any.

    • Kyler Phoenix

      You are spreading lies and propaganda? There is a price for that.

      • lee metzger

        Okay, so I spread lies, even though I never say a thing I can’t verify. On the other hand, Gays live a lie, and that’s why they are inundated with std’s as a community. I’d say they have a lot more to worry about than I do….

    • This style ten and six

      If you “could care less about in real life” why on earth are you complaining?

      • lee metzger

        the GAYS could care less about marriage in real life, and any gay supporter knows that’s true. However, I’d fix them if they ever forced me to participate in their farcical marriage. I’d provide them with the worst service they ever received, and I’d do it in a way they couldn’t possibly turn around and sue me for. When they force us to affirm their perverted, decadent lifestyle, that’s when they have gone a step too far…..

    • SFBruce

      If gay people want “absolutely NO moral restraints,” as you claim, why would be want to participate in an institution which grants both rights and responsibilities? We’re not out to destroy anything, we simply want a place at the table. If you believe physical intimacy between people of the same sex is immoral, don’t engage in that practice.

      • lee metzger

        You don’t merely want a place at the table. You want to re-engineer society, and that’s why you’re in the schools, even indoctrinating naive young children into homosexuality. I’ve read your manifesto’s for decades now, so it’s not like I’m ignorant on this. And if you’re not out to destroy anything, then get your wedding accoutrements from business people who you know would gladly provide them, rather then targeting and putting Christians out of business who in your eyes are enemies of everything you’re trying to accomplish. As far as getting a place at the table, people will never accept the veracity of homosexuality anymore than they’ll accept that of the drug addict or alcoholic. It’s not that the PERSON won’t be accepted, because that’s not true, but WHAT the person does won’t be accepted. To be blunt, when a man’s pleasure palace is the sewage waste plant of another man, that simply is insanity on any level and will NEVER be acccepted as behavior worthy to imitate or emulate in any way, shape or form.

        • SFBruce

          It seems your disdain for gay people outweighs your interest in facts. There is zero evidence any businesses have been “targeted” by gay people wishing them harm. Even if that were the case, were African-Americans wrong to target businesses who discriminated against them wrong to highlight that injustice?

          If you want you to focus on a few specific practices that some people engage in, you can certainly do that, but if you think that’s shared by the wider population, you might want to take a look at polls regarding same sex marriage, and LGBT equality in general. More and more Americans see it as a simple question of fairness.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Hey, I don’t know how “moral” he’d think it is, but some people, gay or otherwise, enjoy “restraints”……;)

    • StillBetter&Better

      Straight people do it too… In much higher numbers.

      • BarkingDawg

        Especially “Christian” straight people

    • acontraryview

      “demanding an end to the oppression of people who refuse to go along with with gay lifestyle? ”

      What are you having to “go along with” and how are you being oppressed for not doing so?

      “disgusting that people must affirm something that they could care less about in real life whatsoever.”

      What is it that people “must” affirm”?

      “What they want is no different than removing all traffic lights from dangerous intersections everywhere, guaranteeing total chaos, not to mention extreme danger, at those intersections.”

      And the Award For Worst Analogy Ever goes to: Lee Metzger!

      “Normative homosexual behavior destroys human lives, and riddles their bodies with std’s, and we’re supposed to head-nod this insanity?”

      If that were true then every homosexual would be destroyed and riddled with STDs. They are not. Your statement is false.

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

        What do you mean? What are you saying? What do you mean by that word? You seem rather stupid. It ain’t necessarily so. Did God really say?

        • acontraryview

          LOL – you’re funny.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “So are morally upright people ever going to organize a massive protest
      against Washington DC, demanding an end to the oppression of people who
      refuse to go along with with gay lifestyle?”

      What you call “moral people” (those who oppose same-sex marriage) are actually the minority now. A sizable minority, maybe, but a minority still. And no one’s asking you to “go along” with that “lifestyle” (like all gay people have the same lifestyle?) in any other way than to recognize that it is legal, and (in some states at least) is protected under anti-discrimination laws.

      “It’s disgusting what they DO”

      That’s just your opinion, and how is that relevant? Keep in mind, there are plenty of straight people that do the same exact things with each other that gay people do.

      • lee metzger

        If it was up to me, there would be such a massive protest. Look, bud, you’re either incredibly ignorant or are just an antagonist for the left. And WE are not in the minority by any stretch of the imagination. If that were true, then no legislation action would ever be needed in order to establish your “rights,” because whether the issue is samesex marriage or a bathroom ordinance, the LGBT side was CRUSHED when the vote was put to the people. And it’s not my opinion that they’re disgusting, they ARE. When your “pleasure palace” is smack in the center of another person’s decaying fecal matter, you have a serious problem. I don’t care what YOU say, the incredibly bad HIV stats alone tell a story that supports my take on the subject.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “And WE are not in the minority by any stretch of the imagination.”

          Then why do just about all the opinion polls over the last few years show majority support for same-sex marriage?

          “no legislation action would ever be needed in order to establish your “rights,””

          No legislative action was done, at least not in the case of same-sex marriage. A court ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not legislation. No new law was made, because it wasn’t needed.

          And so freakin’ what if you find a certain type of sex disgusting? What does that matter?

          • lee metzger

            Proves how vacuous the opinion polls are because almost all states voted DOWN samesex marriage when it was put to a vote by the people.That means nothing regardless. Homosexuals are living a lie, exchanging natural, emotional affection for unnatural emotional affection, not to mention exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations. Now anyone can live as they wish, but when they force their life choice on everyone else, now you’re talking a different ballgame. The so-called transgender bathroom ordinances are a perfect example. As far as no legislative action on samesex marriage, when SCOTUS issued theri ruling, that in effect made samesex marriage legal and forced all 50 states to abide by it. SCOTUS doesn’t MAKE law, but then again they really do, otherwise nobody could be prosecuted for refusing to recognize samesex marriage, and we already see Roy Moore suspended from the bench in Alabama for refusing to recognize it. Of course, he refuses to recognize it because he knows it’s a farce, and because he knows the LGBT only intends to entirely destroy the institution eventually, and that’s not my words, but the words of the LGBT themselves…..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Proves how vacuous the opinion polls are because almost all states voted DOWN samesex marriage when it was put to a vote by the people”

            In most cases, those were a good few years BEFORE the polls I’m talking about. Opinion has been changing. You said it means nothing? You’re right, because once something is recognized as a right, it’s not up for a vote.

            “Now anyone can live as they wish, but when they force their life choice on everyone else, now you’re talking a different ballgame”

            How exactly is “their life choice” being forced on you? Are you being forced to have a same-sex marriage?

            “As far as no legislative action on samesex marriage, when SCOTUS issued theri ruling, that in effect made samesex marriage legal and forced all 50 states to abide by it.”

            Yep, that’s how it works….like with Loving v. Virginia, for example. There wasn’t a law written that said that interracial marriage was now legal, it was just that the laws that banned it were struck down as unconstitutional.

            “he refuses to recognize it because he knows it’s a farce”

            Since when does a state’s Chief Justice have the power to disregard a Supreme Court ruling because he thinks it’s a “farce”?

            “the LGBT only intends to entirely destroy the institution eventually,
            and that’s not my words, but the words of the LGBT themselves…..”

            Oh? How many LGBT people have you spoken to that have said that?

  • Kyler Phoenix

    There have been far more right wing, Christian terrorists than any other type.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    A real hero. America needs Christian leaders to live right. Christianity alone provides morality and freedom and justice to all. Sodomic West is oppressive against moral people. The West needs Christianity for the truth, a clear conscience, and morality.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      The only person I see stomping on freedom here is Roy Moore.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. Justice Moore is upholding the objective truth. You secular Westerners got a full stomach and are bored of life and started amusing yourselves by bullying the gentle Christians because you cannot bully the colored people for being colored anymore and you are too scared to tame the Muslims. Secular Westernism = typical of rotten cowardly rich in the human history. The days of Sodomic USA are numbered. You guys need to repent of your blaspheming and bullying. USA needs Christianity for truth and fairness.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Beautifully written, Grace!

  • BarkingDawg

    buh bye.

  • John Calvin Hall

    Chief Justice Roy Moore is an elected official. That is something the Supreme Court cannot claim. These individuals are once again, overstepping their bounds.

    • BarkingDawg

      How so? Be specific, please.

  • John Calvin Hall

    May the God, Who is the Source of All Justice, bless, honor, and vindicate Chief Justice Roy Moore for fearing Him more than man.

    • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

      Amen!

  • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

    Since June 2015, SSM is now Caesar’s Law or govt law in the whole of USA n every US Christian should “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar n render unto God what belongs to God”, n also abide by ROM.13:1.
    ……. US Christians r still able to love God/Jesus, love their neighbors/friends n be saved from hell, even though abominable n sinning/evil-doing/ /Moses Law-breaking US citizens, esp the liberals of the Blue States, r legally practicing SSM or LGBTQism, adultery, divorce, blasphemy, idolatry, etc.

    But, if one day, the US govt/Caesar passes a law that requires all US citizens to receive the “mark of the beast”(cptr chip implants.?) in order to be able to buy or sell, US Christians should obey God instead of Caesar bc their salvation or mansions in heaven will be at stake(= their cross to carry).

  • acontraryview

    Any member of the judiciary who does not have legal respect for a ruling by the SCOTUS is unfit to hold office.

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

      Any member of the SCOTUS who does not have legal respect for the provisions of the constitution is unfit to hold office.

      • StillBetter&Better

        What part of the constitution did they violate?

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

          You refer to some “they” as if you have someone in mind. It would smooth communication somewhat if you would say what you are thinking rather than asking an oblique question.

          • Gal5:22-23

            ‘They’ is singular and plural. ‘They’ probably referred to your original designation ‘any member of the SCOTUS’, whether that be an individual or multiple members.

          • StillBetter&Better

            Read the comment before mine.

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

            Hm. Latin script. Interesting.

          • StillBetter&Better

            What?

          • BarkingDawg

            Remember the 5 D’s of dodgeball!
            Thats the key to victory

            1) Dodge
            2) Duck
            3) Dip
            4) Dive
            5) Dodge

          • Chip01

            Wow.. Awesome job dodging that question…

            And by “That”, I mean the question by Stillbetter&Better that Martin Smit dodged answering because you dont have an answer.

      • acontraryview

        Agreed.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        I suppose, but SCOTUS’ rulings remain law regardless of how much Roy Moore disagrees with them. It’s only to his own detriment that he ignores that principle.

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

          There it is again … SCOTUS makes law instead of congress… strange this democracy thing …

          • Ambulance Chaser

            SCOTUS didn’t make any law. They just interpreted one.

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

            So you say now, and so they would say, but you said, and I quote “SCOTUS’ rulings remain law”. These are your very words. If they remain, then they are. If they are, then they are because they were made. If it is not so, then what you said is not true.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So you’re going to nitpick my semantics? Fine, how would you word it?

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

            I would retract it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I wouldn’t.

            Try again.

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

            The law of Moses was interpreted by the Pharisees to say many things for which Jesus rebuke them. They were the authorities on the law, and they held power of life and death over its implementation, but they were completely wrong. The problem was not the law, but the binding interpretation that they falsely imposed on it and their personal immorality. When you modify law by interpretation, it is no longer equivalent to the original, and your claims are subject to higher judgment.

            Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and
            land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold
            more the child of hell than yourselves.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Your distaste for how our system of laws works doesn’t change the fact that that’s how it works.

          • Elie Challita

            I don’t know if you’re being dense, or if your grasp of semantics is legitimately that weak.

    • JeffreyRo55

      The SCOTUS declared that slaves were property.
      Anyone who thinks the SCOTUS is never wrong is an ignorant fool.

  • Chip01

    Roy Moore believes what he believes… And he holds a job that gives him a platform to push his belief onto the citizens of Alabama…

    That’s all

    He’s just a guy, and old guy, with outdated ideas.
    He isn’t going to go away quietly… But he is going away 🙂

  • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

    May God Bless and Protect him from those who hate him and from those who wish evil upon him. May God shine His Light upon him and his life.

  • PastorRon Aldridge

    How about Churches start doing same-sex “weddings” as soon as the Muslim mosques approve them? Why is it that the Muslims can stone them to death and cut their heads off, but nothing is said about that/?

  • MEP1101

    Legality is the authority of civil government, but Morality is the authority of Religion.
    Obama has assumed the role of anti-Christ Pope in the LEFTIST, STATE/CHURCH he and his Marxist party created by usurping the moral authority of religion. With the collusion of the Marxist Main Stream Media Obama is now dictating the new anti-Christian moral standards by which everyone in the nation must live or be punished. The punishment for refusing to obey the government’s new morality can be #1 social with Obama and the Marxist media demonizing Christian, non conformists, #2 economic, with bankrupting law suits, or #3 loss of employment, as in this case. Obama is the most prominent End Time’s Anti-Christ.

  • http://www.christ421stcentury.com/ PhilDave

    I hope the nex Prez, DJT, will put Moore on Supreme Court. Praise the Lord!