Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Suspension of Chief Justice Roy Moore Over ‘Gay Marriage’ Memo

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A special panel of the Alabama Supreme Court comprised of randomly-selected retired judges has unanimously affirmed the term-long suspension of Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was found guilty of ethics violations by the state Court of the Judiciary (COJ) over his 2016 memo surrounding the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

“Because we have previously determined that the charges were proven by clear and convincing evidence and there is no indication that the sanction imposed was plainly and palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or without supporting evidence, we shall not disturb the sanction imposed,” the court wrote on Wednesday.

Moore decried the ruling, stating that he had been targeted by those who dislike him for his stance on the institution of marriage.

“This was a politically motivated prosecution from the very beginning, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Judicial Inquiry Commission, with certain transgender and homosexual groups to remove me from public office because of my stand on same-sex marriage,” he said during a press conference.

“I have done my duty under the laws of this state to stand for the undeniable truth that God ordained marriage as the union of one and one woman,” Moore stated.

As previously reported, 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.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Three months after the Alabama Supreme Court issued its order, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, opining that states must recognize same-sex nuptials. The Alabama court did not immediately lift its order following the ruling as it took time sorting through the matter.

Therefore, in January 2016, Moore released a memo advising that the full court’s previous instructions remained in effect until it issued directives in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell.

“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.

But he also noted that his memo did not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive, and said that it was not his place to make that determination.

“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.

In May, after receiving a complaint about Moore from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against the chief justice and suspended Moore while he faced a trial before the COJ.

Moore argued during his Sept. 2016 trial that he had not issued any orders, but only a status update as the Alabama Supreme Court had not rescinded its previous order following Obergefell. However, the COJ did not believe Moore and found him guilty on all ethics charges.

On Wednesday, the special Supreme Court panel likewise concluded that the memo was more than just a status update.

“A judge does not issue a ‘status update’ that ‘orders and directs’ that a law remain in effect,” it wrote. “Rather, a judge ‘orders and directs’ individuals to do something: in this instance, to comply with a law that is in ‘full force and effect.'”

Moore and his attorneys had especially expressed concern over the seemingly crafty manner that the COJ decided to punish him last fall. The COJ, which had the choices of acquittal, a statement of censure, suspension or removal, noted in its ruling that Moore was not removed from the bench because a unanimous vote is required for removal, and the COJ was not in unison about how the matter should be handled.

Therefore, the COJ decided to suspend Moore, but for the remainder of his term.

“A majority of this court also agrees with the JIC that the only appropriate sanction for Chief Justice Moore is removal from office. Removal of a judge from office, however, requires ‘the concurrence of all members sitting,” it wrote. “It is clear there was not a unanimous concurrence to remove the Chief from office, so the COJ suspends him for the remainder of his term.”

Moore argued that the term-long suspension was tantamount to removal and was therefore violative of the rules.

“It’s a de facto removal,” Moore said. “To have the Court of the Judiciary say that we can’t remove you because we didn’t have the votes, but we can suspend you for two-and-a-half years nearly (the rest of Moore’s term), that’s completely improper.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Louie

    Does anyone else find this guy to be the cliche “activist judge legislating from the bench”……because that’s what he was.

    • Tangent002

      Roy Moore is as activist as they come.

      • Louie

        Hello Tangent.

        • Tangent002

          Hello.

          • Delectable

            Hello

          • Tangent002

            Hush, child.

          • Delectable

            Child fcker

  • Vince

    Not many decent men in politics now. Moore is like a jewel in a sewer. This is what being a Christian is all about, living morally in a corrupt and degenerate world. As Jesus foretold, no good deed goes unpunished. Our trash culture is separating the true believers from the pew-fillers, and that is a good thing.

  • Kay Dee

    Fortunately we have prayer! Please pray for Cheif Justice Roy Moore that God will bless him for his faithfulness to biblical principles.

  • Johndoe

    Best possible outcome!

  • William of Glynn

    Roy, stop whining.

    • Sisyphus

      Judge Moore apparently derives a sense of legitimacy via feeling victimized.

  • Robert

    if this keeps up all we will have left for Judges will be chicken manure in black robes.

    • Copyleft

      Or worse yet… the Constitution!

      • worn out 123

        The S.C. made law. They failed to interpret the Constitution and instead choose to create law.

        • rubellapox2

          What’s the name of said law? What law did they create?

          • worn out 123

            Same sex marriage is not marriage. Obergefell v Hodges was the result of activist judges making same sex the law in America.
            Recognize that this is the main point of contention concerning the (new) definition of marriage.
            That which often seems right is not. I am an admirer of marriage (traditional marriage). There cannot be another, for to do so mocks the very institution of marriage itself, not to mention U.S. Supreme Court of eggheads.
            Rubellapox, are you really that hideous or did you simply make yourself to appear as such for this photo?

          • rubellapox2

            Same sex couples are now marrying all across the country, whether you feel they are faux marriages or not is irrelevant… and if by sacred you mean your union is blessed by a religious institution or god, the high rates of divorce by religious people give the lie to that…also, my sincerely held religious beliefs hold that gay people can marry.. are not my first amendment religious rights important too or do they just apply to whatever religion you believe? Now answer the original question.. what law did the Supreme Court make?

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Once again proving that the Judicial System has become nothing more than a political sword yielded not just by those in power but whoever can cause the greatest noise to drown out others. Unfortunately, justices and the powers over the justices no longer are about just upholding the Constitution but rather catering to the raucous rebellion of those who can cause the greatest disturbance and unrest.

    • Jenny Ondioline

      He has to follow the law just like everyone else.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        He was following the Law.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Why is he being suspended then, do you think?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Are you bored? Nothing better to do? Just talking to hear yourself talk? Or trying to incite some emotional response outta me like a typical troll?

            I believe my comments were pretty clear as was Judge Moore’s comments.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            He’s being suspended because he’s not interested in upholding the law.

            I believe that is a pretty clear statement.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, that’s a pretty clear statement. It’s also a pretty clear LIE!! Which says a lot about your 3 buddies who “like” your lie. He’s being suspended because he is very INTERESTED in upholding the law. Your faux omniscience fails you again.

            And I’m pretty sure as a long-time state Supreme Court justice, he knows just a tad bit more than you do about the law!

            Seems to me that’s pretty clear.

          • Tangent002

            Roy Moore has made it clear he is not interested in upholding the law of the United States, he is interested in upholding the law of his religion, which makes him unsuitable for a position on any judiciary.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You have made it clear that you are not interesting in upholding the Truth of what Judge Moore has publicly said. And your characterization of him and his statements and suitability is worth nothing. Just more regurgitated empty rhetoric and nonsense from a God-hater.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I know you well enough by now to know you scream “lie” at everything you happen not to like. You can’t hold the position he did and break they law or you might get….SUSPENDED.

            Which, how about that, is exactly what happened.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, I see your hypocrisy is in full bloom again. You know me “well enough” from what I say but I am unable to know another well enough based on what they say. LOL You’re a riot. Keep it up!! Love it when you people reveal yourselves. LOL

            Based on your supposition and position every single person who’s ever been suspended from their job, or fired, or found guilty of a crime actually committed what they were accused of.

            Thank you for that wonderfully public display of your logic and reasoning abilities! LOL

            Now, let’s see, what bit of light might I be able t shine on that outstanding display of what it means to be spiritually-dead? Hmmm, how about this one…

            “so ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch.” (Matt. 15:14)

          • Jenny Ondioline

            As with so many things you say Royce it’s easy enough to strip away all the smugness and amused-to-death sarcasm, which leaves us with not a whole lot of anything. That quote you gave, Matt. 15:14 is interesting only from the standpoint that it has nothing to do with the subject which is you telling other people they hate God when they have stated no such thing (and in fact didn’t even MENTION God).

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            “That quote you gave, Matt. 15:14 is interesting only from the standpoint…”

            Well, that may be the first truthful thing I’ve seen you actually say. But hey, thanks for showing yourself to be a God-hater again. Not surprising the Word of God would be of no interest to you.

            But hey, just so I don’t leave you “with not a whole of of anything”, let me leave you with EVERYTHING.

            “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

          • Jenny Ondioline

            An irrelevant quote posted by a very angry person. I don’t hate God and never said I did, just like the women you insist hates God and likewise said nothing whatsoever along those lines.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Oh how the truth hurts! Not angry here at all. More evidence of your faux omniscience and deluded self-imposed god complex.

            Yes, you do hate God. God says so and your every post proves it. Just like the murderer who denies his actions, so you do and the result is the same. You’re still both GUILTY!

            “but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 8:12)

            “and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:42)

            “and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 13:50)

            “and will [fn]cut him in pieces and [fn]assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 24:51)

          • Petra Hattenius

            Name calling shows your true ignorance.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, now wasn’t that just profitable and edifying. Such a wonderful example of a substantive comment!!!! LOL

            That’s what Jesus would call a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket. Thanks for showing not only your ignorance but your hypocrisy to book.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Petra Hattenius

            How “Christian ” of you…poor thing

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. This from the one who talks about name-calling. LOL THANKS!! Always appreciated when you spiritually-dead sons of disobedience and children of wrath not only show your ignorance and hypocrisy but prove God’s Word true in the process.

            Not to mention an unwavering impulse from somewhere to constantly speak on a subject (Christianity or Christ) of which you know NOTHING about and are completely oblivious to.

            But hey, thanks for the blessing and showing the best ya got. LOL

        • Copyleft

          A judge’s job is to uphold the Constitution, not his personal religious beliefs.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yup. And that’s exactly what he did. That’s exactly what he enumerated in his remarks.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Copyleft

            Quite the opposite, in fact. A lower court has no Constitutional authority to overturn the Supreme Court, so Moore was failing at his duty as a judge.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. Total misreading. That and 2 cents won’t even get you a piece of bubblegum anymore.

          • Petra Hattenius

            I think it’s best that you refrain from commenting because not only are you wrong but you sound about like Trump I bet you voted for him didn’t you?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I think it’s best if you stop thinking when you’re not used to it. And no, as if it is any of your business or has anything to do with the subject of this thread, I didn’t vote for Trump.

    • Sisyphus

      How was judge Moore upholding the Constitution, by attempting to inject his pet ideology into law?

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        By doing exactly what he said. I can’t say it anymore succinctly and clearly than he did. Your characterization is just a blatant admission to your blindness and bias. Has nothing to do with “pet ideology”.

        • Sisyphus

          The laws of Alabama he is trying to uphold, have been determined to be unconstitutional.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Maybe by you and your ilk. NOT by the Constitution and its process.

          • Sisyphus

            My “ilk”, ha you must be quite impressed with what you consider your powers of perception. The parochial need to categorize is really quite banal.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That the best you can come up with? I suppose when you have nothing else it should be no surprise. Here’s your Plato Award. Congrats!

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Sisyphus

            You may want to brush up on your Plato. The quote of which you seem to be so fond is more accurately attributed to Archbishop Richard Whately in Elements of Rhetoric 1841. The syntax you use is not indicative of ancient Greek speech either. Sorry, try again.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • DTrevor

            Restating an incorrect attribution after you have been informed that the attribution is incorrect demonstrates that you are a liar. For what reason are you lying, liar?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            “is more accurately attributed to Archbishop Richard Whately in Elements of Rhetoric 1841.”

            Is a nice attempt to divert, distract, and deceived but just another lie. The Whately reference you give isn’t eve close to the quote I gave.

            I will admit that a quick Google check did not lead me to any definitive sources for the Plato quote but it is widely held as such so I’ll run with it until you can prove otherwise.

          • DTrevor

            In which work did Plato author the quote? Obviously, if your attribution is valid, you should be able to readily identify the work in which the quote appears because otherwise you would be stubbornly holding to a dubious claim simply because you are too much of a coward to admit error.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Having a little problem with English again? Suggest you go back and read this time what I wrote. Don’t be so quick just to spout off at the diarrhea of the mouth. It’s not pretty.

            “because you are too much of a coward to admit error.”:

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Tangent002

            You are engaging in ad hominems. I suggest you keep a civil tone.

          • Delectable

            AIDS c unt

            Go die, you stinking pedophile.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That was a civil-toned ad hominem. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps a dictionary would help.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            The site posting rules make it clear that ad hominem attacks are not allowed.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Better read them again.

          • Bob Johnson

            Comment Guidelines number 3 reads, in part “engage in name-calling”, which seems like an English equivalent of the latin “ad hominem”. Rule 4 begins, “Refrain from having a contentious spirt” might well denote “attack.”

            And your Plato quote could well be construed as a violation of rule 5, “if you disagree on a subject, be gentle.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

            relating to or associated with a particular person.

            NO mention of “name-calling”.

            Responding to another’s ad hominem is not a “contentious spirit”

            And I suppose if someone told me the sky is green it could be construed as such by someone but that doesn’t make it so.

            My “Plato quote” is a perfectly proper response to those who are just spouting off at the mouth for the sake of doing so. And that is obvious by what they’ve said and there is NO shortage of it.

            Your addressing my remarks in the manner which you did is also a violation of the Comment Guidelines. Hmmm, wonder how it is you failed to see that?

            So, like I said above, tell ya what, you go back and post that exact same comment to everyone of your God-hating buddies on just this one thread alone who have resorted to ad hominem and then maybe your claim will have some credibility.

          • DTrevor

            Accusing me of trolling does not validate your previous attribution.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Maybe not but your behavior as a troll does validate my accusation.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Read what I wrote. I’ve already addressed that question.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I googled the quote and it said Plato was the originator of it. So it’s not an incorrect attribute.
            It isn’t polite to call people liars, especially when you appear to be the one who is wrong.
            Did you not expect anyone to google it to support what you said?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I know! It’s what they do. I even admitted that I could not find anything that traced it back to an authoritative source but that it is widely attributed to him.

            And whattaya get when ya do that? Just a denial and accusation with no other proof otherwise. Unless it’s like the one claiming it to be of Whately but a simple Google search shows that’s not the case but is rather a wrangling of words in an attempt to make it so.

            They’re just trolls doing what trolls do.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He’s truly infuriating, isn’t he? It’s like debating a six-year-old.

          • Sisyphus

            I also have to laugh just a bit… throwing around that fake Plato quote as if it implies a superior intellect, and there is nothing remotely Christian about Platonic philosophy.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Once again another fool decides to enter into the arena of talking about something which he has no clue about.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            And that goes for the 3 who “liked” you ad hominem too.

          • Tangent002

            Plato didn’t say that.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Actually if you google the quote without Plato indicated, it still comes up with it IS a quote from Plato.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Cite your evidence.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to make final determinations of law.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong again. The People make the final determination.

            That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, “Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.”.

            In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.

            Since SCOTUS can NOT “make” Law and they didn’t address the current Law on the books, it’ll be interesting to see if what would happen if a challenge is brought by Moore, AL, NC or another State. At best, they could rule that the entire Marriage Licensing Act/Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act is/are void, which would mean an immediate cessation of marriage licenses.

            Then a state could pass a law stating that marriage can only be used for unions of man and woman. It would no doubt be challenged and possibly overturned by some liberal activist judge or District Court.

            This might open the door for another case on SSM to be considered by SCOTUS and if something were to happen to Ginsberg or Kennedy or one of the other Liberal Activists on the Court, I’d say there’s a good probability that the original dissenters and Constitutionalists like Gorsuch would revisit the issue.

            It’s not like it’s not happened before. If Obergefell were to be overturned, it certainly would NOT be the first time.

          • DTrevor

            Your assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States cannot “make Law” is demonstrably incorrect. In fact, all rulings of appellate courts, which includes the Supreme Court of the United States, are a form of law known as “case law”. The concept of “case law” is well established and understood and in fact it is addressed even in basic civics courses. As such, you have demonstrated an ignorance even of very basic United States civics which strongly suggests that your efforts to dismiss the validity of the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges is without any credibility.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for showing your ignorance of the Constitution and the powers of each Branch.

          • DTrevor

            Are you able to dispute my statement that appellate court rulings are case law?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes. “Case Law” is defined as “law established by judicial decisions in cases as distinguished from law created by legislation —called also decisional law — see also common law.”

            So by very definition “case law” is an interpretation of a created law already established by legislation. Courts cannot Constitutionally “make” law in the sense of creating it. Not saying they don’t. I’m saying they can’t Constitutionally.

            Moreover, Case Law is NOT the same as Legislative Law because even though many wanna throw are Stare Decisis, History proves that isn’t the “case”. SCOTUS has over-ruled it’s own rulings.

          • Tangent002

            The SCOTUS did not make law at all, they confirmed that laws cannot restrict the basic right of marriage guaranteed by the Constitution. The decision is that same-sex marriage has always been legal.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. The Law says otherwise.

          • Tangent002

            Which law?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act

          • Bob Johnson

            No such law. The Uniform Law Commission provides states with draft legislation, which states then may modify before passing into law. States are not required to use the draft language and most states heavily modify the draft be adoption.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. The Committee on Marriage & Divorce of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws first started the Draft in 1911. In 1913 Marriage was first defined as a “husband and wife”. In 1923 the Act was Federally Enacted. While there were many things left up to the states and allowed some variations on some things there were also some things that were required and if violated could result in fines and/or imprisonment.

            What’s important to note is that it was uniformly accepted at BOTH the State AND Federal level that a Marriage was between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

          • Bob Johnson

            I have found a 1909 draft of the Committee Marriage and Divorce. I have found no instances where it has become either Federal or State law. It is a most interesting read and most certainly does not support many claims made on this tread. The preamble covers a history of marriage laws and the relationship between government’s need for laws covering marriage and the role of religious institutions.

            The introduction to section II. A Law Regulating Marriage and Licenses to Marry (page 20) begins with,

            “In all civilized countries marriage is regarded as a matter in which the State has so much interest that it has the right to enact laws relating to the celebration thereof.

            In the United States, while there is a complete separation between church and State both in theory and in practice, …”

            Under the model law section (page 36), section 2 reads. “Marriage may be contracted in this State by any two persons, competent and willing to make such contract of marriage…”

            source: Harvard Law Library 3 2044 053 514 931

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            The 1909 was a draft. The 1923 is an “Act”.

            As for the rest, nice try. The “any two persons” is a lie by omission. The “draft” and subsequent “Act” CLEARLY shows that a Marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN – ergo, any “TWO persons”.

            Further evidence is the 1913 Revenue Act which gives a deduction for a “Joint Return” on a “married couple” that consists of a “HUSBAND and WIFE”.

            And btw, that law is still on the books. So by Law, the Federal Government doesn’t have to give a SS “married” couple the deduction.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What 1923 Act? Where was it codified? Why can’t we find it anywhere in the US Code?

            “And btw, that law is still on the books.”

            Yes. It is. It’s just that the parts that specify marriage as between a man and a woman are unenforceable.

            Do you think that every time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it doesn’t take effect until somebody goes through every law in every state and territory that it could possibly apply to with a Sharpie and edits out the offending parts?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If it was “federally enacted,” you should be able to direct me to the exact location in the United States Code that codifies it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.

            Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind to save you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him…

            I’d be more than happy to direct you in how to do so.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you’re saying you CAN’T back up your statement? It really shouldn’t be that hard. The entire US Code is available online.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Still having a problem with English I see. Let’s see if repeating myself helps. No, what I said was:

            “I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.

            Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind to save you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him…

            I’d be more than happy to direct you in how to do so.”

            But hey, thanks again for showing everyone you’re nothing but a God-hating troll trying to stir up stuff on a CHRISTIAN page.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can’t keep running and hiding behind “this is a Christian page” every time you find yourself out of your depth. If you’re going to make assertions about earthly topics, you’re going to need to be able to provide the earthly explanations for them.

            So I’ll ask you one last time, where is this supposed law codified? Where can I find it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not running and hiding from anything. It’s called TRUTH. Now I realize that is a foreign concept for you but, even so, it does NOT takeaway from the obvious fact that you tried to divert the conversation.

            I’ve given my answer to you. I understand that it really bugs you to no end when you can’t control the conversation the way you want. That’s typical TROLL behavior.

            Too bad. I’m sticking with God’s Word. Matt. 7:6 & 10:14.

            Now, let’s see if you are a man of your word because I am. If you are, I don’t expect to hear from you again until you are ready to surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay so the “1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act” is not codified anywhere and thus is not a law. Got it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!

            Typical TROLL behavior. And it didn’t take a a minute or two to show you’are a Liar and not a man of your word. THANKS for that!!!

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            I don’t know how much longer Heather is gonna allow you to troll this site and keep up your nonsense but I truly hope it isn’t much longer.

          • Bob Johnson

            It would be interesting to find a history of the ULC. They have produced many detailed and nuanced models for legislation with commentary of alternative wording and historical precedents. Certainly bits and pieces of their work makes its way into many laws, yet it seems few are adopted as presented out of committee.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You got NOTHING. But here’s what you get. Let’s see just how much you “get” it!

            Still having a problem with English I see. Let’s see if repeating myself helps. No, what I said was:

            “I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.

            Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind and the rest of you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him…

            I’d be more than happy to direct you in how to do so.”

            But hey, thanks again for showing everyone you’re nothing but a God-hating troll trying to stir up stuff on a CHRISTIAN page.

          • DTrevor

            Case law exists to interpret legislative law when questions arise as to the law’s intent and to the law’s interaction with other laws. While case law requires legislative law to be meaningful, case law nonetheless exists as its own entity and denying that courts create it is denying reality.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’ll let that comment stand on its own for the wonderful display of word salad that it is. Ain’t no way to dress that salad up and make it palatable. Sheesh!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “So by very definition “case law” is an interpretation of a created law already established by legislation”

            Now you’re getting the idea…that’s just what happened in Obergefell.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. But your lies and deception are as clear as crystal and your rationalization as clear as mud. What happened with Obergefell was 5 Activist judges creating a decision that imposed their will upon the will of the People and was NOT grounded in the Constitution in any manner. They didn’t even address the federal laws on the books that define Marriage as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

            That said, it’s all completely irrelevant and has NO bearing on what happens in Eternity.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            When do judges become “activist” – when they disagree with you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “What happened with Obergefell was 5 Activist judges creating a decision that imposed their will upon the will of the People”

            Let’s see here…public opinion was generally somewhere around 50-60% in favor of SSM at the time….a 5-4 decision would be 56%, rounding off. That sounds to me like they reflected the will of the people pretty well, actually.

            And what exactly that I have said is “lies and deception,” by the way?

          • Petra Hattenius

            Thanks for showing your Ignorance by name-calling

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            So answering a question by citing the Law with “1923 Uniform Marriage…” is name-calling? Well, who wudda thunk!

            Thanks for showing your Ignorance by BEING a Troll. And that is NOT “name-calling”. That is characterizing you by your BEHAVIOR and the very definition of a Troll.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wrong again. The People make the final determination.

            No, the Constitution is the final word on all laws. And when it’s ambiguous, the Courts clarify it.

            That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, “Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.

            As with many laws that start with “uniform,” the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act isn’t a law at all. It was a model that states could choose to adopt or not adopt as they saw fit. Only 8 states did: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana and Washington. None of those states ever relied on it to limit the genders of people who were allowed to marry. The “man and woman” language was just there as a common convention of what the definition of marriage was.

            I have no idea what the Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act is. The only reference I found to it was an unlinked comment on a bodybuilding forum.

            In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.

            So what? Obergefell states,

            “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold and it now does hold that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”

            They’re not required to go through every law in every state that they’re striking down. Their intention is made perfectly clear.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            What a bunch of gobbledygook. If you have no idea, which is usually the case, try informing yourself next time before opening your mouth.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The Obergefell decision didn’t need to address every law against same-sex marriage that was on the books, because the court ruled that the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is a fundamental unenumerated right.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yeah, and when SCOTUS rules that Bestiality and Pedophilia and only God knows what other perversions are protected as a “fundamental unenumerated right” who can be the first to herald that as a great thing too.

            Looking at the 2 humans that liked your comment, it’s evident you’ll be in good company,.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Nice. Slippery slope combined with a little ad hominem….

            Okay, you’re implying homosexuality is just as “wrong” as bestiality and pedophilia. Obviously, I disagree (the difference is CONSENT, for crying out loud), but I’m not likely to be able to convince you.

            Did you understand my point with the first part of what I said, though? The fact that Obergefell didn’t mention those particular laws is absolutely irrelevant.

            “These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” – Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Obergefell

          • Ambulance Chaser

            TheKingOfRhye didn’t herald anything as a “great thing.” He simply said what the ruling was.

            There is a difference between saying “this exists” and “I support this.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            In this case at least, I do think it (Obergefell) was a ‘great thing’.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I do too, but we can’t discuss the merits of the decision until we first convince Royce that it exists.

          • Bob Johnson

            After reading Royce’s rebuttal, I just had to up vote your comment.

      • Petra Hattenius

        Good question

      • Bryon

        Simple… There is no law passed by the federal government on marriage. Therefore Alabama has the power to say what it want’s on the issue.

        The supreme court cannot create law, only rule on existing law.

        Laws on marriage are a violation of our 1st amendment rights. The government is defining a form of religion in marriage. This argument will NEVER go away till regulation of marriage is abolished, and our liberty restored.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “Simple… There is no law passed by the federal government on marriage. Therefore Alabama has the power to say what it want’s on the issue.”

          Yes, there is. It’s called the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains a clause guaranteeing equal protection under the law, including to gay couples. No law passed by Alabama can supersede this.

          “Laws on marriage are a violation of our 1st amendment rights. The government is defining a form of religion in marriage.”

          No, marriage =/= religion. Many atheists are married.

          • Bryon

            Read the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does it say anything about Marriage. The rights the 14th amendment applies to must be defined. Nowhere in American Law is marriage defined as a Civil or Human Right.

            It’s easy to take 15 minutes and search Congress for Laws applying to marriage.

            Since marriage is a critical part of some religions it can be extrapolated that marriage is covered under freedom of religion.

            My argument is that any law to define marriage violates the 1st amendment as marriage’s origins is religious. Looking to the natural world one does not find any concept of marriage.

          • Bob Johnson

            Pre-Christian Rome had civil marriages. The church only took on marriage after the fall of Rome in the 5th century.

          • Bryon

            God instituted marriage over 6,000 years ago after the creation of the first man and woman.

            “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” – Genesis 2:24

            At the time of Moses roughly 3500 years ago. Laws were given concerning Marriage. The Bible records these.

            2000 Years ago Jesus (God came to earth as a man) clarifies a wrong view of divorce and in doing so clearly quotes Genesis 2:24 calling it marriage, “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19 records this for us.

            The Bible clearly teaches marriage from the beginning throughout history with tons of teaching on marriage before the 1st Century.

            What do you mean by “The Church”? The Church is the congregation of believers. Organizations like the Roman Catholic Church are not the church, but are organizations. Many organizations make special claims to pull people in and exert a power over them. These groups seek power for themselves and do not honor the teaching if God, the Bible.

            The 1st amendment is there to try to protect the people (us) from the government doing the exact same thing.

          • Chris

            “God instituted marriage over 6,000 years ago after the creation of the first man and woman.”

            Evidence? And no the bible is not evidence it is a claim.

            “At the time of Moses roughly 3500 years ago. Laws were given concerning Marriage. The Bible records these.”

            Two points:
            1) There is no evidence Moses ever existed.
            2) The Torah was written down in its present form during the Babylonian exile. That would make the writings 27oo NOT 3500 years old.

            You then go on to quote anonymous texts. Since we have no idea who wrote them or how accurate they are then we should treat them as hearsay.

            “The Bible clearly teaches marriage from the beginning throughout history with tons of teaching on marriage before the 1st Century.”

            And when you can PROVE that God exists, that He communicates with humans and that the bible is His communication then you may have a point. Until then who cares?

          • Bryon

            Do a little more digging and you’ll find lots of evidence. The oldest text from the Torah that still exists today (named “KH1 and KH2 scrolls”) were dated to 650 – 587 BC, which is roughly 2600 years ago. Before the Babylonian exile. On the silver scrolls were verses from Numbers 6:24-26. A portion from the 4th book of the Bible was carefully written on to a hammered piece of silver and rolled up tightly. It was then placed on the doorpost to a home in Jerusalem. This is to keep the commandment in Deuteronomy 6:9 (5th book of the Bible), “You shall write them (commandments) on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Jerusalem was burned to the ground after this which would have destroyed any parchment or leather scrolls, but the silver scrolls survived in part.

            The Bible as a whole contains 353 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Many of which are in the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah the prophet lived and prophesied about 700 years before Jesus. An entire copy of the book of Isaiah was found as part of the dead sea scrolls. This scroll dates to 125 BC. Every single prophecy was fulfilled with the birth, life, trial, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Of which there were eyewitness accounts and historians which recorded the events. Many of these prophecies were fulfilled by Roman leaders, soldiers, Jewish leaders. These aren’t simple predictable things that someone could make happen. Or texts changed to “make them fit”.

            Lastly, God has made himself known through His creation (The Universe, Solar system, Earth, plants, animals, us).

            “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” – Romans 1:18-23

            God has created us with His law in our hearts. We can choose to suppress this or embrace it. Your own heart testifies that God exists. When you look at the marvelous work of the stars, the amazing order in the universe, the incredible thing of living organisms. A single cell is a machine more complex than anything ever made by men, and yet extremely elegant in design.

            God, made us. He made us to worship Him. He made the Universe the way it is so that we know about HIM. He gave us a written manual on how we should live life. He gives us a way out of our punishment for the things we’ve done wrong. You better start caring about what will happen to you if you die in your sin… That will be Hell.

          • Chris

            “Do a little more digging and you’ll find lots of evidence.”

            I have. I have a degree in ancient history.

            “The oldest text from the Torah that still exists today (named “KH1 and KH2
            scrolls”) were dated to 650 – 587 BC, which is roughly 2600 years ago. ”

            Which is no support at all for claiming that it is 3500 years old.

            “Before the Babylonian exile.”

            The Babylonian captivity was 605 BCE to 539 BCE.

            Is 587 BCE before or after 605 BCE? AFTER isn’t it? Thus your evidence doesn’t prove a thing does it?

            But let’s check further. “Barkay initially dated the inscriptions on KH1 & 2] to the late-7th/early-6th centuries BCE, but later revised this date downward to the early 6th
            century on paleographic grounds (the forms of the delicately incised paleo-Hebrew
            lettering) and on the evidence of the pottery found in the immediate vicinity. This dating was subsequently questioned by Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Rollig. who argued that the script was in too poor a condition to be dated with certainty and that a 3rd/2nd century BCE provenance could not be excluded, especially as the repository, which had been used as a kind of”rubbish bin” for the burial chamber over many centuries, also
            contained material from the fourth century BCE.”

            So basically it could be as late as the 2nd century BCE. Yeah this is proof alright.

            “The Bible as a whole contains 353 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Many of which are in the Book of Isaiah.”

            Oh good grief not this again. The gospels are anonymous documents written decades AFTER the death of Jesus. The gospel writers never even met Jesus, but they knew the writings of the prophets and what they has written about the Messiah. So all they did was include details which seemed to corroborate those details. To the authors they weren’t lying because they truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that the prophecies concerning the Messiah had to come to pass. Matthew even invented prophecies to claim that Jesus had fulfilled them. If you’d like to hear the evidence for these assertions just let me know.

            “Lastly, God has made himself known through His creation (The Universe, Solar system, Earth, plants, animals, us).”

            Claiming that something is a creation is an argument by assertion.

            The rest is just you assuming that you’re correct so I won’t bother with that.

          • Bryon

            Sorry, I didn’t see this comment when made the other one.

            I see I’m upsetting you. Yet, I’m surprised you keep replying.

            You have to understand. From my perspective this is a discussion of “how some people think some texts were written” vs personal experience in the God that inspired the writing and assembly of texts. My experience is a constant affirmation of what God says about the universe we live in, about mankind, and about my own heart is true. As the years go on man’s wisdom is exposed as false and matter’s where I needed to have faith have been confirmed as true.

          • Chris

            “Sorry, I didn’t see this comment when made the other one.”

            No problem.

            “I see I’m upsetting you. Yet, I’m surprised you keep replying.”

            No. You’re not.

            “You have to understand. From my perspective this is a discussion of “how some people think some texts were written” vs personal experience in the God that inspired the writing and assembly of texts.”

            Which, even if true, has NOTHING to do with the writing of the texts.

            “My experience is a constant affirmation of what God says about the universe we live in,
            about mankind, and about my own heart is true.”

            So you can’t be mistaken. That’s what you seem to be saying here. Didn’t know you are claiming infallibility.

            “As the years go on man’s wisdom is exposed as false and matter’s where I needed to have faith have been confirmed as true.”

            Not done a lot of study outside of texts which support your point of view have you? There is a large amount of archaeology which throws some of the biblical account into doubt. Not to mention science which does the same.

            As far as man’s wisdom being exposed as false you might like to look at what you’re sending this post on. The computer isn’t found in the bible. It’s a result of that same human wisdom.

          • Chris

            This is the dating of scholars regarding the bible:
            Monarchic period:
            Most of the individual psalms making up the first two-thirds of the Book of Psalms.[3]

            * 8th century: Amos (first half, immediately prior to Assyria’s expansion c. 645 BCE);[4] “First Isaiah” (Isaiah 1–39),[5] Hosea,[6] Micah (second half).

            * 7th century: Nahum (based on its assumption of the fall of Thebes and call for the destruction of Nineveh), Zephaniah (in the reign of Josiah, c. 649–609 BCE),[9] Habakkuk (possibly shortly before the battle of Carchemish, 605 BCE); first edition of the Deuteronomistic history (books of Joshua/Judges/Samuel/Kings) in the reign of Josiah; Deuteronomy 5–26 in the reign of Josiah.”

            As you can see there were quite a few writings around. Not the Torah however.

            During the Babylonian captivity these were written:
            Core of Obadiah around the fall of Jerusalem, 586 BCE.

            * Completion of Deuteronomistic history (Joshua/Judges/Samuel/Kings).

            * Deuteronomy expanded with addition of chapters 1–4 and 29–30 to serve as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic history.

            * Jeremiah active in the last decade of the 7th century and first decades of the 6th;

            * Ezekiel active in Babylon 592–571 BCE;

            * “Second Isaiah” (author of Isaiah 40–55) active in Babylon around mid-century.

            * Expansion and reshaping of Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah.

            * Possible early Psalms collection (psalms “of David”) ending with psalm 89.

          • Bryon

            There are multiple dating models in Biblical archaeology and textual criticism. What you described is known as the late model. It’s preferred by those who do not believe the Bible is true because it makes the text false and unbelievable.

            The early model matches the archaeological evidence and Biblical text extremely well. It allows for many of the real world scenarios that happen with trends in changes in pottery, architecture, tells, city destruction, re-construction, and so on. I personally know several Biblical Archaeologists and have spent some time living in the land traveling to ancient sites most people cannot pronounce. Most locations still have the same or similar name in Arabic and Hebrew as the Biblical names. Some locations are unknown as there could be several possibilities.

            One needs to stop and think about things like… If Moses was fake why would Solomon setup a pillar at the place where Israel crossed the Red Sea? A stone that still stands today. These places in the Bible are very real and you can go see what’s left of them. However, one must first take the text in the Bible at it’s face value. When you do that and seek to understand it, then you’ll find it’s masterfully woven together better than any text can be.

            At some point we need to stop and recognize that discussion is not about the text itself, but about the God who wrote it through men. God is the one who wove the text together to form the manual for our lives. Yet men do not want it because it exposes their sin and makes them feel guilt for what they’ve done. Yet, God, who condemns our sin, has made a way for us to be free of guilt. We only have to choose this free gift and turn from our sin. Many people love their sin more than life itself, but don’t realize that sin is wickedly deceptive. It only brings pain and sorrow, God provides the way to be free from slavery to sin. Jesus died for this purpose and to prove He has power over death He rose from the dead. And so Jesus offers that we can have resurrection from the dead with Him.

            If you have a neighbor that lives over a hill so that you cannot see his property. Yet he comes to you and tells you that he built a house. He gives you the directions on how to get there and leaves. Because you have not seen it with your own eyes. You could say, “My neighbors house doesn’t exist”. However, that has absolutely no bearing on if the house exists or not. As a neighbor you can see evidence of people coming and going. The kingdom of God is like this, only we’ve grown so used to the evidence that it’s common place and we no longer attribute these things to God.

          • Chris

            “There are multiple dating models in Biblical archaeology and textual criticism. What you described is known as the late model. It’s preferred by those who do not believe the Bible is true because it makes the text false and unbelievable.”

            First the VAST majority of biblical scholars are Christians. The idea that they would accept a late date for the Torah because they don’t want to believe the bible is ludicrous. Secondly there’s no such thing as ‘the late model’. There are more or less conservative dating of an object or a text. But you shouldn’t agree with any of them since you don’t agree with human wisdom…remember?

            All the rest is just you making claim after claim with little to back it up. Arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Got anything else?

          • Chris

            “One needs to stop and think about things like… If Moses was fake why would Solomon setup a pillar at the place where Israel crossed the Red Sea? A stone that still stands today.”

            Got some bad news for you. There’s no archaeological evidence for Solomon either.
            Go to youtube and look up the Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein.

            And if you’re talking about Solomon’s Pillars at Timna they are natural formations. They weren’t set up by anyone.

            “These places in the Bible are very real and you can go see what’s left of them. However, one must first take the text in the Bible at it’s face value.”

            So you’re saying one must be gullible. That’s NOT the way scholars work. They follow the archaeological and historical evidence. They DON’T decide, before they’ve even looked at the evidence, what their conclusion is. that’s the way of an ego worshipper who can never admit error.

            So when we go from the evidence first what do we see? Well let’s look at the book of Exodus first, shall we?
            Continued in next post

          • Chris

            “1) Jericho was abandoned in what year BC?”

            Bronze-Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the
            calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BCE. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BCE confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon.

            “And what year did Joshua enter Canaan? Nobody really knows.”

            Well Moses is reported in the bible to have led the Hebrews out of Egypt, and mention is made of Ramesses [or, as we know it Pi-Ramses] in Exodus 1: 11 & 12: 37 – a city built by Ramses the great.

            In addition we have the Israel stele made during the reign of Merneptah which mentions the people of Israel. Put the two together and you would have the exodus occurring [if it happened at all] during the reign of Rameses the second and the wandering in the desert also during his reign and perhaps into the reign of Mernaptah. But during this era Canaan was controlled by Egypt as the Israel stele and the rest of the archaeological record makes very clear. Also during this time Jericho was abandoned and would be until the 10th century BCE.

            “As you just said there is no archeological record to go on.”

            No I wrote there is no archaeological record to go on for the wandering in the desert. Obviously, since Jericho exists there is an archaeological record but support for the Exodus is scant to non-existent.

            2) “There is no evidence of the Hebrews walking around the Sinai because the evidence shows that Moses and the Hebrews crossed the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweibaa into what is now Saudi Arabia. THAT is where they spent their time.”

            Except the book of Exodus mentions their route including water holes which were used. Those water holes are still known and do not possess any evidence of Hebrews from the Exodus period.

            Exodus also mentions reeds growing in the area. That’s what the ‘red sea’ means in Hebrew – the sea of reeds. Reeds don’t grow in salt water. That would eliminate the
            gulf of Aqaba.

            I suggest you look up Israel Finkelstein on youtube. He’s an Israeli archaeologist with
            decades of experience of excavations in Israel and get the truth from the horses mouth, so to speak.

            While you’re at it look up the videos “It ain’t necessarily so 1” and “The walls come tumblin’ down 2”. They’ll provide an update on the findings of modern archaeology.

          • Bryon

            I am well aware of everything you say. The people and their theories. Yet I am convinced by early dating theories from several archaeologists I personally know (and others) that currently live in Israel, have taught for Hebrew University, and have been working there for several decades. Their theories allow for many more real world situations than “this pottery type is for this date alone”, “calibrated” dating methods, and strict correlation. Real life is much more complex than that.

            Unfortunately, I do not have the time to give this conversation justice and must stop.

          • Chris

            “I am well aware of everything you say.”

            Good. Glad to hear it.

            “The people and their theories.”

            What I gave you weren’t theories. That was the data. Theories are based upon the data.

            “Yet I am convinced by early dating theories from several archaeologists
            I personally know (and others) that currently live in Israel, have
            taught for Hebrew University, and have been working there for several
            decades.”

            But you’ve already stated that you don’t trust peoiple anyway and you start with your preferred conclusion and work from there. Scholars on the other hand start from the evidence and work to a conclusion. Even your professors at Hebrew Uni would have to start with the data I mentioned.

            “Their theories allow for many more real world situations than “this pottery type is for this date alone”, “calibrated” dating methods, and strict correlation. Real life is much more complex than that.”

            You really have no idea how dating works do you? Allow me to explain. Pottery styles change over time. They also will change rapidly when their is an invasion. Thus we will have one pottery style which aids one style of cooking. There is an invasion and suddenly another pottery style comes into common use for another style of cooking.
            Incidents like this are how sites are dated. Throw out pottery and your left with I say so therefore it is. This may work for you but not for honest scholars who start with the EVIDENCE first and then go to a conclusion.

            “Unfortunately, I do not have the time to give this conversation justice and must stop.”
            See ya.

          • Bryon

            What data? You stated theories.

            The data in archaeology is… On such and such date “this” was found “here”.

            Ascribing anything more to what was found requires theories about how that correlates knowledge or other finds.

            We have not talked about “science” to this point. It needs to be pointed out that archaeology is not science and can never be science as the past cannot be observed. The closest thing to science is ancient eye witness accounts which are very rare finds. Often these are correlated into existing knowledge. And people living today determine if they are true or not with very little to no context.

            We know what happened in our lifetimes, but before that how do we know what we are told is true? This is based purely on trust. We learn to trust some people and distrust others. We may see circumstantial evidence that corroborates with a certain version of history. But even in the age of video the full details are hard to come by.

            Amazingly, modern scholars like to destroy one of the oldest eye witness accounts in existence. The Bible. I trust what the Bible says because I have personally seen what it says about humanity confirmed over and over and over again. When a modern scholar says it’s not true because of this or that, which they really can have no real knowledge of I don’t trust that scholar. It’s that simple… Yes, there are presuppositions. There always are presuppositions. Anyone, who says otherwise is lying to themselves. Never, has anyone presented a viable reason for me to change my assumptions.

          • Chris

            DNA evidence is data. The dating of the timbers of Jericho is data. Changes in pottery style is data. The fact that you keep on calling them theories doesn’t change what they are.

          • Bryon

            DNA is a type of data yes. Just like everything it can be helpful, limited in scope, and can be used incorrectly.

            Dating methods are not reliable and never have been. They are all “calibrated”. Which means the dating tests are done and the results are adjusted to fit certain assumptions.

            Changes in pottery styles is Highly subjective and has many unknowns, like changes in writing style. It’s common in our day to have the same writer, artist, manufacturer, singer to produce different styles in a single year. It’s also common to produce the same thing for a long time. In many places it’s assumed that apprenticeships may pass on a trade skill. This can be of varying qualities from very precise preserving a popular style for a long time. Loose with drastic changes or anywhere in between. The Changes in pottery assumptions does not leave room for: long living styles, styles being revived (like we see in our own day with clothing), pottery with a longer life than assumed, the removal of destruction layers before construction, relocation of the shards to a different location, differences in how people groups change, and so on.

            Most Archaeologists publish findings 15 years after digging may occur. There’s a lot that can be forgotten in that time even with careful records. That’s a lot of time to formulate opinions and for opinions to change. One would hope that the time would be used for a better result.

            How results are formed from raw findings is a subjective process. Anyone saying anything else is not being honest on the process. No matter how many controls are in place.

          • Chris

            “DNA is a type of data yes.”

            Good. DNA evidence can show who the father of a child is with almost complete certainty. Likewise DNA evidence can show that Canaanites and Jews are the same people.

            “Dating methods are not reliable and never have been.”

            Really? Then why is it that when they are tested against something of a known age they correctly show the age of the object. Once again STOP getting your science from creationist sites they’ll rot your brain.

          • Chris

            “Most Archaeologists publish findings 15 years after digging may occur. There’s a lot that can be forgotten in that time even with careful records. That’s a lot of time to formulate opinions and for opinions to change. One would hope that the time would be used for a
            better result.”

            You really have no idea how a dig is conducted do you? Every find is catalogued as regards date, time, placement, etc. Every single one. As soon as the object is found.

            “How results are formed from raw findings is a subjective process.”

            Rubbish. They formulate a hypothesis which is an interpretation of the data based upon what is already known as well as the finds which they have discovered. The hypothesis is then subject to peer review by archaeologists who are experts in that area. If another view can be consistently and rationally argued then the debate goes on and more evidence is sought to support one view or another. In other words they attempt to falsify their own hypothesis. Something creationists will never do. Once again stop getting your science from creationist websites.

          • Chris

            The FACT is that creationists will always go from their conclusion to the evidence and will NEVER admit they are wrong. Archaeologists will go from the evidence to the conclusion and have often admitted when they have been wrong.

            Now if all you’re going to do is parrot your favourite creationist website don’t bother. I am used to their lies and have already read evidence which debunks them.

            If you actually want to make any future assertions back it up with evidence.

          • Chris

            “Changes in pottery styles is Highly subjective and has many unknowns, like changes in writing style.”

            Pottery style deals with things like ornamentation, shape of the pot, number and type of handles, etc. Those are NOT subjective. Example: The pottery of the Canaanites was vastly different from that of the Philistines. Philistine cooking pots had one handle, wide lip and a conical base. This is because they nestled in the embers of a fire. Canaanite cooking pots had two handles, a comparatively narrow lip and were flat or slightly convex in shape. This is because the Canaanite cooking method was to cook above the fire. How is ANY of that subjective? It isn’t is it?

          • Chris

            “It needs to be pointed out that archaeology is not science and can never be science as the past cannot be observed.”

            STOP going to creationist websites they’ll rot your brain. It is NOT essential in science to observe an event, merely the evidence the event produced. Thus if the bible says city X was destroyed by war science would ask ‘if it was destroyed by war what would we expect to see? Then they go looking. No evidence means that city wasn’t destroyed by war.”

            But creationism uses something like you have to see it for it to count as science then claims that the writers of the bible were inspired by God. They don’t know because they didn’t see it.

          • Bryon

            What are you talking about? The Definition of Science is:
            1) “Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”

            2) “the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms”

            3) “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
            the mathematical sciences.” – This is a very loose definition which strays from the classical definition. If you agree with this then Theology is science.

            Classical Science requires both observation and experimentation. Many would argue repetition on top of that.

            Creationism claims that everything we know was created by a personable knowable creator. Creationism is not science unless you agree with #3.

            The Bible claims that God was the witness not person that wrote it down. But that’s only for text’s such as Genesis that was before the time the person lived. The Bible talks of stones that God wrote on with His own finger. Those were the original 10 Commandments. Those were broken by Moses when the people broke the commandments. The second set were chiseled by Moses at God’s dictation. The laws in the Torah were recorded by Moses at God’s dictation. This set the pattern for the Bible where God told the writer through His Spirit what to write. So this makes the Bible an autobiography where people were used to record it. God allowed people to record it in their own style.

            “if it (a city) was destroyed (in the Bible) by war what would we expect to see? Then they go looking. No evidence means that city wasn’t destroyed by war.” – Not necessarily. No evidence means no evidence. It may be the wrong tel, may assume that the rubble would remain (it makes sense that peoples would rebuild with as much of the rubble as possible), may assume that the city was burned (many were not burned and the people would move in immediately).

          • Chris

            “Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”

            And what are they observing? THE EVIDENCE! If we accept the creationist organization’s definition of science then astronomy isn’t science. Cosmology isn’t science. Nor is criminology.

          • Chris

            “The Bible claims that God was the witness not person that wrote it down.”

            That’s what’s known as a claim. That’s not an actual eye witness.

            “But that’s only for text’s such as Genesis that was before the time the
            person lived. The Bible talks of stones that God wrote on with His own
            finger. Those were the original 10 Commandments”

            Since we don’t have those all we have are claims by human beings. Since we weren’t there then all we have are claims.

          • Chris

            “if it (a city) was destroyed (in the Bible) by war what would we expect
            to see? Then they go looking. No evidence means that city wasn’t
            destroyed by war.” – Not necessarily. No evidence means no evidence. It
            may be the wrong tel,..”

            In the case of Jericho it isn’t.

            “…may assume that the rubble would remain (it makes
            sense that peoples would rebuild with as much of the rubble as
            possible), …”

            Archaeology takes that into account. We already know that when a city is rebuilt in the ancient world they just demolish what was previously there and build on top of it. That’s why tels exist. The city kept growing higher and higher. Now if there are foreign arrowheads and burnt timber in one layer then we know it was destroyed by war.

            “…may assume that the city was burned (many were not burned and
            the people would move in immediately).”

            Fires require a cause. If an accidental fire was started then either (a) the fire won’t have destroyed all the city or (b) it will immediately be rebuilt. If neither happened then the fire was caused by other means. If foreign weapons are found in the rubble that means is obvious.

            Once again STOP going to creationist sites they’ll rot your brain.

          • Chris

            You also mentioned “”Yet I am convinced by early dating theories from several archaeologists personally know (and others) that currently live in Israel, have
            taught for Hebrew University, and have been working there for several
            decades.”

            Please provide the names of these professors so i can read their papers.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can make whatever argument you want. The Supreme Court has ruled.

          • Bryon

            The Supreme courts ruling was based on the 5th Amendment interestingly enough. Of which they said that a couple who was married in Canada could not be stripped of the marriage license post-de-facto, or after the fact. As the case had to do with paying a penalty because they were not recognized as married.

            However, most “regulation” laws are post-de-facto laws that force people to change the way they do things. Many of these go unchallenged, at least in my awful state… But the reality is that Congress can pass a law that changes the rules, nullifying a ruling. Or another ruling changes the result. Or they simply call it a regulation and that makes it “ok” for some weird odd reason…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “The Supreme courts ruling was based on the 5th Amendment interestingly enough. Of which they said that a couple who was married in Canada could not be stripped of the marriage license post-de-facto, or after the fact. As the case had to do with paying a penalty because they were not recognized as married.”

            What in the world are you talking about? Are we discussing Obergefell?

            “But the reality is that Congress can pass a law that changes the rules, nullifying a ruling.”

            Not if the ruling is an interpretation of what is constitutional.

            “Or they simply call it a regulation and that makes it “ok” for some weird odd reason…”

            No, regulations in the CFR are promulgated by executive agencies following the rulemaking procedures for agencies. And they have to be constitutional too.

          • rubellapox2

            “Nowhere in American Law is marriage defined as a Civil or Human Right.”
            The law begs to differ… 15 Supreme Court cases since the late 1800’s and at least 65 lower court cases since then have affirmed and clarified that marriage is a fundamental civil right and as such is protected by the constitution…

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And in at least 14 of them “Marriage” was ALWAYS defined as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

            I see you’re taking on a bit more of a masculine look now. How quaint.

          • rubellapox2

            Nope, just assumed to be a man and a woman… the latest Supreme Court case clarified that… you know, the one where gay couples are specifically mentioned..the one where gay couples can not be denied the fundamental right to marry…the ruling which has put a bug up your rump…
            So you think my avatar is quaint? Haaaa…you know what’s quaint? Your definition of marriage and your old timey discrimination….

        • Sisyphus

          Check out the 14th Amendment Einstein. As long as the state attaches civil rights to marriage the 14th Amendment applies. In the United States, marriage is not some magical institution unique to your favorite religious myths.

  • Jenny Ondioline

    You would think he would have learned a lesson from Kim Davis. Just because you have a faith doesn’t mean you are above the law.

    • Sisyphus

      We got to keep the lift, hope and struggle 😎

      • Jenny Ondioline

        Somebody gets it!

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Gay West is such a lawlessness. Anything that opposes the Holy Bible is.

      • Jenny Ondioline

        We don’t live in a theocracy, Grace. I see very clearly that you would prefer that. But we don’t. Law doesn’t come from a holy book.

        • worn out 123

          Let’s have common sense, then. Laws are not always just. Some are made by error. Making homosexuality legal is a matter or freedom of choice. Marriage is an age old institution being destroyed by subversion.
          I don’t really care if you love your goat. You cannot marry the goat.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No one’s trying to marry the goat. I’m talking about human beings, why aren’t you? And marriage predates Christianity and wasn’t always one man and one woman.

          • worn out 123

            Marriage between a man and a woman has proven itself a million times over as the very foundation of a strong society.
            You’re throwing it away. This is far worse in the long term than removing all lines from all our highways.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And no one’s given same-sex marriage the chance to prove itself over the test of time, so how about giving it a try? Nothing’s replacing straight marriage anyway, you’re just extending equal rights to someone else. And in doing so, you’re not getting less. It’s not pie.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And no one’s given (Transvestism, Pedophilia, Bestiality, Incest, etc. etc. etc.) the chance to prove itself over the test of time, so how about giving it a try. Nothing’s replacing straight marriage anyway, you’re just extending equal right to someone else. And in doing so, you’re not getting less. It’s not pie.

            THANK YOU AGAIN for another wonderful display of your logic and reasoning abilities. Always appreciated when you make the argument for us! LOL

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Please don’t think me for things I didn’t do. Pedophilia and bestiality are abusive acts between parties which cannot consent. Same-sex marriage is between consenting adults. I know you struggle with the concept of consent, Royce, but it’s paramount here because these are people who love one another and want to commit themselves to each other.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah but you did. You say you can’t consent to Pedophilia and Bestiality? Why not? You and your ilk put so much emphasis on the American Psychological Association and they’ve just come out recently and said the Pedophilia is normal. At least for men anyways.

            And so what if someone wants to marry a goat. Who are YOU to tell someone they can’t marry what they love and can’t have sex with what they desire? After all, they were born that way!

            What a blatant show of bigotry and hatred!!

            “I know you struggle with the concept of consent, Royce”

            Once again you show that you really don’t know spit and that your self-deluded faux omniscience and self-imposed god complex is effecting your ability to think rationally.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You don’t understand consent and now it works. A child and an animal cannot consent.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Additonally, thanks for showing Monica Mares and Caleb Peterson who have a natural urge and sexual attraction towards one another that they didn’t choose AND CONSENT should be allowed to marry. Did God intend for them to act on it? THEY ARE MOTHER & SON!!

            Todd Nickerson has a natural urge and sexual attraction that he certainly didn’t ask for and definitely didn’t choose. Did God intend for him to act on it? He is a self-proclaimed pedophile that has urges towards children. Supposed the a 12yo CONSENTS to engage in sex with him? Keep in mind that you recently argued that a 12yo “CONSENTED” to be given a birth control device on a public school trip.

            Most states have the “Age of Consent” set at 16yo & some as young as 13. So a 50-some year old man “falls in love’ with a 16yo and they “CONSENT” to be married. Thanks for telling us you think they SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

            Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak spent 15 years as father and son in the eyes of the law. The couple, together for more than 50 years married in Pennsylvania. Thanks for telling us all you think that’s just hunky dory too because after all they CONSENTED!!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t support a mother and son incestuous relationship, why are you thanking me? At what point did you see me OK incest?

            If Todd Nickerson is a pedophile then he is abusing children who cannot consent and that must be stopped because it is illegal. Nobody’s rights extend into allowing innocent parties to be subject to abuse.

            For those over the age of 18 it isn’t my place nor yours to tell a consenting couple what they can or cannot do.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, you might’ve if my other comment hadn’t been deleted Though I doubt it.

            You said, “And no one’s given same-sex marriage the chance to prove itself over the test of time, so how about giving it a try? Nothing’s replacing straight marriage anyway, you’re just extending equal rights to someone else. And in doing so, you’re not getting less. It’s not pie.”

            So why wouldn’t you support a Mother/Son incestuous relationship? Bigot? Who R U to say it’s wrong? According to your definition, they “love” each other and they’re “consenting”.

            Who R U to say the “children” are being “abused” and not “consenting”??? Why R U being such a bigot?? At what point does a “child” stop being a “child” and what evidence do you have to support your supposition/belief?????

            You say “that must be stopped because it is illegal”. NO, it is NOT. Just as I stated in my comment. 16, and even, 13 could be legal. And so what if it is illegal. All it takes is a majority of people to change that. As we have already experienced Homosexuality, GID, etc.

            You say “for those over 18” BUT the LAW says it can be 16 or even 13. YOU are the one who’s always touting the LAW., And why “over 18? Why not 17+364dys? Why not 16? Or 13? Or 12. Cite your reasoning and evidence.

            You’ve just contradicted yourself and shown you have NO basis for what should or should not be or for what you believe.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Your problem Royce is that you want the decisions about who gets to form romantic relationships to be determined not by the governments who can determine if someone or something is being taken advantage of or abused, but by yourself based on nothing more than what your holy book tells you.

            An incestuous relationship is vile to me because it blurs the areas between romantic love and nurturing love. If both parties are of consenting age there’s nothing I or anyone else can do about it taking place. It doesn’t mean I like it. And you could take a page from this – you can disapprove but still recognize that it’s none of your business. I’m not overly concerned with this one because people aren’t lining up to marry their mothers.

            Who am I to say the children (not “children” as you called them) are being abused (not “abused” as you said) and are not consenting (not “consenting” as you said)? Nobody, but I don’t have to be. I point to the law that says a child can’t consent until a legal age. At what point does a child stop being a child? Where the law says so. The line needs to be clearly drawn. What evidence is it you’re looking for here? It’s the law. Children need to be protected from predators just as animals do.

            Different nations have different ages defining age of consent – some are lower than others and I might not like that but the law is the law. If enough people can make a case, in some of those countries the law gets changed. That’s the best we can do.

            See, Royce? No contradiction. Just thought out, reasoned words. Now how about you tell ME why two adult people of the same sex shouldn’t legally enter into a romantic relationship. Please tell me who they are hurting. Please tell me where the abuse lies. Please tell me why you should be the one we all listen to to get it stopped.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. There’s that faux omniscience again! Or are you just practicing psychology without a license? Tell ya what, need time I wanna know what my problem is, just rest easy and know I’ll rely on God who can actually tell me what it is because He knows!

            Of course it’s easier for you to divert from answering the questions by focusing on me being the problem instead of yourself. No surprise there. But you are spot on right when you say I let God’s Holy inerrant, infallible, and timeless Word of God make my decisions for me.

            Who are YOU to say an incestuous relationship blurs the areas between romantic love and nurturing love? Who appointed you God of the Universe and Omniscient to say that?

            “If both parties are of consenting age there’s nothing I or anyone else can do about it taking place. It doesn’t mean I like it.”

            Now you know why I thanked you for showing that the Mother & Son should be allowed to marry. And that you lied when you said, “I don’t support a mother and son incestuous relationship”. Doing nothing to stop and prevent the incestuous relationship IS supporting it. Any good soldier knows that when you do nothing to prevent the advancing of the enemy you ARE aiding and abetting the enemy. So, once again, thanks for publicly showing that you do support incestuous relationships. And I imagine the other things I listed that were deleted as well.

            “And you could take a page from this – you can disapprove but still recognize that it’s none of your business.”

            What a hateful and totally unloving thing to say!! But hey, again, thanks for showing everyone just how hateful and unloving you are. That you would standby and do nothing while holding to an empty claim that it’s none of your business. How pathetic.

            “I’m not overly concerned with this one because people aren’t lining up to marry their mothers.”

            Wrong! I just gave you the names of one who is and of a father/son marriage too. But, again, I thank you for putting your total selfishness on such a display.

            “I point to the law that says a child can’t consent until a legal age. At what point does a child stop being a child? Where the law says so.”

            Thank you for publicly displaying your acceptance and support for the two teachers who preyed on 13yo boys because it was LEGAL to do so. Thank you for publicly showing that if the age is changed to 10 or 9 or 8 or done away with, you’re gonna be just fine with that because it’s the LAW.

            And, most of all, thank you for showing that your morality is contingent upon the will of the majority and whatever laws can be passed. What a grand witness and testimony for a superb reason to die to self and surrender to Christ and place your trust in Almighty God!!!

            ” Children need to be protected from predators just as animals do.”

            Thank you for equating children to animals. That explains a lot. I’d love to hear how you’re gonna protect the bunnies from the coyotes, deer from the cougars, elk from the wolves, impalas from the lions, seals from the polar bears, and all animals from humans. That oughtta be a grand plan! LOL

            “Different nations have different ages defining age of consent – some are lower than others and I might not like that but the law is the law.”

            There ya go again. What an utterly bankrupt morality.

            “If enough people can make a case, in some of those countries the law gets changed. That’s the best we can do.”

            Wait a minute, it’s the Law! You said it’s ok if it’s the Law! Why bother trying to change it? In fact, why not just go back to the days when you weren’t allowed to vote or hold certain public offices? After all, it was the LAW!! Why not follow the Law when Blacks weren’t considered fully human or interracial marriage wasn’t allowed? Do you support the Law or not?? Do you follow the Law or not? Ya need to make up your mind.

            And I don’t know who the “we” is that you refer to but it certainly does NOT include me or any other Christians. There is FAR MORE we can do!

            “See, Royce? No contradiction. Just thought out, reasoned words.”

            Oh yeah, you’ve made that abundantly clear! LOL NOT!! Your “thought out, reasoned” words are insanity. LOL

            “Now how about you tell ME why two adult people of the same sex shouldn’t legally enter into a romantic relationship.”

            Ok. GOD.

            “Please tell me who they are hurting.”

            Ok. Themselves and every single person who accepts, approves, and supports them.

            “Please tell me where the abuse lies.”

            Ok. SIN.

            “Please tell me why you should be the one we all listen to to get it stopped.”

            Ok. Because God says so. I am an Ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ. An image bearer. A light in the Darkness. One who brings the Truth. Commissioned by Christ to do so.

            Now, I’ve answered your questions. Try answering mine. And answer this one too, just exactly why are you here? Exactly what are you trying to accomplish?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Nothing I’m saying apart from the stuff about incest is my opinion. I’m unclear about the rules the law has in place about incest. At the end of the day consenting adults means consenting adults. That doesn’t mean I support incest. Your statement “doing nothing to stop and prevent the incestuous relationship IS supporting it” is hogwash. You need to mind your own business, Royce. Let the law do what the law does. Or to speak your language, render unto Caesar. You’re some guy with a religion. You’re not God. You can witter away all you like about “faux omniscience” but you’re the one guilty of it, not me.

            “But you are spot on right when you say I let God’s Holy inerrant, infallible, and timeless Word of God make my decisions for me.”

            That’s nice, but the law doesn’t care what religion you practice.

            “So, once again, thanks for publicly showing that you do support incestuous relationships.”

            Please don’t thank me for things I didn’t say. My exact words were in fact “An incestuous relationship is vile to me because it blurs the areas between romantic love and nurturing love.” So it’s you who lies when you say that I support such relationships. And you say “Who appointed you God of the Universe and Omniscient to say that?” Once again, I don’t claim to be God. My authority in these matters is science. If you never took the time to learn about the different types of love (eros, agape, etc.) then you have only yourself to blame.

            “That you would standby and do nothing while holding to an empty claim that it’s none of your business. How pathetic.”

            So now following the law is pathetic to you. If people aren’t breaking the law I have no reason to get in their faces.

            “Wrong! I just gave you the names of one who is and of a father/son marriage too.”

            When this becomes something that becomes enough of an issue that you no longer have to scrape the dregs of the internet to find one or two people, then we’ll look at it as the epidemic it is currently NOT.

            “Thank you for publicly displaying your acceptance and support for the
            two teachers who preyed on 13yo boys because it was LEGAL to do so. ”

            Please don’t thank me for things I didn’t say. First of all, where is it legal for 13 year old boys to consent, secondly I never said I supported it.

            “Thank you for publicly showing that if the age is changed to 10 or 9 or 8
            or done away with, you’re gonna be just fine with that because it’s the
            LAW.”

            Please don’t thank me for things I didn’t do or say. Also, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. You should watch that.

            “And, most of all, thank you for showing that your morality is contingent
            upon the will of the majority and whatever laws can be passed.”

            Please don’t thank me for things I didn’t do or say. Render unto Caesar, Royce – words straight from your Bible.

            “Thank you for equating children to animals.”

            Please don’t thank me for things I didn’t say. When I said predators I was talking about human ones – to get back to your former bestiality comparison.

            “There ya go again. What an utterly bankrupt morality.”

            Yup, even though I said I might not like it. Selective reading is going to be your downfall, Royce.

            “Wait a minute, it’s the Law! You said it’s ok if it’s the Law! Why bother trying to change it?”

            Because of what you tried to thank me for just a moment ago Royce, for heaven’s sake try to keep up. Just because we might not have the power to get some bad laws changed doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

            The rest of your post was just proselytizing so I’ll ignore it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “At the end of the day consenting adults means consenting adults. That doesn’t mean I support incest.”

            And you say you don’t contradict yourself. Thank you again for the public display. You just keep proving my points with every single one of your posts. LOL

            “Your statement “doing nothing to stop and prevent the incestuous relationship IS supporting it” is hogwash.”

            Oh yeah? Tell that to the Jews. Tell that to Edmund Burke. Tell that to all those who have been trampled on by Evil because people stood by and did nothing. Moreover, be sure and tell it to God when you meet Him. And you WILL meet Him!!

            “You need to mind your own business, Royce.”

            HOW ABOUT YOU PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, JENNY!!!!! Get off this Christian page and STOP TROLLING!!! I know you ain’t figured it out yet but you’ll gain NO ground here. Your just one of Satan’s little minions doing his bidding and we Christians can see it for what it is.

            And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)

            It really is beyond sad, it’s downright pathetic, that you can’t see how blind you are. I have no pity for you. You’ve been given the truth and you’ve rejected it. So thank you for such a fine public display of Romans 1 and Eph. 2. I’m not wasting my time, energy, or pearls of Scripture to try and show you anything. You just deny it when the TRUTH is right there for all to see. You do SUPPORT incest and every other vile, perverted, immoral behavior out there because you do NOTHING to oppose it, you have NOTHING to substantiate a reason not to, you have NOTHING to base your self-imposed morality on except “it’s the Law”, and then you can’t even abide there because you hypocritically and contradictorily say that you’d try to change that if you think it’s wrong.

            So it’s really all about YOU. And one day Jenny is gonna find out it’s not. And she’ll have ALL Eternity in torment in the Lake of Fire to see just how dumb holding to that really was.

            So you just keep right on ignoring the proselytizing. Thanks for the public display of a typical God-hater and proving God’s Word true again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It’s a curious thing about you, Royce. With everyone who disagrees with you, you thank them over and over for things they neither said nor did, and you do it over and over which is dishonest on a huge level and we know what your God has to say about bearing false witness. Has He given you permission to lie so wantonly?

            My statement was “At the end of the day consenting adults means consenting adults. That doesn’t mean I support incest.” This you find contradictory. How is it contradictory? I DON’T support incest, but you seem to think my disapproval isn’t enough, that I need to be waving placards around and writing letters of complaint or something. Consenting adults, by which I mean adults and not 13-year olds, are free to do as they like as long as no one’s being abused against their will.

            Please don’t compare the Jews of the Holocaust with my refusal to get in the faces of people who practice incest. If I saw enough incest going on in this world to make noise about it we might have more to talk about, but I don’t know of anyone who practices it. OK?

            “Get off this Christian page and STOP TROLLING!!!”

            How about acting more like a Christian, Royce? And I’m not trolling. I have a right to disagree with you when you say something I consider ridiculous. And I don’t believe in Satan so no, you’ll just have to get used to the idea that I’m not going to introduce any supernatural elements to this discussion.

            And the rest is more proselytizing and threats of a hellfire I don’t believe in, so we’ll leave it at that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Tell ya what, why don’t you count up the number of “Likes” and see who has more folks disagreeing with who. Oh, and look up the word “everyone” in the Dictionary too Troll. And ya might as well look up “honesty” while you’re at it because ya ain’t gotta clue what that is either.

            Your statements are right there for all to see. You do support incest by your own words. And, while you think you don’t, it just goes to show how deluded you are but that’s to be expected by someone who has no clue what they believe or why.

            “Consenting adults, by which I mean adults and not 13-year olds”

            But that’s the LAW in some states and you said you support the LAW. You really are mixed up! I understand though. It’s hard to keep your story straight when you have no moral compass. And you still haven’t given an answer for why it’s ok if it’s 16, or 13, or 10 or no age at all – so long as it’s the LAW.

            “How about acting more like a Christian, Royce?”

            How many times do we have to cover the same ground? YOU have NO clue what a Christian is! So I’ll take that with the due consideration it deserves. Here, how about this: You wicked viper that is just like a white-washed sepulcher full of dead men’s bones. Wanna take a guess who said that?

            You ARE trolling.

            And frankly, it doesn’t really matter whether or not you believe in Satan or not. You belong to him. Just like it doesn’t matter if you believe in the Lake of Fire or not because you’ll be spending ALL Eternity in the Lake of Fire with him.

            “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Counting votes of confidence doesn’t mean a lot Royce. There is at least one other forum where your popularity would seem to be less than ideal. Google is your friend.

            Calling people names like “troll” is very good way to get your posts removed, which I think you must know by now you’re not immune from. Is it that hard to have a conversation and just let the facts speak for themselves? Must you screech “troll alert” and plaster that idiotic Plato quote every two minutes?

            Fine, then – we’ll ask you to put your money where your mouth is. Please tell me where my words supported incest. I’d LOVE to read that. Because if I did there was clearly a moment where my body was overtaken by some alien presence…I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I’d never say such a ridiculous and offensive thing, but for some reason this is all some big word-twisting game to you.

            “But that’s the LAW in some states and you said you support the LAW.”

            No, I said that you need to beware of slippery slope arguments. Tell me where the age of consent is 13. Tell me ANY state where the age of consent is 13. I DEFY you.

            And of course it’s not OK. The age of consent in Nigeria is something like 11 which is despicable and disgusting. Now tell me how I supposedly “support” that – would you like me to board a plane to Nigeria and demand to speak to the president? What are YOU doing about it?

            And the rest is static – lake of fire blah blah, paranoid revenge fantasy blah blah. All the usual nonsense.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, I’m quite aware of the other forum you speak of. And I’m elated that I would be such a hit there. I’ll take all the blessings I can get. The irony is that you and your ilk are so ignorant of God’s Word that you aren’t aware that He sees every little slight you make against me and adds it my my rewards. So THANK YOU!

            The other irony is that the Word of God makes into that Darkness as well and, who knows, it just might bring someone to a saving faith in Christ.

            “Calling people trolls…Must you screech “troll alert” and plaster that idiotic Plato quote every two minutes?”

            When the shoe fits…

            And speaking of my calling people trolls and posts getting removed, take a little looksee at how many times I pointed out that you are a troll and your posts were removed!! LOL So there’s your evidence that you are a Troll. Now accept it or continue to live in your deluded self-induced state of Denial.

            “And of course it’s not OK. The age of consent in Nigeria is something like 11 which is despicable and disgusting.”

            Why? On what authoritative basis do you make that claim? Or are you just showing your unsubstantiated bias, bigotry, and discrimination again? And we both know, because you’ve said it numerous times, that if the U.S. were to make that legal here, you’d support it because “It’s the LAW” and according to you it’s the LAW that makes something alright, ok, and just hunky dory.

            As the rest is static – just more God-hating blah blah blah. Denial. All the usual nonsense.

            “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness” (Psalm 103:8)

            “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2nd Peter 3:9)

            Though I admit you are showing more evidence with every post that you’ve probably been turned over to a reprobate mind because or your consistent mocking and rejection of God. In which, I’m sorry to tell you but you’re doomed to eternal torment.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It’s delicious to me that practically every mention of God coming from you is being used as a stick to beat people up with. What a stellar representation of loving Christianity.

            Don’t get cocky about message removal. You still hold the prize and by a ratio of something like 15 to 1.

            “Why? On what authoritative basis do you make that claim? Or are you
            just showing your unsubstantiated bias, bigotry, and discrimination
            again?”

            It doesn’t have to be an authoritative basis because I’m not an authority over Nigerian law. I can despise it just fine without being an authority. On what basis? Oh, I don’t know Royce, how about on the basis that raping 11 year old girls isn’t very nice? Do you really need your religion to teach you that?

            “And we both know, because you’ve said it numerous times, that if
            the U.S. were to make that legal here, you’d support it because “It’s
            the LAW” and according to you it’s the LAW that makes something alright,
            ok, and just hunky dory.”

            Nope. Utter garbage, and I’ve never said anything remotely like that. The only thing I’ve ever said in this regard is we are bound to follow the law whether we like it or not. And the law means the law, it doesn’t mean somebody’s holy book. You just can never seem to accept that one…and hey, in YOUR holy book, I’ll bet you can find one or two child brides, eh? And a few slaves? Using Royce logic, that must mean you are pro-slavery…and pro-you-know-what.

            Scriptural missiles ignored as always, Royce. Smooches.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I have no doubt whatsoever that the Gospel and ultimate justice for those who reject it is “delicious” to you. I can actually visualize you slobbering and foaming at the mouth while you wring your hands in glee thinking about how you can use that to lead others away from God. It’s what you God-hating minions of Satan do.

            “Don’t get cocky about message removal. You still hold the prize and by a ratio of something like 15 to 1.”

            LOL. I see you suck at Math as much as you do everything else. Unfortunately for you, most people can count and the number of “Comment Deleted” that show here. Btw, wanna confess now that you got banned from here before? Thanks for showing MORE behavior of a TROLL.

            Oh my oh my, we gotta till the ground AGAIN!! How many times and ways does one have to be told you can NOT speak to that which you are ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about and have NO way of knowing what it is? But you just keep right on showing your ignorance and TROLL behavior. Live in Denial all you wish but you know NOTHING about Christianity because you reject the Author.

            “It doesn’t have to be an authoritative basis because I’m not an authority over Nigerian law. I can despise it just fine without being an authority. On what basis? Oh, I don’t know Royce, how about on the basis that raping 11 year old girls isn’t very nice?”

            Thank you for showing your moral bankruptcy. Much appreciated. But I do appreciate you proving my point. Right there in B&W for all to see! THANK YOU!! Oh, and btw, I”ll point this out to you because you’re obviously too blind to see it on your own. You don’t even have a place or basis to define what is “nice”! LOL

            “Nope. Utter garbage, and I’ve never said anything remotely like that.

            Nope. It’s not. You did say it. Plainly.

            “I’ll bet you can find one or two child brides, eh? And a few slaves? Using Royce logic, that must mean you are pro-slavery…and pro-you-know-what.””

            You seem to insinuate that there is something wrong with both of those. Putting aside your Biblical ignorance and complete inability to recognize that you can’t, simply unable to, discern spiritual truth, and the obvious TROLLING BEHAVIOR done to incite a response, I’ll toss the ball back in your court and tell you to cite your evidence that there is something wrong with it.

            “Scriptural missiles ignored as always, Royce. Smooches.”

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:18-22)

            And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)

            “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers” (Acts 13:32)

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No Royce, the delicious part is watching you pretend your faith is the kind and loving one Jesus preached about when you use the words of the Bible to attack and belittle people. By the way, I don’t hate God, even though you seem to insist everyone who argues with you does.

            And if you’re really going to get high and mighty about deleted comments, maybe you can offer the good folks some stories about your Facebook suspensions. Those are all public for anyone who wants to see them.

            The author of Christianity? You mean man?

            “Right there in B&W for all to see! THANK YOU!!”

            YOU’RE WELCOME, Royce, and I’ll say it again for all who have eyes to read it: Raping 11 year old girls isn’t nice, and I despise Nigerian law that allows it. Curious where the “moral bankruptcy” is there, but you have never really made much sense, have you?

            “You did say it. Plainly.”

            Well then you should have absolutely no difficulty quoting my words. Go for it.

            “I’ll toss the ball back in your court and tell you to cite your evidence that there is something wrong with it.”

            Easy, abusing human beings for fun and profit is cruel and cowardly and not even your Bible can make it otherwise.

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            Smile for the mirror, Roycie.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            ” your faith is the kind and loving one Jesus preached about”

            As if you would have a clue! LOL!!!!!!!!

            “I don’t hate God”

            Been over this several times before too. God says you do. And therein lies your problem. Oh, and I know you ain’t figured this out yet but it He who gets to have the final word. LOL And you’ll get just what a God-hater deserves.

            “And if you’re really going to get high and mighty about deleted comments, maybe you can offer the good folks some stories about your Facebook suspensions.”

            That the best ya can do? That the best ya got? That pathetic attempt is hardly even a fiery dart. LOL Nice attempt diversion. I guess it must’ve stung a little when you got caught in a total lie AND had several other recent comments deleted. Much like this last one of yours probably will be! THANKS for the blessing! Much appreciated. The fiery dart? Swatted down like a mosquito. LOL

            “The author of Christianity? You mean man?”

            No. Sheesh, how dimwitted can one be? CHRIST is the Author of Christianity. Sheesh!! But hey, thanks for publicly displaying the TROLL behavior and going beyond ignorance and moving right into pure stupidity and making every effort to incite an emotional response.

            “Easy, abusing human beings for fun and profit is cruel and cowardly and not even your Bible can make it otherwise.”

            Good. Great!! Then cite your evidence. Cite your basis. And stop being cowardly about it.

            “Smile for the mirror, Roycie.”

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

          • Johndoe

            Nice word salad

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!

            Typical Troll behavior. By very definition.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Tangent002

            You understand that straight people can still get married, right? Why would gays marrying dissuade straights from doing it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Hey Shipmate! God bless ya. Probably did well blocking Jenny. She’s a long-time troll on here. She was banned for quite some time. Don’t know why Heather let her back on here as she’s back up to her old tricks. No doubt she’ll do something before long to get banned again.

            USN-Ret (1999)

          • This style 10/6

            You went to war for baseball!

          • Tangent002

            And apple pie. Don’t forget the apple pie.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There’s that faux omniscience and self-induced deluded god-complex again. Will you ever learn that you can NOT speak for everyone? The fact is there is already proven cases of humans trying to, and perhaps even having accomplished, marrying an animal.

            Try Google. Simple search turns up the evidence.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’m not speaking for everyone, I’m pointing out that a person marrying another human being is not the same thing as marrying a goat. The comparison is asinine.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “No one’s trying to marry the goat.”

            Uh, I dunno where you went to school but where I went “no one” means “no one”. So yes, you were. Duh! And we can all see quite well who’s being asinine.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Same-sex members are for friendship only, not for romance. Read Romans 1.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Same-sex relationships can be for long-term romantic purposes too if the people involved are homosexual. Read a medical journal.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Your magazines are lying. Long-term or short, homosexuality is a willful sinful depravity, and the West should never force people to endorse it or serve gay weddings. It’s a human rights violation committed by the Western nations this century. Read Romans chapter 1.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It’s not magazines, it’s proper medical documents and journals of psychiatric medicine. This is settled science, Grace. It is not up for debate. If Troy disagree, you are disagreeing with facts.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They are lying. Western Sodomites bribe them.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No Grace, they are not lying because this is peer-reviewed MEDICALLY VERIFIED information.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Science and data say homosexuality harms children and makes men and women sick. Western institutions lie to please the immoral population. Morality is a human right.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No Grace, science doesn’t say that and never will say that. It is religion that says things like that.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Science says that sexual immorality causes deadly diseases, though Americans blamed the Africans for AIDS and got away. The real cause and spreader is homosexuality.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Do you have sources for any of the things you say, Grace? Science doesn’t say sexual immorality (which is very subjective by the way) causes deadly diseases. AIDS did originate in Africa and homosexuals were initially susceptible to it but homosexuality was not the cause.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Data tell it’s gay men who become mostly sick and spread the disease. The West became depraved tyrannical after enforcing the same-sex “marriage.” Western immorality is bad to humans regarding character and mental and phsical health. It also prohibits religious freedom which is the basis of all human rights. Western immorality means prohibition of sane morality. Westerners need Christianity to become sane.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It was the “gay disease” back in the 1980s – men (not just gay men) tend to be a little more promiscuous than women so many caught the disease and were unaware they had it, this was prior to the “safe sex” education and AIDS testing. You cannot simply blame “immorality” for it – men and women, gay and straight alike engage in casual sexual encounters, but you seem to want to blame homosexuals for everything.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Having multiple partners surely cause diseases. Gays tend to have far more partners. Gay West has sex with anything. Monogamy of one man and one woman is the only safe life for self and all those around the individual including the children, the science concludes.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I just don’t know where you get your information from, Grace. If gay people didn’t want monogamy why did they fight so hard for same sex marriage?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Western Sodomites are trying to destroy the insitution of human marriage altogether. If one could marry to a same-sex member, he or she could marry to anyone or to anything in any way, and anything can be called marriage, which dissolves the marriage itself. Post-christian West’s purpose and agenda is abolishment of the truth so they could pursue all kinds of depravity and enslave mankind. Once people submit to the Western Sodomism, they are always slaves to the Western pervs. Childless but well-fed West is being bored about life and is seeking some real evil warped amusement by making the serious others suffer by forcing a falsehood on earth, because they know they have no future. It’s all written in the Holy Bible.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What reason would anyone have to destroy marriage? What would it benefit anyone to do that? How does someone else’s same-sex marriage invalidate yours? What does this have to do with “sodomism”?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Post-christian Bible-illiterate Western whites are thirsty again for slavery. Sin is slavery. You guys are neither good or intelligent if you don’t uphold the Holy Bible. None of us are. Stop pushing and funding the homosexual depravity in the world to hurt the global children and further the slavery. Other people are not that well-fed or bored like the well-fed rich Westerners are. Give mankind some break.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            (sigh)
            No one’s pushing or funding homosexuality. It occurs naturally. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. I would really like to meet the person who teaches you these things.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, the Western authorities, the Western big companies, the liberals, and all their greedy mental slaves are promoting and funding the sexual depravity on earth by putting the colored people and sexually depraved people together so that no one could say no to the Western Sodomism. It’s a form of slavery. The Holy Bible warns against it. Jude 1.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That is alarmist nonsense. Homosexuality occurs naturally throughout nature, and is not part of a huge conspiracy.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Humans are moral beings, not animals. That’s why those who support homosexuality also support humans behaving like animals. Humans who behave like animals are not moral, and to force it is insanity. Imagine a world where humans behave like animals. You just proved that it is wrong for humans to support homosexuality and that the Sodomy-supporters’ real purpose is abolishment of morality. Children learn morality from adults. Secular West and its mental servants did not teach children morality and that’s why there is a moral chaos in secular nations. Full stomach is also known for the causation of depravity as well.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            People who support homosexuality don’t think anything one way or the other about animals, it’s not relevant. Homosexuality isn’t about animals. You can be a very moral homosexual person. Why is it so hard for you to understand that most people are wired only one way, either to be heterosexual or homosexual. They don’t choose homosexuality to be wicked or evil or sinful or anything like that; in fact, they don’t CHOOSE it at all.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Jenny, you are wrong. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour – a willful sin. Otherwise, the Holy Bible would not have condemned it but it does as one of the most detestable, abhorrent sins. Read Psalms 14 and Romans 1. Peaceful homophobia is a human right, but the West forces the endorsement of homosexuality against the Word of God, against the clear human conscience, and against science.

            Gay West is allowing all kinds of sexual depravity after affirming the homosexual union. Read the news, please. The homosexuals and transgenderers must be grouped together with rapists, pedophiles, incest-practioners, animal-rapists, and cannibals, if you’d talk about being “wired.” One man and one woman in marriage – all else are wrong and must not claim being wired. Sin must be urged or ordered to be repented of or renounced, never encouraged to commit, but that’s exactly what the Western culture is doing, taking away both morality and freedom.

            Thankfully, the West’s chaotic collapse is rather fast for all to see. You guys must stop being destructive. The life of the homosexuals and transgenderers must be protected because Lord Jesus gave sexual offenders unspecified time for repentance, but it is altogether absurd that mankind have to be forced to endorse such sick depravity by the West, a former Chritendom, who rant liberty and equality and justice. The West needs the Holy Bible to become civilized again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No it isn’t, Grace. YOU are wrong. You are learning from the wrong sources. Settled science is correct on this matter.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Settled science declares that immorality hurts humanity especially children. You’ve been conditioned by your own filthy culture. Ex-christian West is returning to the Roman/Greek porn myths and desires sex with anything, demanding others to do the same. Submission to the perv West is a disgrace as a human being, not just as a Christian. Your civilization needs Christianity to be normal again. All your secular scholars are liars. They lie to drug the population with immorality and take control. People need the Holy Bible for the truth and liberty, both then and now.

          • Bob Johnson

            Sexual immorality does not cause deadly diseases. Immorality may be associated with the vectors for a disease. Saying “sexual immorality causes” is like saying “breathing causes the common cold”.

            As for AIDS, it is not sexual immorality but any sexual relationship that can be one of the common vectors for HIV.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Immorality causes diseases, suicides, addictions, mental illnesses and all kinds of human miseries, as the Holy Bible so teaches and the reality confirms. Western intelligence got screwed by putting the colored people and sexually immoral people together in the same group and declare the heinous racism as political correctness. Those who believe in the liberal lies are slaves to villains. No thanks. The Holy Bible liberates mankind for all time.

          • Tangent002

            Goats cannot consent.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            How do you know? Ever seen one in heat?

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Because the goat cannot legally give consent. Same reason why you cannot declare that you are marrying that comatose millionaire you read about.

            State=sanctioned marriage, which is what the law is about, and is equally applied to all. It requires that both participants be over the legally mandated age and competent enough to understand what marriage entails.

            Your church may have additional requirements and restrictions. Which is why the law cannot make a church extend purely religious services to anyone they don’t want to serve.

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Yes, USA is a Christian theocracy based on the Judeo-Christian teachings. Americans are supposed to submit to the God of the Holy Bible alone. Atheists only destroy nations and never create any. Christians alone create nations with noble ideals. Decent others mimicked them.

          • Tangent002

            Hush, child.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You guys should stop trying to silence the Christians in America.

          • Tangent002

            Your opinions are not the voice of Christianity. They are the voice of theocratic fascism.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read the Holy Bible. Christianity alone protects everyone and provides life and freedom. You lost discernment by watching too much Japanese junk anime.

          • Delectable

            You fcking azzhole.
            Why don’t you creeps crawl off and die of AIDS, you filthy scumbags?

          • Tangent002

            You will keep a civil tone or you will be reported.

          • Delectable

            Your misogynistic posts will be flagged.

          • Tangent002

            Keep it up.

          • Delectable

            Lick my nuts

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Block him. I did. No use of f-word whatsoever.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Flag him first though.

          • Petra Hattenius

            OMGosh. How old are you??? Seriously. SMFH

          • Sharon_at_home

            Ah, I can tell you are young. Older people dislike having swear words put into a good discussion. The Younger Generation seems to be fine with everything being said to anyone as far as I can tell. You should respect other people’s opinions if you want others to respect yours.
            And yes, I am one of the Older people… lol

          • Petra Hattenius

            I respect the wisdom of older people but not the lack of open mindedness many seem to encompass.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            True. That’s because we were taught Matt. 15:18 & Luke 6:45. Not to mention that our mouth and actions were a direct reflection of how we were raised and thus our parents.

            Sorta makes ya wonder, doesn’t it what her mommy and daddy think of her how and whether she understands how poorly she reflects on them.

          • Petra Hattenius

            It’s called being open minded, educated, and accepting

          • Sharon_at_home

            Oh, you think that swearing is being open minded, educated and accepting? How do you figure that as I’m curious. I guess you think that I am not any of those things either?

            First does that mean you don’t respect people who are a lot older than you? because you don’t seem to respect your elders.
            You know what? If you are open-minded, educated and accepting can you please explain why you are criticizing anything at all. shouldn’t you be open minded about other people’s differences in any way shape or form, because you are open minded. Which means there is never something that well, that you can accept.
            Ok, let’s look at the accepting one. If you are accepting of others, as I hazard a guess that that is what you meant by ‘accepting’, it would include tolerance, respect and a caring attitude. Is that about right too?
            Education. So you are able to determine someones education by their posts. That’s interesting. Unless you are referring to a Church education, which might make sense because all people are at different levels of belief and it is only by reading the Gospel, repenting, and belief – that any of us can be saved.
            I’ve been very active at church – we don’t need to go to a gym, We’re Apostolic!
            and I’m exhausted, so I’ll leave you here and say God Bless Petra!

          • Sharon_at_home

            Just to add to my previous post. If you are educated, then why can’t you find other words rather than swearing, to express yourself? An educated person knows how to get their point across without cursing at all. Educated people do not feel the need to swear in their statements. Why do you? Don’t think it’s being closed-minded, or anything to do with accepting. It’s about maturity and being able to express yourself without being demeaning to anyone. You won’t show maturity or that you are educated by using common words meant to show disdain to convey a thought. Surely you are able to use words that are not swear words to express yourself. At least I hope so!

          • Petra Hattenius

            are you serious??

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes. Read the actual documents. You’ve been lied by the liberals.

          • Petra Hattenius

            O….thank you…do you get out often??

          • Petra Hattenius

            The United States federal government was the first national government to have no official state-endorsed religion.You sound like a muslim.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Americans stole everything from the Christian British. The Muslims are more moral than the Western Sodomites.

          • Petra Hattenius

            LMAO!!!!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            From the Treaty of Tripoli, November 4, 1796:

            “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

          • Tangent002

            Passed unanimously, though it was later amended to remove that language.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another regurgitated lie. For anyone else other than this Deceiver who would like to know the truth, go back and read that in the full context of what was said.

            And then read the actual quote from John Adams about the Constitution and what it was created for as well as the MA Constitution that he drafted from the U.S. Constitution.

            Jenny is just another example of a spiritually-dead troll who has been drinking the Kool-Aid and spewing out the regurgitated pablum that is so often thrown around without actually taking the time to see what they’re regurgitating nor looking at what they swallowed in the first place.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The founding fathers were primarily deists. This isn’t trolling. It’s facts.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another lie from the Liar. That’s not true and it’s NOT a fact. It is however an often spewed lie by the God-haters who troll Christian sites in an attempt to spread their lies and suppress the Truth.

            There were some Deists among them but the majority were Christians.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’m not a liar, Royce. You are just a very insecure person who has to attack others in order to feel good about yourself. I haven’t lied once. Not. Once.
            Thomas Paine was a deist. He even wrote books about it. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. John Adams was a deist. Benjamin Franklin was a deist.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “I’m not a liar, Royce.”

            What do you call a person who tells lies if not a Liar?

            “You are just a very insecure person who has to attack others in order to feel good about yourself.”

            And, as I’ve said about a dozen times now, you have a self-deluded, self-imposed god complex. Too bad you can’t even exercise reasonable logical and rationality as you would then perhaps see just how stupid that comment is and that it amounts to nothing more than a cheapshot, little fiery dart that I swat down like a fly.

            Quite to the contrary, and unlike you who are a spiritually-dead God-hater, I am a child of the Most High God. A Born Again Blood-bought Saint. Blessed and Highly Favored. Co-heir with Jesus Christ.

            “I haven’t lied once. Not. Once.”

            More evidence of you delusion. Thank you. The evidence is in black & white on this thread that you HAVE lied numerous times. So I guess you can add Denial to your list of maladies.

            I believe the evidence shows that Thomas Paine was a God-hating Atheist. One only needs look at his writings and thoughts on any deity – let alone God. Yes, he even wrote books about it. Perhaps you should take the time to actually read them,

            Whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a deist is quite debatable. He professed to be a Christian. That said, MOST self-professed Christians aren’t.

            John Adams was NOT a deist. That’s a lie.

            But it is probably true that Benjamin Franklin was more a deist than anything else. Though he too professed to be a Christian if I recall correctly. Unlike you, I can’t say with specificity because I don’t recall for sure and I’m not taking the time for you to go look it up. What I do know is that NOTHING you say can be taken at face value because you’ve already shown yourself numerous times to be deluded and in Denial.

      • Petra Hattenius

        is such a lawlessness…..????

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Yes, today’s West forces mankind to endorse homosexual depravity by equating the colored people and sexually depraved people. Non-christian West is the worst civilization because it demands abhorrent depravity which even the pagans detest. The West needs Christian instructions to become civilized again.

          • Petra Hattenius

            Why don’t you move to the Middle East?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They have no religious liberty except in israel. You Sodomy-supporters are Non-Americans and should move out of the USA. American fathers were not pervs.

          • Petra Hattenius

            And you call yourself a Christian? That’s hysterical it’s people like you that give Christianity a bad name. LOL!!! You need to do a little fact-checking to about your middle eastern comments…. where are you from the backwoods of Tennessee?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Unbelieving Westerners blaspheme Christianity anyway. Bad descendants. The Muslims despise the West because today’s West is too immoral and the men look too feminine. I don’t want to be discriminated by the Western whites and their mental servants for not supporting their homosexual depravity and the transgender mental illness. Skin colors and sexual depravity are two different things. Western whites should stop putting those together to rant equality. West’s homosexual depravity should be listed with the pedophile crimes and cannibalism, not the plight of the colored people in the former West. You guys need Christianity to become civilized again.

          • Delectable

            Why don’t you move to Saudi Arabia? No Christians there – not one.

          • Petra Hattenius

            You must live there, huh?

    • Michael C

      That would be my question to Mat Staver, the lawyer who unsuccessfully represented both of these public servants.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      I doubt he had to learn from Kim Davis but he definitely is following a great example because Davis was completed vindicated and validated. Maybe you should read the end of the story before foolishly opening your mouth to comment on it. But then again, you’ve already demonstrated numerous times that you’re more interested in just spouting off at the mouth to see yourself commenting than on what you actually say.

      • Jenny Ondioline

        Kim Davis became a laughingstock, a person who lost it all because she refused to observe the law. Her name is synonymous with bigotry and hatred, and what did she have, four marriages? Are you really a Christian, Royce? Because Jesus had a lot to say about divorce. And he had nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          There’s that deluded god-complex again. Have you sought professional help?

          Not only is she NOT a laughingstock but she is a hero of the faith to many. Much like many others who put her love for Christ and obedience to God before any self-preservation. Exhibiting bravery and faith instead of turning to cowardice like you and your ilk.

          Her name is only synonymous with the God-hating trolls like you. And your characterization of her earns her more rewards in Heaven. I’m sure she’d thank you for that.

          Yes, I am really a Christian and as I’ve told you MANY times before it is best if you try not to talk about that which you are completely ignorance of and oblivious to.

          When you speak for Jesus all you do is show your Biblical ignorance, your God-hating rebellion toward Him, and your willingness to be a child of Satan and do His bidding. And, in short, that you are quite simply a total fool.

          You who are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan), of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath, even as the rest of the Unbelievers. ~ Eph. 2:1-3

          • Jenny Ondioline

            How is it a God complex to point out that Kim Davis was a lawbreaker, and spent time in prison for breaking the law?

            She was upholding her very narrow brand of Christianity and she was showing herself to be completely unfit to hold the position she did. She does not work for a church, she works for the government and as such much follow the government’s rules. She didn’t, and went to jail. But she hated homosexuals so of course she’s a hero to you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sheesh! You really are blind and dense aren’t you? Have you NO ability whatsoever to comprehend what you write?

            You ask, “How is it a God complex”?

            Answer: “Kim Davis became a laughingstock, a person who lost it all because she refused to observe the law.”

            Truth: She didn’t become a laughingstock. She may have become one in your eyes, and perhaps even some other God-haters, but that doesn’t mean it’s a reality.

            And then you did it again with “Her name is synonymous with bigotry and hatred” to which my answer above applies.

            And just to prove you are utterly bankrupt in your argue you have to throw out the little fiery dart from your father, Satan: ” and what did she have, four marriages?” As if that is even remotely relevant. The ONLY thing that is relevant to is that it shows your evil, desperately wicked, totally depraved heart. As if we couldn’t already see that.

            “Kim Davis was a lawbreaker, and spent time in prison for breaking the law?”

            Another bold-faced, outright lie and evidence that you are of your father, Satan. Davis never broke any laws. She spent time in jail for Contempt of Court and, even though many tried to get someone to prosecute her for Misdemeanor Misconduct, she was never found guilty of breaking any laws. In fact, the KY AG refused to refer the case to a special prosecutor.

            Kim Davis is the epitome of Civil Disobedience and will be greatly rewarded for it in Eternity.

            “She was upholding her very narrow brand of Christianity”

            Again, how many times do you have to be told you make yourself to look like a fool when your pretend to know about things in which you are utterly clueless and that it’s best to refrain from even attempting to discuss that which you are utterly ignorant of and devoid of any understanding about it?

            “she was showing herself to be completely unfit to hold the position she did. ”

            Wrong. She was elected by the people to do a job and she did it. In fact, about 6mos later – on April 14th, 2016 – she was fully vindicated when the KY Governor signed a bill into Law that fully protected her right to do what she did. Ooops! Guess that little fact escaped your attention. I know, I know, it’s hard to catch those pesky little fact when you’re blinded by your hatred, bigotry, and zeal to spread your lies.

            I don’t recall but I think she might’ve even been reelected and is still serving as the County Clerk. Seem to remember hearing something about that but don’t know for sure.

            “But she hated homosexuals so of course she’s a hero to you.”

            Another bold-faced lie and fiery dart from your father, Satan. As always, I appreciate you revealing yourself for what you are and throwing all your credibility for everything you spew out the window.

  • Copyleft

    Many Christian Alabamans seem really unhappy that they can’t have an explicitly Christian government that preaches from the bench.

    Unfortunately for them, they’re located in the United States, not a theocracy.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      True Americans submit to God alone, not to atheists or to Sodomites.

      • Copyleft

        Wrong again. You don’t get to decide who’s a “true American.” And if you hate the Constitution so much, you don’t seem to be much of one yourself.

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Constitution does not support depravity.

          • RWH

            The repeal of Prohibition is one of many examples of how wrong you are. Lots of preachers also considered the right of women to vote as being immoral. After all, women were supposed to keep their mouths shut and obey their husbands.

          • worn out 123

            The activist judges sit upon the Supreme Court in this case. They have made law by popular demand, not interpreted the Constitution.

          • RWH

            If you actually read the decision, you should notice that it was based both by the Constitution and case law. The only option you have now is to cry in your soup because American attitudes have shifted once they realized that the sky is not going to fall in.

          • worn out 123

            The sky is not falling. It is slipping away as is our desire for liberty as have many great nations before us.

          • Tangent002

            How does same-sex marriage affect your liberty?

          • Bob Johnson

            Nor does the US Constitution prohibit depravity.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Today’s Americans are slave owners again because they force mankind homosexuality – a kind of slave owners even all their ancestors would detest and abhor. US Constitution is useles to Sodomites. You need the Holy Bible to become civilized again.

          • Fur Hunter

            Grace….it is too bad the Constitution does support against ignorance, intolerance and bigotry because if it did you would be sitting in that class right now of ignorant, intolerant and bigoted folks.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            US Constitution supports Christianity. Today’s Americans are slaves and slave owners again this time by homosexual depravity because sin is a slavery. John 8. Those who hold the Holy Bible alone retain the truth and freedom, both then and now.

        • RWH

          She’s not a true American, she is someone from someplace in Asia. She’s a wannabe American who is clueless about the way that our system works. She would probably get a zero on a citizenship test. This is the type of person we don’t want here. They’re about as dangerous as ISIS.

          • worn out 123

            I’m a true American by virtue of my career if nothing more. Supporting marriage between other than a man and a woman is nothing I would ever be likely to support. It is a step down a dark corridor of morality undermining not only the institution of marriage, but, the sanctity of law itself. Cannot you see where this will lead in a generation or two down the road?
            “No., Achmed. I don’t care if you do love your goat. You cannot marry the goat.”

          • RWH

            Typical slippery-slope argument. The man/goat argument has been laughed out of courts for a while now. So far, same-sex marriage has had zero effect on our culture. Massachusetts has had it for over a decade now, and everything is going strong. It has done nothing to weaken marriage. It has expanded it to people previously excluded.

          • worn out 123

            Courts do not determine morality, nor do laws. Nothing to weaken marriage.? How many are married today as 100 years prior? How many children are without two parents, a man and a woman, today? How many are unemployed due to being undereducated and without work ethics? There is a great deal wrong with the socialist trend in America and activist S.C. judges are now playing their part in aggravating this socialist trend weakening America. A truth foreseen many decades ago and so proclaimed by a Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev. See his speech of September 29, 1959 where he so accurately predicted the fall of America into communism via one social program following another until one day Americans awaken to the realization of a Communist America. Homosexuality is a non-sequitur, however, marriage is the institution upon which the state derives it’s strength, the destruction of which powerfully undermines the very fabric of a strong society.
            Say “Au revoir” to liberty.

          • William of Glynn

            If there is such a sanctity to marriage, why are divorce proceedings held in a court of law instead of a church?

          • Petra Hattenius

            Your ignoignorant judgemental comment sounds as though YOU are the daesh member…

      • William of Glynn

        Sodom-te is offensive … but you already knew that.

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          The meaning is broad. Those who support the sin of homosexuality and transgenderism are the Sodomites, not just those who actually practice the sin. Read Romans 1 and Jude 1. Today’s USA does behave like Sodom against her creation purpose. If USA submits to atheism and Sodomy, so many Earthlings will mimic Americans thinking it’s cool. Sin is not cool but destructive. Problems are a blessing in the immoral rich secular nations.

          Man should not prosper by doing evil. The West teaches children to practice homosexuality, though Jesus cursed such people. Corruption of children is the worst thing to happen to mankind; it truly erases off the future. Morality must be added to human rights in the era of Western Sodomites. People must have rights to reject to endorse homosexuality. You must repent of your sin to get a life. Read John 3.

      • Fur Hunter

        OH? And who made you God’s spokesman? I didn’t hear that proclamation. When did it happen? Did anyone else hear it?

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Read the Holy Bible and America’s national documents.

    • The General

      You prefer a fagocracy.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    So sad that the USA persecutes a righeous man. Homosexuality is such a ruling belief in today’s West. Shame on the secular Sodomic West. May God have mercy on the world’s children and deal with Sodom, for the sake of His holy name.

    • RWH

      He’s a righteous man who is also an activist judge who doesn’t follow the rule of law, something that the conservatives cherish. He, of all people, should know that the Supreme Court has the final word.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        You, of all people, being a self-proclaimed expert should know the Supreme Court does NOT have the final word.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          OK, when determining the Constitutionality of a law, who has the final word. Cite sources, and enlighten us.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Source: Constitution of the USA

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Article and Clause, please.

            Because i have Article III, Section 1 and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

            Once the Supreme Court has ruled, options are very limited. The Congress can try to craft a law that addresses the Court’s findings, an attempt amend the Constitution can be made, or you can keep trying to fight the issue in the courts. But when the Supremes rule the decision is final for that case.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No law supports homosexuality. The liberals are villains.

          • Fur Hunter

            Grace….we don’t care what you have to say regarding homosexuality because your lack of knowledge about the subject is totally profound.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Americans became weird and mentally ill by equating the colored people and sexually depraved people and rant equality. Enough of America’s racism and pollution. Bible-illiteracy makes people enslaved to the Western pervs. God punishes every Sodom. Romans 1 and Jude 1. Western whites need the Holy Bible for the truth and freedom as all others do.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You just answered your own question. Thank you. And don’t miss the “that” in your statement, Since you’re the last honest lawyer I’m sure you understand that a legal argument can be made that Obergefell ruling applies to THAT case and not the country as a whole. Moore may have been making that case and that the ruling doesn’t overturn State Constitution.

            And since y’all are so quick to wanna talk about “case law” and precedent, ya know that has been done in the past. Might wanna inform the other armchair lawyers on here of that.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            No, not in the least. Read the decision. The Justices were quite clear that the 14th Amendment made laws banning same-sex marriages not kosher under the law.

            The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That makes the 14th Amendment supreme. State Constitutions and laws cannot violate the US Constitution. Simple as that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Got any idea what God says about a double-minded man? First you say SCOTUS is final, then you say it’s not, now you say it is. SMH. Well, it’s not,. Never has been.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            SCOTUS is the final word on the question before them. In this case, whether marriage between persons of the same gender is protected under the 14th Amendment.

            The decision was that yes, same-sex marriage enjoys the same Constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment as all other marriages.

            As this is a ruling on established Constitutional law, there is almost no recourse. It’s settled, most of the country supports the right to marry, and just like the religious figures who screamed bloody murder about interracial marriage 50 years ago, in 50 years only the worst fanatics will care about it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try and diversion. “final word on the question before them” is not the same as “final word”.

            And yeah, ain’t it just a travesty that those who believe in Love and Truth are the “worst fanatics”.

            Oh well, even if true Love and Truth don’t win out in the end here on this Earth, they will ultimately because I know who DOES actually have the “final” word.

            And we’ll get to live with that forever while you’ll get to suffer torment in the Lake of Fire forever because you chose to reject that Love and Truth and replace it with a lie. So enjoy your mini-victories while you can because you’re probably right in that the majority of this country won’t have the backbone to stand for what’s right.

            But heym, God has already said that the road to destruction is the Wide & Easy road to take.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            According to the faith I was raised in, you are the one doomed because you refuse accept that there is no God but God, and Mohammad (PBUH) is His Prophet.

            But if all you have is threats you can’t can’t back up; then I think we’re done here. Same sex marriage is settled law, and Alabama has to accept that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, I guess we shall see whose God is God. I didn’t make any threats. Simple spoke the truth.

            You can claim that SSM is settled law but it ain’t. No more than Roe v. Wade was and is. As long as there is Light left on this earth, it’ll NEVER be settled. So no, neither AL or any other person has to accept it.

          • Fur Hunter

            Hey Guy……You are beating a dead horse. You can talk till you are blue in the face. Some folks just won’t get it. They have their own ignorant and intolerant opinions and all the true knowledge in the world shown to them will not change them. Most are too lazy to do the research. They would much rather sit on their @$$es and listen to other ignorant people and believe them blindly, thinking those folks would never lie. Never. Yeah. Sure. Right. Believe it.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Eh, he blocked me when I keep pressing him for specifics.

          • Fur Hunter

            Well. Not to worry. Your posts were excellent, especially when you gave factual pieces of information regarding the subject of the Supreme Court. I told him to look up ‘supreme’ in the dictionary then gave him the definition. He still went on about it. As I have said, there are those who cannot see light when it is shining right in their faces. I’m surprised he didn’t block me as well. There’s still time. GRIN! Some folks have been told things or have read things that are from other ignorant and biased sources and they believe them. He got all over me when I brought up the American Family Group regarding the videos and articles, telling him they are biased and are supported by groups that have an agenda. Which they are. Anyone who has read the unbiased studies and research will see how biased they are. But some do not want to know the truth. And Grace is so far in left field it is sad. I shall look for you on future forums. I like your posts and how you back them with real facts. Thank you. Take care and be safe.

          • Sjou Marten

            Sonny Marten to The LastHonestLawyer
            Not according to the real Constitutional Law as America was to follow the Bible and in 1798 Thomas Jefferson said, “no power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” They all were religious men who formed America and hardly going to allow homosexuals and the current laws to take place, and in fact, they founded the laws upon the Ten Commandments, George Washington was extreme in fasting and praying, and did not allow a sodomite in his army while he was commander and had his troops always praying and fasting…..

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

            “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole
            quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of
            mankind.” ~Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

            “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
            He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
            protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of
            government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

            “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.” ~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

            These were also men who owned slaves. Does that make slavery right? America and the world have changed since the earl;y days of our republic, and the Constitution was written so we could adapt to that change.

            Show me where the Constitution of the United States says that the law must follow the Bible. Quote the Article, Section, and Clause. You won’t find it. What you will find is that the oath of office for the President given in Article II does not contain the words “so help me God.” Nowhere is religion mentioned, except to remove its influence from the government.

          • Fur Hunter

            Thank you so much for explaining further to Royce his lack of understanding regarding the word….Supreme.

          • Fur Hunter

            You strike me as a totally cool guy. So I had to tell you these and I know you have probably hear them a thousand times. Your handle here: TheLastHonestLawyer. Has anyone met the first one yet? GRIN! OK..Joke. What is the definition of ‘a shame’? It is a bus full of lawyers, going over a 1000 foot cliff, with the front seat empty. (Please say you laughed.) I tried to click on you to follow you on future forums, but it didn’t seem to work. But I shall look for you down the road. I like your comments and posts.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Thank you! And trust me, no one loves lawyer jokes more than lawyers.

            I suspect you can’t follow me because I’ve locked my Disqus account down. Someone was going through my entire history and flagging literally every comment I’ve made. It was annoying, so I locked them out.

          • Fur Hunter

            Totally understand. I wish there was a way to catch folks that hack and do all that scamming. I’ve been getting these emails from…Lawyers….Yeah Sure…..telling me that someone has trusted me with 6.5 million dollars and they need my information so they can help distribute the money to me and some charity. I have a response but I can’t type it here. It would be immediately deleted it is so ugly. Not to worry. I will look for you in the future. If you ever see a post by ‘Thornton’…that’s me as well. Glad you liked the jabls. GRIN! Take care……….Thornton

          • Fur Hunter

            Royce does not know the meaning of…Supreme. I told him to look it up.

        • RWH

          Well, I strongly suggest that you don’t hold your breath waiting for confirmation that the Supreme Court does not have the final word. Judging from what you have written so far, you would probably fail a citizenship test. But you’re in good company. Both you and Judge Ray Moore feel that you’re above decisions made by the Supreme Court–both state and Federal. As with your knowledge of theology, your knowledge of how courts work has a lot to be desired.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. That the best you can do? But hey, thanks for publicly showing everyone what your judgment is worth.

            As for my knowledge of theology, we’ve already established before that you don’t even have any but rather what you do have is apostasy.

            Thanks again for publicly displaying the best ya got, your phony god-complex, your logic, reason, and now knowledge of the Constitution.

          • RWH

            Typical fundy behavior. Rather than admit that they are wrong, they prefer to insult and browbeat. This is often how they run their churches as well. It has all of the attributes of a cult. David Koresch and Jim Jones had the same personality traits, and look at what happened to the sheep whom they brow-beated into obeying.

        • Bryon

          Your right. If there’s no law on it passed by Congress… It’s not a law!!! The states still hold the authority on this matter. The Supreme Court may only strike laws down not create anything new.

          It’s unfortunate that we the people allow the courts lawlessness to erode our liberties.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Courts are tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws. They did that. They created no new law. They just struck down ones that were unconstitutional.

          • Bob Johnson

            So since Congress has created nol law stating which side of the road to drive on, Florida could make a deal with British car manufactures and change the state’s driving laws. Georgia would file suit in Federal court based on the Commerce Clause (Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Who would win?

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            First of all, British car makers are more than happy to make left hand drive cars for the American (and most of the rest of the world) market.

            Why would Georgia file suit? Florida would be on the hook to spend the huge sum required to move every single road sign and repaint every single lane marker in the state, not to mention creating expensive change-over areas at every major roadway leading into or out of the Sunshine state. The likely suit would come from the Feds, as Georgia might be seen as exceeding their authority over the federally owned interstates.

            I fail to see the basis for Georgia’s suit here. Are they suing because there might be traffic problems at the border? Just changing the side of the road would not prevent Georgians from driving down to Panama City Beach for a weekend, they’d just have to switch their driving around a little.

          • Bob Johnson

            More of a moot court exercise to try and understand Bryon’s concept of now the Supreme Court functions. I chose this because Sweden actually did make the change in 1967. I chose Florida because it only has a border with two other states and I chose Georgia because it could most easily have standing in a court case based on the Commerce Clause.

        • Fur Hunter

          It is called the Supreme Court for a reason. Now go get your Webster’s Dictionary and look up the word ‘supreme’. Did you do that? Well now read the definition. Shall I quote it for you so that others who are also ignorant of the word will understand the definition? Supreme: highest in rank, power, authority; dominant. I think they DO have the last word, Sweetie. Excuse me!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, that’s what you get for thinking when you’re not used to it.

            The Supreme Court is the supreme court. That does NOT say they have the last word. Now go get your copy of the Constitution and read it. Or you can just go two posts up where TLHL proves my point.

            Shall I quote just the first little bit of it so that others who are also ignorant of the Constitution will understand?

            “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States…”

            So, like I said, that’s what you get for thinking when you’re not used to it because SCOTUS does NOT have the last word. And I am NOT your Sweetie. Pervert. Get your mind outta the gutter.

            There is no excuse for you but I do forgive you.

      • Bryon

        The Supreme Court doesn’t have the final word. Legally, Alabama still has the power to say what it wants on marriage. No federal law has been passed by congress on marriage. This mans removal is unlawful. Unfortunately, many see the Supreme court as a lawmaker. But legally they can only strike laws down they cannot make anything new. Which is what they did in the same-sex marriage decision.

        Ultimately, we need to pass laws to get government out of regulating marriage. Marriage is a religious issue. The government is expressly forbidden from setting up forms of religion in the 1st Amendment.

        • RWH

          If the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final word, why have we had Row v Wade for 45 years now? States should have been able to overturn that. Brown v Topeka is another case. Why was Eisenhower able to send in troops to Arkansas to force-ably integrate Central High? I could go on. Marriage a religious issue? Does your church recognize civil marriages? Does your church consider marriage a sacrament? Will the State recognize a marriage performed in your church if the couple didn’t get marriage license first? If you were Catholic or Orthodox, you might have a point. However, there are plenty of people who opt for a civil marriage, and they are recognized by the State, Gay marriage has not affected any established marriages. “We” have just expanded the right to those who were previously denied.

          By the way, there are church groups that deny a marriage ceremony to couples above 60 years because the marriages will not bear children.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          I will have been married for 26 amazing years come this May. Religion has had nothing to do with our lives at any point.

          Civil marriage is a legal union of two people for the purposes of creating a mutually beneficial situation. There are over a thousand legal benefits that married couples get that cohabitation lacks.

          Religious marriages are important to those of that faith. However, I’m willing to bet that every couple in your church got marred with a state-issued marriage license in hand and signed the certificate soon after the “I do’s” were said.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “No federal law has been passed by congress on marriage.”

          The Defense of Marriage Act, which US v. Windsor, and Obergefell, struck down.

  • This is why the supreme court should not be allowed to create laws.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Exactly!

    • Tangent002

      This is y’all’s fault. You get that, right? If y’all hadn’t tried to pass state laws making marriage as only between one man and one woman, this issue would have likely languished for decades, waiting on state-by-state referendums. But no, now same-sex marriage is legal nationwide because you made it an unwinnable Constitutional issue.

      • Amos Moses

        you underestimate the rebellion of the homosexuals …….

        • Tangent002

          How so?

          • Delectable

            You ever been in prison?

          • Tangent002

            No.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Homosexuality leads to pedophilia and a moral chaos. West’s legalization of same-sex marriage is lawlessness.

          • Tangent002

            Homosexuality does not “lead to” pedophilia. All forms of chronophilia are distinct from orientation. A pedophile is no more likely to be homosexual than they are to be heterosexual. The difference is access. It is far easier for a pedophile to get “alone time” with a member of their own gender than with one of the opposite gender.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Gay West legalizes any depravity and demands the world do the same. The West needs Biblical instructions to stay civilized.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Hi Grace! I was thinking and I realized that the “Gay West” didn’t include Europe to my knowledge. They are very much like North America in the changing of laws, including other human beings rights that were previously restricting their lives to be much less than ours. So you are going to have to include Europe in any accusations.Ok? Blessings Grace.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sharon, the West means Western Europe, USA, Canada, and Australia. Japan would be considered as a Western nation, too, I don’t know. Eastern Europe and Russia are not considered as the West. A Russian called “Gay West” and I thought that phrase is a perfect fit for all rich Western-style secular nations.

            West’s human rights are screwed today because Western whites put the peoples of colors and the sexually depraved and the transgender mentally ill together in the same category. I wondered what gain is there by corrupting the whole mankind including their own children and realized that secular nations don’t have many real spauses or real children. Too many pedophiles nowadays. May God bestow His justice upon the earth.

            The world is still suffering from the rich white people’s atrocities. I wish Western whites would stop demanding abnormal immorality upon the world. Enough of the sick rich pervs’ atrocities. You should get disgusted about what your race and their mental slaves are doing in the world. Abolishment of morality. The West has no sanity apart from Judeo-Christian values.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Here we go again! Grace not every Caucasian is rich, not every Caucasion is like what you described. I know I’m not. So you should apologize to every Caucasian that you put into the same basket because you are including people who do not fit what you are describing.
            Grace. Stop looking around the world and look to yourself. You are not God to judge the world. Reassess yourself to find what God feels doesn’t fit – sins – and read the Gospel so you can start following Jesus and showing love instead of lack of understanding and hatred. Jesus doesn’t want us to hate, he wants us to love each other.
            We have to accept what is wrong in the world as part of the end times. God warned us that these things will happen. Nothing can change that. Stop focusing on the things you can’t control, and start trying to bring the gospel to everyone like Jesus asked us to. Stop looking at the past and trying to work out how to make it different. It won’t work and your posts make you sound like an awful person who hates anyone that sins… except that everyone sins, including yourself. Your blanket statements that include everyone in one group (like the “West”) is flat out wrong. Does everyone in your country behave perfectly that you can’t find error in them but only in others? You are crazy if you think because SOME people in a group of countries identify the whole place as one thing. You can’t do that! It makes it a false statement before it gets past the first generalizing statement like that. Face it Grace. You are wrong. The whole world is becoming a place like you are trying to say that it is only the West and everyone in the world does not act like you say. I can’t deal with you anymore, you won’t listen to me when I try to help you. I will not keep wasting my time trying to help you to not make statements that are not true.
            I enjoyed our discussions but I am not going to keep them up. I realize that nothing I say will change your attitude. And I have others to talk about who will listen to me and at least look to themselves to find their truth, not at the whole world to criticize it all the time. The way you make your statements it sounds like everyone else is a sinner except you (and probably whatever Country you are in) You are a sinner because of the way you talk about the people of the world. You are not judging Just sinners but people who do not sin as well. We are not supposed to judge like that. We are only supposed to judge about their sin, and then we are supposed to bring them to Jesus. That’s all. Not keep drilling it into us here that your country – since you say it like you and yours are not included in the “disgusting West”. Leave the way SOME of the world behaves alone. You’ve said the same things over and over and they were wrong in the first place. We tried to show you where you made your mistakes and you ignore us.
            God bless you Grace, and I pray God will help you to see the error of your ways before the end comes.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually it does. Wanna watch a couple of videos and read a couple of articles on it? I can send ya them if ya’d like.

          • Sisyphus

            Wow, you’re offering to send someone videos RE: pedophilia?!? Good luck when the FBI comes a knocking.

          • Petra Hattenius

            Ha!!!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!

            Never said anything even remotely close to that.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” – Plato

          • Petra Hattenius

            Don’t call yourself a troll, your short but that’s ok

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • Fur Hunter

            And what organization made these videos and wrote the articles and who supported them? If they were backed by some religious or political group, they are biased. They were made to support an agenda. Was one possibly made by or supported by the American Family Group? THAT is laughable if it is. Most pedophiles are straight people. Check the police records. They are not biased. They are real.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, aren’t you eager to join in with those who have a self-imposed god-complex? How do you know they’re biased? Why, just because they happened to be made by someone you THINK must be. LOL How wonderfully open-minded and objective of you! LOL

            Thank you so much for publicly displaying just how open-minded, objective, and truth-oriented the God-haters are.

            Much appreciated!

          • Fur Hunter

            Royce…..Excuse me…..I NEVER said I hated God. What I totally dislike are those who use God as a weapon against those who do not think like they do, regarding many subjects. So…NEVER put words into any of my posts that are not there. Also…Have you checked out any other unbiased studies? Other than those supported by the likes of the American Family Group? Probably not because you are one of those who believe blindly what comes out of the mouths of those in pulpits and politicians who would NEVER lie to you. When you finally realize that groups like the American Family, that believe that through conversion therapy, gays can become straight, are so in left field, it’s not even funny. ALL major unbiased studies since 1973 have proven conversion therapy is a total crock. But you keep believing what they tell you. I don’t care. If you want to be one of the sheep, go right ahead. Your choice. People are not born ignorant. They become that way through lack of education and knowledge of the true facts, not those supported by those with an agenda.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, but God did.

            And, for the record, we Christians are not using God as a weapon against those who don’t think like we do. WE actually think like God does and are fulfilling our Commission given by Christ.

            You, on the other hand, are fulfilling your position as a son of disobedience and child of wrath.

            You are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)4

            “Probably not because you are one of those…”

            Thank you, once AGAIN, for putting on full display your self-deluded, self-imposed faux omniscience and god-complex. I’ll be sure and give that all the due consideration it deserves. LOL

            That goes for the rest of your regurgitated vomit as well.

            ” But you keep believing what they tell you. I don’t care. ”

            Oh really? You don’t care? Well then, shut up. Because it sure looks like you do when you waste all that space ranting about a bunch of nonsense.

            “If you want to be one of the sheep, go right ahead.”

            Thank you. I plan to. Not only do I want to be one of the sheep, I LOVE being one of the sheep. Thank God I am no longer one of the goats!!!!

            As for your education and knowledge, here’s what it’s worth:

            “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Pro 14:12)

          • Bob Johnson

            “No, but God did.”
            So much for the concept that God’s will is unknowable.
            It seems to me that to claim to know God’s will is the height of hubris.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I have NO idea what god you’re referring to but the Lord God Jehovah, the One & ONLY true God has most certainly made His will known in many, many things.

            It seems to me that to claim to not know God’s will is the height of ignorance of both God and His Word. Sheesh.

            Thanks for once again revealing yourself as a Poser standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line. Btw, ya might wanna ask yourself how Jesus could say what He does there to a bunch of people who didn’t have any idea what His will is and was.

            Speaking of hubris, I do hope you’ll humble yourself, surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ, beg Him to forgive your sins and save you.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Why are you asking Bob to give up the argument and submit to some superstition of yours? I wouldn’t want to be “saved” by anyone who’s made such a perfect slave out of you.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So calling people God haters is a regular pastime for you, isn’t it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!

            Yes, if the shoe fits. Speaking the Truth is a regular pastime for Christians.

            No doubt you were striving for another Plato Award. So I won’t disappoint you.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Screaming troll alert at people who are not trolls is silly, Royce. As is quoting the same Plato quote over and over.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I wouldn’t know about the former. When the shoe fits… As to the latter, that’s your opinion. When the shoe fits…

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The shoe doesn’t fit, Royce. Does it ever? You simply leap to the wrong conclusion over and over.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes. It fits perfectly.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            How funny it seems to fit everyone who argues with you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. Your inability to see that only speaks to your blindness.

            I’ve actually “argued” with another Sister on here recently over her misguided Theology.

            That’s a far cry from being a God-hater like you.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            All I am seeing if you saying the same things over and over to other people. Everyone but you is a “God-hater”, whatever THAT is. Everyone but you is a troll.

          • Fur Hunter

            I hate to say it but Grace will NEVER get it. She is so wrapped up with her ignorance she can’t see daylight. She refuses to do the research and find out the true facts from unbiased sources. She continues to listen to and read studies done that are backed by religious or political groups that have set an agenda. She will never change.

          • Rons Abhish

            whatever we say ,there is an end to all of it,God is in control,if man can not stay clean,he will clean it,but that will be in big scale

          • Fur Hunter

            Grace….Your ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the subject of homosexuality is so profound it is laughable. If you check police records, you will find that the vast number of pedophiles are…..STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!!….Now in the future, do your research first before you open that uneducated mouth of yours. We are all laughing at you and your ignorance.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Homosexuality means sex with anything. Gay West will have to ban Christianity and the Holy Bible to establish their filthy Sodomic dystopia. Today’s Western culture is a shame to all Western forefathers.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Homosexuality does NOT mean “sex with anything”, Grace! It means attraction to people of the same gender.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            But the West’s enforcement of homosexuality leads to pedophilia, incest, animal-abuses, polygamy, and all other kinds of depravity. The West has no cure until they stop putting the colored people and sexually sinful people together in the same category. No Bible = No truth or morality or civility or intelligence.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Homosexuality doesn’t “lead” to anything, that’s called a slippery slope argument. If straight relationships don’t lead to anything, why would a homosexual one? Human sexuality is fixed and does not change. Just think about this for a moment, if you’re attracted to a person of the same gender, why would you start to abuse animals or develop attractions to family members, Grace, you make NO SENSE at all!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Homosexuality causes humans to lust over all beings. If a person is depraved enough to lust over the same-sex member, who can be exempt from being an object of such lust? None. It’s just like having an appetite for fellow human beings. What cannot be eaten by the cannibals? None. It’s a simple logic. Sodomic West views everyone as a sex-object. Human sexuality is right only when it is between one man and one woman in marriage. All others are sins; homosexuality is worst of all only because the Western whites force the legal endorsement of it this century.

            To back up this fact, there were news of Western people claiming to be transgenders or dogs or cats or human children and claim to have marriage to selves, dogs, oceans, and robots. Western people are too better-off and are bored and are seeking warped sick amusement, but they should not force normal people to endorse such mental illness. Post-christian Western culture is sicker than evil individuals like Emperor Nero. Bored rich are a real disaster for all Earthlings, as always.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No it doesn’t, Grace. Homosexuality is exactly what I said it was, and exactly what the dictionary says it is. Simple attraction to the same gender. It doesn’t “cause” lust any more than heterosexual attractions cause lust. And the same-sex attraction isn’t based on depravity, it happens naturally and cannot be changed or controlled, which is another reason you should stop bashing it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sin must be ashamed of and repented of and be reformed, never be forced of or promoted of endorsement. The Western culture forces the endorsement of homosexuality and takes away morality and freedom, though it was a Christendom before. The dictionary had been written before the West became Sodomic or by the activists. The Western culture is wrong to uphold homosexual sins unconditionally. The depravity is worse than that of the pagan Romans and pagan Greeks. Read Romans chapter 1.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Homosexuality is not sin. No culture, not the Western or Eastern or anything, “forces” homosexuality to be “endorsed”. The wish is for people to be tolerant and accepting of it because it is innate and cannot be changed and is not chosen and is not in and of itself harmful to anyone. Read a medical/psychological journal about homosexuality, PLEASE, and stop bashing them with false and hateful words.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Homosexuality is sin, no matter what the Western Sodom says. Truth does not change. No one should be made endorse a sin. Secular West became hopelessly immoral last century by being haughty against God on a new level and having a full stomach for the longest time on a suffering planet, and it also lost freedom and civility by hating the Christianity their only sane conscience and maliciously using the colored peoples to uphold the unthinkable depravity.

            The Word of God alone decides what is true and moral; Western pervs should not decide morality because Western culture is sick immoral even by the pagan standards. It’s not hatred but a fact. Telling the truth is the only act of love. Submission to today’s West brings destructions like Sodom and Gomorrah on earth. People have rights to life and to morality. Western whites must give up the slavery-by-sin.

            Mankind have to battle against depraved Western culture for the sake of all Western children. The Holy Bible tells what the children who are raised in Sodom do to others. The vicious cycle must get halted. Read the Word of God. Genesis 18-19. Leviticus 18-20, Romans 1-8, Jude 1.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you firmly believe homosexuality is a sin, even in defiance of what we know about it from science and psychology, then your faith has failed you because you have chosen to remain willfully anti-science. It’s not nearly as complicated a thing as you make it out to be, but as long as you continue to believe that it’s sinful and people choose it and there is a conspiracy behind it involving the destruction of the world, you’ll never know the truth. Nor do you appear to wish to know it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible is right and today’s Western culture is wrong and immoral. No one on earth should be forced to be impure by anyone, but the forced impurity is the West’s religion today. Everyone must be able to reject the homosexual immorality, for the truth and freedom to stay intact. Science and psycholgy affirm that immorality hurts individuals and societies. The West must stop pushing the depravity immediately. It is a violation against human rights.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You are still fighting against what has been proven to be true. Settled science. What that means is you have certain things completely, indisputably wrong and you show no desire to learn from it. As long as you continue to talk about homosexuality being immoral, you’re lying, Grace. That’s what it comes down to. Homosexuality is not depravity. Depravity is depravity.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Jenny, read the Holy Bible – Leviticus 18-20, Romans 1, Jude 1 – though it does not take Christianity to see that homosexuality and transgenderism is depravity. The Western whites are wrong in that they equate dark skins and homosexual sins to rant equality. I can’t believe mankind have to put up with this kind of ultimate racism from the West this century.

            The secular Western whites are indeed clever; drug addicts and immoral youth are their slaves without exception, but the Bible-literate ones refuse to submit to the West’s Sodomism and that refusal is the only truth-upholding and liberty on earth. I write because I truly feel sorry for your Christian forefathers who were normal. The West is craving homosexuality because Ex-christian West is being bored and too well-fed and too immoral.

          • Sharon_at_home

            wrong…

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s true. Present West’s notion of homosexuality/transgenderism is all about abolishment of morality and systematic corruption of global children. The West’s reign by abnormal immorality must be countered by all free normal humans. The West needs Christianity to be saved and be good and moral, both now and then. It’s crucial for the Western children.

          • Sharon_at_home

            It won’t happen Grace. These are the signs of the end times. No one can change what is going to happen except God and He is the one that told us what to expect during this time.
            Spend your time between now and when Christ calls us home trying to find more people to come to Jesus and His Salvation because that is what the Lord wants us to do. That is our duty as Christians.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sharon, it’s happening already. Go to Lifesite; they have all the news you need to know as Christians. Homosexuality leads to pedophilia and everything abnormal and heinous and destructive, and all normal people must counter this Western insanity. Fairness did not last long. It’s happening because Western whites and their mental slaves are not differenciating skin colors and sexual depravity. Also, the powerfuls are backing the Sodomites so that they could enslave every Earthling.

            We can’t afford losing the freedom, Sharon. Listening to Gay West is a slavery this century. I suffered racism all my life since I left my mother country when I was little. Being bullied for opposing Sodomy from the white people of the former Christendom and their young Nazi-perv slaves is the last thing I want. It is destructive to global children as well. We serve God by living out the Church and evangelizing (I regularly do that) but also must fight against the era’s injustice and destructive tyranny. Proverbs 24.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Grace, it’s not just white people who are LGBT. It’s people of all races, all colours. Besides you are insulting me and any white person who is not like you are trying to say are all the same. We aren’t all the same, we don’t all support the same things, we don’t all look at the world and want to save it because it’s God’s responsibility to do something if it is as large a problem as it is because we can’t do anything as people.

            I am so sorry you have been treated badly Grace. Racism is an awful part of this world, and I feel worse when I know someone who has been treated that way. I would have stood up for you Grace, and someone should have when it was happening. It depends on where you are and the time of when it was happening, whether there are people who care enough to stand up against racism and bullying, but no one should have to go through it in the first place. IMO.

            Ok I reread Proverbs 24 and this is what I found that was about this conversation.

            19 Fret not thyself because of evil men, neither be thou envious at the
            wicked;
            20 For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked
            shall be put out.
            21 My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

            Verse 19 says not to fret about evil men.
            Verse 21 essentially says not to trouble yourself with the way the world is changing.

            Grace I feel terrible about the way you have been treated but it’s about the people you were with, not the world. There are plenty of places in the world that would not have allowed that treatment. But it’s about how the people deal with it, not with the world.

            You also have to understand that a lot of the LGBT stance is not about their sex life; it’s about the same things you wanted. Equality. They are people that God has created just like us and they want the same rights we have to live fully, and not restricted as they are now. It’s not that they want people to support their lifestyle, as much as people want to support their bid for equality. I suspect if they didn’t have to make their sex life known to accomplish this, they probably wouldn’t have. So it’s not support of Homosexuals (please stop saying sodomites) it’s about the support for equal rights for all people. That is not a bad thing, is it?

            I understand and I sympathize with you, but you have to open your eyes to the whole world, not just the West. This kind of thing happens everywhere now.

            Keep telling them about Jesus and Salvation Grace, without being demeaning or hateful, and let God worry about everything else. After all, God wants us to give Him our burdens – and when I give mine to Him, everything is so much better to me. Let God worry about the world. Just keep your faith and do your duty and you’ll be a much happier person, I guarantee it. Loving God should give you peace and Joy, not worry and upset. Go to God with your burdens and find the Joy and peace He offers us. Live your life about God, not about the worlds troubles.

            You are my sister and I love you and only ever want the best for you Grace. Please let my words give you that help. God bless!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I believe God wants me to tell Americans how insane and racist and slave-driving they are by installing Sodomy as the law of the land and that Americans need the Gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation and freedom. I also need to tell West’s white people that they must stop bashing their Christian parents and Christian ancestors who are far better than themselves. It is justice for the white Christian peoples of yesteryears. I think the West became immoral by hating their own Christian legacy. If the West upholds inhumane immorality, it all negatively affects my mother countries and fatherland. Every decent adult should live to protect children.

          • Sharon_at_home

            So the whole western civilization is going to hell as far as you are concerned. (But the Eastern Civilization is not?) Well, I strongly disagree. There are some people in the West that are the way you describe it, but far less people than you claim. The media makes it seem like more people support the way the different people than it really is. Christians don’t all stand up and trouble themselves with the world because they realize that God is in control and our getting into people’s faces about their support of someone else’s sin, is a waste of time.
            The thing is, no matter where you live, your nation is in just as much trouble as the rest of the world. there isn’t a place on earth that isn’t affected by the current events, including yours. Whether the West is supportive or not should not affect anyone who is Faithful to their God. If it is affecting your “mother countries and fatherland” then it’s your nations fault not the West. If it wasn’t the way they wanted it the majority would reject it and it couldn’t have an effect, but our fussing and fighting is not going to change it Grace. We are too few in the face of the world. Besides, the Prophecies must be fulfilled and that is something you can’t interfere with.
            I don’t say that you should lie down and accept it as something you agree with, not at all. Do God’s work around you, don’t try to reach the world to make it change, it is an impossible task because it is not in God’s plan. Just do what you can to bring more people to Jesus and Salvation Grace. That is your duty to God.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sharon, you need to understand that legalization of open Sodomy and mockery of marriage by it means complete loss of freedom for all normal peoples. What the Ex-christian West is doing now is unprecedentedly heinous. The West has no morality apart from Christianity; you know too well what men do when they hate their own conscience.

            It does not matter whether it’s barbarians or well-dressed DC people; the effects are the same. Illiterate barbarians are less guilty because they do evils ignorantly, but Western powerfuls do that to lock mankind in a beastly immorality. Beasts are better. I think the Western secularism went mad by losing Christianity and having only broken family units.

          • Sharon_at_home

            You have to understand that the whole West does not support everything you say it does.
            Again you make it sound like all of us are the same and we aren’t, so stop saying it that way.
            I see things differently that you Grace, because I go by what the Gospel says, not just the scriptures that someone else talks about. You have been manipulated to think the parts of the bible that are not in the gospel are what God intends when it is laid out in the Gospel what he wants for us.
            One of the things that God said is that we should not worry when the signs are showing, that He still has control. That He has conquered the world (and death) and we should not worry about the way the world is becoming because we are not of this world, Grace, we are God’s Children and we are not supposed to conform to the ways of the world but rather we are put aside from the world to live the life of faith in Jesus Christ, without being involved in the world by being materialistic, envying, hatred, etc.
            God has set us aside as a special people (a peculiar people) and does not want us to be involved in the world other than to live in it to survive.
            Stop worrying about the problems of the world and just look at yourself to make sure you are living a Christian life the way Jesus wants us to. The world is not going to change for the better Grace, not in our views. Stop worrying about it and accept it Grace. The way of the world – the whole world not just the West – will never be what we as Christians would like it to be. God doesn’t expect us to fight what is going to happen regardless of our attempts at changing it. He just wants us to shine our light to give the Lord God the Glory, and help people find their way to Jesus and Salvation.
            Read the Gospel Grace. please! It will make your life so much better than the view you have now. honestly. Look Grace, I care about you and I want you to have Salvation. I’m only trying to help you retain that honestly.

          • Bob Johnson

            “these are the signs of the end times,” and ”No one can change what is going to happen except God.”

            And many Christians call atheist nihilist. This is Pascal’s wage – what if you are wrong? What do you want to leave to future generations, the mere hope that it will soon be over?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Tell the truth to the well-fed rotten kids of America who do not respect their parents even if the world ends tomorrow.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Thanks Bob, I appreciate your question.
            I’m not aware of the meaning of your “many Christians call atheist nihilist. This is Pascal’s wage” I’m sorry. Would you explain it so I know what you refer to without searching for it and thinking something else is what it. I’d appreciate it. I’m always interested in learning about something new.
            I’ve been giving it some thought because so many people have pointed out that it’s been the “end of the world” for many generations in the past and obviously it has not happened.
            The Lord gave us signs to recognize when the end is coming. Right now there have been many signs that indicate it is coming.
            So I cannot speak for God, as His ways are higher than mine, but I do wonder if the point of the signs in so many generations was to tell the people that if they don’t make some changes it will be the end of the world.

            I honestly don’t know, and TBH I look at this world and the evil that is so prevalent in the world, and I look at the signs that are in the bible, and I do expect this to be it. If it’s not, then I wish the way of this world would change, and I don’t think it will be that easy. I think, it would be a good thing to stop all this evil and hatred and wars and just so many things that make this world not so wonderful to live in.

          • Bob Johnson

            Let me start with “atheists are nihilists.” This is a common refrain on this website. This is one of the most frequent questions on many support sites for atheists. A variation of it is the number one question at the website Daylight Atheism.

            Pascal’s wager – if there is no God, then when you are dead nothing happens – everybody loses. If there is a God, then believers go to Heaven and non-believers go to Hell. Therefore, the only rational position is to believe in God. Pascal’s wager has several problems. First it assumes you can acquire belief just by wanting it, so you or I could just wake up tomorrow and believe in Odin. Belief and faith does not work that way. While we are thinking of Odin, we come to the second problem with Pascal’s wager – binary thinking; it assumes there is only two choices my God or no god, but what if when we die it turns out to be Odin or Kali?

            Considering Pascal’s wager in this context, belief in the soon to arrive end times means in many ways, both large and small, that we do not address the problems of the world. Instead, we day-dreaming about the glory to come caused by our neglect of this world. Certainly it is not only Christian who ignore climate change. However, Senator James Inhofe is very clear that the global warming is a biblically inspired hoax. and the earthquakes in his home state are not man-made but an act of God.

            As you have said, “keep trying to be a part of helping the problems of the world” and a belief that we are near the end can not help but influence the choices we make. You have also stated, “so many people have pointed out that it’s been the “end of the world” for many generations in the past and obviously it has not happened.” That is why I go with “no one will no the hour or day,” and place the end at some very distant time.

            And for me to come full circle to the Norse stories, from which our days of the week are named, and reflect on the Einherjar leaving Valhalla for the Ragnarok and the final battle between good and evil.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Well, thank you for that information. I don’t say I agree with it, but I do appreciate learning about it. I know what belief is to me and it’s not something that I took to mean I have to do anything. Rather I find that I want to do something because of my belief.
            I don’t personally wait around for the end times, because I don’t know when it will be since it is Only the Father that knows when it will be.
            I believe there will be and end and I see the signs, but I am not sitting around waiting for it, I am trying to do God’s Will up to the end. I may not live long enough to see it happen, but I know that the good I do, will remain after I am gone, because I have been able to bring people to Jesus. I don’t care about the end, more than looking at the world and seeing the signs. I don’t worry about the World, I just do my duty to God and live as well as I can without sin, and ask forgiveness for the sins I do when they are unintentional.
            The end can come soon, or it can come later (after I die) it doesn’t matter as long as I continue to do my duty towards God.
            Have a great day Bob. And thanks again!

          • Sharon_at_home

            That’s disgusting Grace! and TOTALLY UNTRUE! You really don’t understand what Gay/Homosexual means if you believe that. I won’t say there are not men who are like you describe, but nowhere near all of them.
            I really thought you had changed Grace, with how you approach what you say. You know what? It is not only the US that is going to be having problems because it has to fulfill the prophesy in the bible about the end times. At this point, It seems to have a lot of the signs… either way, Where ever you live Grace, it’s going to go through the same kind of upheaval as the rest of the world. If it isn’t already.
            I am going to keep trying to show people that there are reasonable Christians in this world that treat people the way Jesus showed us; with Love and with the desire to bring someone else to follow Jesus and choose salvation and repentance. Christians like you don’t attack people unless they know their sin. You only know who to attack by learning who is a sinner of those sins, and that’s awful when you consider you are talking about someone who loves and lives exactly like you and I except the “way” they love is their sin, well, sort of. It’s one step beyond the love that we as heterosexuals have for each other. I put this question to Amos before as well. Other than by confessing to the priest, how would anyone know the sins you live with in your life?
            I have something I want you to think about . This shows you have compassion for others in the exact situation. Please try to imagine yourself in this ‘people’
            Is your life restricted because people decided that (for instance) anyone from the Catholic Church was not welcome ahhh lets say – at some supermarkets because they don’t want anyone who is Catholic to come near their stores.
            First of all, you have to be completely open about your sin of being Catholic or you keep it to yourself so you can shop there.
            When you come up to the check out, they see you are wearing a crucifix and ask you bluntly if you are Catholic, you can’t deny it because it’s true. So now they won’t serve you and will tell you to leave. So now you have to travel to another store to hope that they won’t be looking out for Catholics too.
            Boy, that would be embarrassing to go through, don’t you think?
            But, if they had never decided that that being Catholic was illegal, it would not have been a problem, and you would not be embarrassed by someone else about your faith, and you would have been able to go to any supermarket anywhere. So, Grace, that’s a real drag because it restricts your life by not allowing something that is given to everyone else, and the only way to stand up for your faith, is to reveal your sin so you can tell them that it should not be illegal – because it’s a church and it’s not a person, right. Ok but if you can truly imagine what it would be like to live like that for one day – the extra time it would take to do your chores or going to work or school because you aren’t allowed to be in ‘this’ establishment and have to go around a community because you know they hate “people like you” and avoid it to be safe. Or…you phone someone to hire them to do work for you, and when they get to your place, they find out you are Catholic and get angry and stomp out without returning the deposit.
            Seriously Grace, can you imagine how awful it would be to live that life even for a day, even better – for a week. How about it Grace, would you want to live like that all the time? I look forward to your reply, as I do enjoy our chats. May you praise God for Eternity, sister! Blessings!

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        That’s another lie. One only has to look at the history of SSM in WA State to see that as clear as crystal.

        • Sjou Marten

          You are so correct. These people who fight against God’s laws are doomed. They stir up problems all over this world, fight, try to take everything, but it is the job of Christians to withstand these firey darts, as we already know their end. It is clear that nations fail without God and perhaps God will keep his people above all these issues, and maybe it is time to find out who stands on the right side of the line, like during the time of Moses. Great plagues came upon those who were against God or killed.

      • Bryon

        The government should never have gotten in the business of regulating marriage at all.

        All of it violates the 1st Amendment and tells the people how to practice Religion.

        Marriage was first introduced to the humanity by God over 6,000 years ago. Detailed in Jewish Law around 3,500 years ago. This has been maintained till today.

        The same-sex marriage laws are just as illegal.

        The only legal laws on marriage would be: government cannot regulate marriage because it is defined by religion. The 1st amendment forbids the government from establishing any form of religion. And same-sex marriage / one man and one woman / no polygamy is establishing a way of life and a religion.

        We really need to clean house of thousands of such laws that destroy our freedom.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          The government regulates marriage because the government gives all kinds of benefits to married couples; tax breaks and the like.

          I’m actually just fine with the idea of a certain religion or denomination prohibiting whatever types of marriage they want to, but then you have to remember, there are Christian denominations that are OK with SSM, not to mention other religions that are. What of their freedom? What about those of NO religion?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Good thing they didn’t then.

      • Why do you say that?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I’m going to answer this question straight and ignore th fact that you’re sarcastically (and childishly) pretending to be a chatbot.

          Because they simply nullified any laws that ban same sex marriage. No new laws were created.

          • So people are being punished for breaking laws that don’t exist. Got it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who is being punished? Kim Davis? Roy Moore? No, they’re being punished for trying to ENFORCE a law that doesn’t exist.

          • What law would that be?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Some law that says that government has the right and/or obligation to deny marriage to same sex couples.

          • You’re not being very specific. I think you don’t know the answer.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            There isn’t an answer. I can’t cite a law that doesn’t exist.

            The bottom line is that, whatever you call it, Roy Moore and Kim Davis were both punished for defying the Supreme Court.

          • So they made a law then.
            If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, they DID NOT make any law. SCOTUS struck down laws banning same sex marriage. Kim Davis apparently didn’t get the memo and went right on trying to deny same sex marriage to people. For this she suffered the consequences.

          • You’re referring to particular laws again. Which laws are those?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Alabama Amendment 774 and Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004

          • LOL. You went googling. How do you like your own medicine?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, I went Googling. Excuse me if I don’ have time to write a formal motion every time you ask me something.

            Anyway, so can we get back on topic? What new law did the Supreme Court create in Obergefell?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well Done! Thy good and faithful servant. 🙂

            The only thing AC is getting from me from the point forward is the Gospel. I’m not feeding the troll anything else anymore. That’s what he needs and everything else is irrelevant.

          • Sjou Marten

            Actually, the states did make laws, or the original 13 did and they all stated you had to be a Christian to be in office. Kim Davis was correct and I sent the AG, Sheriff and Judge copies of the state Constituiton proving that those are the laws. And besides, God is the Supreme Court and they will have AIDs/HIV and various problems with plagues so they don’t exactly get off scott free……

          • disqus_0MR38PDl1u

            We should tell them, it is better to be thought of as a fool ! Than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, !

          • I’m going with answering a fool according to his folly and being like him.

          • disqus_0MR38PDl1u

            Ya can’t pickup a turd on the clean end, is a favorite of mine ! Or you can polish a turd all day, but at the end of the day , it’s still a turd ….

  • NCOriolesFan

    So the JIC would rather believe in the terrorist SPLC than believe it’s own judges. So much for terrorist sympathizers.

    • Michael C

      It’s not a matter of “believing” any one side over the other. Roy Moore ordered Alabama public servants to violate the U.S. Constitution.

      He ordered them to violate the U.S. Constitution.

      It’s not even a question. He did this. He put it on paper and signed it.

      • Petra Hattenius

        Exactly. Well said

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Ah, but it is more than a question. It’s a lie. Moore ordered Alabama public servants to obey the Constitution AND the AL State Constitution. Try actually reading the article and opening your ears to what he actually said too.

        • Michael C

          Moore ordered Alabama public servants to obey the Constitution AND the AL State Constitution.

          Are you being serious right now?

          If a part of the Alabama state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution, it’s impossible to obey both of them at the same time.

          You get that, right?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama”

            The Constitution of the USA actually supports and upholds that.

            You get that right?

            Never mind. No need to answer that. We have all gotten it by now that you simply don’t get it. Nor any other truth for that matter.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          No, SCOTUS found that laws forbidding same-sex marriages violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, following a pattern set in a dozen other SCOUTUS cases on marriage rights.

          That’s the final word. No new laws were made, rather the Supreme Court found that existing state laws could not be enforced as they were unconstitutional.

          Chief Justice Moore told Alabama workers to ignore that ruling. That is wrong. He paid the price for it, and will now go down in history as the only Supreme Court justice ever to be removed from the bench *twice* for misconduct.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for showing that SCOTUS did not follow the Constitution but rather exercised judicial activism (at least 5 of the judges did) instead of performing their duty.

            You’re also wrong on that being the final word. Might wanna try reading the Constitution. The USA is NOT an oligarchy.

            As to your last comment, so what? As if “history” will have any significance toward him at all. “History” reflects that a group of people shouted to Caesar about the Son of God, “Crucify Him and let His blood be on us and our children.” “History” reflects that a group of people brutally scourged the Son of God almost to death and that a group of people actually murdered the Son of God by crucifixion. So?

            Do you honestly think the Son of God sits in any lesser of a position than what He does because of that??? LOL

            Judge Moore will likely sit in an even higher position than what He did prior because of his faithfulness. Oh yeah, it’s such a terribly bad thing to stand with Christ. LOL

            Get your mind off the temporal and focus on Eternity.

  • Amos Moses

    interesting to read the dogpile of the fascist A-Theists …. no real contribution to a society to offer …. they offer it only destruction ….. it will only end in their own ………

    • Tangent002

      Interesting that you are immune from consequences of engaging in personal insults.

      • Delectable

        Eat sh it, pedophile.

        • Tangent002

          You cannot make me angry. The only thing you can do is get yourself banned. Have at it.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Again, try a Dictionary. Stating a general truth is nowhere even close to a “personal insult”. Duh!

      • Amos Moses

        its not personal IF IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT A PERSON ……..

  • Petra Hattenius

    I am so glad FINALLY he was made to obey the law. If someone in his position doesn’t abide by the laws, what kind of example is he? Church and state are separate, Mr. Moore knew this long before he took the position.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      The West is merely a huge Sodom if it’s separated from the Church. Man cannot be separated from his conscience and live. Founding Fathers never imagined today’s Americans would become this immoral. Freedom exists with the truth and morality. No Bible teaching = universal slavery. Western whites need the Holy Bible for the truth and freedom. It’s horrible for the colored to be oppressed by the West for being properly Christian. No slavery to Western pervs.

    • Sjou Marten

      sonny.marten to Petra Hattenius
      There was never a separation of church and state, that is not stated anywhere, the New Nation of America was for religious freedom, and they all wanted Jesus as King in America, and all went to church after Washington was elected, and in fact the Bible was required teaching for kids in school by MINISTERES. They united as a nation of Christians.

      • Petra Hattenius

        Church & state should always remain separate

  • William of Glynn

    The legalization nationwide of same-sex marriage infuriates anti-gay religious extremists because their doctrine of hate is partially based on the false notion that gay couples cannot be monogamous.

    • Delectable

      They are never monogamous. They have no conscience, no morals, no capacity for love at all. Just physical contact, like animals in the barnyard. We don’t allow animals to marry, and yet we allow emotionally retarded humans with no capacity for love to marry. Anything that has no capacity for love or any conscience should not be allowed to marry.

  • Bryon

    Alabama’s decision is the legal decision. The constitution states that all powers not expressly stated by the federal government is left up to the states.

    The US Supreme Court made a ruling. However, no law has been passed by US Congress to override Alabama state law.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      The Supreme Court ruled that certain laws are unconstitutional. No new law is needed. It’s like Loving v. Virginia: No new law was created, but laws prohibiting a certain type of marriage were ruled unconstitutional.

      Or, to put it in a different way, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama state law goes against existing federal law. (as in the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution) The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply, because marriage is considered an “unenumerated right” covered by the 9th.

  • Fur Hunter

    When will people understand that the Supreme Court is called THE SUPREME COURT for a reason. Do all of you understand the definition of: Supreme? Well, go to your dictionary…do you have one? You don’t? Then no wonder you are so ignorant. Supreme means: highest in rank, power, authority; dominant. Got that? Which mean that whatever the Supreme Court says…goes! No one else has further opinion on the matter. Get it? The Supreme Court made a ruling on same-sex marriage in June of 2015. That ruling is now law of the land, whether you like it or not. So those of you who don’t like it….Go suck an egg. Get over it. Your intolerant and bigoted opinion doesn’t count. Get it, yet?

  • disqus_0MR38PDl1u

    My question is why do they need to call it a marriage, ! Why don’t they call it a income tax union. If they want to call it a marriage let them . But on paper the decree states they the two people may have all the rights that marriage between a man and a woman have. Let them live out their lives the way they want to. If you believe in God and marriage good for you, ! If you think it’s a sin, that’s in your brain keep it there and move on. Who gives a rats ass ! I know I don’t ! I know Gay people they don’t distort my mind in any way shape or form,. It’s all good !
    I believe in God, I am a man, I keep my opinions to myself, and I never suggest that other people are living in sin ! That’s Gods job. Remember let the one person without sin cast the first stone. Done . My problem is that a great justice is being pushed out because he has his standards set to high. People are born with all types of differences. We need to set some rules,. 1 American born, non detrimental to society as we live our lives, live your life your way, don’t break the law, and NEVER EVER TRY TO PUSH YOUR WAY OF THINKING OR LIVING ONTO ANYONE, i.e. Telling little tommy to kiss little Johnny, not a good thing !
    Someone is going to be taught a lesson and it won’t be nice…….

    • Bob Johnson

      “My problem is that a great justice is being pushed out because he has his standards set to high. “

      Roy Moore has been removed from the bench twice, 2003 and 2016. Both times he was removed by his Alabama peers, not by federal courts, but by fellow Alabama justices. In both of these cases not one judge but several judges where involved in the ruling. While Moore has popular support, he appears to lack the discipline to enforce Alabama laws.

      • Bob Johnson

        A second response to, “My question is why do they need to call it a marriage,”

        Civill marriage Is far older than the Christian religion and has been the norm in many cultures not associated with the Judeo-Christian faith.

        If we are to take this approach then the government whould get entirely out of the marriage business. No alimony, no child support, no Social Security survivors benefits, – all those 1500 state and federal laws currently in place.

        You seem to wish to abandon this body of Family Law and instead create a Christian form of Sharia Law, where the clergy would determine what is legal and the church would enforce those rules.

  • Anthony Guastella

    Time to impeach these Godless, boot licking satanist so called Alabama supreme court justices.

  • Reason2012

    The SC is now being used by the left to promote their agendas. Recall how the Democrats said Obamacare was designed as a fine, not a tax, but when the SC was ruling on it, in order to get their stamp of approval, they lied and said it was a tax so they could then “approve” it. They’re using the SC to promote their immoral agenda upon America, including redefining religious institutions that existed before any government did, and passing laws to enforce their new State Religion with it’s own institution of marriage, which is a violation of the Constitution.

    • William of Glynn

      Thoughts and prayers. Thoughts and prayers.

  • Sjou Marten

    All those against the Lord seem to want to do away with religion, and if we see the effects of drugs, disease, anger and erruptions of problems everywhere it shows that doesn’t work. The founders DID WANT

  • Sjou Marten

    Thomas Jefferson in April 1802 signed the enabling act for Ohio to become a state and it stated that this new state not be “repugnant to the Northwest Ordinance”, which states in Article III Religionm morality….and knowledge being necessary to good governmebt,,,,and regarding slavery, the Hebrews were slaves for 400 years, and God did not seem to mind when they were free to have slaves, as that is how mankind learned how to build monuments, raise crops, care for families and were trained for free. Today the blacks are in every field of this planet, and in Africa they have women and men who could learn a few things by working for someone else. It could help our teens learn if they wanted to be contractor, singers or whatever. Jesus said you need to be a servant and serve others. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1824 in case of Updegraph v. The Commonwealth stated Christianity has always been a part of the common law and no peson can vilifying or subvert or ridicule religion. States this is a Christian nation, so those who wish to twist those meanings must not wish to follow the laws, as we have many who are destroying this nation and not following the laws. We all need to do what is correct and be One Nation before we destroy this nation.

  • Sjou Marten

    I also want to ad that No One would have allowed the Constitution to be voted on if religion was not a right and freedom, as everyone came here for religious freedom and all 55 signers were religious men, in government, and George Washington was very religious and prayed and fasted constantly, and had Divine Service daily for his troops. All joined together with prayers and wanted a New Nation. I have court cases as proof, but hope the Christian people will see that all the founders were religious and in fact the ministers were required to teach school using the Bible, and Congress paid for these Bibles. Harvard College was founded so the ministers would not be illiterate and know the laws……