Last Gasp: Cruz Pursues Marriage Act


You can never be 100% sure how the Supreme Court might rule in any particular instance, but it is difficult to imagine any scenario where gay marriage does not become the law of the land this summer. Long quiet on the issue, the highest court in the land has chosen to take the matter up later this year. If they rule the way many expect, same-sex marriage will become a constitutionally-guaranteed right in all 50 states.

At least 11 Republicans in the Senate are making one last effort to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Ted Cruz of Texas has introduced the State Marriage Defense Act once again, and he is asking his fellow conservatives to pass the bill. If made law, the SMDA would leave the question of gay marriage to the states. The federal government would not have the power to overturn laws made by referendum and state legislature. It’s not so much a traditional marriage bill as it is a return-this-power-to-the-states bill, which could help it gain traction amongst conservatives.

In a press release, Cruz said, “I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states.”

According to many observers – and at least one Supreme Court Justice – the high court’s decision to allow Alabama same-sex marriages to continue until they’ve made their final ruling this summer has essentially given away the game. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent against the decision, said that “the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws…”

In another one of his famous softball interviews, this one with Buzzfeed, President Obama said, “My sense is that the Supreme Court is about to make a shift, one that I welcome, which is to recognize that — having hit a critical mass of states that have recognized same-sex marriage — it doesn’t make sense for us to now have this patchwork system.”

Washington’s Values are Not America’s

So once again, assuming that Cruz’s bill fails to gain traction and the Supreme Court rules as expected, we will cede authority to the federal government and weaken state’s rights. This is about something bigger than same-sex marriage. This is about whether Washington liberals have the right to decide what’s best for middle America. It’s about whether a cloistered group of career politicians on the coast should have absolute authority over Americans living in utterly disparate circumstances. And time and again, the answer seems to be “yes.” Yes they do.

The Founding Fathers were nearly superhuman in their ability to see into the future. Their Constitution laid out unbreakable human rights, but it did something even more important. It recognized that the federal government could not properly rule over everyone. Power should flow not to a centralized group of leaders; it should be preserved, whenever possible, at the smallest levels.

Unfortunately, we’ve turned away from that indispensable philosophy. 300 million+ Americans, living in wildly different circumstances with different priorities and different values, are all expected to take their marching orders from Washington D.C. And at a time when studies are proving that nothing is more important than marriage and family when it comes to strengthening the country, Washington is taking us in the opposite direction.

We should not be surprised when we also reap the opposite results.

  1. MikeS says

    It should, but I doubt that it will succeed. The SCOTUS and most of our legislators are immoral.

  2. b glad says

    The Federal government has no jurisdiction in determining the definition of marriage and to attempt to do so, the Supreme Court is greatly overstepping the bounds of the Constitution. Though it is a noble effort on behalf of ted Cruz and others to pass legislation which gives the right to define marriage to the states, this too would be a grave miscarriage of justice. It is God, the Eternal Lawgiver, that holds the ultimate authority on what consummates marriage, for it is He whom gave us the institution of marriage from the start.

    1. bamissfa says

      it already did define marriage look up DOMA, Defense of marriage Act.

      But like many other of our laws Obama and his immoral crowd have decided not to enforce our marriage definition. They are all bound for hell. LIARS like obama will not enter into heaven. And those who prevent others from being on the path to God by their unholy influence, they will be punished all the more because they lead so many others the wrong way.

      1. dcfla says


      2. BuddyBoy53 says

        And at the same time they force people to go against their religious beliefs and shut down businesses that don’t agree, they use Operation Chokehold to shut down businesses they don’t like. The outright communism choking the life out of America.

        1. Porphyry says

          That’s what I recommend: Keep calling it Operation Chokehold till its *perpetrators* choke!

          1. hankthetank says

            You can thank the communist Democrat’s for all of this!!!

          2. Nicholas Wilde says

            You’re an idiot, why don’t you get good scrub

          3. Barrustio says

            Hank may need a good scrub but he’s as right as millions of true Americans

        2. Larry Wilson says

          There are no longer any believes unless they are Obama’s believes. He is the King and you must do what HE says! Ask Queen Michelle!

        3. THOMAS says

          This is what he has learned from MONKOMP the book of A HITLAR.

          1. Nicholas Wilde says

            You don’t even know what you are talking about for starters its mein kampf and prove that we learned it from his book.

          2. THOMAS says

            Get a life D.A. You are the one with out a clue!

          3. Barrustio says

            Please tell me you didn’t really miss the play on words.

          4. dinkerduo says

            YES HE DID—missed it completely–moron libtard that he is!!!

      3. THOMAS says

        Hope your right

        1. Paul says

          That makes two moron, leftwing loons.

      4. hora says

        A nigger must need remove from White House for American and hang direct from a first tree until die, but we need a big depuration of corrupt Judges in all 50 States.

        1. Jimmy King says

          Another moron heard from

        2. Barrustio says

          hora…chill…people are catching on that you’re a liberal trying to give conservatives a hateful persona

      5. Jimmy King says


    2. Joshua says

      It was actually the Romans. The United States uses the same system of civil union. This, like most other arguments, is one of semantics.

      1. Givendoly says

        Hmmmm, Remember what happened to the perverted lifestyle Romans?

        1. Joshua says

          Yeah, they became modern Christians.

          1. grunion says

            Seriously? Or are you jesting?

          2. Joshua says

            Do you not know the history of the Roman Catholic church?

          3. grunion says

            Unfortunately, I do and by Jesuits. No doubt the Church became corrupt, almost evil with some Popes but they are not a bit nastier than are we and now we are having a muslim replay unfolding before our eyes. This is blame. We need solutions and having all the history to guide us, we still can’t come up with legislation necessary to preserve and protect the union…Both of them.

          4. Joshua says

            The solution is a simple one, in my opinion. The state needs to stop using the word “marriage”, and start using the more appropriate “Civil Union”. The state also needs to codify into law an immunity for churches refusing to marry same sex couples. While it isn’t necessary to protect churches, it will help to alleviate some of the current anxieties. This solution reconciles both the religious desire to protect holy matrimony, as well as the protections granted under the 14th amendment. Why some guys sitting on a tablet in a sleeveless and a pair of shorts recognizes this as THE viable opition, rather than government actors in $2000 suits is beyond me. Unfortunately no one saw fit to elect me.

          5. hangem'high says

            What don’t you get about freedom of religion as long as they’re not burning witches in the town square? let the federal government marrie same sex couples in Washington DC, that way they have to travel back to the capital to get a divorce! Separate the state from the federal and church! Simplify!
            Federal government should stay out of state and churches affairs!

          6. Joshua says

            Let me simplify it for you:

            The state, not the church, issues a marriage license and collects the fee for issuing it.
            The state has to abide by the constitution when making laws, regardless of how people vote on those laws: refresh yourself on the formation of the union if you need further clarification.
            The constitution says that all people must be treated equally under the law
            State requires a marriage license to recognize the union under the law; ergo, it is a marriage under the law regardless of whether or not you are married under God.

            I think I’ve made my point, but feel free to research the process on your own if you’re still not understanding constitutional applicability.

          7. hangem'high says

            Like I said; federal government stay out of the State and church business your religion we can’t afford let alone your politics! Beside it’s an abomination to the citizen, go rough ride the Russians and ISIS suck them dry if they’ll let you!

          8. Joshua says

            Is English a second language for you?

          9. hangem'high says

            Oh boy, here we go again, the battle of the entitled wit!

          10. Joshua says

            I apologize, I didn’t realize we weren’t allowed to ask questions before making assumptions. I find it interesting that you chose my response as a target, and your use of the word “entitled” is even more interesting. It was a legitimate question however, as I can’t understand the majority of what is being said. Rather than assume he is an immigrsnt, because the syntax of the response is similar to the result of a translator, I asked the question. ASSumptions.

          11. hangem'high says

            Or assumptions before questions!
            But go ahead and assume that’s making an azz of you and me at the expense of exploratory excitement!
            The use of entitled is that! One of being the so privileged and final say in the engagement!
            As far as changing the word marriage there’s no need, as the relationship between the same sexes is already called hole mole sex u al it y!

          12. Joshua says

            Privledged, lmfao.

          13. hangem'high says

            Right, Got ‘cha!

          14. grunion says

            Oh, ever read any Thomas Aquinas?

          15. Joshua says

            Bits and pieces here or there, but he’s on my list.

          16. grunion says

            Good stuff if you are interested in the catholic power structure and beliefs that drove them to the actions that today we find abhorrent. It was a different time.

          17. ted j says

            now you statements are getting ridiculous…

      2. grunion says

        And at one time, Rome was a republic before Obama like power mongers seized power. Sound familiar?

      3. ted j says

        the Romans were very corrupt in their sexual perversions…

    3. Joshua says

      Then let’s end the discussion and agree to eliminate all tax incentives/credits, as well as every other legal protection, for married couples. The issue here is that you can’t provide legal protections to some people, but refuse to provide them to others. So if we eliminate state involvement entirely, we can go back to religious institutions performing marriages, and there is no longer any argument.

      1. b glad says

        Obama has already removed most tax incentives to married couples with his pen and phone. Civil law is civil law. What we are discussing here is the definition of marriage, which I still submit is God’s call.

        1. Becky says

          It is also DEFINED in many of our States. The queers just choose to find corrupt, Liberal, false ‘judges’ to legislate from the bench and declare actual LAW as not existing. These judges, one by one, need to lose their licenses to practice and ever again sit on a bench.

          1. ted j says

            these judges that usurp God’s decisions will find a place to practice their liberal judgements in Hades….along with all those who defy God’s commandmrnts

          2. Becky says

            Yes Ted! I am really hoping they ALL have a special place in Hell saved just for them. The greatest legal system in the world, and it’s been completely ruined by the brain dead Liberals/Communists. I hope God does them justice.

      2. eva says

        I had not even considered the tax angle on this. If that is what the LG community is so strung out about, I will gladly give that up to keep the traditional man woman concept. This is not a gray area. The Bible plainly states that the gay lifestyle is wrong. You may not believe in the Bible but you will be judged by it. Frankly, I am ready to get rid of the IRS, have a comsumption tax on most purchases. Exempt RX and some OTC medical products, have a flat tax rate on groceries, maybe 5%, have 15% on most other purchases, use fees, as we have on many activities, no exemptions such as we have now, a 5 X 8 card could serve for reporting and get rid of 90% of tax employees. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period. That was the way God designed it.

        1. Joshua says

          It’s not just taxes, you would have to give up every legal protection and benefit given to married couples. Death, education, social security, medicaid, medical proxy, marital communications, and so on would all have to go. States would have to stop issuing a marriage license, so you would need to enter into some form of legal arangement recognized by governments and private entities to prove the union. So are you willing to give all of that up to prevent two people signing a legal contract issued, and recognized by the state and federal governent; understanding of course, that any church who so desired could still perform a marriage ceremony for same sex couples?

          1. Peter Sherman says

            True. Of course a logical alternative is to provide all unions with the same tights and responsibilities as those of a man woman marriage and call the other gay unions whatever we decide to call them…. Like Warriage. Then everyone wins. A nicer scenario than your equally fair but more spiteful alternative (note, i know youe are not suggesting one over the other and the alt you mention is not necessarily the alt you support. You are just being logical and fairminded.). Good comments… Straight and solid.

          2. Joshua says

            I think the state erred by using the word marriage on any legal document, and continues to do so given the war-of-semantics. I’m all for the code using “Civil Union”, because that’s what happens when you sign a “marriage” license.

          3. Peter Sherman says

            Amen brother.

          4. Jimmy King says

            Why do you care? How does it hurt you if their union is called a “marriage” ?

          5. Joshua says

            It doesn’t hurt me in the slightest, and I honestly don’t care, but it’s a middle-ground.

          6. ted j says

            not warriage… warpage

          7. Peter Sherman says

            clever ted j… but you raise a good point. some of us don’t like this … but it really doesn’t hurt us directly or even indirectly… its just people who are different than us living different lives beside us because that what a democracy is. so, here’s the crux: no matter how much we don’t like what another is doing… so long as they are not hurting us directly or indirectly… then it really doesn’t matter how we feel. similarly… they may find hetero as warped as we might find homo.. doesn’t matter. in a free society.. it doesn’t matter. now, if someone’s behaviors hurts another… then we moderate or prevent it. but, no matter how much we might find two men having a romantic dinner together… in a free society it doesn’t really matter. interesting… point.

          8. grunion says

            That makes no sense in light of how modern government is operating and you should know it.

          9. Joshua says

            Modern government has nothing to do with constitution applicability. Do you not recall the SCOTUS intervening on the issue of the 2nd amendment?

          10. grunion says

            One example does not a social/legal trend make. Look further.

          11. Frost says

            I’m sorry, I’m just clarifying your comment…but if we allow gay marriage, you believe everyone losing the protections and benefits of marriage is a possibility? Why would it be? It would be much simpler for them to allow it for everyone. And they are nothing if not lazy; too many laws are only halfway thought through for me to believe otherwise.

          12. Joshua says

            No. I’m saying that if you don’t want to allow two people of the same sex to marry, under the law, then the states need to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. Because marriage is an act under the law, an act that comes with legal benefit and protection, all citizens have the right to marry regardless of their gender.

          13. Frost says

            Ah. Thank you for clarifying.

          14. chief1937 says

            Just where is it written that all citizens have a RIGHT to marry. Did not know there was a law giving that right to anyone.

          15. Alaskat says

            Joshua, where do you get everyone has the right to marry? Certainly not two 5 year olds, there are laws, you know. And not if they don’t fit the definition of marriage between one man and one woman as set by God Almighty Himself.

          16. Joshua says

            So we should only follow laws as long as they fit into a biblical context? If you don’t know how I arrived here, pay close attention to the premise and conclusion of your argument.

            You live in a constitutional republic, if you live in the United States. This means that ALL laws must fit within the parameters established by said constitution. We have separation of church and state, which means that because you are arguing that a law should be established according to religious doctrine, the law doesn’t recognize the argument as being valid. We have equality under the law, which means that no law can either seek to benefit or punish a specific part of the populace: you are the exact same as everyone else in the eyes of the law. We have consent laws, which require that the individual engaging in the legal transaction be able to consent under the law. Any more questions?

          17. Alaskat says

            You’ve missed the point, Joshua. God’s law is Supreme and He has the last word. He not only declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, He also said the marriage bed was not to be defiled. Lawyers have twisted the Constitution to suit themselves, but no one can twist what God has said or eradicate same. His word stands forever, above all else. The founding fathers understood this, Joshua, I’m sorry you cannot. Prattle on.

          18. Joshua says

            Are you attempting to assert that the constitution was written by God? I’m not sure what your argument is here about lawyers twisting the constitution, or how biblical doctrine is applicable to constitutional protections. I am also curious which founding fathers you’re referring to, because the ones you’re most likely familiar with were diests. Don’t you find it odd that such devout Christians would have failed to codify their faith? That they would have enacting law specifically forbidding the government from enacting biblical doctrine into law?

            While I claim to be a Christian, I find a great many contradictions within what remains. It seems a religion, like most, full of people most unwillingly to submit to its most basic tenants. It is a religion of hypocrites who wield it’s teachings as one would a blunt object; ever ready to bludgeon those of a differing perspective. I will keep my faith despite you though, because it is a faith built upon a foundation of love, sacrifice, tolerance, and servitude without question; it is a faith built on the absolute and unshakable reality that while there is a God, I am not him.

          19. Alaskat says

            Joshua, I’m referring to God’s sovereignty. His word is law and it never changes. Our government is no longer constitutional, it defines the limited constitutional phrase “promote the general welfare” as an excuse to bankrupt the nation. Etc. A good lawyer can and does fool the people into believing anything he finds the words to justify. We exalt ourselves continually, believing in our superior intellect and goodness of heart. But the Bible say that when we actually stand before God we will be overwhelmed by His goodness, knowledge and Holiness. He is so far above us in everything that we will stand awestruck and speechless. The things of earth will be as dung in the light of His presence. Nothing that man has ever written, said or done can compare to God’s tiniest act. What we’ve done doesn’t matter any more in God’s realm once He has redeemed us. What matters is what God will enable us to become in His eternity. Because He loves us.

            I’m not bludgeoning anybody. I love God but I also fear Him, and that causes me to respect Him and his word without question. I fear for people and lawmakers who disrespect God’s ways and go their own way. We are all accountable, much as we hate to be, but one day “every knee shall bow…” And, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but, its end is the way of death.” Proverbs 16: 25. That’s not me talking or warning, that’s fact.

          20. Joshua says

            You’re right, the “welfare clause”among others, have been exploited to the point it’s almost laughable. In this instance though, there has always existed a conflict in both state and federal law with respect to civil unions (marriage under the law). This issue is no different to the racial discrimination experienced by blacks under the law. I am glad to exist in a country where we can fight with the pen to right those wrongs, just like we are now.

            I understand what the Bible says about marriage, but the bible and the law are two separate entities. We have illustrated quite thoroughly that humanity is incapable of applying what it believes to be God’s law, without becoming barbarous. Not too very long ago Christianity engaged in the same acts, worse in some instances, that ISIS is carrying out now. I believe history, and current events, tell a cautionary tale; one that shores up my belief that the law and biblical doctrine must exist in separate spaces.

          21. alaskat says

            Joshua, mankind is fallen from grace, all of us are sinners in need of a Redeemer who is Jesus Christ. You’re right on about man’s inability to reconcile his idea of law with God’s laws, and I’m not advocating trying to do so. It’s a matter of principle. If any law conflicts with God’s law we are not to obey it. God condemns murder, especially the slaughter of innocents, our own children for heaven’s sake. Yet our law allows it. God said marriage is between one man, one woman, period. Our emotional cry is, That’s not fair!, and we ignore the very definition of marriage. God will judge us for our disobedience and un-repentance. Read your Bible and see how God punished His own special people through the ages for disobedience. It’s not pretty, but we will suffer the same. Read the books of Jonathan Cahn.

          22. Joshua says

            “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”–Romans 13:1-5

            This is one of many passages from the Bible outright commanding humanity to follow the laws of man, and nearly every one of these passages claims that the ruling body is sent to do God’s will. So are we to ignore these passages because they conflict with our opinions of another passage that contradicts them? Is there some bylaw that allows clemency for disobedience to these passages in favor of others? Are we to take the word of others who, like politicians, twist the context of Scripture to fit their ideologies?

            It’s an easy thing to sit back and wield the bible if it were a sword, but most fail to realize that it cuts both ways.

          23. alaskat says

            Joshua, the Bible is not cut and dried. Let’s go back to principles. There is nothing in the above passage suggesting we break God’s laws in order to obey or honor every law issued by imperfect people. We must have a system of laws else there would be chaos, but our legal system is far from perfect as you well know, so use your head. It’s just a system, not perfection, so when it fails we recognize its imperfection and seek to do good by imitating God’s perfection, being faithful to godly principles. God says we are to do good, and doing good is based on God’s terms not man’s. Many people have gone to jail for resisting unjust laws but still refrain from violence against the system. There will always be bad laws, but the idea of the legal system remains necessary and right.
            Hitler’s torturers and murderers were prosecuted for following the bad laws and the directives he issued to them, yet he was their authority. They had no excuse for their behavior because man’s conscience should always rule out bad behavior. It takes discernment, a commodity sadly lacking in the highly emotional people making our laws in the modern world..

          24. Joshua says

            If the bible is not cut and dry, then what “law” expressed in it is? This is circular logic. In one instance the bible is absolute; in anothet, not so much. Then we impose the concept of “principles”, the result ultimately being that you are arguing you own principles. Who is to say then that, God did not intend for love to be the measure of marriage, and for said marriage bed to be only shared amongst those who are wed? The bible is, after all, not cut and dry.

          25. alaskat says

            Joshua, you keep getting off the subject of God’s supremacy The only principles I speak of are God’s principles. You keep trotting back into the world with endless “What ifs” and irrelevant scenarios. If you have asked Jesus to be your Savior, believing from your heart that He died for your sins and rose again, you are indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God. Studying the Bible, fellowship with believers, and establishing a relationship with God help us to understand what God wants us to know; how to discern good and evil, right and wrong. If you don’t have Jesus and the Holy Spirit you cannot understand the things of God. I hope you have the Spirit and I hope you are able to block out man’s misdirection to the point of knowing that what is right in man’s eyes is often sin in the eyes of the Almighty.

          26. Joshua says

            What I know is that, there is no universal truth to be had beyond the confines of your church. I choose not to associate myself with the institution of religion, because there is no room for dissent. There is no room to point out the contridictions, no matter how eloquently put, in your argument. There is no room to point out the fundamental flaws in this discussion overall, as it relates to scripture.

            I respect your opinion, and will support your right to voice it, but we won’t ever arrive at the same conclusions.

          27. Jimmy King says

            Which god, or Whose god are you referring to?

          28. alaskat says

            Jimmy, I refer to the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose son and co-equal is Jesus Christ.

          29. Alaskat says

            I already answered this one, check the site.

          30. Irene Elizabeth Grooms says


        2. ted j says

          AMEN !!!

      3. Becky says

        EVERYONE gets the same legal protections for MARRIAGE. Homosexual couples can choose what they want, but they are NOT MARRIED and do not earn protection in the eyes of OUR LAW.

        1. Joshua says

          The state actors codified the word marriage, so they would in fact be married under the law. Your church can do or say what it wants, a judge cannot. Fairly simple concept.

          1. grunion says

            How would common law marriage play in to this. I mean, some of these old deviants have been together for decades. Are they sunsetted or do they have to go thru the “process”?

          2. Joshua says

            Rhetorical argumentation, how cute.

          3. grunion says

            Hey, whatever works in this madhouse.

        2. grunion says

          I cannot believe what I am reading on this blog. Our nation is doomed to drown in a swamp of decadent disregard for anyone but self.

          1. Frost says

            And here I thought the swamp was more of a bigoted variety. But it’s that too.

          2. Becky says

            I do – unfortunately. The country has been taken over by the crazies and perverts.

      4. grunion says

        I see no good outcome to states relinquishing ant rights. The Constitution is supposed to protect states from an overbearing federal government. The reason must be all too apparent at this juncture but if you prefer a centralized government, that is your choice. I intend to do my best to maintain states sovereignty from the corrupt and dysfunctional puppet government in washington. I want state’s rights honored, a civil society and an honest government at all levels and will work and support like minded folks toward that end until I die.

        1. Joshua says

          The constitution yields the majority of power to the individual, not the state. This is not an issue of “stare sovereignty”, but of individual sovereignty. Just like with the SCOTUS ruling on the individual right to bear arms, the SCOTUS has a responsibility to weigh the constitutionality of state law where individual liberty is threatened. While you may argue that marriage and the right to bear arms are not the same, the applicability of constitutional protects, impact on individual liberty, and the context of the law are identical. You cannot have a functional system of law that protects some, but not all: that is an aristocracy, not a constitutional republic.

          1. grunion says

            I wish we had more time and space. It would be fun to argue the point in that the individual and not the state. I mean since the states are closer to and held to account by the individual more so than the federal government. One need not look far to see how much of the individual’s rights have been watered down by the feds by usurping state’s rights. Sometimes I expect common sense to prevail in these matters but I find a dearth of common sense in washington. The states can be forced to respond to the people at the people’s demand. Quite obviously not so on the federal level. They are running amok and the bill is due.

          2. Joshua says

            Granted, but then I think that is the fault of the states respectively. They have as much of a responsibility to protect individual sovereignty as does the federal governent. They need to start sounding off.

      5. ted j says

        unfortunately you are correct…the gov’t should NOT be involved with any religious decision… that is a matter between God and man…for we all will answer for the choices we have made…..

    4. hora says

      That happening when are Judges who real never was qualified for be and also corrupt who not respect Constitution and another Laws, plus when voter vote against No Court can strip down, but some sex married are another aberration from liberals like flood a illegals and give right to vote when know are illegal, but don’t care. Close down a Communist party and ban liberals from politic.

      1. Jimmy King says

        See what a 3rd grade education will get you

        1. hora says

          Jimmy idiot moron King, thing are to smart, but you mistake a place, here are not place for demon hate liberals like you and back to elementary school and learn how respect and what real shit are all liberals, are a looser. Please kiss my ass.

          1. Jimmy King says

            Whorea, when did this become an English as a second language, blog?

            “thing are to smart” ? WTF does that even mean

    5. Isandbeans says

      If we think Federal government ruling over us is bad, can you imagine a “One World Government”? Oh my God, that would be a disaster! At least for us, anyway…

      1. grunion says

        Amen! Nothing will sink us quicker than a fully centralized government.

      2. ted j says

        unfortunately it is coming soon to a town near you and me…but remember this one thing…God is in control…and He is coming back soon, so let us be ready for His appearance….and He is bringing judgement with Him..

    6. pmbalele says

      Please look at Ted Cruz in the picture. He is posing as if he is gay himself. A man will not pose like a woman. How can he then deny people their right of what they want? This is the Land of the Free. I am also told by those who know that same sex act is as bad as heterosexual act. We are all reduced to animal act.

      1. grunion says

        Sex was supposed to be enjoyed idiot. How else do we multiply? Or would you prefer the women just went in to heat and all the men zoomed in for a piece of the pie? Just like dogs, mindless procreation. We’re better than that in case you have not noticed. I think you have a problem with frigidity or men, something is blocking your access to the beauty of a married couple conceiving a child out of love. Of course you could be one of those that prefers a bottle of sperm and a jody foster fist applicator.

        1. Frost says

          Yes, sex /is/ supposed to be enjoyed. So some people don’t enjoy it with a woman. Or man. I wish people would get over that. And you don’t need to put people down; you have no idead what’s gone on in her life. You have no idea of age or circumstance.

        2. pmbalele says

          zoomed in for a piece of the pie? Why not. Get the best of your wife.Cruz is so ugly to be president.

          1. hangem'high says

            That’s why we have the second amendment so we can blast the rabid dogs off the property!

      2. hangem'high says

        Leave it to liberals, those who squawk the loudest usually are guilty of the crime they’re screeching about, Homophobe hypocrite!

    7. Jimmy King says

      States are free to decide their laws any way they want. Ted Cruz and his minions can draft all of the bills they want. AS LONG as they do not run afoul of the US Constitution. This was the case when Alabama refused to give rights to African American and it is true when states don’t want to give rights to same sex couples. States have rights, they just can’t violate the US Constitution

    8. Alaskat says

      B glad, you’re absolutely right. God set the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman and no man has the authority to change it. What I see here is a nation growing dumber and dumber, and its leaders who are expected to know better are just as stupid. What we need to remember as we continue to ignore and sin against God is this: The sword of the Spirit s still in the scabbard.

  3. Morton212 says

    I like artifacts and well curated museums. I just think that that is not the function of our legislatures. Marriage in the eyes of the law is a contract – and nothing to do with a religious sacrament. It is unfortunate that the same word is used for both functions; but it does NOT take rocket science to distinguish the two, Mr Cruz.

  4. billie says

    Who has given the federal government the right to intercede on state law in regards to marriage and and overturn laws that were voted and approved by the people of said states??

    1. Morton212 says

      The Constitution.

      1. john316 says


        1. Joshua says

          Not wrong at all. The 14th Amendment clearly establishes that no state body can legislate prejudicially. Equal protection under the law; or, if you prefer, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  5. K. Q. Duane says

    God help us if traditional marriage, and the innate protection it provides innocent children, does not prevail! We will live to rue the day.

    1. Morton212 says

      You lost me there. What does marriage protect that normal responsibility does not ?

      1. kotoc says

        If I interpret the comment correctly, it is because children who are adopted by gay couples are raised to think that homosexuality is “normal” and their eternal souls are in jeopardy.

        1. Morton212 says

          I think you will have a very hard job supporting that claim to eternal damnation from anything in Christianity.

          1. kotoc says

            Like I said earlier, it isn’t OUR job to judge. However, like everyone else in this world, past, present and future, I wouldn’t want to take the risk of sodomy on my life record when I answer to God on Judgment Day. I don’t like the thought of what He might say….. AND remember WHO is even more powerful than anything, any force in the entire universe.

          2. Morton212 says

            No problem. Let that be your issue, and don’t try to make it anyone else’s.

          3. bamissfa says

            yes but homosexual’s are making their issues our issues.
            im’ not opposed to civil unions for gay couples performed by WILLING state officials. Your desires should not trump my religious right to serve my God and it should not force pastors who believe homosexuality is an abomination a the Lord said it is. It is the only sin that is called an abomination.

          4. Joshua says

            The government cannot force a church to “marry” anyone. The issue being discussed here is civil unions, and has nothing to do with any religious institution.

          5. kotoc says

            Tell me, then… why do people even bother to get married? Civil unions??? Why not just justify it with “common law” marriages?

          6. Joshua says

            The state used common language when enacting laws and legal protections, but when you sign that marriage license to get those tax benefits, you are entering into a civil union. What transpires in your church is of no consequence to the law.

          7. Morton212 says

            There is NO requirement for pastors to marry homosexuals. Get it right.

          8. john Wilson says

            It is being forced down their throats in some states. If they refuse there are legal
            actions taken against them. So Mort, get your facts straight please.

          9. Morton212 says

            In which States is something illegal being ‘forced down their throats’ ?

          10. Kent2012 says

            the responses of morton and joshua are arguing from the “if it does not hurt anyone, then buzz off” point of view…the understanding that moral decay is one chunk at a time…take God out of schools, make references to “rights” that do not exist, suggest that certain amendments preclude legislation that defines what the Real American majority define as what marriage really is (not the 2 1/2% of the population that is gay , etc, ad nauseum……tired of having the ticks dictate what the dog likes or accepts…

          11. Morton212 says

            I would suggest that you suffer from freedom decay – where you would like to make the moral rules, and enforce them – …

          12. Kent2012 says

            no folks far brighter than you crafted a document that far and away sought to establish a country governed by adults guided by Christian values….as your buddy said “what consenting adults do in the bedroom should be of no concern to others”…that works fine…when the 2 out of 100 in this country want to parade naked down the street and make demands of the other 98 that their perversion be recognized and legitimised by calling the civil union marriage the strains of credibility of any argument for allowing it…oh and laws do define marriage outside of the church…even when the commie wannabies are working hard to define the USA as a stateist stronghold…

          13. togetherwestand says

            As usual it’s the same old garbage. Sorry but it does matter what people do behind closed doors. If it’s wrong its wrong plain and simple. The people who will stand there and say I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t do it to me are again a huge part of the problem. It doesn’t matter what you do or where, if it’s wrong and immoral it’s not going to change. People let these phsycos push forward for too long. I would be disgusted to see any one of my family end up like these freaks. They have been brainwashed by the devil. They are truly evil. They insist on explaining and defending themselves only to try and make themselves feel better about the nasty things they like. Perverts. Very sad indeed. Truly lost souls. I feel bad for them being soooooooo confused. They have nothing in life except themselves and their disgusting desires.

          14. Morton212 says

            Not true. Many of the Founders were Deists – which is certainly not Christian.

          15. Kent2012 says

            wrong again, how does it feel when your arguments are nothing but vapor….deists, ha…next your revisionist history will slam “conservatives” for having been responsible for slavery and for standing fast against bestiality…oh I forgot some of the “founding fathers” had slaves and animals…..proof beyond a shadow of a doubt…..

          16. Morton212 says

            You have to know that the Founders were adamant at NOT incorporating religious morality into the Constitution; after all the New World was being settled by the entire range of global religious (and secular) beliefs – because of persecution from where they had emigrated.

          17. Kent2012 says

            another load of morton’s manure…the only thing the founding fathers sought to stop was some clown that decided he would be King and start his own religion while closing down everybody else’s party….sounds like that scum sucking african that stops in at the oral office in between rounds of golf….

          18. Morton212 says

            Didn’t your doctor warn you about the long term effects of hard liquor ?

          19. Kent2012 says

            no but he did warn me about “hearing aids” it is a disease that is caused by listening to too many perverts, socialists, communists, and other assorted pseudo intellectuals that think the word “fair” means something other that the once a year event held at the “Fair Grounds”…

          20. Morton212 says

            Interesting. So you maintain yourself in some kind of delightful neo conservative bubble where the word fair outside of that bubble is synonymous with fear of being impregnated.

          21. LastGasp says

            They’ve already been made, loser. You want to force change just because the commies twisted your education.

          22. Morton212 says

            The are no religious or moral laws in a secular state. There are however, punishments for breaking the laws – but homosexuality is not one of them – and marriage is simply a secular civil right for all couples – gay or straight.

          23. Isandbeans says

            There are actually some moral laws in some states. If you look, there are still some ancient laws still on the books in some states that are very outdated but still there that have to do with morality. No one has paid attention to them in years, but they’re there.

          24. Morton212 says

            Yes – there are so hangovers that if ever invoked would almost certainly be found unconstitutional. They should never have been laws in the first place. The most egregious of which was of course slavery.

          25. Isandbeans says

            Slavery was never a law of morality, though.

          26. Morton212 says

            That depends upon how literally you take the Bible.

          27. Isandbeans says

            What does it say in the bible about slavery? I honestly don’t know.

          28. Morton212 says

            Try It should help rapidly.

          29. Isandbeans says

            In other words, you can’t give me an actual quote.

          30. Morton212 says

            Here you go.


            google is a WONDERFUL resource – you should try it.

          31. Isandbeans says

            Why the hostility? I use google ALL the time, I was just curious if you had an actual idea of what you were talking about. I personally don’t know,, so I was asking you. I am not even going to bother with what is clearly a biased resource.

          32. Morton212 says

            Your answer is precisely why I suggested you look it up yourself. I had a feeling that anything contradicting your opinion would be considered biased by you – so really why waste my time ?

          33. Joshua says

            You are the causality behind the bill of rights. I could care less what you do in your home, bedroom, or place of worship. You and your ilk seem obsessed with such things however. Let’s evaluate your argument piece by piece though:

            First, what defines the “real” American majority? From every poll I’ve seen over the last two years, at least half the country could give two shits about this subject. Are the “real” Americans you?

            Second, morality as you define it is inherently subjective. If it doesn’t harm another human being, it isn’t an amoral behavior in my opinion. You, on the other hand, seem to define morality based on what you find distasteful. We could argue “ad nauseam” about what the Bible does and does not outline, but we’d get no where fast. I tend to look at the original texts, and you seem like more of an NIV guy.

            Third, I don’t recall either myself nor Morton having cited anything that isn’t codified. I evoked the 14th Ammendment, which is constructed to prevent prejudicial legislative action, most specifically by the states themselves. Perhaps you need to put more effort into the study of constitutional law: I have texts and various other books, as well as several copies of the Constitution itself, if you’d like to borrow any.

            People like you assume a great deal, and earnestly believe you represent some majority. Statistically speaking, your represent the minority. The majority, even at the state level, doesn’t vote. So where exactly does that leave you?

          34. kotoc says

            There will come a day that I will weep for you… but right now, I have nothing to say other than… “There will come a day when you will face your maker, your judge… what defense will you have?” There is NO greater Attorney than Jesus!!!!

          35. Joshua says

            While I can’t speak for God, I’m fairly certain he’s not going to be angry at me for allowing him to do his job. I’m fairly certain he won’t be upset that I did my best to love everyone in the same manner Jesus did.

          36. Kent2012 says

            let us see now 2 1/2 % of the population profess “same sex proclivity” and you are suggesting that out of the remaining 97 1/2% the “majority of which” do not give two s–ts, or even one s–t, that therefore determines that I am in a majority….your argument would not hold water….or fly for that matter…the “majority” of Real Americans are fed up with an exceptionally small percentage of the countries citizens flaunting their perversion in our faces and demanding that not only should we embrace their aberrations, but enable legislation that would legitimize their sexual deviance… you will be telling us that there is wording in the constitution that says that women have a “right to privacy” and that will allow them to murder their unborn and almost born children “on demand” and that the US taxpayer must pay for this murder…oh wait a minute..that and the clown act of the Unaffordable healthcare destruction act is ongoing… “if you love your horse……”

          37. Joshua says

            ABC News/Washington Post Poll

            “Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court action this week that allows gay marriages to go forward in several more states?”

            Support Oppose Unsure
            % % %
            ALL 56 38 6
            Democrats 72 23 5
            Republicans 25 64 11
            Independents 63 32 5

            CBS News/New York Times Poll

            “Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?”


            Legal Not legal Unsure/
            No answer
            % % %
            9/12-15/14 56 37 7
            Republicans 41 52 6
            Democrats 63 33 5
            Independents 59 32 9

            McClatchy-Marist Poll

            Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?”


            favor Favor Oppose Strongly
            oppose Unsure
            % % % % %
            8/4-7/14 27 27 19 19 9

            “Do you think the laws on whether same-sex marriage is legal or not should be decided by each state or should it be decided for the entire country by a federal law?”


            Each state Federal law Unsure
            % % %
            8/4-7/14 43 50 7

            “If your party nominated a well-qualified person for Congress, and you heard he or she was gay or lesbian, would that make you more likely to vote for that candidate, less likely, or wouldn’t it make any difference one way or the other?” N=806 registered voters, margin of error ± 3.5


            More likely Less likely No difference Unsure
            % % % %
            ALL 2 16 82 1
            Democrats 3 13 84 0
            Republicans 1 30 67 2
            Independents 2 9 89 0

            I could continue, but I think I’ve made my point.

          38. Kent2012 says

            what was this? a NYT poll? sorry that piece of toilet paper, the once great “Gray Lady” is nothing but a rag touting socialism and perversion and who is the latest hot stuff on Broadway..oh and when the mcClatchy-marxist pollsters get out there well look out….the democommies will be responding faster than the gamblers at a casino can pull dem handles….why did you not include a poll from the huffy puffy posty and the LA times Pravda…let us load the wagon to the top of the side boards with manure…

          39. Joshua says

            I’m sorry, which polling entity would you find suitable to this argument?

          40. Joshua says

            You still haven’t defined what a “real” American is, so I’m going to assert once more that you are the “real” American you claim to represent. Why is it that you ultra-conservatives engage in this sort of fallacious argument? Where did I profess to support abortion or beastiality? I’m pretty sure I was clear that I supported the law. For the sake of argument, however, I’ll address this retardation.

            While I agree with the overall, argument presented in Roe v. Wade, I don’t find logical the specific conclusion the court reached with respect to abortion, as it is contrary to the very science that was argued as well as existing law:

            Science defines life as a single cell, human/animal life at mitosis. It stands therefore that the child in question is in fact alive. It is illegal under the law to take a human life without just causation, and no affirmative defense that I have ever read allows one human to kill another as a form of retroactive contraception. It is also worth noting that certain opinions expressed in Roe v. Wade stand in direct conflict with penalties for harm to unborn fetuses under the law. So no, I don’t support abortion as a form of contraception.

            Why one would conclude that one person being allowed to marry another would lead to people marrying their pets is beyond me. In order to marry someone under the law, you have to be what the law defines as able to conscent. This doesn’t mean that you can make some gesture or vocalization, but that you are capable of understanding the legalities of the agreement you are entering into. There is no reality, short of the rapid evolution of animal species, where a human will be able to marry an animal under the law.

            I don’t care what you define as amoral, perverted, or anything else really. The law states that we are equal, with equal protections under the law, and that’s the way it’s going to be.

          41. Joshua says

            Can you provide a link to the case brief please?

          42. LastGasp says

            They want there to be in all 50 states. You can’t comprehend the article obviously.

          43. Morton212 says

            Do you really not know the difference between the legal and religious definition of marriage ?

          44. Jarhead says

            Paid trolls like Joshua require tunnel vision and a queer outlook on normal, natural, healthy life styles.

          45. Morton212 says

            So, are you implying that any argument contrary to yours must be paid ?

          46. Isandbeans says

            This is my issue with it, as well. If they would leave others to their own beliefs, it would not be a problem. But when you FORCE people, by calling them up and then suing them when they refuse you – when there are hundreds of other flower shops, cake shops, pastors, etc. around, then you are a bully and I stop supporting you. People should have a right to their beliefs and should be left in peace.

          47. kotoc says

            It certainly is NOT “my issue.” God forbid that it would EVER be “my issue!!!!”

          48. Morton212 says

            Then perhaps you should act on his command. Leave it alone.

          49. kotoc says

            Oh, like YOU left it alone??

          50. Morton212 says

            Either I have free will to choose or not. That is between God and myself and NOTHING to do with you since it does not affect you.

          51. kotoc says

            That’s exactly right!!!…. and I’m so very GLAD of that!!

          52. Joshua says

            Have you ever given or received oral sex? Sodomy.

          53. Joshua says

            “Judge not, lest ye be judged”-Matthew 7:1. Tell me again how we as Christians are to be the judges of anything.

          54. kotoc says

            Have you not read my earlier comments about how I refuse to judge?? Click on my name, Joshua, and read what I have had to say about LOTS of things. Then, compare it to other remarks…. like yours.

          55. b glad says

            God is our judge. Simply stating the position which God takes in judgement is not being judgemental.

        2. bamissfa says

          a study in UK which is extremely liberal surprisingly since they are so
          liberal, showed that childen fare better emotionally with two
          heterosexual parents. The study just came out and it outlined ( not
          surprisingly ) all the mental, nervous and anxiety conditions produced
          in children raised in homosexual homes.

          and then there are the new reports of homosexual “married” men who adopted half a dozen boys and molested them. That wasn’t enough they also passed them around and rented the children out to their friends to perform sexual favors.

          homosexuality is an aberration it is abnormal and it is a sin according to God’s law.

          1. Morton212 says

            What was this anonymous study ?

          2. Joshua says

            You do realize that statistics show the majority of molesters to be white, heterosexual men; correct? Being homosexual does not make one more or less prone to pedophilia.

          3. LastGasp says

            Statistics? Show us.

          4. Joshua says

            Google It. There are various psychological studies, as well as justice department surveys you can sift through(state and federal).

          5. LastGasp says

            You made the statement, back it up or admit you made it up.

          6. Joshua says

            Jenny et al., 1994
            Freund et al., 1989
            Groth & Birnbaum, 1978

            There are more, but I’ve provided sufficient reference material to support my claim. There is also a good article floating around written by Herek, a professor from UC Davis. Now, where is your evidence to the contrary?

          7. LastGasp says

            What kind of an idiot are you? You haven’t proven anything. What am I supposed to do with those names? Are those books? Don’t you know how to link to your research sources?

            Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill,

          8. Joshua says

            If you don’t know what those names represent, or what to do with them, you really shouldn’t be throwing around terms like “idiot”. For the sake of clarity, they are citations. You plug those little suckes into Google, and it will display a list of result. More than one of those results will link you to a study I’ve, which I’ve already read, that will provide you with the “proof” you’ve requested. I could quote these studies, and throw up numbers from those as well as the DoJ survey, and the various state correctional surveys done over the years; however, you’ll only flail and sputter even more about “proof”. The reality here is that there is no correlation between homosexuality and child molestation/rape/sexual assault. There is no correlation between homosexuality and mental illness, which is how we define pedophilia/ephobophilia.

            I assume you wrote the article above, which means you should understand the connection between vetting your sources, and your credibility as an author, correct?

          9. Joshua says

            Just a few:

            “Researcher Carole Jenny found, in a 1994 study, that “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as homosexual.” Of the 93,000 sexually abused kids in the US in 1999 (the last year of available statistics), half of the children were sexually abused by their parents (Sandusky), while other relatives committed 18 percent of the offenses.”

            “Large-sample studies reported that 53% to 94% of perpetrators were men, with up to half of female perpetrators being adolescent-aged baby-sitters.37,48,128,141,148 Small-sample studies revealed a similar predominance of male perpetrators. One study noted that 98% of these male perpetrators self-identified as heterosexual.82 Studies of children and young adolescents reported that more than 90% of perpetrators were male.38,46,82,121,143,151,154 Studies of older adolescents and young adults reported lower rates of male perpetrator abuse (22% to 73%), and rates of female perpetrator abuse from 27% to 78%.53,84,106,140,159 Studies of adult samples reported intermediate male perpetrator rates of 63% to 90%.24,72,73,77,113,114,132 These findings may suggest that males revise their perceptions as they age such that abusive sexual experiences with females become defined, retrospectively, as normative rather than abusive.” (William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE; Gail B. Slap, MD, MS, 1998)

          10. LastGasp says

            Report – Pedophilia More

            Common Among ‘Gays’

            Research Purports To Reveal

            ‘Dark Side’ Of Homosexual Culture

            By Jon Dougherty

            © 2002


          11. Joshua says

            That’s it? Per capita statistics as proof, and unsubstantiated, anecdotal claims that homosexuality is itself a mental illness? I wish I could claim surprise, but this is a common trend with media outlets these days.

          12. Isandbeans says

            No, they are as heterosexual as they are homosexual. That is just a cover that they think is “acceptable”. Bottom line, they are pedophiles.

          13. Jarhead says

            And Joshua is a paid troll….bottom line.

          14. grunion says

            How does one go about getting a job like that? I would love to be turned loose on liberal blog sites and get paid. Dream job for me.

          15. grunion says

            They are not heterosexual, they are pedophiles. An aberration and soulless moral crime. I don’t even like to include pedophiles as human.

          16. Joshua says

            Ahh, common ground.

          17. Frost says

            I’m not going to argue with your religious beliefs, but I will point out that you cannot simply paint all homosexual people with the same brush. What they did was evil and they had best hope I don’t meet them in a dark alley, but that’s not everyone. If you believe it’s a sin, fine. But that’s like saying just because one person murdered someone else, we’re all murderers.

        3. grunion says

          A further interpretation implies that gay couples are somehow better at rearing children. Again, bullshit!

      2. K. Q. Duane says

        Without marriage responsibility for the children vertically disappears! Do you think single motherhood is a responsible way to bring up children? It not only denies the children the protection and support of their fathers but it has been proven to condemn the children to poverty. In addition, it results in higher instances of abuse, academic failure and crinimality among the children. Where’s the responsibility in that?

        1. Morton212 says

          Good parenting is nothing to do with marriage. Care to give it another shot ?

          1. K. Q. Duane says

            Bullshit! A devotion to the sacrament of marriage is the foundation upon which good parenting skills are developed. Despite the sick secular view of marriage, which promulgates the ludicrous and self-distructive notion that marriage is all about the couple, marriage was designed by God for the sole purpose of protecting the children of that couple. Unless the couple is devoted to each other, and their children, under Gods eyes, they are 100 times more likely to end up in divorce court which again abdicates their joint responsibility to raise their children in the safest, happiest and most lucrative way.

          2. Morton212 says

            It actually has turned out to be the foundation on which divorce is based. Assuming God ‘designed’ marriage – he has been experimenting in many different forms of it for several thousand years. Why stop now ? We have seen polygamy, and concubines, wives used as chattel and property, to be stoned or beaten to death – and still we try to take away the rights to their own bodies.

          3. Isandbeans says

            Good grief, it’s not all bad, when you have a family that works and has a lot in common, it can be really great! You know you’re always there for each other, no matter what. It’s not always perfect, but you know you always have each other. It’s not slavery for gods sake. What you are repeating is what the Marxist/Communists used to tell women to hate the patriarchy in the first place in order to break up the family, which has been incredibly destructive to our society. As far as being stoned and beaten to death, I don’t see you guys taking that up with the Islamists much lately, why not? Or for that matter them being used as chattel or property. What’s up with that?

          4. Morton212 says

            Your premise appears to be that only a traditional marriage can provide that sort of security and happiness – and yet the evidence shows that that is now a very small part of what constitutes a family – and that security and happiness can be provided in many different ways to give children a conducive upbringing.

          5. grunion says

            Heh, bullshit!

          6. Morton212 says

            That may well be your experience but it is that natural result of misinformation.

          7. grunion says

            Heh, more bullshit. For the record, I am well aware of the disinformation provided by the mainstream media and those that propagate it. It is my vocation to analyze media for trends, veracity, etc. And please do not preach to me about “natural results”, I do not believe you consider unintended consequences. I do and it looks grim.

          8. Morton212 says

            For what ? Something like the Family Research Council ?

          9. grunion says

            Yeah, there’s an efficient use of money forcibly taken from me under threat of total financial destruction or jail. Family Research Council? You have got to be kidding! Lotta good they have done for the suffering. Twit!

          10. Morton212 says

            I was just curious about your vocation …

          11. Isandbeans says

            That’s not at all what I said, I was arguing against single parenting.

          12. Morton212 says

            Two parents are obviously better than one. In fact the old tribal system is probably better from a child’s point of view than even a two parent system. But we can agree that one parent is far superior to an orphanage I presume ?

          13. Isandbeans says

            Depends on the parent! I used to wish I’d be taken away. My mom was a nightmare.

          14. K. Q. Duane says

            What? You’re all over the place! Try and get yourself together before you make a public fool out of yourself again. Otherwise, beat it!

          15. Morton212 says

            Obviously you are very clever and understand why a devotion to the sacrament of marriage is faring so very badly among heterosexual couples. We can all share that image of the perfect American family with three kids, two smiling parents and their pets behind the white picket fence about to go to church – where DID happen to them ?
            I would suggest that you are imbued with a fantasy which has supplanted your idea of realism.

          16. Joshua says

            You have statistics of some kind to support this utterly subjective!, rhetorical, emotive, and fallacious argument?

          17. K. Q. Duane says

            Statistics? Yeah, statistics prove you’re a jackass!

          18. Joshua says

            Oh yes, the good old ad hom. fallacy. Can’t defeat the argument, so attack the individual. This is a prime example of why this country is swirling the drain, not because two consenting adults want to enjoy civil liberty afforded by the constitution.

          19. K. Q. Duane says

            Consenting adults? Constitution? What? Where is that in the Constitution? You are so brainwashed with radical, second-wave BS, it’s coming out your ears. I’ll bet you got your “education” in a public school.

          20. Joshua says

            The 14th Amendment maybe?

            “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

            I assume English isn’t a second language for you, so the last clause should be fairly easy for you to understand. If not, seek assistance from a legal professional to aid in your unter standing of how this particular clause is applicable herein.

            What in the hell is “second-wave BS”? Yes, I went to a public high school, where I was dual-enrolled at the U of U studying law. I also studied at the U of H, and will finish my last two years at UAB. Which college(s) have you attended during your collegiate study of the law? Rhetorical question, because it’s obvious you’ve put little-to-no effort into the study of law, constitutional or otherwise.

          21. grunion says

            Your elitist response gets little positive reaction from those who were not able to pay the tens of thousands of dollars necessary to achieve your lofty education as a doctor of used car sales. It appears you may share a little narcissism with the illegal in the white house. Back off a little. You’re smart, a gift from God. Now, use the tools for the purpose intended. The well being of the rest of the children of the Lord and carry the message of hope. Faith without good works is dead. We have a very large, very screwed up world, help it. I really am not attacking you. I said a few things for comedy relief and I apologize if you felt insulted but the nation needs folks like you to pony up and stand for integrity, honesty, accountability.

          22. Joshua says

            If you actually knew me, you would know I have nothing in common with Obama, or his horde of brainless zealots. I swore an oath once upon a time to uphold and defend the constitution, which is representative of the people, all people. I may be educated and highly intelligent, but at the end of the day, I’m still a grunt. As a result, I will be damned long before I abandon either my oath, or the teachings of love and sacrifice I live by.

          23. grunion says

            I do not care what you call it, it is still butt poking and weird and unnatural.

          24. Joshua says

            While I agree, I can’t get beyond the issue of love.

          25. grunion says

            Just had to bring that up, didn’t you.

          26. Joshua says

            As a Christian, it’s a big part of the issue for me.

          27. togetherwestand says

            It’s no good to try and explain anything about morals or character to these sick people. They are fags and support anything immoral. Nasty people love nasty crap. They make me sick. They are truly evil minded and only thrive on this kind of garbage. They try to come accross as if they are intelligent but what they support says it all. They are the devils little maggots.

          28. K. Q. Duane says

            Thanks for the head’s up.

          29. Peter Sherman says

            Your response suggests that the anger is within you. That does not strike me as deeply Christian.

          30. togetherwestand says

            Thats right! I AM angry! I’m angry at you people and your lack of MORALS. Your lack of PATRIOTISM. Your lack of Self-Respect and Mutual Respect for others. Angry that so many of us have to see and hear your filth.
            Sorry it took 6 days to respond I have many other important things to worry about….

          31. Peter Sherman says

            Sorry you feel as you do. Must be a struggle as the country becomes increasingly accepting of various forms of diversity. At least they are striving for equality in a union of two people who love eachother and are not like so many around the world and here at home who speak of hate and violence. I heard an interesting description of patriotic: conservatives are patriotic and express themselves as “i love my country right or wrong; together we stand” (although i dont see a lot of support for our commander and chief right now). Progressives are patriotic and express themselves as “i love my country… I think it can be better… I will help it through constructive criticism”. I think that sort of sums up a big part of the cultural divide around here.

            Hope you find your peace with the world within you live and within the country that you love.

          32. Michael Dennewitz says

            And yet another troll. My money says he’s QUEER !!

          33. Morton212 says

            I dunno Michael, but it seems that homophobes bend over backwards to pretend they are straight. Take it up with K. Q. Duane.

          34. LastGasp says

            While you bend over forwards to let the commie progressives stick it to you.

          35. Morton212 says

            You been stalking me you pervert ?

          36. Peter Sherman says

            Better apply for a restraining order… And fast.

          37. Morton212 says

            I have my back covered, thanks.

          38. Peter Sherman says

            Its your ass you need to cover.

          39. Morton212 says

            Get control of yourself, that would cost you money just to look at.

          40. grunion says

            Wow, now he’s offering it for sale. What a douche…

          41. Morton212 says

            Give it up – its never been for sale.

          42. grunion says

            Hah, he admits to his perversion. What gall to accuse another!

          43. Morton212 says

            No, I am a staunch supporter of the right to not be raped.

          44. Isandbeans says

            What’s interesting, and I’m not criticizing anyone here, but when communism takes over and they inevitably start eliminating people, as they always do, those same gay people they champion to bring about communism tend to be some of the first ones they eliminate. I’ve read multiple things by ex-communists, and also an ex-Soviet Union guy. It’s pathetic how they use people and then toss them out.

          45. grunion says

            Purges are part and parcel to a communist take over of government and yes, most homosexuals would be targeted for “Special treatment”, along with indepedent thinking intellectuals, most of the military’s general staff and a mess on innocents. If you want that, you are welcome to it. Find a communist country and go there. I hear Cuba is now open for business. Give it a whirl and let us know how it works out for you.

          46. Isandbeans says

            How on earth did you ever get the idea that I wanted to find or live anywhere near a communist country from my statement?!?? I was just making a statement. I want nothing to do with that crap.

          47. hangem'high says

            At least they’ll have them all documented when they do?

          48. Frost says

            So if we disagree, we’re labeled as queer trolls? Good to know where you stand. I, personally, think it is a basic human right to marry the person you love, even if that person is the same gender as you. I think any kids with anxiety or whatever from nontraditional families are probably facing a lot of intolerance from other people around them, and the ones who did the study are probably conservative anyway. I also think it isn’t up to humans to judge other humans for who they love. I also think the person who compares a homosexual person to a pedophile is the one who needs to go to hell. I’ve never met a gay man or woman who went from “liking the same sex” to liking children. I have, however, met a pedophile…and he was, as far as I could tell, straight. But those are just thoughts…

          49. LastGasp says

            If you support forcing Christians to be regulated against their beliefs by the feral government you are worse than a queer troll. You have no business dictating morals or values like a communist. You can love whom you want, just don’t force others to accept it.

          50. Frost says

            No one said I supported Christians being regulated. I’m supporting a basic human right. No one is forcing you to change your beliefs or to marry a same sex spouse. I’m not dictating beliefs– just exercising my right to freedom of speech, which you all say you support. Except, of course, when people say something you disagree with. Then all of a sudden I’m communist.

          51. grunion says

            Are you?

          52. Frost says

            I assume you mean communist. No, I am not. I might be more liberal on this particular subject, but I value my independence too much.

          53. Peter Sherman says

            But the important missing point are the rights that come with a recognized union. Give those rights with a queer union and a lot of those folks will quietly go slip away. Of course there will be the activists, but the majority just want equal rights and protection regardless of the term given to the union.

          54. grunion says


          55. Michael Dennewitz says

            For some reason or another, I just KNEW you’d come up with what you think is a valid rebuttal…

          56. Frost says

            You don’t see it as valid? How so? Is there something you don’t understand? Then perhaps you’ll understand this: as far as I can tell, you called me a communist because I voiced my opinion on the matter, as is my right. If we follow that, then everyone on this board is a communist. If this is not what you meant, please clarify. If there is something specific you don’t view as valid, please say so.

          57. Isandbeans says

            This is true – a pedophile is a HUGE difference from a homosexual. Entirely different thought process. I don’t think you can say that they are straight, either. They may choose to show the world that they are straight, in order to appear “normal”, but they are pedophile. It’s so far off base of both other things. What some people are trying to say is just that there are a handful of sick people that will indeed try to get this legalized and they will attempt it. I hope to god that never happens because I don’t think I want to be a part of a world where that’s acceptable.

          58. grunion says


          59. grunion says

            I could give a damn what he is, it is what he says and does that is so destructive to otherwise solid foundations. Enough of these web worms could, and have diminished my beloved home.

          60. DiabolicalJason says

            I’m beginning to think that Michael Dennewitz is GAY, since he seems so knowledgeable and professes to be able to recognize other gays at the drop of a hat. Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult any gay folks by the comparison !

          61. Michael Dennewitz says

            Hey faggo, you can inject all the bullshit you want, but I think everyone here now knows it’s you that’s the shit packer, eh.. Oops, looks like you got some on your nose too. Tisk, risk….

          62. LastGasp says

            Says who? You? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,,,,,,

          63. Morton212 says

            No, statistically most marriages end in divorce before the children are adults.

          64. Isandbeans says

            I have to say, I was raised by a single mother and it was hell. We were poor and she was very abusive towards my sisters and I. She didn’t give me a second thought when she chose to divorce first my father and then her second husband, who adopted me. She only thought of herself, her dating life and how fast she could be single again. I made sure when I had kids never to put them through that! I have stayed with my husband for 24 years, and no, it hasn’t always been perfect, but as a result, I have two kids that are honor students, one with a college degree and one working on his right now. I saw and felt first hand what in my mind was sheer hell living with a single parent, but I also remember what it was like briefly having a father around who loved and protected me. I think that is very important for children.

          65. Frost says

            I’m sorry this happened to you, and I’m happy that you have made your marriage work. But I have to say, my aunt raised one of my cousins as a single mother, and she was never so self-centered or abusive.

          66. Isandbeans says

            That’s good, glad it worked out for your cousin!

          67. grunion says

            She was lucky, period.

        2. grunion says

          More complaints…No solutions

      3. togetherwestand says

        Sorry you are. You were lost a long time ago. Your kind is a perfect example of whats wrong with this nation. Your disgusting. We can’t get rid of you fast enough!

        1. Morton212 says

          If you are going to trash me than a least get your grammar right or we might suspect you are very uneducated. If you mean ‘you’re disgusting’, who ,is the ‘we’ that wants to deny me my democratic rights ?

        2. Joshua says

          I disagree. People who can form thoughts into coherent, intelligible sentences are in short supply.

          1. Jarhead says

            That is because you spend most of your time with the PC liberal-retards and not with intelligent, normal folks.

          2. Joshua says

            It’s actually because I waste my time arguing with ultra-conservatives that lack the intellect necessary to form an argument. The people I am closest to, whom I interact with daily, are college educated and identify as conservative/republican. They are, however, not religious zealots who spout contradictory scripture as evidence for why law should or should not be enacted. I am a “constitutionalist”. I think anyone who rides party lines needs to be beat with a claw hammer to prevent them from breeding, support the second amendment as it was written, am pro-life, and believe I God. So tell me again how “liberal” I am.

    2. bamissfa says

      exactly, the immoral crowd is now working to legalize pedophilia like they did homosexuality. when they no no child will be safe from these sexual perverts.

      one sexual perversion leads to another.

      a study in UK which is extremely liberal surprisingly since they are so liberal, showed that childen fare better emotionally with two heterosexual parents. The study just came out and it outlined ( not surprisingly ) all the mental, nervous and anxiety conditions produced in children raised in homosexual homes.

      GOD is not the author of confusion. When there is chaos and confusion present you can be sure it is not from GOD, it’s from breaking from God’s laws of nature which he ordained to keep perfect order in our world.

      1. kotoc says


      2. Andrew Popper says

        straight parents may be the ideal, but Gay parents are better than no parents
        for children abandoned to the miseries of the foster care system. The children
        of the Gay parents in your studies have most likely suffered from very bad
        situations before they were taken in by those parents. The comparisons are based
        on falsehoods.

        1. Peter Sherman says

          Two GOOD LOVING AVAILABLE SUPPORTIVE parents are the ideal regardless of the particulars. If they be hetero… Great. If they be homo… The kids will do fine too so long as the society is as supportive as the parents. Yes, without the details of the study, we cannot be sure of the findings.

      3. K. Q. Duane says


    3. Jarhead says

      IF we live?

  6. Greg137 says

    Well I for hope that Cruz is successful but he will need the peoples help so America it is time to hit back against the queers.. The FCC is planning to force gay porn on all major airwaves! to become a gay porn site! do you understand a 1.6% minority is taking over the FCC… And what do they want to do with it gay porn on all chanels!!! So we better start hitting back against the queers… Don’t believe me?

    Do you want every channel forcing gay porn on every single channel???
    Because if you do you are sick in the head!!!

    1. john Wilson says

      Insulting people is not going to get them to agree with you. Use a little tact and ask for support, without insulting them.

  7. kotoc says

    We really should not judge a person for what gender they prefer to have a sexual/love relationship with. It’s not OUR job to determine what’s right and wrong with a personal relationship, right? Only GOD should be who we answer to on Judgment Day when it comes down to what’s moral or immoral. As it has been stated in the Holy Bible, homosexuality is sodomy (and a sin), but so is murder, adultery, stealing, etc. We can hardly throw all homosexuals in jail, can we? We can preach all we want, but it ultimately wouldn’t do any good anyway. I’m disgusted whenever I so much as THINK of homosexuals and what goes on behind their bedroom doors, but I refuse to be the “judge.” It’s not MY job.

    1. Morton212 says

      You might find it easier on yourself if you stopped vicariously imagining the sexual activity of others where it i really none of your business.

      1. kotoc says

        You’re right about me stopping to “vicariously imagining the sexual activity of others”….. I couldn’t agree more!!! You’re right that it’s none of my business…. it’s like, EWWWWW!!

    2. Dane says

      You’re correct kotoc, homosexuality/sodomy is a “sin” and used to also be “illegal”; but it is going to be made “legal” this summer. We dare not openly sin when we steal, murder, commit adultery because they are illegal; when they become “legal” (and I’m sure they will be if we continue on the path the liberal’s have chosen for us), then these sins will no longer be illegal and can be done openly, even applauded, with no repercussions at all….. just like sodomy, homosexuality, same sex marriage.

      If you think I’m wrong, remember (not 800 years ago, but just 70 years ago) when the German people followed Hitler and so willingly and openly raped, murdered, and stole from their neighbors and former friends; applauding their own actions and praising others who did the same.

      1. Morton212 says

        Its probably time to revise the religious anachronism that sodomy is a sin. Its just confusing to children, when they see rapidly that it is perfectly legal.

        1. Dane says

          That’s probably the way the German’s justified what they did… it’s not wrong; our government says so.

          1. Morton212 says

            It is not harmful to others. Just a private matter between two people.

          2. Dane says

            Tell that to the millions of victims and family members who still suffer the affect of AIDS.

          3. Morton212 says

            That is an illogical leap. Besides which many heterosexuals engage in sodomy as well as homosexuals – who do NOT contract STDs. Do you know why ?

          4. chief1937 says

            God’s law will prevail in the end regardless of our opinions.

          5. Morton212 says

            I will take my chances !

          6. chief1937 says

            Your choice enough said good luck.

      2. Joshua says

        Why is it that we invariably end up drawing parallels between individual liberty and nazi Germany? What bearing does Hitler have on This subject?

        1. Morton212 says

          It gets the hard right excited and they constantly attempt to smear those who they disapprove of.

          1. Joshua says

            Apparently. I’ve never been able to connect genocide and homes equality like they seem to be able to. Next thing you know, we’ll be hearing how Hitler was gay, and that’s why he wanted to murder Jewish people.

        2. dcfla says

          The Correlation is the Same, People Look the Other Way, Until it IS Forced to become EVERYONE’S ISSUE…Like ISIS, ISIL, AND EVERY OTHER NAME THEY CALL THEMSELVES Depending on WHAT AND WHERE they ARE today, DING Horrific things to Helpless, Defenseless Men, Women and CHILDREN…Like “HITLER” MANY PEOPLE Either LOOKED the Other Way, DID NOT BELIEVE ANY OF IT was TRUE, Or Just didn’t WANT TO GET INVOLVED! UNTIL….It Became an ISSUE or THEY GOT TO “FINALLY” See the ATROCITIES that HAD BEEN COMMITTED and COULD NOT be TAKEN BACK…OR UNDONE! This is the Same thing we have NOW….A MINORITY “GROUP” of IMMORAL, And INHUMANE “things” won’t Call them HUMANS, Are Continually COMMITTING CRIMES against ALL Of US…but Until it COMES to YOUR FRONT DOOR or IN YOUR FACE, YOU WILL NOT Understand HOW Serious and How HORRIFIC ALL OF IT IS ON the SOCIETY as a WHOLE…Everyone, well Most, want to LOOK the Other Way, UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE! I KNOW how IMPORTANT It IS to ALWAYS think AHEAD, Not from BEHIND….You Get in Front of ANY and ALL Problems, NOT BEHIND them, and NO PUN INTENDED…these are ALL Serious ISSUES….Hitler had MILLIONS of FOLLOWERS who ALLOWED HIM and HIS EVIL “MINIONS” to COMMIT the MOST EVIL and Atrocious INHUMANE treatment and MURDERS, Not to mention…ALL The REST! Cannot EVER take ANY OF THAT BACK, Just as once all the World or Our OWN Country goes down the DARK ROAD, WE Will be fighting A Battle Much Harder to WIN…because again, It’s Like trying to PUSH A WAGON UP HILL Instead of RIDING IT DOWN HILL! Ok, I am done, because if you do Not NOW get the “CORRELATION” Between HITLER and All the IMMORAL and Horrific ACTS being DONE TO Christians as well as ANY and ALL Helpless, Defenseless Men, Women and CHILDREN All over this GLOBE, Then YOU Never WILL.

          1. Joshua says

            I spent a number of years in Afghanistan, so I don’t need a lesson on barbarism. What I fail to understand is how we go from two women/men loving each other, to the Taliban dragging children into the center of a village and executing them. We’re not talking about some fundamental difference between love existing between to adults of opposite sex, and those of the same sex. It’s the same chemical reaction occurring in the brain. So how do we then get from “I do”, to “allahu akbar!”? Rhetorical question.

      3. chief1937 says

        Regardless of our opinions let’s face facts what we personally think about these acts Sin is Sin and ultimately God will judge it. As Christians we are commanded to Love the person but Hate the sin what ever it is.

        1. Morton212 says

          You can hate what you want – but keep it to yourself rather than risk committing a felony.

          1. chief1937 says

            Can not commit a felony for thinking regardless of what it is only by actions can it be classified as that. You might also consider keeping you opinion to yourself. If and when I post an untruth should it be criticized.

          2. Morton212 says

            By not ‘keeping it to yourself’ you may become guilty of a hate crime.

      4. john Wilson says

        It will be made legal in the eyes of man, NOT God. We will have to live with it unless we do something about it legally. Where is that majority that they speak of?

        1. Joshua says
    3. bamissfa says

      it is if they profess to be christ followers because christ’s church is supposed to JUDGE those INSIDE the CHURCH. That’s what the Holy Bible instructs. The church in the bible was instructed to order those living in open sin, for example in homosexuality, 3 times the church is to chastize them and if they do not repent ( stop the sin ) then the church was to put that person outside of the church so that Satan might have his body.
      the problem with athiests and non believers is they do not know what the Bible instructs Christ followers yet those on the left usually take up for all the idiol worship religions like islam, buddhism, hinduism etc.

      1. john Wilson says

        Thank you for bringing out the point the the Bible instructs us to judge members of the church and preserve the spirit of Christ’s Laws.

    4. john Wilson says

      So what you are saying we should just let everyone do as they please, not judge as you call it, and everything will be okay in society. Wow, Hope you are not in a position of authority and can screw up the system more than it has been tampered with. Without laws, structure, society is dead.

  8. Joshua says

    “it should be preserved, whenever possible, at the smallest levels.”

    So, if two consenting adults wish to enter into a civil union, they should be allowed to do so, correct? Marriage is no longer a religious term used be the various religious constructs, it is an act under the law (I.e. marriage licenses, tax incentives, legal protections). If we want the Feds out of the equation, then the states themselves need to step out of the equation. You cannot legislate discrimination at the state level, another of those superhuman predictions our forefathers had, which is why we have a bill of rights.

    This is not an issue where anyone is demanding that a religious institution rewrite whatever series of books and bylaws it uses to operate. This is an issue where we are conceding more power to the federal government. This is an issue where we are outright demanding that individual sovereignty be protected over the whim of state actors who want to pander to a narrow-minded constituency who appears to have no working knowledge of the Constitution in the first place. Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me, because it is a concept lauded by every conservative who wants to both decentralize power, as well as legally define marriage according to religious doctrine. It is an argument of semantics, one that fails to reconcile some pretty startling contradictions.

    1. K. Q. Duane says

      Are you a Christian? If not, you are in no position to comment on this topic because it does not, in any way, affect or concern you.

      1. Morton212 says

        As a law abiding American, religion has no part in the discussion of legal marriage.

        1. bamissfa says

          sure it does, especially when queers et all force pastors and christians into serving homosexuality by performing the unGodly unholy unions, by promoting gayness via same sex wedding cakes and the like.

          If a corporation has the power to be run by gays, and they like Nabisco force this immoral non traditional family only us via their tv commercials, then Christian corporations should have the right and power to refuse to promote homosexuality via such things as personalized items examples, gay wedding cakes, tee shirts that promote gay and other immorial behaviours.

          1. Joshua says

            Where do you get your information from? We’re talking about states issuing marriage licenses, not churches being forced to do anything.

          2. Morton212 says

            If you are going to take sides on this issue- then get your facts straight. You sound totally confused.

          3. john Wilson says

            I agree , we as Christians have a right to disagree and not promote these things we feel corrupt our religious beliefs. Amen

        2. john Wilson says

          You must understand the history of marriage, before you start making off center remarks about legality and religion. Most of our laws are common law and are derived from religious laws passed down through the centuries by Hammurabi, Moses, Rome, England. Our Law derives from religion even though you disagree.

          1. Morton212 says

            That is now irrelevant since religious courts no longer have any standing.

      2. Joshua says

        I believe in God, but I understand that my belief in God means I’m not the judge. I also believe that my religious platitudes have no place being defined under the law. As for “this not concerning” anyone: you do realize I live in this country, correct?

        1. K. Q. Duane says

          By not answering my question, you’ve inadvertently answered my question. So, butt out. You’re “opinion” on this matter is not welcomed or valid.

          1. Joshua says

            I am an American citizen who pays his taxes and votes, so my opinion is just as valid as you believe yours to be.

          2. K. Q. Duane says

            Not on this issue. It’s none of your business.

          3. Joshua says

            Why is that exactly? The law impacts every citizen in this country, so how could anyone be without a right to an opinion on the law? Is it because I don’t share your opinion on the subject matter being discussed? Is it because I don’t share your view of Christianity? Speaking of education.

      3. john Wilson says

        Everyone, even non-Christians have a right to speak about this topic. We as Christians should be tolerant of their ideas and try to persuade them from their thinking and return to Christ. Christ came for the lost, not just the saved.

        1. kotoc says

          You’re absolutely right, John. Why else did he die for our sins? I don’t deserve salvation either, but the blood of our Lord Jesus has redeemed me!!

        2. K. Q. Duane says

          Why? They don’t give a damn about the same things we do. So, what could they possibly contribute to the conversation? TOLERANT! Return to Christ? These hate filled jackasses don’t give a damn about Christ and tolerance is something they need to learn, not us Christians!

    2. bamissfa says

      sorry but GOD not the government ordained what marriage is. God said for this reason he created them male and female, that the male should leave his FATHERand his MOTHER and be with his wife and he and his wife shall be one flesh.

      1. Joshua says

        True, that is written in the bible; however, a group of men a long time ago wrote a document that says your bible had no business dictating legislation or individual sovereignty. There is also something in the bible about abiding by the laws of man, is there not?

        1. john Wilson says

          No they didn’t write that. They said the National government should not make a state religion and force all citizens to become members of that religion. It never said to take out religion from schools, or at football games, etc. That was state and federal courts misreading the Bill of Rights.

          1. Joshua says

            Ever hear of the crusades? Spanish Inquisition? The dark-ages? There was a very specific reason for the separation of church and state, and it had nothing to do with schools or football games.

          2. john Wilson says

            So true Joshua. However, it definitely did not say to take all religion out of our society and don’t teach morals and ethics to the children, who are the future of this nation. Don’t you think we as a society have progressed since the Spanish Inquisition, at least in the West?

          3. Joshua says

            In some ways we have, but we seem to be stubbornly mired in this prejudicial mindset that hinges on the “word of God”. I believe in God, I’ve studied the scriptures: both current and studies done on the original texts. What I take from that study is that God isn’t what most conventional Christians want him to be. Live, love, and sacrifice is the overall theme here. Why we’re still stuck with the mentality that led to the atrocities I mentioned above is incomprehensible to me. We’ve read the same things, chapter for chapter, word for word; so how did we end up in such different places? (“You” is being used in-general).

      2. john Wilson says

        Absolutely Right and you should let Morton212 know where to find it in the Bible. The Romans had nothing to do with it.

        1. Joshua says

          Do you understand the difference between marriage under the law, and marriage according to biblical doctrine? They are not the same thing, and we’re not discussing marriage in a religious context when we speak about the law.

        2. Morton212 says

          We are not discussing religious marriage. Grow up.

          1. john Wilson says

            Grow up? you are the one with the immature attitude and offensive remarks to those that don’t agree with your thinking. The idea of marriage was brought up in the Bible, a book written by men inspired by God. The message has been the same for more than 2000 years, Billions have learned of it and have taken refuge in it. Yet you, think you are smarter than those individuals. Change is not all good and you have to be careful of what the majority thinks they want.

          2. Morton212 says

            Which form of marriage – from over the last 2,000 years, do you endorse ?
            Polygamous forms, child brides, concubinages, arranged marriages or the current form that ends predominantly in divorce in the USA ?

  9. bamissfa says

    we have a federal law already that is supposed to define and protect traditional marriage. It’s called DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act.

    NO US LAW protects anything as long as we have those who wish to change it. Obama and his immoral lying crowd deceived the American people when obama said in 08 he supported traditional marriage. That was a lie in the same way he lied about being a Christian.

    NOW that is coming out in David Axelrod’s book that obama always favored gay marriage and he only said he was for traditional marriage in order to get elected.

    God save us from these immoral people like the soros, obamas, clintons, et al.

    1. Joshua says

      A politician lied to get elected? Stop the presses! First, DOMA no longer exists and never should have. We have this thing called a constitution that makes such things as DOMA illegal. Second, if you like having the right to speak, marry, and spout your bigotry from the rooftops; then you need to educate yourself on how legal precedent works. If you think gay people getting married is bad, allow the government to legislate prejudicially and the SCOTUS not intervene. You’re right to spout this nonesense, and much more, will disapear.

  10. e111w says

    b glad: Precisely. Who knows enough to count this among the thousands of illigitimate intrusions by the feds into the Constitution? Far, far too few! The document’s job description PROHIBITS the feds engaging the matter . ie SCO(AL) chief justice Moore is exactly correct, SCOTUS has NO authority. Yet, SCOTUS had the temerity to violate the very law by which it was created!

  11. Mynickelsworth says

    The Constitution does not mention marriage under Article I, Section 8 and Amendment X gives all powers NOT delegated to the federal government is reserved to the State and the people.

    So powers to control marriage is up to the state per our Federal Constitution. God said marriage was set up to be between a man and a woman. Hopefully, Curz’s will will pass and again, hopefully the states will

    obey God’s rules.

    oveserve God’srules.

    1. Morton212 says

      You are making the classic mistake of conservatives. You are conflating religious marriage with legal marriage. You are welcome to make rules about religious marriage. The government does not go there. But you may NOT make rules affecting the equality of citizens under the law.

  12. Archie Cogollos says

    The Pursuit of Happiness. A hundred years from now nobody’s gonna give a shit!…There are so many more important things that need our attention than who loves who and want all the rights and privilege’s. . People have left their entire fortunes to cats and dogs!!!!!! We better wake up and get our eyes on the ball. Gay relationships are every bit as loving or complicated as heterosexual ones. Couples are granted rights that are based on common law. Their the only people that wanna get married mind your own biz,

  13. cvxxx says

    How can supposedly intelligent people waste time and public money on something that is meaningless? What this is about is property rights. Call it civil union ans not a peep. But in this culture the term was not known nor are the concomitant areas of rights known widely. It’s just an name, but the real problems lack of a sensible tax code for instance, are not getting attention.

  14. curtmavi38 says

    Solution: IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Joshua says

      Yes, let’s impeach for one of the few constitutional things he’s done.

  15. Alice Maxwell says

    It all comes down to “family” and that is not defined as husband and wife but all members oif the family, past, present and future. This is the unit of life that keeps Mankind going and it must remain or Mankind will degenerate into animal existence without purpose, only survival. All religion is based on the family, its continuance, its constancy for religion cannot exist without it, neither can any other of Man’s organizations continue without it.

    The family is what defines progress. Successful units continue and prosper, helping each member, taking care of all despite age and other problems. When families are disrupted, those derailed find ways to restore them just to continue. If the dislocation is so severe they cannot, then those units die. In essence all civilization is defined in terms of family. Civilizations disappear because their family structures disappear.

    History catalogues this and proves it. The disappearance of great communities in the past is explained always as the failure of the family, its joint interests with other families of its persuasion. The oldest family recorded in our western world, that of the jews, illustrates this perfectly. We are just beginning to learn how Asian groups, far older than ours also mirror this fact.

    No government can legislate the family. Only the family can define itself. That is why in most successful nations, government never interferes with family, its structure but leaves family problems to families to decide. That is why paternalism or maternalism still reigns in all our organizations. The selection of either depends upon the strength of the gender needed to accomplish the task.

    The male or female are not equal. They can never be for each has a distinct role to play in the family and only the family can assign that, depending on its need. Throughout history that is defined by a coinstant succession of Kings and Queens in all epochs. We even celebrate that fact in our so called democracies because we still crown both in all our organizations, especially in the arts!

    In our time we have seen great upheavals in governing philosophies, the latest to be jettisonned being the anti-religious socialists and communists but because we sided with both, our societies are suffering from all kinds of dislocations. Against us a ne w religion is being pressed. most successfully, one that allows no deviation from wat is the defined family. It is Islam and when you ask how this old religion has become the new one, able to contest us for the world we live in, well too many in our world have been busy redefining family and they have failed miserably doing so.

  16. headonstraight says

    This journalist said it well:

    A lot of wisdom there!

  17. mary ann oyanib says

    Obama promise from the beginning he will fundamentally transform America from within and out. Ted Cruz cares enough to fight to the end no matter what the result. We need to pray and restore the institution of marriage let’s each state decide on it not the federal government.

  18. JIMBO says

    Go for it Ted. Whats to loose if you dont try. Good Luck and Gods speed.

    1. Joshua says

      Tax money and time that could be better spend on other issues.

  19. Gary Metzger says

    I suppose I should care how this turns out, but there is a sense I don’t. Any sane, rational human being knows that marriage is to between a man and a woman. Instinct and nature tell us that internally, and biology confirms it externally. They can legislate all they want, most people will never accept it. If it wasn’t for radical, federal judges, we wouldn’t even be talking about this.

    1. Joshua says

      So you’re only sane and rational if you believe that two people of the opposite sex should be able to enter into a legal arrangement that grants them benefits and protections every “married” couple in America receives? I suppose I’m neither sane nor rational then. You can call me crazy Eddie, the constitutionalist.

    2. Joshua says

      I find the “biological imperative” argument coupled with religious platitude to be fascinating. On in hand, you have the argument that some instinct compels us to propogate, which requires a mate of opposite sex than our own; ergo, nature dictates that homosexuality isn’t natural. On the other hand, you have the argument that God created all things, is effectively behind nature, and condemns homosexuality. When you put these two arguments together, you get a rather interesting result: God created all things, including the 1,500 animal species that engage in homosexual behavior without the benefit of higher reasoning, but he absolutely hates the gays. When you put it in perspective, it doesn’t quite make sense now does it? If God is responsible for creating all things, then he most certainly is responsible for homosexuality. If he cares so gosh darn much about it, why does it exist in the first place? When you race to your keyboard to respond, remember what I said about “higher reasoning”, because I will call you on it when you make the argument at least one person is invariably going to make. I’ll look like and ass, you’ll look silly, and it will be bad all around.

  20. Becky says

    What surprises me continually is that our States are not fighting this harder and telling the District of Corruption to go ‘f’ themselves. The Feds DO NOT have any right to overturn the voters of the States. Nor do their corrupt ‘judges’. Those STATE VOTERS have the HIGHEST rights in this land. If DC doesn’t like that, maybe it’s time to pay some foreign country to come in and blow the District of Crime off OUR map.

    1. Joshua says

      States agreed to abide by the constitution upon entering the union. You can fault whomever you so desire, but the constitution is the actual causality.

      1. Becky says

        The Constitution says the PEOPLE, then the States, THEN the Feds have Rights – IN THAT ORDER. None of this law breaking has to do with the Constitution. It has to do with CORRUPT false ‘judges’. Period.

        1. Joshua says

          Okay, so then homosexual couples, they being comprised of two individuals, should be able to enjoy the same rights as any other couple joined under the law, correct? It’s also worth pointing out that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, which includes state legislative action.

          1. Becky says

            When they can convince someone when they falsely ‘marry’ that they are ONE man and ONE woman, yes they can.

          2. Joshua says

            There must be some secret decoder ring necessary to decipher the things you write. The only way two people can falsely marry, under the law, is by committing some fraudulent act (already married, false name, mentally incompetent, duress). You do realize that there is a difference between a municipal judge, and your pastor/priest, correct?

  21. Mark N Starla Traina says
  22. Fred Beaver says

    No government state or federal should have ever been involved. Marriages are to be part of the church of their choice, the only time the state court is needed is to settle the civil matter of settling the split of assets and monies owed between the divorced couple. Which by the way are divorced by the church that married them. Civil court also decides child support and both parties are required for their children until adulthood.

  23. william g munson says


  24. Larry Wilson says

    You can now bet they will rule that way Obama tells them to rule. Just like in Illinois when his buddy Raum
    got to be Mayor of Chicago when he was not a resident at all….Obama made a few calls and he was a Resident over night!

    1. Morton212 says

      Is great to have friends in high places !

  25. Givendoly says

    Cruz has the right solution. Let all the quers move to Fire Island to live happily until after death!

  26. MichaelZZ says

    REGARDING: Since such gay marriage contracts HARM NO ONE, there is no compelling reason to
    forbid them.

    RESPONSE: Harms no one? How about the entire society?


    How would a society be affected if there were no such institution as marriage?

    Take more than a moment and “think” and extrapolate.

    While “thinking”, one should attempt to bypass one’s prejudices.



    Sex (n)

    Before a subject can be rationally discussed, terms must be defined.

    Friendship: A relationship between two persons who like one another.

    Partnership: A relationship between two persons with agreed stipulations and

    Love: Very ambiguous, amorphous, et cetera, but let’s try…. Affection towards another

    Marriage: A specific type of partnership, between a man and a woman – can be a legal or a
    religious partnership or both

    Sex: Intercourse between a man an a woman

    Sensuality: Indulgence in sensual pleasures

    A marriage is a partnership between one man and one woman, which can include friendship, love, sex, and sensuality, which has been established by society as a core element in its foundation.



  27. adrianvance says

    This is one of the pillars of our society. Given what has happened with Obama how many more can we afford to lose?

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  28. grunion says

    Obama is impotent without his legion of federal bureaucrats. It is always about the money and if we were to make dramatic reductions in the highest paying jobs in America (federal bureaucrats) Obama would be rendered completely ineffectual and I cannot begin to estimate the tremendous amount of money that would remain with the people who earned it. Make no mistake, a move like that will be countered by millions of federal bureaucrats hell bent on continuing to be the best paid worker in America with money that is forcibly taken from its rightful owner. Fire ’em and privatize any weak spots.

    1. Joshua says

      Obama has no authority over the SCOTUS. I’m not sure what this particular argument has to do with the issue of marriage under the law.

  29. Stephen Lopez says

    The federal government is not and will never be a guideline for moral law and or guidance. Misguided, males or females who wish to pursue their own brand of mortality should so in their private homes. The supreme court must not be trusted to force their definition of moral equivalency on the majority. Especially, when most of the society sees marriage between a man and a woman based on logic and law thousands of years old. The argument given by liberals and social deviants is an argument against our species seven thousands years of procreation between a male and female species. Lastly, the inequality is against the majority of this society. Moreover, the deceitful argument that this about rights for those practicing homosexuality are seperate and non debatable .Sexual orientation has nothing to do with equal rights under the law. Certainly, the immoral government that chooses politics over social responciabilty for the majority must stay out of these moreal deceptions.

    1. Joshua says

      The issue of equal rights under the law has nothing to do with sexual orientation; rather, it is focused in this instance on the existence of prejudicial legislation based on the sex of the individual. Arguments like yours fail to account for both constitutional spplicability, and established legal precedent. Should the states be allowed to establish law that says a woman has no right to vote? That was law at one point in this country, law based on the sex of the individual, and it was unconstitutional. The issue here is that you are trying to reconcile your own moral plattitude with applicability of constitutional protections, which simply isn’t a reality.

  30. THOMAS says

    The Supremecourt’s job is not to make laws or change any laws or change anything in the CONSTITUTION or Bill of Rights!
    These robed credences need to go back an learn their job & Congress needs to do their jobs congress has the power to remove any an all members of the Supremecourt.

    1. Joshua says

      While I do agree that Obama has done enough to be legally and rightfully impeached, can you be more specific on exactly what the Supreme Court has done that is outside of its purview?

  31. Nicholas Wilde says

    I legitimately do not believe all the negative reactions I am reading.

  32. jimdarnall says

    It just frustrated me that we the people can’t realize the federal government has no power or say in this matter. It being a moral issue is relegated to local levels thru local laws or vote of the people. The constitution has nothing in it covering moral issues. The Fed’s know but continually disregard and over use their authority. No courts in reality should never override a vote of the people.

    1. Joshua says

      The constitution protects legal eqaulity, and marriage has legal implications; ergo, the constitutionality of state law is within the preview of the SCOTUS. if you want this to be handled as a moral issue, you have to surrender all state and federal marriage benefits and protections.

  33. daanerud says

    The inconvenient truth.
    A same sex relationship is a homosexual relationship.
    Always has been and always will be.
    Progressives have to come up with progressive deception bold faced lie.
    Each husband (man) is to have one wife (woman).
    Each wife (woman) is to have their own husband (man).
    So in the deceptive classification of marriage equality. it is nothing more than a bold faced lie.

  34. raziel71 says

    Marriage was never included in the Constitution . It was a matter left for the states. And no one on their right mind at that time would even consider same sex relations to be called marriage. We are bound to fall in the steps of Sodoma and Gomorra and all other nations that felt from their stand by allowing this practice. USA is being destroyed by the inside. Your enemy lives next door, not on another country.

  35. Janice Foster says

    There is already by Law of America a Marriage Act and it is between one man and one woman….stop grasping for straws Cruz and shut up and get up on your feet and demand that the gays be stopped permanently from destroying Our Country and lives….Gays are Terrorists at this point in America!

  36. adrianvance says

    If this thing passes the Supreme Court we will all know the battle is over and we have lost.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  37. hangem'high says

    Bet’cha, our forefathers didn’t see this coming?

  38. MichaelZZ says

    REGARDING: Since
    such gay marriage contracts HARM NO ONE, there is no compelling reason to
    forbid them.

    RESPONSE: Harms no
    one? How about the entire society?


    How would a society be affected if there were no such
    institution as marriage?

    Take more than a moment and “think” and extrapolate.

    While “thinking”, one should attempt to bypass one’s







    Sex (n)


    Before a subject can be rationally discussed, terms must be

    Friendship: A
    relationship between two persons who like one another.

    A relationship between two persons with agreed stipulations and

    Love: Very
    ambiguous, amorphous, et cetera, but let’s try…. Affection towards another

    Marriage: A
    specific type of partnership, between a man and a woman – can be a legal or a
    religious partnership or both

    Intercourse between a man an a woman

    Indulgence in sensual pleasures

    A marriage is a partnership between one man and one woman,
    which can include friendship, love, sex, and sensuality, which has been
    established by society as a core element in its foundation.



    1. Morton212 says

      In fact it might make for a life with much less friction. Marriage was originally a convention to divide responsibilities for the raising of children. The man protected the wife(s) and children, while the women tended house and raised the kids. In many tribal societies, these responsibilities are shared by the entire tribal unit. In 21st century societies, we are experimenting with more pragmatic ways to achieve the same goals. Gay parenting can be just as effective as heterosexual parenting. And there are other variants as well.

  39. Paul says

    “This patchwork system”, and he’s a constitutional scholar?

  40. dinkerduo says


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.