Republicans Rush to Protect Religious Freedom


By the end of the month, the Supreme Court will render a decision in the controversial case of Obergefell v. Hodges, likely making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. This alone will be a dark day for religious conservatives, to say nothing of those who feel it is not the place of the federal government to redefine marriage. Be that as it may, two Republicans want to make sure our religious liberties remain intact following an unfavorable ruling. House Rep. Raul Labrador and Senator Mike Lee have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, a bill that would prevent the government from denying benefits and/or tax breaks to individuals and organizations that promote traditional marriage.

“There’s a reason the right to religious liberty appears first in our nation’s Bill of Rights,” said Lee. “The freedom to live and to act in accordance with the dictates of one’s conscience and religious convictions is integral to human flourishing, serving as the foundation upon which America has produced the most diverse, tolerant, and stable society the world has ever known.”

Even those conservatives who think the time has come to give up on the gay marriage issue are concerned about the wider ramifications of the Supreme Court decision. Anyone who witnessed the ridiculous way the LGBT lobby responded to reasonable religious bills in Indiana and Arkansas knows that this is a fight that extends well beyond the pulpit. Tolerance is a one-way street, as far as the left is concerned. Christianity’s day in the sun is over. All hail the new God: regulated, enforced political correctness.

Under the PC God, will Christian pastors be punished for teaching the Bible? Will Catholic schools lose federal funding for their views on gay marriage? Will faith-based charities no longer be eligible for federal grant money if they do not renounce their stance on homosexuality? These are not wild, irresponsible conspiracy theories; even the Supreme Court justices themselves are taking these issues under consideration as they ponder a ruling.

These two bold Republicans aren’t waiting to find out. By pushing this legislation, they hope to nip religious persecution in the bud. According to a press release from Senator Lee, the bill would “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” It would also prevent the IRS from stealing tax-exempt status from churches that refuse to officiate gay weddings.

As pleased as conservatives may be to see such a bill proposed, it is quite sad that it needs to exist at all. We shouldn’t need legislation that reaffirms religious liberty. The First Amendment should stand on its own. That it doesn’t is all the proof any thinking American should need to know that we have left solid ground behind. We’re floating in the liberal aether now, and there’s no telling where the winds of change will take us.

  1. Itarion says

    “Nip religious persecution in the bud”. Really? Since when has the majority, that is Christians in America, been able to lay claim to the position of persecuted?

    Please explain to me how allowing others to live their lives in any way limiting your life. Happiness is not a zero-sum game. No one has the right to proscribe the rights of another. No one has the right to define another’s life.

    1. jim_wright says

      I’m really sorry that you are too stupid to follow the news since his magisty was elected. Gays have used the courts to hunt for any business that refuses to participate in a gay wedding and the courts Ghandi ave gladly assisted them, after all it’s the PC thing to do.

      1. Woody says

        Nothing to do with wanting “marriage.” All to do with destroying Christianity. What you say proves it.

        1. Jimmy King says

          Yes, because if two men or two women marry, it will DESTROY christianity. If Christianity is so weak, it has much larger concerns than two guys getting married

          1. LastGasp says

            Trolling still, eh? Go lie by your dish.

          2. Jimmy King says

            Still with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation? Didn’t think so

          3. Jimmy King says

            Still with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation? Didn’t think so

      2. Itarion says

        His Majesty the Prince is of note in the United Kingdom, not the United States. (There’s a freaking spellchecker in the response entry box, how did you mess that up?)

        The proper form of address for the United States President is “Mr. President”, as was the precedent set from the very beginning by our first President, George Washington.

        Gays have used the law to protect themselves from those who would abuse or ignore their rights, which just happens to be the Christians in this country, but is a number of other groups in other countries.

        Political Correctness can get itself fucked in the bum. I don’t care one whit about whether you’re offended, only whether others are allowed to live their lives how they want without having a huge country-wide brouhaha over who wants to stick what where among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

        1. LastGasp says

          Hypocrite. Here'[s a spell check for you, the person currently occupying the WH can’t even prove who he is. He can’t pass eVerify. He might be your president, he’s not mine.

          1. Itarion says

            He released his birth certificate. Twice. What more do you want?

            Thank you for revoking you American citizenship by refusing to recognize the duly elected President of the United States. To which country would you like to be deported?

    2. chamuiel says

      Christians have long been persequted for their beliefs.
      You are allowed to live your life as you see fit, as a pervert if you so choose.
      Christians just don’t want to be a part of your perversions. Quit asking us to make Wedding cakes for you, or to cater a homosexual wedding.

      1. Itarion says

        Have long been, but are not now. Times change, and right now the Christians are the dominant force.

        Oh no, making a cake. It would be just awful if you were being paid to make exactly what it is that you advertise yourself as wanting to be paid to make.

        Seriously though. Businesses need to suck it up and do what they do. Which is their business. Really.

        1. LastGasp says

          Have you ever owned a business? I doubt it.

    3. Timothy Bunn says

      Majority? Where did you get this information?

      1. Itarion says
    4. Jarhead says

      DUH! BALONEY! If you saw your child, or any child about to eat rat poison would you be silent?

      1. Itarion says

        Rat poison has been shown to have immediate, direct and detrimental effects on the health of a person who consumes it.

        Gayness has not been shown to have immediate, direct, and detrimental effects on gay people. Accordingly, your metaphor, while evocative, is horribly horribly broken.

        1. Jarhead says

          Sorry I kept you from your NAMBLA/LGBTQ meeting…..Really mean spirited of you to refuse to help those with an un-natural, un-healthy, horrific addiction.

        2. LastGasp says

          Gay Bowel Syndrome.

    5. Karen Gaddy says

      Are you blind or just hiding your head in the sand? Christians are being sued all over this country for not celebrating homosexual, unholy marriage.

      1. jimwilson81 says


      2. Itarion says

        Conversely, Christians all over this country are not allowing equal rights to a significant percentage of the population.

        1. Karen Gaddy says

          THEY REFUSED TO BAKE A CAKE FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY AGAINGST THEIR RELIGION! Why didn’t your homosexual friends go to a muslim bakery. I bet the court would not have ruled against that bakery for refusing to bake a cake. muslims are ordered to kill homosexuals, along with Christians. The government protects that religion so much, that diners are not allowed to let the aroma of bacon escape their restaurant. The homosexual gestapo are deliberately targeting Christians.

          1. Itarion says

            Gestapo – the German state secret police charged with rooting out “undesirables” hiding within German society during the Nazi regime. Incidentally, homosexuals were one of those sets of undesirables. Beyond that, the SS was a governmental organization, which homosexuals are not. Thus, the name does not apply, because you definitely care about that.

            Yes, they – a baking business – refused to do business with individuals without a legal defense as to their reasoning. Therefore, they – the baking business – were in violation of various federal laws.

        2. LastGasp says

          Significant? 2% is significant? Nobody is denying anybody’s rights. Queers have the same rights everyone else has.

          1. Itarion says

            Including the right to get married to whomever they may wish to? Didn’t think so.

      3. Jimmy King says

        No bakers are getting sued for refusing to wait on certain customers. A for profit business cannot refuse service to someone. Try reading the constitution some day

        1. Karen Gaddy says

          They were refusing to bake a WEDDING CAKE FOR AN UNHOLY UNION that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs. The homosexual couple could have gone to another baker, but chose to persecute these Christians instead. Sexual orientation should not be a civil rights issue. That is not race or religion. The Constitution explicitly mentions religion…it DOES NOT guarantee rights to homosexuals. Our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw how 9 judges have warped their glorious document.

          1. Jimmy King says

            Again try reading the constitution and the law that flows from it I suggest starting with the Equal Protection clause. What if they claimed that their religion didn’t allow them to bake for blacks, or women, would they be permitted to discriminate then?

          2. Karen Gaddy says

            It wasn’t that they refused to bake for homosexuals, per se, it was the OCCASION that they refused to bake a WEDDING CAKE for. They did not ask about someone’s sexuality and specifically refuse to serve them because they were queer, they refused to bake a cake to celebrate an occasion that is specifically against the Christian religion. I would have refused also, even if I had to close my business and do something else. I fear GOD, not man.

          3. Jimmy King says

            Christians believe that homosexuality is bad and they are taught not to partake in it. They aren’t told not to bake a cake for a homosexual birthday party, or wedding or funeral. That’s bullshit

          4. Jimmy King says

            Christians believe that homosexuality is bad and they are taught not to partake in it. They aren’t told not to bake a cake for a homosexual birthday party, or wedding or funeral. That’s bullshit

          5. LastGasp says

            The Equal Protection clause.has nothing to do with queers, it is about the slaves being given equal rights after the Civil War. You read the Constitution, tell us all where there is anything about marriage..

          6. Jimmy King says

            I’ll type slowly because clearly you’re not too smart. Constitutional law is comprised of what is written in the constitution, and the case law of decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. “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.” You tell me where is says it only applies to race

          7. Jimmy King says

            I’ll type slowly because clearly you’re not too smart. Constitutional law is comprised of what is written in the constitution, and the case law of decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. “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.” You tell me where is says it only applies to race

        2. LastGasp says

          Nonsense. Troll.

        3. Marcia Schweisthal says

          The Baker did not refuse to bake a cake, he refused to bake a wedding cake. He had baked cakes for that person in the past, so it was not a refusal of service, just a refusal to compromise his religious beliefs.
          There was a video on You Tube that showed a Muslim baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and nothing was done, so the implication is that only Christians are being targeted

    6. IMSweetOlBob says

      How about Bakers making cakes and wedding chapels or outfitters or caterers ? Do they get to choose too ?

      1. Itarion says

        Businesses are by definition open to all. For-profit businesses – the business itself, without regards for the individuals running it – are not inherently religious. Wedding chapels, fine. They’re religious. The rest, no, because they aren’t religious organizations, and so don’t have the religious protections afforded by the First Amendment.

        1. Woody says

          If passed, they will try and make Priests marry them; however, what they do not know is that “priests do not “marry anyone;” in the Catholic Faith, marriage is a Sacrament (not in the public def), and “couples marry each other”–not the priest who is merely “the chief witness” so if they were to try and make a priest “the witness to their non-marriage, since the priest believes marriage is between a man and a woman, it would backfire on they for the priest would be “witnessing that that their so called “marriage” is a “non-marriage.”

          1. Itarion says

            Alternatively, they want the legal rights of marriage granted by the US government, and will seek a secular marriage presided over by a Justice of the Peace.

            After all, who wants to be married in a religion that maintains that you, and you personally, will be sent to burn in hellfire for all eternity?

        2. IMSweetOlBob says

          I am talking about the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of a person who opens a small business doing what he or she likes to do and doing it well enough that people will pay for the service. It is his or her INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that are being trampled by an activist with something to prove.
          He or she is not General Electric or Chrysler Corporation and their right as an entrepanuer should be respected. This would be common sense and common courtesy, but the latter is lacking in those loud activists.
          The sign should say: The management reserves the right to refuse any orders.

          1. Itarion says

            And you are missing my point, which is that a business is an entity separate from the people who own and operate it. (Except in the case where the business is a single person who does not differentiate business and personal finances, for which case I am willing to concede that they are one and the same.)

            A business is not a legally the same as a person, and does not have the same rights. A business is subject to a number of regulations about what they can sell/provide, to whom the can provide it, and even who they can employ (the last in that the business as least has to make an effort to employ people representative of the local population).

            Ultimately, if the business has finances that exist independent of an individual, then the business exists independent of the individual, and is therefore not the individual. Accordingly, the rights of the individual do not apply to the business, or to the individual acting on behalf of the business.

    7. MARYSWEET says

      The problem is the gays don’t just want to live their life. They want to make everyone accept their lifestyle and are teaching very young children about homosexuality in school. That is wrong. The LGBT is attempting to convert our country into immorality and persecute Christians and Jews. No one does have the right to define another’s lifestyle but they are doing with obama’s blessing and encouragement (seeing as he is also gay).

      1. Itarion says

        He is married with children. You’ve got a bit of explaining to do on that last point.

        1. LastGasp says

          He’s married to a tranny and those kids were adopted. Where have you been?

        2. MARYSWEET says

          A lot of gay men are married and with children. obama is very well known as being gay and visiting the bath houses in Chicago. I don’t believe those girls belong to the obama’s. There is no resemblance to the obama’s AT ALL. My first husband was gay so I can spot the signs. By the way, you didn’t know michelle is really michael? It’s pretty cut and dried.

          1. Itarion says

            Three words: cite your sources.

    8. hangem'high says

      The Charlton church massacre, I would say would be the latest hate crime against Christians!

      1. Itarion says

        I would say it’s a hate crime against blacks, since the perpetrator came out and said that yes, he wanted to start a race war.

        “He told investigators he did it to start a race war, according to one of the officials.”

        1. Jesus is God says

          Just because that stupid kid was insane doesn’t make it so! True Christians do not adhere to racism and would have opposed that insane kid! The Holy Word of God and all true Christians clearly oppose racism!!! Repent or perish!

          1. Itarion says

            That… What?
            The person who commits an act is the person who gets to say why it is that (s)he committed said act.
            Whether that “stupid kid” was insane is a question for the medical professionals, not a pile of laymen on the internet.
            Everyone who claims to believe the Word of God as presented in the Bible represents Christianity.
            At no point did that article say that the “stupid kid” was acting for religiously motivations, nor am I inclined to believe that he was.

            Repent and perish is likely more accurate, since everyone dies in the end.

          2. LastGasp says

            They don’t know why he did it. All conjecture. And relying on one article for your information is stupid.

          3. Itarion says

            HE SAID WHY HE DID IT!

        2. LastGasp says

          Good reference. CNN never lies aboutt anything,,,welll,,,hmmm. Is there a recording of him saying that? 2nd or 3rd hand news is hardly acceptable.

          1. Itarion says

            “Dylann Storm Roof, 21, had complained that “blacks were taking over the world” and that “someone needed to do something about it for the white race,” according to a friend who alerted the FBI. He was arrested with his gun after an all-night manhunt, authorities said.”

            ” Roof, who has shown interest in racial segregation and the Confederacy, was caught during a traffic stop Thursday morning in Shelby, N.C., 250 miles north of Charleston.”

            It’s not just CNN.

        3. hangem'high says

          I guess that’s one way to throw authorities a bone, I don’t believe it, there’s more to it!
          Good to know ,Charles Manson’s alive and well!

    9. Jesus is God says

      Jesus Christ, who is God Almighty, has every right to oppose what you believe is your right! You are simply acting as satan’s pawn! satan tried to overthrow Jesus, and Jesus tossed its sorry punk ass out of heaven forever! You wanting to have sex with satan is your choice, but don’t dare think that your Judgment day will not come!!! God, who is Jesus Christ, and He alone is my Judge, not some human created false substitute! Repent or perish !!!

      1. Itarion says

        Funnily enough, I’m in a committed heterosexual relationship with a beautiful woman that I expect to marry someday. I just think that “I’m in a committed relationship with a beautiful woman that I expect to marry someday” is not a sentence that should be limited to only men. Also, “I’m in a committed relationship with a handsome man that I expect to marry someday” shouldn’t be limited to women.

    10. Richard Gruetter says

      Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and laws, The English Common Law that we inherited and that is applied through Art 7 of the Bill of Rights, was founded on the Bible. Sir William Blackstone said in his commentary on the law that man’s law must conform to the laws of his Creator.
      Homosexuals that argue with Christians don’t have a beef with Christians, they have a beef with God! Homosexual agendas on marriage are not about fairness, they are about destroying the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman – period!

      Joseph Stalin said: “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: Its Patriotism, Its Morality, and Its Spiritual Life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

      Either wittingly or unwittingly , homosexuals are the pawns in this battle of world views, either man is the overall sovereign and man’s laws are supreme, or our Creator God is sovereign and His laws are supreme. God said that homosexual behavior is an abomination to Him. You choose who you will follow. Man’s law has been tried throughout all of history and always failed miserably. In the 20th century alone 260,000,000 people were killed under man’s law by their own governments during peacetime. Truly following God’s law has always resulted in freedom.
      For me and my family, we will always choose God’s law like our founders did. If you understand world history, you will too.

      1. Itarion says

        Please find where in the founding document of the United States of America, known colloquially as the Constitution, the fact of a religious founding is expressly outlined. You may note that it is conspicuously absent. This is because the country was designed as a secular institution.

        Many homosexuals that argue with Christians do, themselves, identify as Christian. Accordingly, their beef is not with God, but with a different interpretation of God’s Word.

        Really, you’re using STALIN as a source?

        Beside that point, it is important to note that “Christianity” is also conspicuously absent from this statement as well. Rather, this can be read as connection of people to country, to what is right, and to others. When the people are not connected, they will indeed fight with each other, leading to the country’s collapse.

        Here’s a funny thing: contrary to popular belief, the number of people dying violently, as a percentage of the world population, has been steadily declining for some time now.

        “COOK: What would you say is the biggest misconception people have about violence?
        PINKER: That we are living in a violent age. The statistics suggest that this may be the most peaceable time in our species’s existence.”

        So there’s that. The laws of men adapt to changing situations, in contrast to God’s Perfect and Immutable Laws. Under the assumption that god’s laws are, in fact, perfect, that’s probably fine. But there are many gods, and many laws, so which one is the true god? You would say the Christian god, but others would say a different god. Man’s laws are the communication between the differing sets of gods’ laws, and the figuring out of what really works.

        1. Richard Gruetter says

          Itarion, Read the Declaration of Independence. That is were you fill find that we were founded on Biblical principles and relied on God for our founding.
          The Declaration, the NW Ordinance and the Constitution form the basis of our organic law from which all of our other laws flow from.

          1. Woody says

            Correct and the Supreme Court has always misinterpeted “separation of church and state,” not what the founders meant–what they meant is that no Federal religion be established as it was in England and other countries at the time. This has never been true in the U.S.

          2. Itarion says

            Incorrect. The Declaration of Independence is precisely that, and no more. It is a formal declaration of secession, but at no point does it attempt to found a basis for the running of a country. The country was founded by the Articles of Confederation, and later overhauled in the United States Constitution.

            The Northwest Ordinance set up rules by which a now defunct territory of the colonies under the Articles of Confederation, which was later reaffirmed under the Constitution. Given the the territory of the NW ordinance no longer exists as the territory, the NW Ordinance no longer has any political relevance, being superseded by the Constitution since the NW territories have become states under the Constitution’s proper “becoming a state” rules.

            The Constitution is the ONLY law from which our other laws depend. The Declaration was used only to sever ties with a ruling country, and the NW Ordinance outlines rules for ruling a defunct organization.

            Importantly, the Constitution in no way indicates that the US of A is in any way a theocracy, and in fact states the opposite. To wit

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.

            Supreme. As in, above all others. Meaning that religious law within the borders of the United States of America is subject to the rules, laws and regulations of the United States of America.

          3. Richard Gruetter says

            Itarion, You have difficulty understanding what the facts are.

            I never stated that the Declaration stated how you would run the country. It is more like the Articles of incorporation which explains the authority for our separation from England, our purpose, and the values and principles of our new nation. This is precisely why the Declaration is found in our organic law in West Law Volume I.

            The Values and principles out lined in the Declaration are as follows:

            1) There is a Creator God

            2) He gave us His natural and revealed law, which is where we got our authority to break from England, and where we find rules for governing and living.

            3) We are all created equal in God’s eyes and under the law.

            4) Our rights come from God and not from man. Man’s law resulted in the murder of over 260 million people by their own governments in peace time.

            5) Governments are created to protect our God given rights.

            6) Government is under the consent of the governed.

            7) When government no longer provides the purpose for which it was created, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. I do not believe we need to abolish anything, we simply need to restore what the founders created as the most exceptional nation that has ever existed in the history of mankind.

            The NW Ordinance is also still instructive as part of our organic law, that like you stated was reauthorized under the Constitution so it would still be legal as the ground rules for new states to enter into our union. Italian, Article III still states that: “Religion, morality, and knowledge…” is necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, that they expected that these three things would be taught in any new state that wanted to join our union. If a new state were to do anything repugnant to the NW Ordinance, they would not have been allowed into our union. Ohio, Miss., and others had these same words in their first state constitutions. Once states were in the union the feds could not mandate anything in education as the Constitution gives no authority over education.

            I do not know where you got any notion that I or anyone else has said we were a theocracy. The First Amendment clearly removes any authority from the federal government to create a national denomination, or to prevent the free exercise of religion. It was understood by our founders that if a religion were to cause any harm to our constitutional republic, or harm to any person that that religion could be terminated. Islam very well may fall into that category today since their overall goal is to destroy our constitutional republic and put the whole world under a caliphate where Islam controls our lives and serves as our government.

            The claims you make under our Supremacy Clause are simply totally false.

            Let’s restate it here:

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

            Notice that the only laws that will be supreme are those made in “Pursuance thereof”. That simply stated means the the only laws that are supreme are those made under the authority of the limited enumerated powers that are stated in the Constitution, most of which are found in Article I, Section 8, of our constitution.

            Therefore your claims that, “Meaning that religious law within the borders of the United States of America is subject to the rules, laws and regulations of the United States of America.” is totally false because not only are there no enumerated powers over religion, The First Amendment opens with, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof,…” which strictly forbids congress any law making authority over anything religious. Guess what, if the federal government cannot legislate any religious laws then the fereral courts cannot rule on anything religious, because the only authority of the Courts is to rule on underlying laws, not to make laws which they just did in the Homosexual Marriage ruling.

            The reason for religion being off the table for the feds is because this is a state power not given up to the feds. Many of the states had their own denominations. The reason for no federal religious test is that the states had their own religious tests and did not want an overriding federal test.

            Itarion, you may be a perfect example of why a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You should read the following SCOTUS case:

            (Zorach v. Clausion) 1952

            “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe…We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be
            hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the
            effective scope of religious influence.”

            And the icing on the cake would be a supreme court case where they spent a long time determining the founding values of our nation, Please read:

            CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U. S. 457 (1892)


          4. Richard Gruetter says

            Some quotes from our founders would be a clarifying message to those who fail to understand our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations:

            Washington acknowledged the hand of God:

            “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible
            hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People
            of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced
            to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been
            distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

            George Washington (First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789)

            “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence
            of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly
            to implore his protection and favors.”

            George Washington (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789)

            “We have no government armed with power capable of
            contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice,
            ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our
            Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made
            only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
            government of any other.”

            John Adams from his Oct. 13, 1789 address to the military.

            Thomas Jefferson’s quote found in the Jefferson Memorial

            “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when
            we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people
            that these liberties are of the gift of God?
            That they cannot be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I
            reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

            Benjamin Franklin, following the signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, said: “I have so much faith in the general government of the world by
            Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous
            importance [as the framing of the new United States Constitution] . . . should
            be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and
            governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all
            inferior spirits live and move and have their being.”

            There are literally 1,000s of similar quotes from our founders proving the religious nature of our founding.

          5. Itarion says

            Wow. Wall of text. Alright.

            1) Technically, this is presupposed. But fair enough.

            2) natural and revealed law is not listed in the Declaration, only rights of men.

            3) Yes. All are created equal. Not disputing that, nor that the Declaration states it.

            4) God’s law is again not listed in the Declaration. The comparison to the mid 20th century is beside the point, because that is one example of what man’s law could be, not the only thing that man’s law can be.

            5-7) Fine yes alright.

            Yes the Declaration does serve as a unification statement at the end of the document. I will not dispute that, but I will say that, following the acceptance of the Articles and later the Constitution, the statement at the end of the Declaration becomes redundant.

            “Religion, morality, and knowledge…” then goes on to say that schools must be established, and that the Indians must not be harmed or mistreated. Well, the first of those happened. Very good use of selective quote picking.

            I do not know where you got any notion that I or anyone else has said we were a theocracy

            I got it from you yourself. See here:

            That is were you will find that we [The United States] were founded on Biblical principles and relied on God for our founding.

            Or perhaps here:

            Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and laws,

            Your words. You heavily implied the inherent Christianity of this nation. So please don’t act surprised that I think that.

            Therefor your claims…

            See the 14th Amendment, wherein states are forbidden to “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

            Thus, laws which abridge the rights of individuals are forbidden. This is in the constitution, and so the supreme law. And so while religion cannot be expressly addressed, this Amendment will override any discriminatory religiously based law enacted by states.

            Zorach vs. Clausion: This decision dealt solely with religious instruction to replace public government sanctioned schooling. The decision was that the replacement instruction was allowed so long as it was not paid for by the state. Even if we generalize this decision, it shows that what religious individuals and expressly religious institutions wish to do for themselves and among themselves without interference from the government, that is fine.

            The church of the Holy Trinity case is concerned with importation of labor. Essentially, it is an immigration case. And again, it is limited to what individuals and expressly religious organizations wish to do for themselves and their members, not for or to people outside their organization.

      2. Jimmy King says

        Look at these twits and their persecution complex It’s hilarious

    11. raziel71 says

      Exactly ,.. and that is why gays suing bakeries and flower shops should not be allowed. There have been no human right denied in any of the gay cases. Now, the homoagenda have intentionally infringed in religious freedom. Get your facts straigh. Oh ,.. I see,.. that may be impossible for you.

    12. LastGasp says

      So, why are the queers trying to redefine marriage? Why are they forcing Christians to accept their (queer) lifestyle?

      1. Itarion says

        They, as best as I can gather, seek equality.

        And it’s not accept, merely allow. You don’t have to like it.

  2. Bryce says

    The bill is entirely preemptive, and they are being celebrated for attempting to pass as bill that is, in no way, indicated to change anything about the way the government acts – it is a bill that acts simply as a point of discussion and does nothing to change society but to make people afraid that their funding, often confused with liberty, could theoretically be taken away due to their stance on gay marriage. Classic fear mongering that wastes everyone’s time, money, and energy in a pointless discussion. They created a problem in the eyes of the public so that they could play the hero, protecting the rights of Americans, while they are simply encouraging leeway for those who would resort to hate speech and don’t wish to pay the due penalties.

    1. chamuiel says

      Actually, it is

      while they are simply encouraging leeway for homosexual perverts.

      1. Bryce says

        actually what “is”? and who do you mean when you say “they”?

  3. Rock J. Dueck says

    Being a white, male, Christian hetrosexual, I’m not sure my opinion matters much but I do admire the effort.

  4. denniscerasoli says

    I will only say one thing,30 years ago this wouldn’t even be disgussed because everyone looked at marriage between one woman and one man period.I have lived in two different worlds it seems no one was considered homophobic not so long ago.Prophecy coming true,i am encouraged and becoming more convinced.

    1. Rick Rogers says

      Most Homophobes Are are Deep Closet Homosexuals and are afraid of giving in to their “evil” urges. So the puff out their Chest and pretend they hate it. It makes the rest of us that prefer women look bad. I bet Pat Robertson has dreams about some big stud to take him at Night.

      1. hangem'high says

        Can someone recommend Rick a good metal heath doctor!

        1. Rick Rogers says

          sounds like someone that uses the name Hangem’High might be in more Dire need of a “Mental Health Doctor”.. I searched google and could not find anything about a Metal Health Doctor.

          1. hangem'high says

            I’m sorry, that one requires led, or a silver bullet!

          2. donkeyshowmc says

            homophobe is a made up word used by bunghole bandidos to make themselves feel better for being perverts. here’s a tip for you pal, we’re not scared of homos we’re just tired of constantly hearing about them.

          3. Rick Rogers says

            Donkeyshowmc you might not be afraid of them but most of you seem to be damn concerned about what goes on in other peoples Bed Rooms.

  5. John McGowan says

    I am not that big on gay marriage. I don’t think the courts have any business defining what marriage is. 4000 years of one man, one women and the 9 wise men and women of the court is going to decide what is marriage. Someone needs to get a life, and the people seeking out a business that doesn’t cater to gays is just pure wrong. Our nation is in decline and I fear this will take us further down the road.

    1. Jarhead says

      Same as the infamous Roe Vs. Wade Decision based on PERJURY.

      1. John McGowan says

        Once a Marine, always a Marine. Retired Air Force.

        1. Combatvet52 says

          ARMY strong brother.

          1. Neverpccorrect says

            It’s us , we going to have to do it. AF

          2. Combatvet52 says


        2. raziel71 says

          Sorry and sad to say, but that have been changed too. I recently read about a chaplain that is being suspended because he believes in traditional marriage and now he may be put out of the service. We shamelessly went from dont ask dont tell to completely try to destroy the Christian beliefs in the armed forces. Our forces have been gaysified and pussified. That is why we are the laughing stock of the world.

          1. Woody says

            Yes, amazing, Christian Chaplains under BO can no longer mention the name of Jesus. isn’t that supporting Christian beliefs what they were there for since the beginning. Soon they will start trying to make all pastors and priests marry them (it may be a domestic partnership but it ain’t marriage. The Supreme Court is the most evil now.

          2. Opinari says

            The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution, but too much ideology permeates them. The liberals do not agree with the Constitution and are always trying to circumvent it. Unfortunately, those actions are resonating more than they should be.

          3. Rick Rogers says

            Dream on Opinari. only one trying to Circumvent the Constitution here are the Right Wing Christian Conservatives who are trying to write they Morality (or their Lack of it) into the Constitution.

          4. Dr Lopez says

            There is no such thing as right wing Christians. Only people who detest honesty and the truth use this excuse and phony label to hide behind. Rick try not to infuse nonsense into this discussion. The majority of the founding fathers were determined that biblical principles be included to form our laws. Apparently,the old testament which was written thirty-five thousand years ago is below your standard of excellence.
            What do you know of morality when you do not even know the backgrounds of the men who wrote the constitution? You sound like a confused social progressive hypocrite.

          5. Rick Rogers says

            Your understanding of the Founding fathers appears to be at the same level as a 4th grade Student. There were at least three presidents that were Founding Fathers that all came out and said that The United States is not in any way a christian Nation and trying to force it on people is Violating their Right to Religious Freedom. And that is a hypocritical. Because we know how well Theocracy has worked as a form of government in the past. How any Republican can claim to be Christian and then support those clowns in Congress that are doing the most UNCHRISTIAN like things is BEYOND hypocrisy

          6. Jimmy Quick says

            Neither was Pilat a Christian, but he did God’s work because he was forced to do a thing he resisted with all his might, and out of that act was the Christian Nation born. This is a nation that knows no borders and is eternal. Like a thorn in the side of evil, we will not be removed and in the end we who are martyred for His name will return to massacre the evil armies of Satan and ALL his followers.

            Not a very pleasant picture, but eminent all the same. God will have His way in everything and you are just along for the ride.

          7. Rick Rogers says

            As I told someone else your are entitled to your beliefs I will respect your right to them. I will not respect anyone that tries to shove those beliefs down anyone’s throat. What I personal believe is no ones business and I don’t share it for the that simple reason. Every single person that stands up and says they speak for GOD or have been told to perform an act god told them to is committing Blasphemy because they are taking it upon themselves to declare themselves prophets. I would never cast a vote for anyone that says they want to be elected to office to do god’s will.. Because thats the same thing that ISIS is claiming

          8. Jimmy Quick says

            Well, I pity you. There is no place for you to go from here but down.

          9. Rick Rogers says

            I do not require your pity or your approve or your consent for what I believe. I mistrust anyone that claims they KNOW what god wants. That’s how you wind up with famous “Christian” Preachers that live in 40 million dollar homes have have private jets.

          10. Jimmy Quick says

            You don’t require pity. It is something given, whether you like it or not and you are pitiful.

            Approval for your beliefs does not come from man. It comes from God Himself and so make your complaints to Him because frankly, I just don’t care.

            You mistrust anyone who claims to know God and I mistrust anyone who doesn’t know God on a personal level.

            So do you hate the preacher or do you hate he message or maybe you hate God? That’s up to you to figure out.

          11. Rick Rogers says

            Like I said before you welcome to your beliefs no matter how stupid other people may find them. My are mine and I have the common courtesy to follow Jesus message about praying in private. The best way to make sure your not trying to force you beliefs down other peoples throat is to keep them to your self. You have the freedom to have them just as much as I have the Freedom not to share them.

          12. Woody says

            Kind of dumb; how does one force “beliefs” down another’s throat? You sound like a mulim; you also missed “Go forth and teach all nations.” (hardly “not” sharing one’s beliefs) direct opposite of Jesus

          13. Rick Rogers says

            ok Woody I bite how about these..

            And exactly what church does she consider ok for her mandatory attendance.
            or this


            Something that that takes place in the privacy of people bedrooms and they want to make it illegal because some books says its immoral.

            We tried to legiste morality in the past. It failed Miserable and made rich men out of the people that ignored the laws. (IT was called Prohibition and made rich men out of people like Al Capone).

            It has been proven that the the separation of church and state was a desire of the founding Fathers and two of those Founding fathers who later served as president have stated that the United States in not a christian Nation. Does it have Christians as citizens? Yes, but the Federal government is not ruled by religious Beliefs.

            Oh and as for you last line.. he also said “pray in Private”

          14. Woody says

            Jesus only founded ONE Church, not 40,000 churches which came into being 1517 years after He had been crucified–a no brain’er for historians

          15. Rick Rogers says

            Ok Woody you have my interest what church did he found. Which one of the modern churches is the Direct Descendant.

          16. Woody says

            POINT ONE: In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas.

            you ask such easy questions:

            Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You
            will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

            Jesus (and Abbas) frequently changed people’s names when He had “a Special Mission” for them; example, Saul to Paul (Mission: to be the Apostle of the Gentiles)

            When God changed a person’s name and gave him a new name, it
            was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s “high
            father” name to “Abraham,” “father of a multitude” (Genesis
            17:5) and his wife’s name from “Sarai,” “my princess,” to “Sarah,” “mother of nations” (Genesis 17:15). We know from history that the descendants of Abraham and Sarah formed many nations, including the Jews’ and Muslims’.

            God changed Jacob’s “supplanter” name to “Israel,” “having power with God” (Genesis 32:28). He changed Simon’s “God has heard” name to “Peter,” “rock” (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call
            Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to “Peter”? Because Simon sometimes acted like his old self instead of the ROCK God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him “Jacob” to remind him of his past and to remind him to depend on God’s strength.

            TWO: Mathew 16:18 “And I say to you, you are Kephas Peter (ROCK) and upon this Kephas (ROCK) I shall build my Church.” Képhas: “a ROCK,” a name given to the apostle Peter.

            Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ

            Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

            Transliteration: Képhas

            Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas’)

            Short Definition: Cephas

            Definition: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.

            Petros: “a stone” (NOT IN ARAMAIC THE LANGUAGE JESUS SPOKE TO THE APOSTLES) or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles

            Word: Πέτρος, ου, ὁ

            Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

            Transliteration: Petros

            Phonetic Spelling: (pet’-ros)

            Short Definition: Peter

            Definition: Peter, a Greek name meaning ROCK.

            Original Word: Πέτρος,
            ου, ὁ

            Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

            Transliteration: Petros

            Phonetic Spelling: (pet’-ros)

            Short Definition: Peter

            Definition: Peter, a Greek name meaning ROCK.

            In Greek
            Kephas is translated as both Rock and small stone; however, Jesus spoke only Aramaic to the Apostles (not Greek, since they were Jews, not Greek). And, it is translated ONLY as ROCK in Aramaic.

            spoke Aramaic to the Apostles– NOT Greek] in Aramaic it means ONLY — “ROCK.”]

            POINT THREE: Until 107 AD Jesus’ Church was known as “The People of THE WAY.”

            POINT FOUR:
            After Peter (whose name is mentioned 195 times in Scripture versus the next most mentioned — the Apostle John—29 times) AND only ONCE in scripture is he NOT mentioned FIRST (when he is mentioned with the other Apostles).

            In his
            letter Peter warned that soon “HERESIES” would overtake the fledgling flock. And SOON they did.. just as they CONTINUE grow today to over 40,000+ man-made churches as opposed to the ONE God-made (Jesus) Church.

            OF ANTIOCH IN 107 AD ON his way to be EATEN by lions; he stopped along on his way to Rome, where they asked him, We are getting confused, “Where is Jesus Church today”?: Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle john (cf. The
            Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.

            On the Authority of the Catholic Church

            The Greek root of the term Catholic (Katolicos) means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the

            See that you all follow the Bishop (pointing to the Bishop of Rome [the successor of Peter], even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

            CHURCH FROM “THE PEOPLE OF THE WAY” TO THE CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) CHURCH.Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 (This letter survives today) Extant

            ON BISHOPS: A bishop
            (English derivation[a][1][2][3] from the New
            Testament of the Christian Bible Greek
            ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos, “overseer”,
            “guardian”) is an ordained or consecrated
            member of the Christian clergy who is generally entrusted with a position of
            authority and oversight.

            Within the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental
            Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic and Independent Catholic churches and in the Assyrian Church of the East, bishops claim apostolic succession, a direct historical lineage dating back to the original Twelve Apostles. Within these churches, bishops are seen as those who possess the full priesthood and can ordain clergy – including other bishops.

            Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop
            because it is the will of God:

            But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5

            Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the
            Church at Rome:

            Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of
            sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro

            Ignatius indicates that the CHURCH at ROME possessed the authority to teach others:

            You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 3

            Finally, Ignatius confirms—as do other Church Fathers—that this
            authoritative Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul:

            Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 4

            On the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

            The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is
            truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (1374). In his Letter to the
            Smyrnaeans, Ignatius addresses the issue of those who do not believe as the Church does:

            Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to
            the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

            Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that
            suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).

            Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:

            Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

          17. Rick Rogers says

            You could have saved yourself a lot of time there Woodman if you had just said “the Catholic Church” 🙂

          18. Woody says

            Not really; I’ve been through this exercise before; this way I avoid with “documented sources” all the back and forth “heretical” responses which I accomplished, noting your brief retort. God Bless

          19. Rick Rogers says

            was a joke woody.

          20. Woody says

            Yes, I know, but just showing I cover my bases so we don’t go on and on with endless emails where I have to cover the same material. It took a lot of research, so now I can use it for future posts; You seem like a rational person who can check sources. God Bless.

          21. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            Hillary oh my

          22. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            Crooked Hillary!!!!

          23. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            PRESIDENT TRUMP IS COMIN Whether you liberal atheist pigs like it or not lol

          24. Woody says

            I’ll give you a hint to test your research skills which are already absent , but perhaps, just perhaps you can improve if you find a six year old to instruct you how to Google. Another hint–there is only ONE that goes back to Christ–not a difficult find. (Last Hint: “modern” Churches are not at 26-28 AD? Now go and make someone proud of you. It’s pass or fail.

          25. Jimmy Quick says

            Anything else from Satan today? Christ ordered his people to go into all the world and preach salvation. You may not know even know it but you are a servant of the evil one. I don’t insult you. You insult yourself.

          26. Rick Rogers says

            So tell me do you have a problem that you ignore something Christ also said.
            Matthew 6:6
            But you, when you pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.

            Or how about this one

            John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

            how about Matthew 7:1

            Judge not, that you be not judged.

            based on everything you have replied to me today it sounds like you violated each of them?

          27. Jimmy Quick says

            I don’t remember praying with you, so naturally I wonder how you have any idea what I do in my private life.

            Ever heard the old saying about sticks and stones? You have the option to simply move on if what I say or write offends you. You do not have the right to tell me what to think, do, or say, at least not yet and when that is no longer the case, I don’t plan to stay here anyway, so you can have the entire place to yourself.

            Funny, you who are so judgmental would try to act like it is everybody else who is at fault, but I have no problem with addressing your final assault.

            I do not judge and I agree fully that I have no right to do so. I do have the gift of discernment and that allows me to see things as they really are and not as they are projected by others. My mind is like Gods because I was made to be just like Him, and everyday I am drawn closer to Him.

            You on the other hand do demonstrate a deep ceded anger toward God and a hatred of anyone or anything that is His. Pointing this out is not a judgement. It is discernment. Just like you use discernment to decide when it is safe to cross the street, Christians use discernment to understand the motivations of others. This is just an advanced form of deciding when to cross the street. Non believers are not possessed by the living God, but belong to other false gods.

            Do you really believe you are unique? Don’t you think I meet your kind almost daily? In most cases, I just mark you off as lost and move on. Mathew 10: 14

            Again, that is not a judgement. It is simply marking some people as safe to be with and others as being active agents of Satan. You could be a murderer for all I know and the way you keep changing your writing skills suggests a certain pathology I have come to recognize as criminal subversion.

            In other words, you’re no one I would ever care to know personally, but who knows. People can change. Maybe you will get concerned for where you will spend eternity, or maybe not. Anyway, that is your loose and doesn’t effect me one way or the other.

          28. Rick Rogers says

            So you can throw quotes from the bible but I can’t is that what your saying? Is because you don’t have the faith to stand up for what you believe?

          29. Jimmy Quick says

            Okay, now you’ve run completely off the tracks. I took the time to explain everything to you. I can only guess that you are exhausted and have nothing else to throw at me, so have a good life.

          30. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            OBAMA The worst failed President Eva!!!

          31. Woody says

            So humorous– an atheist trying to interpret scripture which only Affirms its Truth. Verse pluckers are all the same.

          32. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            Clinton syndicate!

          33. Woody says

            Yes, and by that great early Church Father (Tertullian) “Jesus Church grew in leaps and bounds by the blood of its martyrs.” Way to go, goodbye Satan.

          34. Jimmy Quick says

            Well, always true to form. Lie, deceive, lie some more. It’s just another day in paradise I suppose with all the low hanging fruit, but just remember this you old fool. Some of us are untouchable to you and that has got to be eating you up inside.

          35. Woody says

            Not really–both my God Jesus and Peter predicted you Heretics would be along quickly.

          36. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            Obama is your Bratha?

          37. Woody says

            That’s an acclamation for God – He is pleased when you are against Him since it brings many people to Him. Thank you.

          38. Rick Rogers says

            this about sums it up

          39. Jimmy Quick says

            A cook book is a religious book. You follow the receipt and you get a cake, maybe. The Bible is the Word of God and can not be compared in any way to anything man made. Not a fake phony hang on your wall god, but the Creator of anything and everything you will ever know. You only live because He has granted your next breath and when He decides, you will die the first death, but then comes the judgement.

            You are puny, but not insignificant. That is only because His Son died for ALL who would believe on Him. The nation that turns from God will fall. Romans 1: 28 -32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

            And the above is the nation you desire in your heart, and so you shall have it.

          40. Woody says

            Right on again.

          41. Rick Rogers says

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

            “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
            ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

            “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
            ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

            “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.”
            ~Founding Father James Madison, letter, 1822

            There you go two of the founding fathers.. one wrote Declaration of Independence the other Shaped the wording of the Constitution. Both served as President. Thats is about as “Founding Father” as you can get.

          42. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

            Obama the Liberal anti American President!!!

      2. Faithly Supply says

        We are specialised in legal and discreet Delivery Text or call [৪Օ5]ᏎбᏎ-6086
        ✪✙ PAIN KILLERS.
        ✪ ✙ACTTAVIS LEAN. High+Tech lean
        Reach us at … or[৪Օ5]Ꮞ6Ꮞ-6086 .
        100% safe Packaging . Gauranteed delivery. Good prices
        Only Serious clients please. No bs we about business. fgfg gfg

        1. Faithly Supply says

          We are specialised in legal and discreet Delivery Text or call [৪Օ5]ᏎбᏎ-6086
          ✪✙ PAIN KILLERS.
          ✪ ✙ACTTAVIS LEAN. High+Tech lean
          Reach us at … or[৪Օ5]Ꮞ6Ꮞ-6086 .
          100% safe Packaging . Gauranteed delivery. Good prices
          Only Serious clients please. No bs we about business. fgfg gffgfg

    2. Francie26 says

      I so agree!

    3. Jimmy Quick says

      The courts today are all make believe. These nine wise people are the biggest fools this nation has ever seen. None of their decisions having to with life or marriage are binding in Heaven and these people will all pay eternally for their part in destroying the lives of untold millions.

      1. John McGowan says


      2. Dr Lopez says

        I agree.

    4. Opinari says

      The old adage, “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile,” is in action. The more they get, the more they think they should have…they are pushing the envelope for as much as they can.

    5. ArizonaMilitiaDotCom says

      That road is the one with the sign that reads, “This Way to Judgement”.

    6. Woody says

      gOOD POINTS, JOHN; nothing to do with gay marriage but all to do with bringing down Chrisitianity

    7. Faithly Supply says

      We are specialised in legal and discreet Delivery Text or call [৪Օ5]ᏎбᏎ-6086
      ✪✙ PAIN KILLERS.
      ✪ ✙ACTTAVIS LEAN. High+Tech lean
      Reach us at … or[৪Օ5]Ꮞ6Ꮞ-6086 .
      100% safe Packaging . Gauranteed delivery. Good prices
      Only Serious clients please. No bs we about business. dfgfgfg

  6. shadowmerlin says

    If it were a question of traditional religions against atheists it might be different, but not all religions subscribe to the one-man-one-woman concept. I believe it is the right of each church to define who may marry IN THAT CHURCH and the government has no business being involved. After all, the First Amendment requires that “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    “No law” means NO LICENSE required. “No law” means NO TAX BENEFITS for being married. “No law” means no “survivor” benefits based on marriage. “No law” means “NO LAW”.

    1. Karen says

      The way I see it, I read that we have too many people on earth about 4-5 billion. What better way of population control than promoting man with man and woman with woman lifestyles! Promoting this lifestyle allows control as they CAN’T reproduce!! Beware gays, the government is NOT on your side, they are USING you for population control!!

      1. jimwilson81 says

        That plus the million of fetuses being killed off by Planned Parenthood with the blessings of Obama.

      2. hangem'high says

        The only country the elite is interested in neutering, is the USA!

    2. Jesus is God says

      You are absolutely correct!

  7. papa doug says

    When our Constitution was ratified religion lost it’s power and ever since then have been trying to wrest it back a little at a time. When religion can go to government and circumvent justice and taxes in favor of religious freedom we/government has pandered to them too much. They should have no right to not pay taxes or stop justice from happening, no tight to dictate who can or cannot be married.
    My wife and I maintain that no one has any idea what God wants, after all he did design the genetic code, but we do know what some self appointed, superstitious, fearful, controlling clerics wanted when they wrote the bible.

    In any event gay people are as much humans as the rest of us and as such are entitled by God to all the rights as anyone else.

    1. hangem'high says

      What ever happen to acts of Mother Nature?

    2. Jesus is God says

      You are dead wrong! Queers are demon-possessed, anti-Christ, purveyors of extreme depraved wickedness and abominable evil!!! They are satanic predators!!! What right do I have to arrive at that conclusion! I form my conclusion on the basis on the Holy Word of the Living God! God NEVER lost any power from a human invention! EVER! The United States Constitution and the First Amendment thereof was created to protect Religious Liberty from the rule of the state! Homosexuals are entitled by God only to obey His sovereign will, not to create a false and anti-CHRIST state of affairs!!! Crawl back into your demonic, doom and woe-begotten demented pit of HELL! Homosexuals and their leaders Nambla want to interject into society the acceptance of grown men being able to have sex with children!!! These people are filthy, demon-possessed, satanic predators, no matter how they may color their association!!! Woe and doom to the United States of America for having ever given in even one inch to the acceptance of their vile evil!!!

  8. IMSweetOlBob says

    It seems that everyone has their little ax to grind . What perrsonal difference does it make to anybody except those involved if Barry marries Harry or Betty marries Lettie ? Other than deep feelings of religious fervor, “it ain’t no skin off your nose.”Our constitution doesn’t prevent it and people in a free land are supposed to be able to do as they want.
    BUT ! Everyone’s freedoms should be likewise protected. There should be no black robed intimidator forcing preachers, pastors, or priests to marry anyone whom their religion does not allow to be married pr that their personal moral compass does not accept.
    There should be no forcing of an individually owned business to serve anyone they don’t want to serve for whatever reason.

    Freedom and tolerance are great things as long as they extend to everyone and are not used as a gun to the head of clergy or business by activists of one thing or another. Freedom of religion and choice is just that. FREEDOM ! Freedom for everyone ! Not just those of minority, but overly loud persuasions !

    1. Morton212 says

      Yes. And no where in the current movement of equality, is a clergyman required to officiate a same-sex marriage.

      1. Francie26 says

        And no law exists that says a business has to provide a wedding cake or furnish a place for the wedding to occur either, but gays are destroying businesses and even churches that don’t want to go along with their abomination.

      2. Woody says

        They will be, like cake, and photos

      3. Susan Agati says

        Oh! But they are being coerced to do so, or loose tax exempt status. That is what the Supreme Court action is about now.

      4. Opinari says


    2. Susan Agati says

      But it hasn’t led to that: “live and let live”. The gay community is trying to destroy Christian beliefs that’s where the line has to be drawn. What goes against our belief is being thrust upon us. No? Then why are the gay crowd searching out and suing Christians that don’t want to participate in their folly?

      1. Elise Moriah says

        Christians have the right to practice their religion. If you want to avoid gays, AVOID them. I just want to keep Islam at bay-since they want to kill me (according to THEIR Koran) I don’t care what religion you choose, but Islam is not a religion-it is an evil Ideology that uses a made up deity as an excuse to take over the world and force their ideology on EVERYONE.

    3. Opinari says

      Freedom and tolerance. Unfortunately, that seems to apply to LGBTs from Christians, but Christians are no longer on the receiving end of such. This needs to be applied to all, not just those with squeaky wheels. Therein lies the problem. Christians are ordered to do this and that because of freedom and intolerance of others. Yet, Christians cannot disagree without being chastized and their rights being infringed upon to give into the demanded rights of others.

  9. Morton212 says

    Any religious organization that depends upon funding from the State – must observe the law of the land. The attempts to move religious beliefs into the governance of a secular system are absolutely contrary to the precepts and principles that the United States Constitution embodies.
    These religious organizations are, however, permitted to practice their religious beliefs with one very important proviso. Their activities may NOT curtail or impinge upon the beliefs of other citizens.

    1. hangem'high says

      Which churches get funding from the Government? Any church receiving funds from the government like the al Sharptons, Reverend Jacksons’ Reverend Whites, are scamming the system!

      1. Morton212 says

        The most obvious one is the attempt for hospitals run by religious orders, to impose their morality instead of the hippocratic oath – on the hospitals that received large tax payer funded grants.

        1. hangem'high says

          Most are supported by individual donation this doesn’t mean they don’t get government assistance, but like the ones ran by government’s intrusions, only get long waiting lines and sent home with a jar of pills. (VA)
          It’s not like the church ran hospitals are the only ones in town, surely there are a few supported and ran by Atheist, wait do they have an international red cross I guess Pelosi’s central government church is going to have to change that!

          1. Morton212 says

            You are missing the point. There are two. Firstly there is an argument about whether or not a hospital run by a religious order can qualify for the privileges accorded by the Constitution viz a viz the freedom of religion. Secondly, the acceptance of public funding essentially obliterates any claim they have to be churches since the Constitution expressly prohibits the State to be involved with religion.

          2. Jesus is God says

            You are dead wrong! The United States Constitution and the laws thereof were clearly created to protect religious liberty and to protect the freedom of worship from the influence of the godless state!!! Repent or perish!!!

          3. Morton212 says

            LOL! Do you really think that any organization can declare itself a protected entity by pretending to be a place of worship – like a wedding cake baker, or even a hospital ? You are dead wrong. No-one is attacking religious liberty – but that does not mean it is permitted to encroach the commercial or political space.

          4. Elise Moriah says

            Whatever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?” If it’s YOUR business, YOU should have the right to refuse. You will either prosper by the quality of your clientele, or you will go under.

          5. Morton212 says

            If they are unruly, or threatening that is a legitimate reason to refuse them. If they have a history of not paying their bill, that may also be grounds for denial of service. But if you simply argue religious prejudice – because that is what it is – they may have grounds to sue you. All businesses need local town or city vendor licences – and they always require you to be non discriminatory.

          6. Opinari says

            A religious belief is not prejudicial. It is a guaranteed right. No one is supposed to be able to come along and demand one change their religious beliefs to suit their own beliefs or lack thereof. The government denies people all the time but an individual cannot in their own place of business when it goes against what they stand for?

          7. hangem'high says

            The answers simple give someone else you’re “In god we trust money “ as far as I’m concerned you can fly to the moon Alice!

          8. Opinari says

            What happened to individual choices in this country…do they always have to be defined by government? That would be a communist country. Where is it said that everyone has to do what others want just because the government improperly intervenes where they are not supposed to tread?

          9. Morton212 says

            There is absolutely NO political organization that gives you free rein to indulge in your personal choices. They are all constrained so as not to stomp on the feet of your neighbors.

          10. Marcia Schweisthal says

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[71]

            This is the First Amendment regarding religion.
            Your arguments are garbage

          11. Morton212 says

            I see that English is not your first language or you would realize how stupidly ignorant your response is. For example a baker and a hospital are not churches and have no claim to be a religious establishment.

          12. Marcia Schweisthal says

            I quoted the First Amendment as written by the founders. That is not my English, which is my only language. You apparently do not understand what the Amendment says. It is not talking about a business establishment. It is referring to the fact that Congress cannot make a law that establishes state religion, which England and most of Europe had that forced the people to support the “state” religion even if they did not share the same beliefs. “The free exercise thereof” means that they cannot prohibit anyone from exercising their religious beliefs. Neither the baker or the florist have refused to serve the customer except to refuse to cater to a wedding that according to their religious belief is an abomination before God.
            As far as a religious hospital, they do not condone the murder of unborn children as a matter of religious belief. A woman is not required to go to that hospital for an abortion. All other medical services are provided.

          13. Itarion says

            The interpretation of the Amendment is what is important, and it has been interpreted to apply to individuals, and not to business enterprises. Therefore, when one opens a business, it is open to all who do not abuse it, which thus includes gays.

          14. Elise Moriah says

            The business is owned by PEOPLE with religious convictions and they should have the right to say who they do and do not serve. Gays can find plenty of atheist, agnostic or gay business. They just want to FORCE people to accept their way of life. I’m a Christian, and if I owned a business, I would not refuse to serve gays because it is not my job to judge, regardless of my personal beliefs. But, there are DIFFERENT kinds of Christians who feel differently.

          15. Itarion says

            The business is owned by people. The business is not people. The business does not have religious views, legally, unless it is registered with the local, state and federal governments as a religious organization.
            The people don’t enter into the business decision’s, because – again – they are separate entities.

            I appreciate that you would not refuse to serve people, despite your personal beliefs.

            But ultimately, these different Christians who are so discriminating in their clientele are discriminating against people on an intrinsic trait, which is an action that has been proscribed by the United States government, which is (and I quote the Constitution here) to “be the Supreme Law of the Land”. A proper reading of that passage (Article VI, paragraph 2) shows that the laws of the US are considered by the US to be higher than any religious laws. They don’t play in here.

          16. Marcia Schweisthal says

            Most small businesses file taxes on their business as an individual.

            Article VI P2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            Bill of Rights “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[71]”

            Neither the baker nor the Florist refused to serve the gay person. They refused to participate with their service in a gay wedding.

            See what happened when a Muslim bakery was asked to bake a cake for gays

          17. Itarion says

            Small businesses file taxes as small businesses, and the government has forms for them to do so. In the case of sole ownership, they file as individuals, using 1040C. In this case, yes, the business has the rights of the individual.
            IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS: (which does not necessarily imply a large organization, as even relatively small businesses can incorporate) the form filed is the 1120, which is not an individual tax form. Therefore, the business has a different set of rights from the individuals.

            There’s no functional difference between refusing to participate and refusing to serve. You’re splitting hairs and hiding behind wordplay, but the fact is that it makes no difference. A business refused to make a cake because the people who requested said cake were gay. Frame it how you want to, that’s what happened, and it is in violation of the laws of the United States.

            Yes, the Muslims refused to make the hypothetical cake too. Do you really want to throw in with the enemies of the United States, where – incidentally – Christians are also killed? Do you really want to use the people that the most of the western world is at some degree of war with as your model for proper behavior? Or are you trying to say that they, too, are wrong and need to be corrected as well?

          18. Elise Moriah says

            The business OWNERS should have the right to run THEIR business as they see fit. If their views are THAT unpopular, they will not be able to stay in business. It’s THE BUSINESS OWNER’S choice.

          19. Woody says

            Ah, Wisdom at last…

          20. Itarion says

            And here we come to the root of our little disagreement.

            You maintain that the rights of the business owners are being overruled.
            I maintain the the rights of the business owners [and any employees for that matter] are entirely beside the point.

            The rights don’t apply in this case because the individuals are not acting as individuals, but as representatives of their business, and as I have said before, businesses have a different set of rights than do individuals.

            As for the popularity of a business owner’s opinion deciding the success of a business, just no. If a business provides a good or service that is of higher quality than a competitors, this will generate demand that the business will meet. The opinions of the owner don’t play into it, because the “standard” consumer doesn’t have the time or interest to determine whether or not a business matches their ideals in every way, and likely won’t go out of their way to avoid that business if the service provided is of high enough quality, or is not otherwise available. Popular opinion is for political elections, not a business model.

            Besides the preceding paragraph, is it possible for a harmful opinion to become popular if it benefits enough people, even if not everyone. For example, we can draw a parallel to the early 18th century America South. It was popular. Countless businesses catered to exclusively white clientele, and exclusively white individuals loved the crap out of that. The hand of the market did not change that, because it was a stable situation that caused misfortune and suffering to a huge bloc of people in the region. A social and political movement ended that owners’ choice, not an economic one.

          21. hangem'high says

            No one’s stopping gays from opening a business unless you mean giving them special government gay status grants because they’re not black or female?
            Or God forbid giving them the right to sue every business that won’t bend over backward for their every whim!

          22. Itarion says

            I said nothing about gays opening businesses, but thank you for missing my point.

            The point is that there is a fundamental difference between the rights of a business, and the rights of an individual, because they are very different types of legal entity.

          23. hangem'high says

            What’s your point, individuals run businesses I’ll sell them a Tee shirt I’ll sell them pants, paint, duct tape, pencil’s and erasers but I’ll be dammed if I’m going to their origination ceremonies, I’ll leave that to the Turkish bath houses.

          24. Itarion says

            My point is this:

            Individual =/= Business

            Clear enough yet?

          25. hangem'high says

            Finally, you got my point! You can sell the Hole mole a sex toy, it doesn’t mean you have to show him how to use it!

          26. Itarion says

            Following in the same vein, you have to sell said sex toy (under the assumption that one is in the business of selling sex toys) under current laws, regardless of your personal beliefs.

            That’s the point that was being argued: whether a business was required to provide the service.

          27. hangem'high says

            The sale of product only, anything else is extra, or non-binding!

          28. Itarion says

            I’m not sure that we are in disagreement.

          29. Morton212 says

            No – you attempted to define the meaning of the Constitution – which I am sure you have got completely wrong. Best leave that to the judiciary – that is their job.

          30. Mark Erickson says

            “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” is normal business policy. If a Scientologist called a baker to bake a cake that says, “You need an auditor and an E-meter,” would you say that baker must be forced to serve that customer? Probably not. Because Scientologists, unlike LGBT’s, are not nowadays America’s Most Protected and Privileged Class.

          31. Itarion says

            Right to refuse with reason. Religion is not accepted as a reason for a non-religious, for-profit enterprise, as in the case of a bakery.

          32. Opinari says

            They do have claim to their religious beliefs. From your icon, perhaps you would think, if it was demanded by others that you serve pork in your restaurant, you would not refuse?

          33. Morton212 says

            Can you name any restaurant that allows its customers to write the menu ?

          34. hangem'high says

            I see, just because they’re religious they don’t qualify for civilian rights! Their rights should be null and void to serve the community unless they give up they’re believe in order to serve the number 666!

            The government can and does have the right to consort with all religions as long as they’re not a threat to national security. The state and government cannot push a one state religion over others as Pelosi had stated to try, or nationalize all religions into A one government church!

          35. Morton212 says

            Neither of your points make any sense. Your rights to your religious beliefs are guaranteed by the Constitution. They do NOT include trespassing into and trampling on the beliefs of others. Additionally a place of worship is specifically defined – for the purposes of Constitutional,protection – and does not include a hospital -or a bakery.

            The State is expressly prohibited from establishing a State religion or in fact incorporating any religious liturgy into what is required to be secular government.

          36. hangem'high says

            No trespassing, except if you’re a Christian business, they beat cha’ into submission or bankruptcy or close you down.
            No one’s stopping them from chett, except in their own minds!
            The government is stopping me from existing on my own wage (the pursuit of happiness)

          37. Morton212 says

            How would you feel if they passed a law in Utah denying any kind of service to a non Mormon for reasons of religious belief ? It is a State that is overwhelmingly Mormon.

          38. hangem'high says

            Wrong, the non-Mormons outnumber the Mormons in Utah ten to one! First they want to convert cha’ not keep you away, so you have no understanding of Christians or Mormons.

          39. Morton212 says


            “Mormons in the United States are heavily concentrated in the West, with Utah having by far the most members, a new Gallup survey shows.

            Six in 10 Utah residents say they belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the survey shows.”

          40. hangem'high says

            Well I guess I might have to give you that one. They are one of the few sects that don’t abort their offspring!

          41. Morton212 says

            Now lets examine your evidence.

          42. hangem'high says

            By all means let’s do!

          43. Morton212 says

            then provide the evidence.

          44. hangem'high says

            They say 60 / 40; it’s hard to believe the same sex people control so many?

        2. Woody says

          Right what we need is something that used to be understood, now we need a bill that “no person or institution be required to give up rights to their conscience for the sake of someone else or government pressures.”

          1. Morton212 says

            That is simple. Do not ask for or accept public funding.

          2. Elise Moriah says

            And they do not get to infringe upon our Constitutional rights because of their “Religion.”

          3. Opinari says

            Nor is the government (which is “the people”) supposed to infringe on any “religion.”

          4. Itarion says

            That bill is either literally unenforceable, or literally pointless. If it does anything that the Civil Rights Act didn’t, then both sides will be able to use it. Right to service, and right to refuse service. The both have rights, right?

            Alternatively, it does nothing new. And so is without merit.

          5. Woody says

            Wrong, you missed right to conscience which has been in our country since its inception, especially noticeble in the Military draft…and always upheld.

          6. Itarion says

            Please explain what you mean by “right to conscience”. I have not heard this turn of phrase before.

          7. Woody says

            Yes, during WWII and all wars where a draft was incurred (mandatory service by all) with the exception “if anyone had an objection to killing” and it was called Conscientious Objectors and were thus “excused from serving on the battlefield.” Many religious and others such as the Amish are also excused under this banner.

          8. Itarion says

            So what you are telling me is that an objection to baking a cake for homosexuals is functionally identical to an objection to ending the life of another human being?
            Because they’re not. Fulfilling a business contract and ending a human life are very much different situations, unless you can provide a compelling reason as to why they should be considered on par.

          9. Opinari says

            True. However, the powers that be are picking and choosing who or what can have either of those rights.

          10. Itarion says

            And the law proposed above wouldn’t change that. *shrug

        3. Opinari says

          If people don’t wish to comply, they should go to a secular hospital. Freedom of choice doesn’t mean they can choose then try to change hospitals according to their own wishes.

          1. Morton212 says

            No, they should go to a hospital that accepts no public funds if they wish to sidestep the hippocratic oath.

          2. hangem'high says

            The hypocrites should stay at home instead of wasting the hospitals time, if they’re so Gaud damn worried about the hospitals edicts

          3. Morton212 says

            Hospitals are supposed to heal the sick – not to impose religious morality on the patients – especially when they depend upon tax payer funding.

          4. hangem'high says

            Never had a hospital yet try to indoctrinate me into chet, except for the hole moles on homosexuality!

          5. Morton212 says

            Then try asking for an abortion in a Catholic hospital.

          6. hangem'high says

            Why should I, when they messed up so bad on you!

          7. Morton212 says

            That is a perfect response to undermine your deficit in logic.

          8. Woody says

            Wrong again–it was the Catholic Church that started the hospital system with their good nuns and brothers in bygone ages; ask the patients who were treated by them then and now. No one rejected these blessings nor were they conceived of as “imposing their beliefs” on them. Most today are still supported mostly by donations of generous Catholics who give to the poor and downtrodden.

        4. hangem'high says

          So, telling the ignorant SOBs to cut down on their smoking, drinking, drugs and risky sex is forcing their principles on them? If that’s the case the government is the biggest violator of them all!

      2. Opinari says

        The only money from government could be construed as the tax-free status. The churches are funded by pre-taxed money of their congregations/parishioners.

        1. hangem'high says

          The person donating it has already been taxed on it once or more, so the government has already got a piece of it already!

    2. Marcia Schweisthal says

      Nor may the other impinge on the beliefs of Christians and force them to compromise their belief.

      1. Morton212 says

        That is most certainly not in the Constitution in any form at all. They are permitted to believe in what they like, but not permitted to violate the freedom of others.

        1. Elise Moriah says

          The others are free to go elsewhere.

          1. Morton212 says

            Or to sue for illegitimate denial of service.

          2. hangem'high says

            I knew there was a catch twenty two!

    3. Opinari says

      Nor is the government allowed to declare a religion for the country. Which, when backing those who wish to change the religions of others, are going against said Amendment by their intrusion.

      1. Morton212 says

        That is a straw man. Prove to me tht the government is trying to change the religion of others. Government is obliged to protect the religions of others under the precept of equality – and not allow right wing Christians to trespass in the public domain.

        1. hangem'high says

          Proof is always in the pudding, you just have to open your eyes when slurping it down!

  10. darsey says

    haha and it is now exposed! all these people all these years yell out separation of state and church? right what a bunch of crock.. yet they get federal funds? yea im sorry the church is with in us .. these pastors now days are all about money and growth of there church for that purpose! lucifer is in control of these churches the government has there hands in them and has anyone ever looked at what they had to agree to to preach his word ? no wonder they dont teach the truth! they should be standing for the Body not there stupid four walls!

  11. robertleo says

    Religious liberty is protected under the Constitution and changing such Constitution mandates is very difficult but is it possible that one day someone will find a way to do just that?

  12. James Blair says

    It seems like a majority of churches, like the Catholics, that teach replacement theology have been taken over from within by gays, ergo the raping preachers. Same goes with many of those currently in politics. It all has to do with the Temple Prostitutes which were NOT women. Isn’t it funny how a group that is supposedly less than 1% of the population is directing so much current legislation?

    People who are gay can live their lives and have civil relationship ceremonies along with the other rights and privileges of Herero couples. It’s just not a marriage in the eyes of a true church. The government shouldn’t have been allowed in the marriage game to begin with.

    1. b.badenoff says

      Since obomba got in the queer movement has flourished; I wonder why?!!

      1. Opinari says

        No matter what, he does act queerly…he doesn’t see the need to follow present laws and feels entitled to omit, re-write, write them.

    2. says

      The government is getting involved because the privilege of marriage (…pursuit of happiness) was being denied to same sex loving couples.

      1. Opinari says

        There already were civil unions.

    3. Itarion says

      Whether the government should have been allowed or not is beside the point. It is currently, and should either get out, or represent its people equally and give equal marital rights (and rites).

    4. Opinari says

      Government got into the fray by requiring a “license” to get married. Just more revenue for them. Other than requiring blood tests (years ago) the government did nothing regarding marriage except charge one a fee in advance for getting married.

      1. Morton212 says

        Government was obliged to do so, since a marriage contract can only be enforced in a court of law. There is a lot of property at stake.

        1. Matthew V. Brown says

          Good point.

  13. jimwilson81 says

    This reminds me of the history of England. St Thomas More stood up to Henry the Eighth and was killed because he believed that Henry was wrong to enforce his will on the people of England all because Henry, out of lust, wanted to divorce his lawful wife to marry another. Henry violated English law about marriage as well as making a brand new religion with him as the head of it.What is sad about is Henry was a defender of the Catholic Church until his lust overcame him and he murdered people because of it. What is even more ironic is Henry died of syphilis all because of his lust.

    1. Morton212 says

      The law of succession was the paramount reason for Henry VIII’s many marriages. Sex had nothing to do with it – the monarchs at that time had stables of lovers for their prurient activities.
      Henry needed a male heir. It is as simple as that.

      1. jimwilson81 says

        While that is true, the reason why he never had an heir is because he was probably impotent. Like you said he had stables of lovers,yet he did not even have an illegitimate child. The real issue was he murdered people, including his own wives, because he was not getting his way. He may have been the king of England, but he had committed crimes and defied the very Church he said he loved earlier. I would not doubt that the syphilis drove him a bit insane.

        1. Morton212 says

          He was not impotent – his successor was Elizabeth I. And there was also an infant son who died at childbirth. Of course his behavior looked at from today was tyrannical – but certainly not criminal – since he was an absolute monarch.
          But in spite of his more reprehensible behavior, he was actually a very popular King. He represented a long period of stability in English history and his legacy culminated with his daughter’s mastery of English naval power – which could be said to have birthed the British Empire; which a mere 200 years later dominated 1/3 of the land mass of the planet.

          1. jimwilson81 says

            Sorry, you are right. But he kept blaming his wives for not bearing a male heir. For that he executed them. He executed anybody who disagreed with him.
            He should have learned from history about that with the assassination of Thomas Becket. It appears he did not. Just because a leader is popular doesn’t mean either he or the public is or was, right.
            He doubted that a girl could do what a man could do. Elizabeth was a lot smarter than he realized. She did wonders for England after the upheaval of the Reformation and was a pretty good ruler to boot.

          2. Morton212 says

            Actually, his parliament – and Cardinal Wolsey left him little choice. He petitioned parliament to allow him to have polygamous marriages. They refused, partly because Katherine of Arragon, his wife, was the sister of the King of Spain – the most powerful monarch of the time, in Europe. Nor would they permit a divorce.
            The significance of an heir to the English throne could not be underestimated at that time. Large sections of another nation would be endowed on a royal marriage. Henry’s consternation was a reflection of the establishment that was loyal to him – of senior aristocrats. Women were rarely named heirs to a throne mainly because their ability to lead their army into battle was not very credible. As it happened, Elizabeth – his heir – became a ruthlessly successful English monarch; but that was rather unexpected.

          3. Judy Manuel says

            Also, what Henry did not know, is that it is the male of the human species that decides the sex of the child, basic human anatomy, they were just still ignorant in the age.

    2. Jesus is God says

      That wasn’t irony, that was God’s righteous judgment!

      1. Itarion says

        Ironic judgement is the best form of righteous judgement.

        1. jimwilson81 says

          I could not agree with you more.

      2. Rick Rogers says

        So the Floods in Texas were God’s Righteous Judgment against all those Texas Liberals?

        1. ArizonaMilitiaDotCom says

          No way of commenting on that one, since no one can presume to speak for God. Haven’t you read your Bible?

          1. Rick Rogers says

            Really so no one can speak for God… Hmmm how about we go over that.

            Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R-Colorado Springs) Talking about a A pregnant woman that was attacked and had her baby cut from her woman.. “This is the curse of God upon America for our sin of not protecting innocent children in the womb,”

            John Hagee, a San Antonio-based pastor …”Ebola is part of God’s judgment for President Barack Obama’s alleged attempts to “divide Jerusalem.”

            Pat Robertson on Hurricane Katrina… The Hurricane was God’s punishment in response to America’s abortion policy. He suggested that 9/11 and the disaster in New Orleans “could… be connected in some way”.

            Mike Huckabee…”America is close to experiencing God’s wrath for our national sins.”

            There were about 50 more so please don’t tell me that is NOT presume to speak for GOD… Of course you also have the fact that just about every Candidate in the GOP has Claimed that “God told them to Run” I think God might be a wrestling fan and just likes to watch over the top battle Royals.

          2. ArizonaMilitiaDotCom says

            Pastor Hagee certainly ought to know better, but who here is really surprised to hear how ignorant and vain politicians can be? That Fools presume to speak for God is hardly an excuse for others do the same.

            Do you really want to use *those* guys to support your argument? They are as vain and as prideful as strutting peacocks. (With apologies to the peacocks, of course.)

            1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
            2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
            3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
            4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
            5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
            6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

            — Job 38:1-6 King James Version (KJV)

            33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

            — Job 38:33 King James Version (KJV)

            1 Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said,
            2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

            — Job 40:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

            8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

            — Job 40:8 King James Version (KJV)

            No, sir, God has made it very clear that none of us speak for Him. When I hear someone presuming to do so, I know that they are a Fool and are not of the Lord. Those politicians need to spend more time studying their Bible instead of misquoting it. It is the Word of God, they really ought to be more diligent and stop lying about it. But then, they are politicians, and that would be like telling them to stop abusing young boys.

            As for God “telling someone to run”, that is hardly an example of someone presuming to speak *for* God. That is someone relating what God has spoken *to* them.

            I would, however, not put much stock in such a claim coming from any politician, since I have yet to meet one who was truly a Godly person. Most of them are Flatterers and all of them are Liars. I would not believe a word that any of them said.

            Would you?

          3. Jimmy Quick says

            And the correct answer is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

            You can underestimate Gods power as do many, but it is all to your own peril.

            Funny thing, God stated this very thing Himself, yet you are so quick to dismiss Him. Psalm 21: 1

          4. Jimmy Quick says

            ArizonaMilitia is wrong. God sends His profits to speak for Him as well as angels and animals. God has even made reference to rocks that will praise His name, if His people remain silent.

            Of course, the lack of knowledge of the Word of God is the number one failure of today’s lackluster Christians.

            I expect you will mock what I say because your other post suggest an ingrained ignorance that can only be cured by death, but for the benefit of those who wish to learn of the Truth, God’s profits can ONLY speak Truth and if they are found to be false, they have then failed the test and are false profits.

            The only way to know the difference is to know the Bible implicitly. Only through discernment is the Truth revealed.

          5. Rick Rogers says

            Your wrong..not going to mock you but I found it very interesting that the one word you used was misspelled in a way that shows the Greatest problem with the world.. More people are worried about Profits then they are listing to Prophets. You are complete entitled to your beliefs just as other people are complete entitled to reject what you believe. I believe god give men free will and am tired of the Christians in name only trying to take that free will from them. There is one rule and only one rule in the bible that is worth anything. “Therefore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

          6. Jimmy Quick says

            Thank you for your correction. It is strange, a person who can not seem to string a sentence together can spell and a person who has superior understanding can not.

            Don’t you find that to be the least bit odd? Perhaps not, but it is true. See how easily I made the correction, but you are dumb and that can’t be fixed.

            Again, just odd.

            Oh, I’m not wrong. You will learn eventually, but it may be too late.

          7. Rick Rogers says

            and yet we see all the false prophets standing on a debate stage claiming “god told them to Run”. So I guess God is a Wrestling Fan. He told them all to run and is going to put them in a Ring and have an over the top Battle Royal.

          8. Jimmy Quick says

            If you are interested in understanding God, you should pick up a Bible and begin reading. You don’t need a lot of faith to do this. You could be an angry person who wants to prove God’s Word to be false. That is a GREAT endeavor, reserved only for the Greatest of Humanity.

            Then once you have thoroughly debunked all of the claims made by God, you can tell the rest of us how you did it.

            Only problem is, every person who ever sets out on a quest to find the Truth is drawn in deeper and deeper until finally, they come out the other side; a full blown Christian just like me.

            Don’t say you were not warned.

          9. Rick Rogers says

            And you are wrong. I have no intention of mocking you or your Beliefs. They are yours and you are welcome to them. Just don’t think you can force them down my throat. THATS what your wrong about.

          10. Jimmy Quick says

            Cool. So once again, thank you for your correction.

        2. MakeAmericaGreatAgain! says

          Crooked Lying Hillary!!!!

      3. ArizonaMilitiaDotCom says

        No way of commenting on that one, since no one can presume to speak for God. Have you not read your Bible?

    3. Elise Moriah says

      Died of syphilis because of his lust. Sounds like poetic justice to me!!

  14. jimdarnall says

    Looks more and more like the cause of the fall of Rome will soon be happening to America. As a Christian it is plain to see the end times as predicted in the bible are very evident. Pray my friends pray!

    1. Morton212 says

      Yes – I am afraid you are right. Unless the Republican party overhauls its decrepit ideology – it may well become extinct.

  15. donemyhomework says

    We have other things to talk about other than same sex marriage. Why bother.

  16. pcanon says

    It is written into UN Agenda 21 that the elite plan in the future to impose a one world religion upon the world. It will be earth worship. They already named it: GAIA. Anyone can search for this document online and read about it. They apparently intend to outlaw all monotheism, in the end. Everything going on in this arena is being done toward bringing such a plan to fruition.

    Ironically, they probably also intend to one day ban marriage altogether. Agenda 21 states that the nuclear family is “unsustainable”. They like the idea of kids being raised by strangers and accountable only to the financial elite who own the world. It is a system of pure slavery they are planning.

    It is all very radical, of course, and hard to imagine but the American people are their own worst enemies, including conservatives. Any time we believe in them, listen to what we say, read their propaganda or sacrifice our lives or our children’s lives in their wars (which now are all geared toward ultimate world domination for their class and NOT toward US national security) we are contributing to all of this, to all they are planning. It is hard, I know, to get how necessary it is to completely dissociate from the political elite, but it is essential if anything like normal life is to remain on this planet in the future – here or abroad.

    Most US activity in other countries is involved in plundering and thieving national resources for mega corporations and increasing their political reach over the entire planet. Morality, the lives of human beings, national security – all these things are but laughing matters for them. Even the situation in Ukraine is beyond the comprehension of most Americans. Russia has not sent its military into Ukraine (the head of the Ukrainian military has said this publicly, as have other prominent generals) and is not planning to invade Europe. (The people of Crimea voted 96% to rejoin the Russian Federation, as they wanted nothing to do with the lunatic regime the US had installed in Kiev.) The whole thing is laughable.

    We are being swept by our leadership, on the basis of outright lies, toward a world war that they hope will end in their ultimate triumph over all mankind – and over Christianity, morality, normal life, etc. This is the mistake of conservatives – to remove themselves from foreign policy analysis, to believe ANY foreign policy being brought to us by our leadership is in our interest – and the mistake is monumental.
    We are scheduled – especially our dear children – to pay a very high price for all our blind following, for our refusal to take skepticism toward them to the next level.

  17. alaskat says

    When we grant the Federal govt. the right to order a private citizen to bake a cake or face fines or jail time we have laid down the first brick in our new police state. That forbidden power will grow rapidly and soon the police state will be ordering anyone and everyone to do things they don’t wish to do. Absolute power corrupts. Always. The idiotic p.c. anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, therefore null and void. Civil disobedience against tyranny should come before armed rebellion. This is already being started by religious leaders and their associations. Where are those whiny maggots who always told Christians “You can’t legislate morality.”? Ignorance abounds, and while berating the police for excessive force against civilians we really have no business giving them unlimited power over us. I guess we just have a death wish driving us to stupid actions tightening the noose around our own necks.

  18. says

    Any two humans who love each other (male-male, female-female or male-female) ought to have the privilege of marriage. Same sex marriage will not hurt heterosexual marriage. In fact, in my opinion, SSM will make traditional marriage stronger. And businesses or corporations should not be allowed to inject religious beliefs into their businesses. A business is a business, not a church.

    1. hangem'high says

      A business is the reflection of the person or persons running it that’s why the government needs to stay out of the way they bankrupt enough of America! Who knows, maybe Rick and Morten will invite you their room?

  19. Vernon Cunningham says

    we are no longer in control of our destiny. The enemy of liberty has broken down the gates and taken command of our rights. read “animal farm”. . That is exactly what is happening.

  20. Ron says

    liberals are out to destroy religious freedoms. They are the enemies of this nation.

    1. Morton212 says

      Not at all. They just want conservatives to stay in their lane and to stop trying to control everyone else’s beliefs. I don’t think you can tell religious freedoms from tail gating.

  21. JIMBO says

    I agree that we should not need an amendment to protect our religious freedoms. If that is what it will take go for it. I guess we will have to see what the Rinos do when this bill is put before the senate. I dont depend on the GOP to be able to do anything with Bohener and McConnell in office.

  22. George Cahonna says

    The Church & State must remain separate. If a Church opposes gay marriage BFD, go to a different church. Shoving it down people’s throats is going to create problems that will not go away. If we had real American Court’s they should tell those who oppose church doctrines the same thing..Go start your own church

  23. sturgis says

    Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN Period! I will NEVER recognize same sex marriage! Regardless what the court decides!

    1. Woody says

      Yes, me too. The Court is fixed anyway; if they had any ethics they would force the two women on the court who are currently performing same sex so called marriages as they should recuse themselves.

    2. Woody says

      Yes, me too. The Court is fixed anyway; if they had any ethics they would force the two women on the court who are currently performing same sex so called marriages as they should recuse themselves.

  24. Steve Crawford says

    Same Sex Marriages & the Law

    Marriages was started by God, not the state. It isn’t even mentioned in the
    Constitution. Homosexuals have a right to “sin” if they want to. But they do
    not have a right to force you to not follow your Christian beliefs and make you
    participate in their sin.

    Marriages were taken care of by the church until it was decide that the counties need to issue marriages licenses to make money for the counties. Before that, separation of church and state meant that
    the church took care of marriages.

    . God have been kept out of the schools and the military since Madalyn O’Hare, an atheist, was successful in 1963 to getting school prayer banned and now in the military. I have a question for the
    Supreme Court: Have you as a group, become so important and powerful that you can change God’s laws? If so, does that mean you are greater than God and we are to worship you rather than the God of
    the Bible? When anyone or any group challenges God’s laws and decide that such laws can be changed at their discretion, they are trading on dangerous ground.

    1. Woody says

      As usual you are always right on, Steve. I read somewhere (forget where) Jesus is real angry with us, and he said, “I even send them bad weather now, and they don’t even notice.” The pride of us sinners

  25. Dominic Roy Accampo says

    To: All Americans
    If liberalism is not stopped it will destroy our nation. We need tariffs to bring jobs back to America from China! We need freedom of speech in all areas of our society! We must differentiate between speech, which must be free and actions which must be controlled! We must defend and elevate traditional marriage as the bedrock principle of all civilized societies. We must remember that bigotry can and has been shown by all peoples and actively try to remind people that while there are evil actions done by all peoples there is also good within all of the peoples of our world. For there is not a bad nation, a bad people nor race, only bad ideas which much be openly opposed in the arena of free debate with good ideas such as those outlined and supported by the Holy Bible. We must mark out and actively oppress everyone who declares that they have the right to muzzle the speech of others, any others, or demand that others participate within their depravity. For Christianity should not have the right to force you to pray, but neither should atheists insist that Christians stop praying, publicly, nor homosexuals have the right to insist that Christian bakers bake them a wedding cake that celebrates the depravity of their immoral life style.
    Dominic Roy Accamppo

    1. Morton212 says

      So a call for tariffs marks you as anti-capitalist. Good luck with that.

  26. Rick Rogers says

    This is just more Crap. If you don’t like gay marriage there is a simple Fix.. DON”T MARRY Someone that is Gay. No one has the right to say who can or can’t enter into a marriage. Marriage in this day and age are Civil Unions. And that’s the way it should be. You have no right to push your religious Views on anyone that does not want to take part in your Religion. This Bill of theirs does not but try and make it ok for a group that wants to Discriminate against another.

    1. Morton212 says

      Well said. I too have little time for busy-bodies.

      1. hangem'high says

        Get a room you two, maybe it’ll turn into somthing?

  27. Dr Lopez says

    Nature never will accommodate this contamination. I do not care if I get people angry. There is nothing normal,ethical or moral about homosexuality. These people should keep their lifestyle private. It is a destructive unnatural act that not even animals in nature conduct. Legal rights? The supreme court has succumbed to twisted manipulation. Look at the confusion this has caused to our children,the mental damage. I have had enough of the pc upside down club . The minority controlling the majority has resulted in division ,perverted thinking and has morally bankrupted the country. Thank you utopian nut jobs.Now,spew your anger at me. I do not care . Try to justify this mess with clever double talk. Marriage is between a man and a women,period! You destroy families,you will destroy a blessed structure. When the family unit collapses we will have a uncontrolled society,a dangerous one.

    1. Woody says

      Right on; you are refreshing as the Truth always is. It even gets wilder. In 93 I have prostate cancer and was told that I can never donate blood; now because of political correctness, gays can give blood even though the AIDs are at 50,000,000. How pathetic. Morally bankrupt is right.
      The Supreme court screws up several times, e.g., Rowe vs Wade and look what a mess we have because of that non-Constitutional decision. God bless you, again.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.