Jul 3 2015

Polygamist now demands legality: That escalated quickly…

Nathan Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision that made marriage equal. He said he was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving gay couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy.

And so this week, Mr Collier and his two wives, Victoria and Christine, entered a courthouse in Billings, Montana, and sought an application to legalise the trio’s polygamous union.

“Right now we’re waiting for an answer,” Mr Collier told The Independent. “I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first.”

He added: “Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else – I am trying to define what marriage means for us.”

Read more at the London Independent

sponsored links

Jun 30 2015

[video] Should Marriage be Limited to One Man and One Woman?

Watch this video and find out exactly why the government must not and cannot redefine marriage. This is not just a biblical argument but also a social argument!

Jun 29 2015

I don’t think that word means what you think it means…


Jun 18 2015

Bill Protecting Defenders of Traditional Marriage Reintroduced in Congress

marriage 500x200
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers on Wednesday that would prohibit the federal government from denying tax exemptions or other government benefits to individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage.

“Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order,” the bill states.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or from disallowing tax deductions for charitable donations to them.

The bill would also “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,” according to a press release from Lee’s office.

Read more at CNSNews.com

Jun 17 2015

Dan McLaughlin: Can Gays And Christians Coexist In America? Part IV

court gavel judge 500x200
In this part, I look specifically at how the legal arguments over same-sex marriage require the law to devalue marriage, ignore reality, and insult Christians and other religious believers.

The decision to seek a decisive nationwide resolution in the courts on equality-based grounds has encouraged the most divisive possible method of implementing same-sex marriage, doing so not by demonstrating the benefits of liberty or enlisting the voters but by 1) delegitimizing all the aspects of marriage that are seen as obstacles to equalizing same-sex marriage with opposite-sex marriage and 2) demonizing anyone who opposes this process as the equivalent of Bull Connor.

Recall that the legal basis for challenges to laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman are based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…

But even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Equal Protection Clause means, not what the people agreed to put in the Constitution but rather what modern judicial gloss has revised it to mean, the Constitution has always been read to permit the government to treat different things differently, so long as there was some rational basis for the distinction in the first place. (This recognition is precisely why the law has always treated the real, biological category of sex differently from the irrational category of racial classification, and why proponents of same-sex marriage have expended so much effort on appealing to special, extra-constitutional rules of burden-shifting, e.g., Romer v Evans, that in practice apply only in LGBT cases).

Read the full article at The Federalist

Jun 16 2015

Evil never sleeps…


Jun 11 2015

Do you think it’s never actually been about marriage, but about demonizing Christians?…


May 16 2015

Why marriage matters…


May 8 2015

As long as Liberals don’t respect laws, laws won’t solve problems…


Apr 30 2015

Way Back Archives: Defining marriage…


Apr 30 2015

But then logical consistency has never been something Liberals comprehend


Apr 29 2015

Who do you trust?…


Apr 29 2015

Wait for it…


Apr 28 2015

A government by the people? Really?


Mar 30 2015

Comparing Apples to Orange Bowling Balls


Mar 16 2015

Do the math.


Feb 12 2015

The Agenda


Jan 13 2015

5 Questions Same-Sex marriage Advocates Refuse to Answer

Frightened-Nerd 500x200

And by refuse to answer we mean they will either change the subject, change the question or offer an answer so irrelevant and stupid, you wonder who they’re talking to.

Question #1. If we redefine marriage to include two men or two women, can we also redefine it to mean one man and 4 women? What about one man and a 12-year-old child?

They will either accuse you of the “Slippery Slope” fallacy (which is only a fallacy if the slope is an unreasonable conclusion, which in this case, it’s already happening) or they will claim children are unable to offer informed consent, and then call you a racist when you point out that they claim that same child can consent to an abortion. Truth is, many homosexual activists have made it clear that they want age-of-consent laws abolished. This is obviously bad PR, so the marketing people for the Gay Mafia has quieted down such demands, for now. So the real answer is, “Because we don’t want to let people know that this is part of our long term goal.”

Question #2. How will “allowing” same-sex marriage work without empowering the government to force states, counties, cities, businesses, churches and even individuals to accept it, against their will?

This is a question they ignore and generally offer a regurgitated chant that goes something like, “It’s about equal rights. It’s about equal protection. It’s about poached eggs. It’s about blehblehbleh bleh.” Anything to avoid actually answering the actual question actually asked. The truth is it’s impossible to implement same-sex marriage without handing much more power to the government to do so. Pretending it’s about “getting the government out of marriage” is complete nonsense, and we have more than enough evidence that those behind same-sex marriage want more government control over marriage, not less.

Question #3. Since every single legal aspect of marriage can be duplicated between any two people using already existing legal measures, the battle for same-sex marriage boils down to nothing more than redefining the term “marriage” and the argument becomes, why would we refuse homosexuals the right to be “happy”. Are you really saying that homosexuals are only happy when they are allowed to force society to redefine words (like “gay” and now “marriage”)?

Again, this will cause them to spew the same regurgitated responses they do for Question #2. I mean, it’s like watching a frog jump when poked with a needle. Oh, they’ll maybe throw in some pathetic mention of “separate but equal” but when you point out that using that argument means Black people can never achieve equality until they are allowed to call themselves white, they’ll respond with—of course—an accusation of racism.

Question #4. If homosexuals cannot achieve happiness unless they are allowed to redefine terms, isn’t that a rather stark condemnation of the psychological well-being of homosexuals?

Be careful because this may actually cause their heads to explode. You’ll definitely be called a lot of names as they search for some response in order to evade the raw, naked truth of this question. Homosexuality was only removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders after the APA board was packed with pro-homosexual activists, making it a political decision, not a medical one. The pretense that homosexuality is not a mental disorder continues to this day, and has been “augmented” with the horrible myth that it’s a lifelong condition that they can never, ever escape.

5. If a group of people declared that they can only be happy is they are allowed to redefine racial titles, allowing them to legally be recognized as any race they choose to declare themselves to be, would you favor allowing that? If not, why?

They’ll of course, claim it’s not the same thing, but they’ll flounder trying to explain why it’s not the same thing. But it is the exact same thing. I want to be considered Jewish so I’ll have the government force all food manufacturers and restaurants to use the new definition of kosher, that includes all the foods I like, but aren’t actually kosher. It’ll be about my freedom, after all. Aren’t they doing this very same with gender? They are trying to force society to accept that a person’s gender is whatever they say it is, at the moment, so get out of the way while we go watch your little girl in the bathroom, bigot.

Jan 12 2015

18 Most Common Arguments Liberals Make in Defense of Same-Sex Marriage…and how to answer them.

over-coffee 500x200

L: The only arguments against same-sex marriage are religious.
C: First of all, there are plenty of arguments against it that have nothing at all to do with religion. Second, what you are calling “religious arguments” are to demonstrate that individuals have sincere, religious objections to same-sex marriage and therefore making laws that force them to accept it would be unconstitutional. Third, that legalizing same-sex marriage would force the religious views of a minority on the majority that opposes those views is unconstitutional. Fourth, legalizing same-sex marriage would require granting additional power to an already power-mad government. Fifth, legalizing same-sex marriage would be the first step in broadening the definition of marriage to the point that it would ultimately mean nothing, and we already have examples of people wanting this done, and people who freely admit that they oppose the institution of marriage.

L: Gays should have equal rights to marry
C: First of all, they do, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals. Second, since a homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship, on may levels, claiming their right to marry someone of the same gender is not asking for equality. You are, in essence, asking for apples to be called oranges.

L: By denying gays the right to marry you are forcing your religious view on them.
C: First of all homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. Second, there are numerous arguments against same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion. Third, the only way same-sex marriage can be made legal is if the Federal government is empowered to force compliance upon every state, county, city, business, church and individual, so legalizing same-sex marriage would be forcing the religious views of Liberals and some homosexuals (not all favor SSM) on the rest of the nation.

L: Marriage predates Christianity, so Christians have no right claiming the word.
C: First, notice how “religion” has now become “Christianity” in spite of the fact that most world religions view marriage as between a man and a woman. Second, there is no evidence that the concept of marriage predates the concept of religion. Third, most Americans, not just Christians, oppose redefining marriage.

L: Canada has been recognizing same sex marriages for a while now, and so far society has not collapsed.
C: Many people have cancer yet are still alive, thus, according to your logic, proves cancer is harmless.

L: Civil Unions do not grant the same legal rights as marriage.
C: Civil Unions are a legal vehicle that grant as much or as little as the law creating it allows. If they are inadequate, then the solution is to reword the law defining Civil Unions, not to redefine marriage.

L: History has shown all kinds of warped definitions of marriage, from slavery to polygamy to people getting divorced days after getting married.
C: Yet throughout that Traditional Marriage remained a concrete, solid concept. The examples you have given were and still are viewed as aberrations of what marriage was and is meant to be. They are not co-equal definitions but perversions of the core concept, just as rape, pedophilia or masturbation are not normal versions of sex.

L: We live in a secular society and religious people have to accept that and abide by secular authority.
C: Secular is a word used to define those people who have no recognized “religious” beliefs other than a materialistic world view, therefore it in itself is a religious viewpoint. We do not live in a secular society and our government is not a secular government. For it to be so it would need to establish the religious viewpoint of secularism as the official religious viewpoint of the government, and the Constitution expressly forbids the government from establishing a state religion.

L: How would legalizing same-sex marriage hurt you?
C: Liberals have already, amply demonstrated their desire to use any and every means available to them to force others to submit to their idea of what should be allowed or forbidden. They have used the courts to attempt to force religious people to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Below are just some examples of this. legalizing same-sex marriage would then be like handing a gun to an angry man…

L: This is the same as when inter-racial marriages were outlawed.
C: No, when inter-racial marriages were outlawed, the inter-racial couples who got married were put in jail, and sometimes lynched. All that would happen, currently, to homosexuals that claimed to be married, without bothering to set up the readily available legal devices for establishing the same same access that marriage does, is that they simply wouldn’t be considered married. That you can’t be considered the parent of your partner’s child because you failed to go through the legal process of adoption, is not the same thing as being sent to prison, and risking getting lynched on the way.

L: Since homosexuality is not a choice, it is discrimination to not allow them to marry.
C: There is no valid evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice. Spurious and fraudulent “scientific” studies sponsored by activist groups only demonstrate that there exists no real science behind the assertion, or they wouldn’t need to create fake studies.

L: Homosexual behavior is evident in hundreds, if not thousands, of species, proving that it’s natural.
C: Then it would be no problem at all for you to list one, single example of an animal, in normal health, that has demonstrated long-term sexual actions towards the same sex, that are not typical dominance behavior. Keywords there are “NORMAL HEALTH”, “SEXUAL ACTIONS”, “LONG-TERM”, “NOT DOMINANCE BEHAVIOR”. See the “studies” you’ve been told that show rampant homosexuality among animals include non-sexual bonding (not homosexual), dominance behavior (not homosexual), sporadic behavior (not homosexuality) and /or animals suffering from either a physical problem or some form of stress (not homosexual). When you weed out all those, you have no examples at all.

L: Civil Unions amounts to “separate but equal” which is unconstitutional.
C: How is it separate? The idea of “Separate but equal” referred to segregation, in the word “separate” literally meant separate. So how in the word are homosexuals joined by civil unions separated from anyone else, because they aren’t allowed to call it “marriage”?

L: Nobody chooses to be gay.
C: Can someone choose the food they prefer? If so at what point did most Chinese people decide to prefer Chinese food? At what age did Mexican people make the conscious choice to prefer Mexican food? Unless you are a racist, then you’ll have to acknowledge that those food choices are a result of the environment they were brought up in, not genetics. Neither is sexual preference genetic, but the product of environment. And as with food preference, it is entirely possible for someone to decide to change their preference.

L: Homosexuals are persecuted so much that it’s inconceivable that they would choose such a lifestyle.
C: First, the vast majority of homosexuals that are murdered are murdered by OTHER homosexuals, not heterosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals that are assaulted are assaulted by OTHER homosexuals, not by heterosexuals. Second, if being picked on were really such a problem, why do so many homosexuals then go out of their way to flaunt their lifestyle in public, going so far as to hold parades where they prance down the street in as flamboyant and outrageous a costumes as they can find?

L: You can’t compare homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality.
C: It is only by severing marriage from any societal, historical and religious context can you even begin to make an argument that same-sex unions should have the same standing as traditional marriage, and once you’ve done that, then you have tossed out any argument that would keep polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality as separate subjects. (If we can kill and eat animals, why can’t someone marry one?)

L: Homosexuals are a persecuted minority.
C: As an alleged “persecuted” minority, homosexuals earn more per capita, have more political clout per capita and on the average hold higher positions in companies than heterosexuals. If that’s discrimination, then where do I go to be discriminated against?

L: When did you choose to be straight/heterosexual?
C: Preferences by their very nature are not conscious choices. When did you choose to like pizza? Not when did you discover you liked pizza, but when did you make a conscious choice that you would like pizza? You didn’t but liking pizza is not a genetic imperative, therefore the lack of making a conscious choice is not proof of a genetic predisposition or a genetic imperative.

Dec 19 2014

Why Traditional Marriage Should Be Preserved…


Dec 13 2014

And that’s been the point all along…


Nov 20 2014

Study finds causal link between single-parent families and child homelessness, but stops short of asking what causes single parent families


A new report from The National Center on Family Homelessness concludes that “the challenges of single parenting” is one of the leading causes of homelessness. This conclusion makes sense. Single-parenthood drastically increases the likelihood of poverty and the risks of negative outcomes for children.


Click to view full size image

Tragically, today more than 40 percent of children are born outside of marriage. Five decades ago, it was less than 10 percent. The surge in unwed childbearing is troubling, considering a child born and raised by a single parent is five times more likely to be poor than a child raised in an intact home.

Why would marriage have such an effect on child poverty? Because two parents working together generally can support a family better than one parent working alone. Marriage keeps parents, particularly fathers, and their resources connected to their children. Also, married households bring in significantly more money not only because there are two parents, but because married men tend to earn more and work more.

However, poverty is not the only consequence. Social science research again and again confirms that children tend to do best with their married mother and father.  Children without a married mother and father are twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime, twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavior problems and twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school.  Boys who grow up without their father are more likely to be imprisoned. When their fathers are absent, girls are seven to eight times more likely to experience a teenage pregnancy. Growing up in a single-parent household—or in a community where the majority of households are single-parent—is one of the biggest impediments to future mobility and opportunity.

Read the full article at The Daily Signal.

Of course we’ll just ignore that the government continues to pay women to raise children without a father in the home, and the Liberal Media never misses an opportunity to praise single mothers as if they are heroic for creating a crippling environment for their children. And of course the lesson taught by the castigation of Dan Quayle for questioning such praise has not been forgotten.



Nov 19 2014

Pastors offer solution to opposition to same-sex marriage…but is it surrender?

Traditional-Marriage 500x200

Two Protestant pastors, concerned about rapidly-changing government definitions of marriage, have started a movement encouraging priests and ministers to refuse to perform civil marriages.

Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner, Episcopal and Anglican pastors respectively, launched “The Marriage Pledge” at the conservative religious journal First Things on Tuesday.

“As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness,” it reads. “This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-­habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ­being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.”

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Matthew Schmitz, First Things’ deputy editor. “I used to oppose calls to get government out of the marriage business, but times have changed. Many people see this and many more will. The signatories include some of the most clear-eyed and learned pastors who have refused to go along with the new orthodoxy on marriage. I expect more will follow their lead, if not today, tomorrow.”

Read the full article at The Daily Caller.