Bachmann, Rand Paul and Others: Ridiculous Reactions to Supreme Court Ruling on DOMA

Well, you knew this was coming.

After the Supreme Court announced its ruling which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the “religious right” was out in full force making asinine statements.

First, let me repeat my stance on these kinds of Republicans—they’re not Christians.  These people follow Republicanity.  A handful of Bible excerpts mixed with their delusional conservative ideology.  It’s a dangerous entity which has essentially turned a political party into a faith based cult.

Some of the comments I’ve read from a few of these individuals are pathetically laughable.

For instance, Michele Bachmann (come on, you knew she was going to have something ridiculous to say) and her comments following the ruling:

“Marriage was created by the hand of God.  No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.  For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman.  Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations.  Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA.  What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.”

First, this is about the definition of marriage according to the United States government—not religion.  You know that Constitution Bachmann claims to represent?  She threw it out the window with this comment.  Our First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Establishing laws based on religion is a clear violation of our First Amendment.

Now imagine Bachmann being around when slavery was still widely accepted.  Just take out “legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman” and insert “the legal right to abolish slavery” and you get:

“For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal right to abolish slavery.”

So her argument here, essentially, is that any progress of a society is wrong because “history shows us” that the situation being used to advance that society has never been done.

It’s a great thing our Founding Fathers didn’t think this way—right Michele?

Then “despite the clear will of the people.”  What will of the people?  Most polls show a near 60% (and growing) support for same-sex marriage among Americans.

Now let’s take a look at what Rand Paul had to say on the ruling while talking with Glenn Beck:

“If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman — you cannot then tell me that, you can’t logically tell me you can’t change the other variable — one man, three women.  Uh, one woman, four men…. If I’m a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I’m an American citizen, that I can’t have multiple marriages?  I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further.  Does it have to be humans?”

Yes, you’ve just read Senator Rand Paul saying same-sex marriage could lead to bestiality.  Probably the most ignorant statement of the day (so far).

These kinds of ignorant arguments are some of the very same ones people used against interracial marriage decades ago.

Hey Rand, here’s a real simple way to define marriage.  Now try and follow me with this, because I know your small brain can’t handle thoughts outside of your right-wing propaganda.

Marriage, as it relates to our government recognizing it, has nothing to do with religion—period.  Which is why same-sex marriage, as recognized by the government, should be legal according to our First Amendment.  People don’t have to be married in a church or believe in any kind of religion whatsoever in order to be married.

So marriage can be defined as this: A legal agreement, between two consenting adults (who are not currently married) regardless of gender.  Then simply apply all the current laws and rules heterosexual couples have dealt with for decades.

It’s that simple.

Then there’s Mike Huckabee:

“My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: “Jesus wept.”

I’d believe him, if Mr. Huckabee could first show me a single instance where Jesus Christ spoke out against homosexuality.  And even if he did “weep,” it’s probably because hateful hypocrites such as Mike Huckabee continue to use his name to spread hate, fear and judgement—when those are exactly the opposite of the values for which he lived.

And probably the most top to bottom load of crap I have read thus far came from Chairman of the Republican Party in Alabama, Bill Armistead:

“I am disappointed to learn that SCOTUS has struck down DOMA and will now require that federal benefits be extended to homosexual couples.  This is an affront to the Christian principles that this nation was founded on.  The federal government is hijacking marriage, a uniquely religious institution, and they must be stopped.  This is a nation founded on Christian values and the Bible is very clear on marriage – one man and one woman.  Alabama’s state law banning gay marriage will prevent these benefits from being extended in Alabama, but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”

The “Christian principles that this nation was founded on.”  Let me just go ahead and quote Founding Father John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli on this one:

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

But I’m sure that little tidbit won’t get in the way of Mr. Armistead’s right-wing rhetoric that’s based on what he wants to be true instead of what is true.

The federal government didn’t “hijack marriage,” marriage was never meant to be regulated by government.  The only reason government has any involvement at all is because of legal issues such as property, finances and child custody.  I’m pretty sure plenty of marriages in Alabama are done by a Justice of the Peace, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  In fact, his stance against same-sex marriage infringes on the rights of those Christian churches who wish to marry same-sex couples but aren’t legally allowed to—because of the government of Alabama.

Ironic, right?  Attacking the government for “hijacking marriage” while simultaneously stating that the Alabama state government will continue to “hijack marriage” away from churches who would marry same-sex couples.

Then I love how he says what the Bible is “very clear” as it relates to marriage.  Well, the Bible is also very clear on stoning women who commit adultery, much older men sleeping with very young women, forbidding the consumption of shellfish (I believe fishing is a huge part of Alabama’s economy—which includes shellfish) and wearing blended fabrics/cotton—just to name a few.

But it’s a damn good thing our First Amendment clearly states that the Bible doesn’t matter as it relates to our laws.

However, I can’t wait for the national challenge to any bans on same-sex marriage to come in front of our Supreme Court.  You know the decision that will rule that any state denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional–because people like Huckabee, Bachmann and Armistead have clearly shown that their only defense is based on religion…

Something our Constitution clearly forbids being a factor when determining our laws.

The reaction of these people puts on display the ignorant nature of many Republicans.  These people loudly boast about their love for their faith and our Constitution—yet don’t understand either.

They talk about Christianity often, yet don’t seem to understand a single value for which Jesus lived.  Then they talk about our Constitution, yet seem to oppose it every single time it protects rights they disagree with—which is pretty often.

The problem is, Republicans do love a Constitution, just not ours.  They love a Constitution they wish existed, but never has.

But these kinds of comments shouldn’t shock anyone.  Many Republicans often seem eager to prove that they’re simply out of touch with most Americans and unable to grasp reality.

And with many of their reactions to the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, they’ve proudly proved their ignorance once again.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Cemetery Girl

    The Bible also shows examples of men with more then one wife. Christian belief has run the range of absolute celibacy to multiple spouses (well, wives). I am a Christian, but denying marriage between two adults based on personal feelings and supported by selective use of the Bible is wrong.

  • Skylar

    Well said, Mr. Clifton. Scalia’s bizarre dissent including homosexual sodomy… that’s a good one too.

    • progressive21

      I think they’re all closet perverts! Bestiality, sodomy, it goes on and on. It never stops.

      • Marty Holden

        who said anything about a closet. I don’t think they’re closetted at all.

      • Lorrie Lou

        Maybe it’s something about the robes…lol

  • Michele Whittam Giacobbi

    Redefining marriage had already ocurred prior to this ruling because I can not sell my daughter for two goats and a sheep

    • LittleD

      Maybe if you offer THREE goats… lol

    • DJD11

      I’ll give you THREE goats and TWO sheep.

      • Crain Snyder

        And a chicken. Do not forget the chicken…

      • Steve Richey

        How cute is she? I might throw a turkey in to bolster my dowry if she’s cute. LOL

    • Estella L G

      I will give u all that and a puppy!!

    • Fabian M

      I’ll take a brick and a wood for a sheep.

      • John Imig

        Ahh, memories of ATITD…

  • Tom Coleman

    Do any of these idots know the meani of “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.”

    • progressive21

      No, They just know about the Second Amendment. To hell with the rest of the constitution. They all need to be voted our of our Congress!

  • Aloanstar

    “Alabama’s state law banning gay marriage will prevent these benefits from being extended in Alabama, but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”
    As a lesbian, my tax dollars have been going to support a “lifestyle” that I was fundamentally not allowed to a part of for over 40 years….until today…what a great feeling today’s decision has given me. I am still letting it sink it…finally.

  • Jen

    Bachman clearly states “the will of the people’s representatives,” which has nothing to do with the actual will of the people

    • Coovara

      Maybe it would if they were actually to represent their constituents. Once they get elected they just follow their party’s leaders around like sheep. What their people want means very little.

  • Terry E. Christian

    ” but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”
    Except that Alabama is a welfare state that gets more money from the federal government than it provides in tax revenue.

    • Steve Richey

      Remind me again why we fought a war to force these assholes (well the ancestors of these assholes if you want to be technically correct) to stay part of our country?

      • LibertarianBiker

        Because Lincoln was a warmongering Republican asshole.

  • LibertarianBiker

    I agree with Rand. This opens the door to polygamist marriage, as well it should. Love is just as real in a poly marriage as it is in a mono one and they deserve the same rights.

    • Ekaterina Kaverina

      Fine with me if it is based on love. In my experience an average modern man has problems being a good husband to one woman, that’s why we hardly can have polygamy… just saying…

      • LibertarianBiker

        I just don’t think that it’s right to tell two men they can marry then tell three men they can’t.

        Rand is off base on the animal remark though. Marriage, either mono or poly, hetero or homo, requires consent. Children and animals can’t consent.

      • 68chimera

        I think these guys must clearly have more than a passing affection for their animals. Clearly, they’re hung up on their pets’ santorum. Scalia only has ‘homosexual sodomy’ on his mind. The lady protests too much methinks.

      • Patrick R

        Consent is the key term here. I have no problem with polygamy so long as all the parties are in agreement. The beastiality argument is ridiculous when consent is the guiding force because an animal could never offer consent to marriage.

      • Chuck Reed

        “They” always love to talk about sex with animals, I never hear Liberals talking about sex with animals. I sincerely believe it is latent deviant sexual behavior including with animals that drives their discussion about marriage.

    • caro

      The issue with multiple marriages is the further extent of marriage benefits. How to split a will, a person to make life threatening medical decisions. It doesn’t open ANY further doors because it still maintains marriage as a TWO PERSON MARRIAGE. ONLY SAME SEX. Why can one straight person abuse marriage and marry 3 or 4 times, but it’s “wrong” for two same sex to have the experience once?

      • LibertarianBiker

        It’s wrong of you to tell two men that they can marry and tell three men they can’t. If the laws are obstructing morality, the laws need to change.

      • mimi2832

        That is exactly why religion and government should be separate. If we start to use the bible as a basis for law, we open up a can of worms. Poligamy is in the bible as well as selling children into marriage etc. Marriage needs to be defined by government and not the other way around

    • Chuck Reed

      Well according to the bible…

    • mimi2832

      I’ve heard that too but the courts have said a marriage is a contract between TWO consenting adults. If it is worded as such it is law.

  • Eric

    Sorry but Rand Paul said nothing of bestiality, you can read what you want into his remarks but wasn’t there.

    • Shea LaRoux

      It was too, very clearly! You obviously cannot read. Read the last line of his comments. “Does it have to be humans?” That is quite clearly what he was eluding to.

      • 68chimera

        them wingnuts don’t read so good

      • Gipper1015

        Shea, that is EXACTLY what Paul was alluding to and Eric damn well knows he was and doesn’t even want to come close to admitting it. It never ceases to amaze me how much these Teabag morons will continually lie and deceive to try and make their points, only to be called out, over and over, by rational, thinking, caring people that truly give a damn about someone other than just themselves. Sit down, teabag bigots… your 15 minutes are over a long freaking time ago!

      • Billy Howell

        He could’ve meant aliens. ::gasps:: Rand Paul knows classified information about alien wedding rituals! Ahhh!!!

      • Lorrie lou

        “Or Zombies…or would that still count as human since its all necrophilia and all???”, said the half-term gov of Alaska.

    • Raoul Duke

      Actually Eric is right. Paul said nothing about man/animal sex, just man/animal marriage. So to him, it’s ok to have sex with an animal, you just can’t marry one. So you’re safe Eric, Rand says you can go back to the barnyard

    • macacaiscaca

      Rand Paul is a fake libertarian – cheers.

      • RoughRugger

        No, his dad is a libertarian. Rand is nothing more than a tea-publican.

  • atheistsrule

    Bachman is a moron! Marriage in the United States is a CIVIL UNION. You can’t get married without a LICENSE issued by the local government. That one chooses to include their god in their ceremony and life has nothing to do with the civil (legal) union of marriage in this country. I’m a freaking high school drop out and it would seem that I know more about this country than someone who wanted to run it. Stupid bizzatch. Oooh, how I loathe that woman.

    • Chuck Reed

      I am certain you know more than Bachman but I’m sorry to say that’s not really a compliment.

      • zeromus

        Yea it isn’t exactly difficult to pass that bar. Especially when someone believes in a deity on no evidence at all. Don’t indoctrinate a child and the results are quite clear, they won’t believe a great deal of bullshit.

  • Rob

    Let the sour grapes from sore losers begin…

  • Michael Mohajer

    Did you expect anything less? Since they love history so much, let them fade away into it. The rest of the country is moving onwards. God Bless

  • Shalom

    What about MY RIGHTS to not have their Christian God shoved down my throat. I thought we had freedom of religion? These Republicans need to go back and read the Consititution and Bill of Rights.

    • Coovara

      Oh but as Rick Perry so recently scribed, “Freedom of religion, not freedom from” oy

      • QueenofSwords59

        That would only apply until the Muslims, Jews, HIndus, Buddhists and various flavored Pagans started wanting to place their religion on the front lawn (or the courthouse lawn) for all to see. Then he’d be singing a different tune. LOL!

      • LateNightLarry

        Freedom for MY religion, not freedom for all religions or freedom FROM religion… That’s really what the RepubliCLOWNS and knuckle-dragging teanderthals want…

  • Braxton_Leo

    We can now choose 13 states where we don’t have to live as though Gawd writes our laws.

  • Jojo

    Just waiting for comments from the bastions of rational and common sense (insert sarcasm here) Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter.

  • Christina McDonald

    umm “a god” how many does her religion have? I know my pagan faith has many, I just thought Christians stuck with one.

    • Marty Holden

      I caught that too

      • Christina McDonald

        and from what I understand…he doesn’t share power.

    • Lisa M. Alter

      As a Jew, I view the “holy trinity” as a trinity. That would be three god-figures. For those that don’t follow the trinity, there is God and Jesus, generally worshiped as if a god. That’s two. Polytheistic.

    • zeromus

      Don’t worry, all of them are nonsensical and mythical no matter which one you choose. Unless you redefine god to mean something we already have a word for that is.

  • Diferimo

    As an Alabama resident I am
    Deeply ashamed, though not shocked about this clown’s comment. If it was up to him, slavery would still exist and discrimination would still be legal. It is truly shameful to have uneducated and ignorant politicians like him leading this state. I show full support for gay rights and I wish the GLBT population the best in their struggle to end marriage discrimination in this country!

  • Observatore

    I’m wondering what are the toughs of these “religious right hypocrites” On the laws of the Non-Christian countries….Specially in the “deserved punishment” of the LGBT.

  • jaxparrothead

    It would be much easier for me to accept the conservative claim of defending the sanctity of marriage if they were putting as much effort into outlawing divorce as they are into stopping equality.

    • LateNightLarry

      The RepubliCLOWNS CAN’T outlaw divorce… otherwise they couldn’t pull a Newt Gingrich and swap out their wives when they become less than model-attractive or have a medical condition.

  • Dissenter13a

    John Adams was a politician. Politicians will say anything when it serves their purpose. And so do our corrupt judges.

    California enacted a robust initiative system so that citizens could do an end run around Sacramento, and it would defeat its purpose for state government to be permitted to choose not to defend a law that the people enacted and thereby, frustrate the determination of questions involving its constitutionality at SCOTUS. I am still reeling from the idiocy of the Hollingsworth Court.

    • Gary Smith

      The John Adams quote isn’t from a stump speech or an editorial in Poor Richard’s Almanac, it’s from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Pres. Adams in 1797.

      And, as Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution — AKA the Supremacy Clause — states, the US Constitution, federal statutes, and all US Treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”

  • Dissenter13a

    AC: “The problem is, Republicans do love a Constitution, just not ours. They love a Constitution they wish existed, but never has.”

    As I have said many times, AC doesn’t exactly have room to talk. Bachmann and Cruz have no excuse, but Rand Paul is an MD.

    “However, I can’t wait for the national challenge to any bans on same-sex marriage to come in front of our Supreme Court.”

    I doubt that we will ever see one. Jay Sekulow can count. You will see a few cases at the lower court level. The plaintiffs will win, the few decisions will be affirmed, and SCOTUS will beg off because there won’t be a conflict for them to resolve. Windsor is probably the last word on the topic.

  • Dissenter13a

    The rodeo clown (Beck) does it again: ” But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?””

    Yup. A contract requires consent of the parties. ShEEEEEEEsh!

  • Raoul Duke

    Inter-species marriage is already happening. Rand Paul’s wife married a sea slug.

    • Lorrie lou

      Right on….

  • Joe Quarino

    I think what both of them said was quit intelligent and not nearly as asinine as
    the author of this liberal rag has argued. Marriage has always been a religious
    institution in this country. If you want a Union then call it that. Also
    clearly the author of this piece is either retarded which is apparently OK to
    call people now, or he/she thinks we are all retarded. The point about the 1st
    Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It’s pretty clear to me that they need to stay out of the argument and let the states decide.

    • megan

      I think you’re confusing “wedding ceremony” with “marriage” Joe. Marriage in and of itself has nothing to do with religion.

    • nakedanthropologist

      You’re confusing a wedding ceremony with marriage. Even in religious ceremonies, “By the power invested me by the state…” is used. Marriage is a civil contract; a wedding is a ceremony celebrating that contract.

  • Joe from Arizona

    I am disappointed not in the ruling, but in the ignorance of these Republican, because they would not know Jesus Christ if he punched them in the face. I am a christian I will practice my beliefs in my house without government interference (separation of church and state), If you have a different orientation or religion you are free to practice it in your own house, and they Supreme Court just loosened up the definition to encompass all Americans, give Caesar what is Caesars, give to God what is Gods…..It is not ours to stand in judgement of how these people live their lives, it is Gods.

    • Lorrie lou

      Or maybe there is no God and we each need to respect our fellows and control all that we can control; ourselves

    • Chuck Reed

      You mean that Christians are not supposed to judge people? But what about all those Republicans that do so in the name of Christ?

    • zeromus

      Imaginary beings don’t have any power except that which we grant them through our actions.

  • teech

    I would imagine people like Bachmann, Paul, Hannity, O’Riley, Coulter, Huckabee, LImbaugh & the rest of the conservative wing nuts would love to see laws against homosexuality enacted such as those in Nigeria. Death to all!! How is God’s name do these ignorant hypocrites get elected & re-elected over & over.

  • Una Morgan Shippey

    you mean “proven”… *#@$ Curse my relentless attention to grammar!

  • QueenofSwords59

    I’m really curious how Bill Armistead decided that our tax dollars somehow support other people’s marriages. Last time I check, the COUPLE had to pay for the marriage license and that was it. No one pays for my heterosexual marriage. So what makes him think taxpayers will be paying for homosexual marriage? There is no tax liability to anyone else for ANYONE’s marriage. If there is, please correct me. Sounds to me like they’re doing the same thing here like they try to do with birth control — act like your tax dollars (or premiums or whatever – but your money) are being spent to support things you may not morally agree with — when ultimately they’re not. Or if they are, it’s such a tiny fraction of anything that it’s a drop in the lake.

    • Chuck Reed

      I believe he is talking about our Payroll taxes which is odd because the Republicans hate talking about payroll taxes, they never include payroll taxes when discussing taxes paid by the working middle class and the working poor, they always just want to talk about income taxes and I hear claims on Fox and even GOP Presidential candidates all the time that 47% of Americans do not pay taxes when the truth is every worker in America pays a higher tax rate than Romney.

  • Lily Bennett

    Marriage is a word which can be a noun or a verb and it is also an institution when is open to everyone. Tell Bachmann that God had nothing to do with it. Humans decided this was an institution. So being humans we tend to grow and change out minds and accept people for who they are and what they believe. This was a great day for humans

  • alexjonesisanidiot

    Can we PLEASE stop pretending that Rand Paul is intelligent now?

  • jak

    Go ahead get married. Straight people don’t even want to be married.

  • truf

    From the article: “So marriage can be defined as this: A legal agreement, between two consenting adults (who are not currently married) regardless of gender.”
    Why are you so full of hate and intolerance toward our bisexual brothers and sisters? Why can’t you keep your moral standards out of these people’s lives? Why are you limiting the free expression of love to just two people? I call Bigotry, Hate and Intolerance!
    While we are at it, why are you going to limit marriage to your Eurocentric confines? Why do they have to be consenting? For thousands of years marriages have been arranged successfully by their parents or communities between two strangers in non-European countries. Don’t shove your White Racist European standards down the throats of other free people!

    • nakedanthropologist

      Troll harder.

  • RoughRugger

    “Alabama’s state law banning gay marriage will prevent these benefits from being extended in Alabama, but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”

    1) Actually, Alabama’s state law will do very little to prevent federal benefits from being extended there. All an Alabamian need do is take a weekend road trip to DC, NYC, SF, Boston, or any other place where marriage equality is the law, and those federal benefits are theirs, even back home in Alabama.

    2) My tax dollars go to support any number of things that I fundamentally disagree with, including unjustified wars, propping up corporate criminals, subsidizing multi-billion dollar oil companies, and paying the salaries of do-nothing, obstructionist legislators. I may not like it, but that’s part of living in a society. Deal.

  • guest

    What an idiot=Allen Clifton, criticizing those who have the definition correct. Next thing will be down is up and dark is light…

  • Buddy Pinkham

    These “bible thumpers” sit back and demonize other religions around the world and and start wars against other countries because of their religious theocratical governments, but the want the same for the US. They will not be happy until the US is a theocracy much like the ones they bemoan every day.

  • Cathy

    Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA.

    Please note she did not say the will of the people…….Its the “will of the people’s representatives” They are not there to force their views on people they are there to work for us and the Will of the People…..

  • Wingsfan81

    “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA.”
    Wait .. what? What about the clear will of the PEOPLE???

  • estfar

    This country is made up of all kinds – I just haven’t found the bucket where the Bachmann’s, the Rand Paul’s and the rest of the lunatic fringe belong in. They talk about Jesus as if they have a personal connection – they couldn’t be further – he was a humble man who stuck up for a prostitute “let ye without sin cast the first stone”, wonder if these religious zealots remember that Jesus? They like to conveniently package religion to fit their moronic ideals and probably would have been right there with Hitler when he marched gays into concentration camps. That’s what fanaticism can lead to. Yes, I can see Bachmann railing against those who would end slavery – she would have found sections in the bible that mentioned slavery as being decreed by God. She just can’t help cramming her head up her a_ _, nor can the rest of those lunatics who parade themselves as Godly.

  • Befuddled

    “Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted” So I guess the government can’t even legalize her marriage? So no more spouse benefits for anyone.

  • jeczaja

    Interesting that everyone assumes marriage with multiple partners means one man and multiple women. I wonder how men would like being one of say, four husbands?

  • Chuck Reed

    Michelle Bachman has a 75% lie to truth ratio with the statements fact checked by Politifact! Rand Paul, he will say anything also, although he doesn’t lie as often as Bachman (she holds the liar title of all Politicians)…

  • LvBngMe

    Maybe all of these christians should move themselves and their families into a colony where it is just straight christians. They can make their own laws about what kind of relationships are alright to have, and what kinds of roles their women can have in society. There will be no gays (except for the ones they give birth to), no birth control, no abortion (under any circumstances because all life is sacred, right?). They can fight amongst themselves who the real christians are, who loves their god more and who is living the most righteous life. They can write their own constitution and include all of the bigotry they think the founders wrote into the original.

    They can decide what to do with those they deem unfit for society, i.e. said gay children born to them within their colony, those whose opinions differ from their elders (even though I don’t know how that would happen, because naturally, no real science or information about different cultures would be taught to their children), those who dress funny.

    The upside to all of this, however, is that in their colony, there would be no religious wars and no abortion clinic bombings or the murder of doctors going on since abortion does not happen in their colony. There would be no premarital sex and therefore no babies shamefully born out of wedlock.

    This would be great for the rest of us who just want to live peacefully and freely, to raise our families in a world without hate and values every single person born into it, regardless of who we love, or who the child’s parents are. To legally wed, under the law, and be recognized for our contribution to society and as human beings.

    This colony, of course isn’t mandatory, but it might be a good idea for those who refuse to acknowledge or live in the real world.

  • zeromus

    First, let me repeat my stance on these kinds of Republicans—they’re not Christians.

    This is called a no true scotsman fallacy. They are in fact christian, despite how little anyone may desire to share the name with people as ignorant as this.

  • aj neal

    well done

  • Jonathan M Bell

    It always bothers me when mixed fabrics are brought up in this kind of discussion because someone invariably mentions cotton. The Old Testament prohibition is against the weaving together of linen and wool. That’s it. Cotton/poly blends are just fine.

  • KentPerry

    That’s right and more of us need to be very indignant about saying no to such natural law offenders like those supporting same sex marriage.

    Here is what the Treaty of Tripoli DOES NOT SAY. It does NOT say we are NOT a Christian Nation does it ?? NO IT DOES NOT. It refers to the questions Muslims had regarding conflicts with Muslim Pirates and their fears our Government would be like their’s a Theocracy called “Sharia law”

    THANK GOD CHRISTIANS THOUGHT IT BEST TO HAVE A NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT AT THE CONSENT OF ITS CHRISTIAN NATION.

    It goes against Natural Law and the rights endowed by our creator. This is how they dismantle Natural Law to be superseded by Municiple law. Natural Law and Natures God enforces these laws regardless of what man thinks and it makes no distinction for such silly ideas as “Marriage Equality” A turd in some queers colon laced with his gay lovers sperm does NOT have the potential to merge ( Marry) with the seed (DNA) of their sexual partner, as one flesh. This was the reason, Government agreed with the Church on this one because it happens to be a FACT.

    Nor should they be given a legal status for same because it is a biological FACT it is impossible for them to do so and why laws surrounding the licensing of same were created so that blood tests would ensure less inbreeding and also for the sacrifices parents have to make to raise Americas future. NOT as a mandate they have children mind you BUT,,

    IN-CASE THEY EVER DO.

    Homosexuals need not worry about such a thing and insisting we allow them to hijack traditions predicated on Natural Law, may not impact us personally but it certainly impacts us as a society. If they want to have a ceremony publicly announcing their life time commitment to their gay lover, they should INVENT THEIR OWN ! If they think their sexual relationship is so damned equal to a Heterosexual Marriage, then they should prove it! They can try to explain, how laws made surrounding any unique consequence for the type of sexual bent they have that benefits society as a whole, is like Heterosexual Marriage does producing offspring and the future of America we all benefit from. So far the only thing I have ever gotten from Homosexual Marriage is the Nausea from their constant whining and bitching they are victims. BULLSHIT!

    INVENT YOUR OWN THING and QUIT TRYING TO SHOEHORN YOUR SEXUAL BENT INTO THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF BIOLOGICAL MARRIAGE. Remember,, this is what they USED to teach in Public Schools was the phenomena of sexual reproduction. Now,, Thanks to the LGBTQ and STUPID ASS MORONS that think Gay marriage is cool,, we teach kids how to properly insert a FIST into a classmates rectum. Oh yes,, that is EXACTLY what the Gay agenda has given us.

    Same Sex Marriage, isn’t about equality,, it isn’t about being on the right side of history and history is replete with empires that have fallen as a result of the depravity that soon followed any Government that allowed it. Rome, Greece, Sodom etc,. It isn’t cool,, it’s just Gay.

    It is TIME TO TELL HOMOSEXUALS TO STFU!

    They would have us believe that the laws of nature are subject to mans interpretation even when that legal definition is unique NOT equal but unique to one man and one woman and is backed up as a Scientifically Proven FACT. Once they do this with Marriage,, get ready to see it done with every form of un-natural act.

    In fact as we have just seen,, that is already happening .

    They want you to believe the rectum is as respectable a receptical, for the male seed as one that brings fourth human life and by the way, a love far more worthy of our making,, is like asking us to agree

    PIGS CAN FLY