By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin was disgusted with BillO’s comments last night, smearing many religious Americans as nothing but ‘Bible thumpers’ in defending same-sex marriage. Levin says BillO sounded like Obama with his ‘cling to their Bibles and their guns’ line.

Listen:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • DaTechGuyblog

    What I don’t understand is the argument for same sex marriage is so weak that one doesn’t even have to refer to scripture to refute it.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      DaTechGuyblog I agree. But BillO thinks much of scripture is allegorical, perhaps that’s why he’s so soft on it.

    • Laurel A

      DaTechGuyblog Totally agree. I was thinking that when I played the video of him this morning. Megyn Kelly isn’t the expert on the law she thinks she is or she would of pointed out that the government regulates marriage now and has been since the beginning. And BTW..,.,SCOTUS upheld the polygamy ban replete with property confiscation. Remember Utah had to change that in their Constitution to get admitted into the union.

    • http://hehasfailed.wordpress.com/ He_Has_Failed

      DaTechGuyblog The other aspect is that a civil union solution solves every social aspect of the problem without negatively impacting traditional marriage.  But, these are Democrats.  This is all about attempting to destroy traditional marriage.

      • 1endtimes2020

        He_Has_Failed DaTechGuyblog    A civil union.  How about a legal partnership drawn up by a lawyer?

    • 1endtimes2020

      DaTechGuyblog   He capitulated so fast, she couldn’t finish her comment, and was visibly surprised at his agreement.  Then his machinegun mouth took over and he went on and on, and I switched channels.

  • LibLoather

    I haven’t had the stomach to watch this bloviating gas bag in months.  His only talents are interrupting his guests and selling his books, and now, insulting his viewers.

    • Stehekin912

      I hear ya….babble babble prattle prattle prate!  I don’t listen to FOX or BillO any more…haven’t for awhile now.

    • Laurel A

      LibLoather Me too. I just can’t do it anymore.

      • 1endtimes2020

        Laurel A LibLoather    Same here.  enough has expired.

  • rick2340

    I’ve never been a Bill O’Reilly fan and I don’t really watch Fox news any longer.  I think one of the biggest myths is that Fox News is a big right wing dominated conservative news channel.  Having said that, if Fox News continues to try and prove it’s not a conservative news channel by taking pot-shots at conservatives and conservative ideals their ratings are going to suffer.  If that occurs, if Roger Ailes thinks he is going to replace conservative viewers with moderates or liberals he is as crazy as the republicans thinking they are going to attract illegal immigrant voters by passing an amnesty bill.

    • Judges718

      rick2340  
      Exactly!
      I nominate this for post of the day!

    • Longiron

      rick2340
      One America News Nework, a new conservative cable channel is set to launch July,4 2013 and Fox will be history as far as TP conservatives are concerned

      • njmom

        Longiron rick2340 Do you know which providers are going to carry it and who the hosts will be?

        • Longiron

          njmom @Longiron rick2340
          Don,t know but a lot of info can be found with a goggle search. Lot of info on this channel there.

        • rick2340

          Longiron njmom  
          Do you guys ever watch Glenn Beck’s network?  I know he is on the Dish Network and is trying to get on cable networks.  I listen to him every now and then on the radio but haven’t had a chance to see much of his network.

        • 1endtimes2020

          njmom Longiron rick2340   I’ll be anxious to support the advertisers.

        • PaulZummo

          rick2340 Longiron njmom Isn’t Beck pro gay marriage too, now?

        • palintologist

          PaulZummo rick2340 Longiron njmom Uh, NO!

        • Shamron

          rick2340 Longiron njmom I watch Glenn’s show, we need him to get more exposure as he is pluggin away at the progressives and commies in this counrty.  Many cable companies won’t take his show because they say FOX is already there.  We pay for crap like Al Gores old channel, but they won’t allow Glenn’s show.

        • IvanCardona

          rick2340 Longiron njmom I subscribe to his program. His show is excellent with a diversity of guests discussing a variety of issues. the news that follows at 6:00 p.m. has a round table discussion which makes the issues of the day as clear as possible from a conservative standpoint

      • 1endtimes2020

        Longiron rick2340   I’ve written your info on my calendar already—the day after my birthday.

    • palintologist

      rick2340 For the love of Pete, please subscribe to Beck’s “TheBlazeTV.”  For $10/month you’ll actually hear someone sane in the real world give you real news you’ll hear no where else.  It is the absolute best investment going.

      • Shamron

        palintologist rick2340 Been a subscriber since the beginning.

      • 1endtimes2020

        palintologist rick2340   The Blaze has economists saying the economy of the whole world will soon fall.  This is predicted in the Bible, also.  The fallen economy could lead to nuclear war, but the Bible says the antichrist will revive the economies, and people will think he is like god.  At some point, the devil will come and demand to be worshipped as god, and will deceive many, even ‘the elect’,  This is all brought about by sin, and the Sodom and Gomorrah kind that destroys families.  God will not be mocked, and He allows the devil to do more of his dirty work to clear our brains, and renew our faith in God.  The tribulation will come, and the first 42 months will be peaceful, but the second 42 months will be hell on earth.  That will surely take the thoughts of the immoral away from their crotches.  Their peabrain debates will not be very important anymore.

  • 250plustips

    Bill O might have taken playing Devil’s Advocate a bit too far this time!

    • stage9

      250plustips When you play with the devil, you start to become like him.

      • 1endtimes2020

        stage9 250plustips    Like playing with fire, huh.

    • njmom

      250plustips Its one thing to play advocate its quite another to agree with the devil as boldly as Bill did.

  • 3d81

    Weve been wrong for thousands of years folks  Someone with a pink rainbow popped up in the last 5 seconds and told us the truth. Lets drop everything we know and follow the pink rainbow.
    How could we have been so blinded? What else does the pink rainbow know that we dont know yet?
    Tell Us Oh Great Pink Rainbow!! I humbly beseech theeee

    • PJRodman

      3d81 Right…every culture throughout history missed the rainbow…thus forcing incredible bigotry on the followers of the Pink Rainbow….and their barnyard animals….the Prophets have preserved the Rainbow.

  • MatthewFivethruseven

    The animals testify against same sex immorality.  Scripture describes the sin as people who “abuse themselves with mankind”, and it is frequently referred to as an “abomination”.  It is interesting that, according to scripture, this present earth is “reserved for fire”, and cites ‘Sodom & Gomorrah’ as an example.  Here we are at the end of the slippery slope of indulging the flesh and turning the grace of God into “lasciviousness” (loose wantonness).  People of ‘learning” (so-called) are wondering if it is acceptable for a man to “lie with a man as with a woman”.   Just as scripture says; “they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

    • libertifirst

      MatthewFivethruseven The scripture also refers to drunkards, liars, fornicators, and other things as representing a lifestyle that would dis-inherit a person from the kingdom of God. 
      I often hear people quote scriptures from the old testament and directly relate the significance of it to verses in the new testament, but without considering the significance of the new covenant as it relates to the premise of the two verses.
      For instance: Do we advocate for stoning people to death for adultery? Why not? it is the only response that is clearly stated as to what should be done. That is, unless you consider Jesus saving the adulterer from the law?
      Hmmm. So what changed, and I wonder what happened to that woman after she was let go without any prosecution or execution? It is possible that she was there on the day of Pentecost. She was forgiven much, and therefor has more to be thankful for. 
      Would Jesus have us control other people’s lives to save them? Would He have us use the force of law against sinners who make poor personal decisions? I think that Christians often miss the mark on this one. I would rather treat sinners equally to all others. I can love a heterosexual adulterer as much as I can love a homosexual. God loves them equally, therefor, so must I. 
      Do people feel loved or hated when we condemn their lifestyle publicly, and enshrine it in our laws concerning health insurance and taxes? I don’t feel loved knowing that a Muslim would just as quickly chop off my head than treat me with respect as an individual. If government can decide these things based on a particular religious belief, then we had better hope that they choose Christianity. 
      Why do we gibe government this power?

      • CalMichFan

        libertifirst MatthewFivethruseven Get a life.

      • MatthewFivethruseven

        libertifirst MatthewFivethruseven  Just to be clear, the unrepentant homosexuals will not be in Hell alone, they will be joined by adulterers, fornicators, liars, etc.,. I was simply pointing out that the sin of homosexuality is contrary to nature intself.
        The theocracy that existed between God and the Jewish people has ended with the revelation of Jesus. He has authorized civil magistrates for the punishment of evildoers. The original law given to Noah, only allowed the taking of life for the crime of murdering the innocent. This has never been revoked in scripture, and would be under the authority of civil gov. to enforce. This of course would not preclude the murderer from finding true salvation, though the incidents must be rare.

        • libertifirst

          MatthewFivethruseven libertifirst I totally agree, though we must consider that repentance is a daily thing. It is an unrepentant lifestyle that condemns us because we reject the Holy Spirit in it. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. 
          There is no doubt that gays who seek to marry are unrepentant, and reject the Holy Spirit daily. Repentance requires an effort to stop sinning. 
          I believe that death of the body is a righteous punishment for certain crimes, and would include rape, murder, incest, etc. All of these crimes include one common factor, and that is that they physically harm another person. I also believe in prosecuting others for property damage. If you destroy my car, you should pay for it. If you steel my things, you should replace them, or do jail time. 
          If we give government the right to regulate social behavior, then we are opening the door for them to regulate religious behavior. 
          We have to protect all religious activity short of that which directly harms others or their property, because if we do not, then we must be prepared to give up our religious liberty. 
          Two gay people can claim that they religion allows gay marriage. Should government be able to deny them their chosen religious practice? If government can do that, then there is no religious protection in the law. 
          Get government out of marriage. That is the answer.

        • MatthewFivethruseven

          libertifirst MatthewFivethruseven
          First; repentance is only biblical if the sin is forsaken. Scripture distinguishes between a Godly sorrow, and a ‘worldly sorrow’, the latter brings death. The saints are described as “walking after the spirit and not after the flesh”, which necessarily means that they are not sinning, but are continuing to “grow in grace, and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The concept of a genuine follower of Jesus sinning in some form (thought, word, or deed) on a daily basis, is a contrivance of man, not the teaching of scripture.

        • MatthewFivethruseven

          libertifirst MatthewFivethruseven With regard to the civil law, I don’t see any provision in scripture to execute a human being, except for the crime of murder.  That does not mean that the civil law should not enforce proper penalties and appropriate restitution.  Romans states that they are “Gods minister” for the punishment of evildoers.  The civil authority can only enforce the outward acts, not the heart like God does.

        • MatthewFivethruseven

          libertifirst MatthewFivethruseven Regarding marriage, you are partly correct.  God alone holds the authority over marriage, and the defitinition of the nature of marriage.  God forbids adultery, and the civil law should recognize the true standard of marriage, just like they do the other 2nd table commandments.  The families should be the primary principals in a covenant marriage, and the state should then record that lawful marriage after the fact.  By the same principle, the state should refuse to license adultery, or otherwise, they falsely assume to be the supreme authority over marriage by implication.

  • 3d81

    Fulton Sheen says it best as always.
    “What makes a pencil bad? Well, here is a pencil. This is a good pencil because it does what it was made to do. It writes. Is it a good can opener? It certainly is not!
    Suppose I use the pencil as a can opener? What happens? First of all, I do not open the can. Second, I destroy the pencil.
    Now if I decide to do certain things with my body which I ought not to do, I do not attain the purpose for which I was created. For example, becoming an alcoholic does not make me happy. I destroy myself just as I destroyed the pencil in using it to open a can.
    When I disobey God, I do not make myself very happy on the inside, and I certainly destroy the peace of soul that I ought to have.”

    • libertifirst

      3d81 I like it. Although he is referring to a personal choice, and not a public legal issue.

  • Laurel A

    Rush did too.

    • StevenValdez

      Laurel A Do what?

      • Laurel A

        StevenValdez Laurel A Ripped on O’Reilly. I also recall O’Reilly in the past advocating against same sex marriage.

        • PhillyCon

          Laurel A StevenValdez Oh great!  I read your comment to mean that Rush ripped on “Bible thumpers.”  Thanks for clarifying.  It would be a collosal disappointment of epic proportions to “lose Rush.”

  • njmom

    Both Megyn and Bill are Catholic and as one also I am appalled to have both dismiss gay marriage so lightly. I can tell you the Lord does not dismiss the subject! I hope the new pope starts calling out these so called Catholics publicly.

    • palintologist

      njmom How hypocritical as Megyn was discussing her “Nana” going no where without her rosary during the coverage of the new pope.
      O’Really’s divorce news — he’s trying to have the local diocese excommunicate her! — really makes him a sitting duck for his Bible smear antics.

    • stage9

      njmom They are BINO’s.  Believers in name only.

  • KarlRogue

    News flash:  Bill O’Blohard is a charlatan and a horse’s butt.
    “folks” who buy his schtick deserve what they get

  • Laurel A

    It’s time to dump Fox news if you haven’t already.

  • http://hehasfailed.wordpress.com/ He_Has_Failed

    So, the argument now is that gay marriage should be allowed because defenders of traditional marriage might not be directly harmed?  Uh, really?
    Kind of like saying English is the language of America but no one is ‘harmed’ by someone speaking Spanish, right?  Wrong.  Look where we are at now.  Overrun with illegals, printing books and literature in 50 different languages.   California requiring interpreters at medical offices raising expenses greatly.  Turns out there really is serious harm when it didn’t seem like it at first.

    • libertifirst

      He_Has_Failed English being the official language is a practical issue, not a moral one. Spanish is not the language of the devil. Two men getting married does not harm me, or my children who I raised to understand biblical morality. 
      We conservatives cry about people taking responsibility for their own lives and leaving us alone, but they cry about what two men or two women do because it is somehow going to threaten them or their future somehow. The proliferation of homosexual behavior is not good within a society, but how does government defining marriage and excluding one group in society from the economic favoritism that marriage brings in this social legal system drop the rate of homosexuality? 
      This supposed solution to a societal problem is paramount to taking everyone’s guns because someone got shot. It is legally wrong, and solves nothing. In fact it creates a whole new set of problems, because now you have the people remaining divided, because one party favors one group, and the other favors the other, and both sides are legitimizing the States authority over this personal issue.

      • c4pfan

        libertifirst He_Has_Failed It’s not a personal issue.

        • libertifirst

          c4pfan libertifirst He_Has_Failed If you claim that this is a religious issue, then our law states that it is a personal issue. If you claim that marriage should be defined as between a man and woman for the sake of biblical morality, then you make it a religious issue, and therefor, legally, a personal one. Otherwise you would be advocating for a theocracy to replace our constitutional republic.

        • libertifirst

          I hate to say it, but the left has us over a legal barrel on this one, and we are walking right into their trap on this one. We are setting ourselves up for failure. I am trying to provide a way out, and an alternative option that could bring us to a point of having a winning position.

  • c4pfan

    We all know that Bill voted for Obama.

  • Nukeman

    I often wondered if I was missing something by my disgust lately with Bill O’Reilly. I appreciate the fact that someone as great as Levin would think the same way. Thank you, Mark.
    You just can’t go wrong with King James in one hand and Samuel Colt in the other. :)

    • PVG

      Nukeman ……..while listening to Levin!

    • froggy19510

      Nukeman Speaking of KJV. If it was good for Paul and Silas it’s good enough for me. 8)

  • 1endtimes2020

    I don’t mind being a Bible Thumper.  It kinda has a nice sound to it.

    • stage9

      1endtimes2020 Your comment reminds me of that song by the Christian pop group DC Talk called “Jesus Freak”.

      lol! the 90’s were great!

  • hongryhawg

    O’Reilly has turned into such a sham, I wouldn’t surprised if msnbc or cnn invited him to come on down. He is what their heads used to be, left pantomiming middle. He’s an arrogant, thinks he knows it all shill for the pretender using his soapbox to promote his ghost-written books.

    • harryojam

      hongryhawg I agree.  He should take Shepard Smith with him.  They both voted for Obama.

  • Pancake3

    BO, the Levittown Liberal in a black suit.  And has the cojones to call himself a conservative.  More like Bloomberg, methinks.

  • BillSullivan

    There is an argument concerning same sex marriage that, I guess, no one dares to make in front of the Supreme Court of these United States. It is logical and bring into the debate concerns that we all should address for the sake of freedom. It also shows a way that this could be done that might satisify some who makes claims of same sex couples that many believe makes some sense. Check it out and let me know what you think.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-and-secular-humanism

    • libertifirst

      BillSullivan Christian conservatives are handing these people a public victory by advocating for the State to determine what marriage is, because the State has a duty to dispense justice equally. If Christians would just advocate for the State to get out of marriage altogether, gays wouldn’t have the public platform to display their inevitable victory in front of the world, and for all to see.

      • CarolynDixon

        libertifirst BillSullivan why must we accept their immoral behavior? why must we be punished for what gays do in the bedroom?

        • libertifirst

          CarolynDixon libertifirst BillSullivan Gay people getting legal marital status does not effect my marriage covenant. If it did, then it would be entirely my fault.

  • libertifirst

    If O’Reilly use the term “bible thumper” in a derogatory way, as if to insult people, then it was probably inappropriate. I don’t mind being called a bible thumper, unless it is referring to people who want to force the bible on others. 
    If Bill was referring to those who would use the bible to force others to bend to their will, then I would agree with Bill. I don’t believe that Christians have the right to to force their beliefs on anyone. If government uses marriage status to reward or punish groups of people, then they have no right to differentiate between one person and another, or one couple or another. It is called equal justice under the law.
    Should we allow government to tax Christians more than Muslims? They could argue that Christians make more money and since there are more Christians in America using the infrastructure, they should pay higher taxes. If government doesn’t have the right to do this, then they don’t have the right to give tax breaks to married couples and exclude anyone from marriage. 
    Yes, it is moral to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but by allowing government to manipulate society through the law concerning personal decisions, they are “morally” required to dispense justice pertaining to those laws equally. 
    Is God’s justice unequal? Does he set a different standard for one sinner verses another? If we want to be morally exclusive with the law, then Christians are the only ones who should be allowed to marry. What does the heathen care about God’s definition of marriage? Are Christians prepared to advocate for that? The heathen is not forgiven, just as those who practice homosexuality. 
    Christians conservatives who advocate for a federal definition of marriage for legal purposes do not have the high ground on this issue, or the better legal and moral argument, which makes Bill less of a jerk concerning this issue. Maybe “bible thumpers” is an adequate and appropriate term. 
    Conservative Christians are advocating for special rights for those who believe what the bible says on marriage. It is that simple, yet they complain that gays want special rights when the fact of the matter is that they simply want equal rights. I haven’t heard anyone say that they wanted rights that go beyond what everyone else has concerning this issue.
    There is a simple solution to this issue, but the right wants the same tyranny that the left wants, so it will never happen.

    • c4pfan

      libertifirst  You make no sense.  Gay marriage is not a right.

      • libertifirst

        c4pfan libertifirst If government makes that determination, then government can just as well declare that heterosexuals don’t have the right to marry. It is a matter of what authority we allow the government to have, and if we give them the authority, they we have to accept their use of it, or take the authority away from them. Which would you prefer: Have government get out of marriage altogether due to the fact that the bill of rights disallows them the authority, or give them the authority and hope that they do what we like with it?

      • libertifirst

        Why is it not a right? Does God disallow unsaved sinners to marry?

        • SheilaRider

          libertifirst WHERE  does it stop? We know homosexuality is immoral. as is incest, bestiality, polygamy etc. Do we allow these types of relationships to claim marriage? No immoral is immoral. Wrong is wrong. I have no objection to a civil union but not marriage. Marriage is a creation of God as a Holy union between a man and a woman. So, we have to ask if they don’t believe in God’s law why would they want a religious union? Because they want us to accept their lifestyle as right. God said plainly a marriage is only for one man and one woman and they are joined together to become one in HOLY matrimony. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage said to be a right or even mentioned. Up until a hundred years ago all marriages were performed by preachers and’or traveling pastors then government started to demand you buy a license to marry other than taxation marriage is the sole property of religion and has been since God created the first man and woman.The supreme court cannot overthrow a vote by the people. To answer your last question, God would never allow a relationship he deemed as an abomination to become a Holy union. Sorry but you are wrong. Gays need to create their own word for their union and stop invading the church for acceptance that will never come.

        • CarolynDixon

          libertifirst why is what one does in their bedroom a right?

        • The Sentinel

          libertifirst 
          You’ve been making great sense for years… but I don’t follow you on this.
          Sadly, the government shouldn’t have been involved in this – let alone the courts. They voted in California and voted against gay marriage… it should have ended there.
          God HATES sin but loves the sinner… His point is clear on this – homosexuality is an abomination.

        • The Sentinel

          SheilaRider libertifirst 
          Well said SheilaRider.

        • libertifirst

          SheilaRider libertifirst Not all states have civil union status that is legally equal with marriage. Social Security extends benefits to the spouses of payees base on their “marriage” status. 
          Who validates marriage? Does government legitimize it, or does God? I personally believe that the churches are wrong to require two people to have a license before they will marry them. When they do this, they are saying that the government is equal to God. The marriage covenant is between three persons, and the government is not one of them. It is God, man, and woman. 
          Why do we allow government to manipulate us based on their approval or disapproval of a term or private union or covenant? It is wrong for Christians to recognize the State as a validating entity of marriage. Why then would we ask them to define it, and then allow them to manipulate society with it? 
          Government is inherently evil, as is the nature of man.

        • libertifirst

          CarolynDixon libertifirst

        • libertifirst

          Because if government can regulate your bedroom activity, then you don’t have liberty. Would people want government telling them which sex positions are legal, for moral reasons? How would they enforce it? How many other rights would they infringe upon to enforce it?

        • libertifirst

          The Sentinel  libertifirst We are forced to deal with this because our government has become one that best represents a socialist society, rather than a free society. In a free society, what people do on their own property and in their homes is of no consequence to others, but in a socialist society government rewards and punishes people for how they live their personal lives. 
          I suppose that it is just something that we have to deal with, but I will always argue for freedom and equal justice under the law in an attempt to retain what liberty I have left.

    • 1endtimes2020

      libertifirst   I have never heard any Christian try to force their beliefs on anyone.  Ever.  That doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to express our views, or God’s will that we tell—-TELL–others the Good Nes—that He died for our sins, because we were not worthy enough to die for them ourselves, or do enough good deeds, or be ‘nice people’.  Sin is a very grave issue with God.  Heaven is Pure,  No sin can enter there.  It takes God to erase them from memory.  We also have the right to defend our faith, as I am doing right now.  But you are perfectly in your right to choose the life you want to live.  Tell me something;  with Islam and Muslims shoving their ‘convert or die’ routine on the world, why are you concerned about Christianity?  We are the ones who developed this country, and we have the first rights to fight for it. Focus on the real enemy in our midst… they are the homosexual activists, the muslims and the secular media, and the left wing atheist, communst professors in our schools and universities, the unions, the AntiChristCivil Union and the like.  You should get down on your knees and be thankful there are Christians willing to fight for the right, to save your neck.   If you want to know about Christianity, don’t guess, or form an opinion.  Instead read the Bible.  There’s a tremendous amount of wisdom there.  And why not?  It’s the Word of God!!!  You call yourself Liberty First.  Well, Christianity brought you the opportunity to have your liberty.

      • libertifirst

        1endtimes2020 libertifirst I am a Christian, and I agree with most of what you said. I understand that this country was founded on Christian Principles. Principles are one thing, and the law is another. Though our principles can reflect out of our law, our supreme law is not based on a particular religious law. 
        The founders set it up this way to protect our supreme law and help protect our principles. If they were to give government the authority over this issue, then they would have been seeking to destroy our liberty, and therefor our founding Christian principles. Christianity thrives in a free country, because it is t he truth, and when people are not inhibited by tyrants in government, they choose God. 
        You would choose to give government the power to define marriage, then punish or reward people based on how they define it. The founders did not put the words”Holy Bible”, “Christianity”, or even Islam in the law. They did not do this because they would have to give up their constitutional republic for a socialist theocracy. 
        Due to the fact that the founders understood what a theocratic dictatorship is all about, they decided to avoid it. You cannot quote the bible as your basis of reasoning for law. That is why one of the founders is quoted as saying that the constitution will only work for a moral society. If we want a moral society, does that mean that we can use the law to force it? 
        Why do we prosecute and imprison criminals? Obviously, they broke the law.  Why does the law exist? Obviously it is to restrain evil within society so that people can be free. Does it makes sense that we would tell others that we are not going to allow them to be as free as us, then tell them that it is because our God hates their lifestyle? That makes about as much sense as those people who hold up signs saying “God hates you”.

        • CarolynDixon

          libertifirst 1endtimes2020 you are not a christian if you do not believe in or adhere to the teachings set before us in God’s word.  Do you have a head or heart relationship with Jesus Christ?  Easter is upon us – the time we celebrate His resurrection from His cruel and unjust death upon that cross.  Were you one of the ones who spit in His face and say the gay lifestyle was just?

        • 1endtimes2020

          libertifirst 1endtimes2020   The founders of the constitution were Christians.  They said government would not create its own religion.  I agree with that.  So, today, I don’t want a few people of the supreme court to force a law against the teachings of God.  They are to enforce laws passed by elected representatives of the people, but not laws by elected reps that would create a government ‘religion’.  The founders would not sanction a court, or a government to pass sinful laws, which is what sodomy is.

        • 1endtimes2020

          CarolynDixon libertifirst 1endtimes2020   You must be answering someone else’s comments, because I have not written anything that would say the gay lifestyle was just.  I don’t even use the word ‘gay’ to refer to their homosexual sodomy lifestyle.  I do say sodomy is a sin, and not many others say the same.  So, I don’t know where you get your ideas about me.

        • libertifirst

          CarolynDixon libertifirst 1endtimes2020 I absolutely believe that homosexuality is a sin. Why is it that Christians feel the need to make one sin worse than another? All sin is against God, and God sees it all as equally damaging to our soul. 
          God says that someone living a lifestyle of being a drunkard will not inherit the kingdom of God. Does that mean that we should tax drunkards differently than everyone else, or restrict them from federal and state benefits? 
          If you answered yes, then you are not a hypocrite.

        • libertifirst

          1endtimes2020 libertifirst It is true that the founders would not legalize sodomy. They were more directly connected to God’s law in creating ours. Yet they did not set up a system of government, or a supreme law that guaranteed morality. They knew that this was impossible, because morality comes from the heart, and not from the law. God proved this through the Jews, and through Jesus showing us the right way of correcting sinful behavior. 
          The founders also knew that certain natural rights had to be enshrined in the supreme law in order to allow their beliefs to survive, and that meant not forcing their beliefs on anyone, and making sure that government could not be a party to it.
          Our society has failed in maintaining the rule of law, and, subsequently, we have lost many freedoms. When we seek to cause government to pick and choose who gets equal treatment based on social issues, we deny some those very rights that we seek to retain, but fail to realize that we are creating a system that will eventually take away our cherished rights. 
          If government is going to define marriage, then they have to do it equally for all people, or we lose more ground on retaining our liberty, and we allow them to break our supreme law. When our government becomes lawless, as they have, tyranny will abound. 
          I don’t like being forced to support the rights of gay people, but it is our complicity with breaking the rule of law that has brought me to doing so.

        • libertifirst

          1endtimes2020 CarolynDixon libertifirst Sometimes I wonder if these things post at all, let alone in the right spot.

    • The Sentinel

      libertifirst 
      Sorry, you’re all over the board on this posting.
      Christians don’t “force” the Bible or God on anyone. We may often make the mistake of holding the unsaved to Biblical principles and standards – which is wrong because they are lost and don’t strive to live to God’s standards or to please Him – but God affects people’s lives… Christians just try to help a lost world see God’s love and mercy and grace.
      The rest of your comments seem to mix Libertarian views with conservatives or Christian ones.
      I’m not going to debate you… you seem to have your mind made up as do I. But freedom isn’t free… open this Pandora’s box of gay marriage and all hell will break loose. Read up on Sodom and it’s sister city. God doesn’t take kindly to that which he calls an abomination.

      • libertifirst

        The Sentinel  libertifirst Our society has gone beyond the point of no return on the issue of accepting immoral behavior. Both the left and the right advocate for extremely immoral behavior, both in our country, and around the world. Our supposed elected officials commit major moral crimes as a way of doing business, and every single day. Satan has infiltrated our institutions and is literally controlling the agendas. We are in the last days, and our time is short on this earth. 
        Is now the time to tighten the noose on sinners, or is now the time to treat everybody equally and simply hold to our values so that unforgiven sinners might be forgiven through seeing us as a reflection of Jesus. Salt, and light. Salt, and light.

        • The Sentinel

          libertifirst The Sentinel  
          I agree with just about everything you just said… but I love the sinner, not the sin. I have no intention of “tightening the noose on sinners”. And you are so right about salt and light. Great point.

        • libertifirst

          The Sentinel  libertifirst I appreciate your non-combative attitude. There really isn’t much we can do about any of this, so this simply amounts to theorizing. God is in control, and He told us how it will all go down. We have to just do the best that we know how, and prayerfully with His help.

  • notsofastthere

    I remember this story from 2006. Is this where we are headed? Equal rights or insanity?
    In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world’s first person to “marry” a dolphin.
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html

  • c4pfan

    The Conservatives knew that the Left is just going to go after religious institutions.  Look at the suits they are bringing already to photographers, etc.

  • applepie101

    The word of the day is ‘Pompous’.

    • nibblesyble

      applepie101 ahahahaha..good one!

    • The Sentinel

      applepie101 
      Excellent! :)

  • FSM_47

    Guess he is a Former Catholic….another one who could be denied Catholic Communion

  • libertifirst

    First: Consider this schenrio:
    There is a single woman with two children who works two jobs to pay her taxes as basic bills. The Wall St Journal, and all the major networks report that a school required vaccine can cause neurological damage in 40% of the children who get it. The woman is required to educate her children to the government’s mandated standard. She cannot afford a private school, and does not have the time to home school. She doesn’t want her child to get the vaccine, but she can”t send them to school without it. 
    She is forced to choose possible life long brain damage to her children, or losing her children, and having them get the shots anyway. If she doesn’t educate her children, CPS will take them away from her, then vaccinate them and put them in a foster home that she if forced to help pay for. If she refuses to comply with handing her children over, a gun shows up to her door, and she will still lose her children, and they will get the shot. Government hasn’t gotten around to declaring this vaccine exempt yet.

    Is it right that she does not have the ability to decide what is best for her children, and is “forced” to comply? 
    This woman does have a way out. The only way out is to sign a waiver form, and there is only one reason that you can claim to be exempt. The only exemption is to claim religious freedom. This is how it is in my state. Do we want to give up that right? If we do, then there is no limit to tyranny. Obama Care doesn’t exempt anything based on religious reasons. 
    Second: Consider this:
    If the federal government has no law regulating our personal choices, then the people of a state that are being denied their rights by the states have a neutral entity to go to for redress of grievance in the federal system. The two are supposed to remain separate, and not be involved in such things as not to have a conflict of interest, and to be able to properly judge a law. 
    The federal government has no authority on this issue. “Congress shall make no law”. They shall make no law that respects a religion. How therefor can government base a law on religions grounds? If they can, then you have just lost your religious liberty. 
    If 100% of the people agreed on everything equally, then a theocracy or a democracy could work. The founders knew that this was a silly thought to entertain. Due to their mistrust and even loathing of government, they chose to have a supreme law that inverted the normal flow of power, and gave the individual more authority than any government on certain things. .Marriage falls into the category of “certain things covered”. 
    Why would we give government the power to exclude any “individual” the right to choose concerning “certain things covered”. If we do that, then we should not have a problem with government mandates on health care, social security, the food we eat, the cars we drive, or any other personal choice? 
    If government has the authority to pick and choose who is eligible for marriage, then they have the authority to decide who is eligible for their fourth amendment rights. And here we are. We now have a government who claims to be able to kill American citizens without gibing them due process. We can legally be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. 
    Will we give up our rights for the sake of taking other people’s rights away?

    • TheRedWriter

      libertifirst I can’t see how the federal government has any business banning or legalizing homosexual marriage.

      • SheilaRider

        TheRedWriter libertifirst  Gays should have advocated for a Civil Union that gave them the rights of marriage but wasn’t called marriage they would have gotten a great deal farther and a lot more support. But if they force the people of this country to accept their unions as marriage they will only be hurting themselves.

        • DarrellGriffin

          SheilaRider TheRedWriter libertifirst For over 3 decades gays have promoted themselves as having an “alternate” lifestyle.
          They can have an “alternate” definition.

        • 1endtimes2020

          SheilaRider TheRedWriter libertifirst

      • 1endtimes2020

        TheRedWriter libertifirst   Once a government gives credibility to an issue, it is the beginning of a slippery slope of increased demands.  The Social Good is the reason we have laws in the first place.  Legalizing wrongs is as bad as no laws at all.

      • libertifirst

        TheRedWriter libertifirst I don’t see how they have any right to be involved in marriage at all.

    • 1endtimes2020

      libertifirst   There is more than the federal government involved.  State governments handle the examples you provide.    Governments must pass laws for the overall social good of the country.  The examples you provide are good ones, and your own representatives should be receiving them, not just posting on TRS.  You can also start a petition for others to sign, and send that petition to your government reps, and the department that deals with your issues.

      • libertifirst

        1endtimes2020 libertifirst I don’t think that our laws should be based on the social good of society. That is defined as socialism, and socialism doesn’t represent liberty, and can seek to inhibit my free exercise of religion and many other things. I would rather stick with keeping people free, and let society make it’s own path. If Christian principles dominate, then great, but if they don’t, then we were probably headed there anyway. Christianity does much better in a free society. We wouldn’t be the first country to fall due to being a socialist republic.

  • Dr. Strangelove

    O’Reilly is really becoming tiresome.  A few years back he “opined” that gays were born that way as if there was no choice involved in a person who adopts that lifestyle. He has become one of those experts on nothing with opinions on everything.

  • SamHII

    I gave up on Fox when they started shilling for Romney last election. I gave up on O’Reilly when I heard him say that Christianity was not a religion, but was just a philosophy, a way of thinking. Glenn Beck was already long gone at that point. There was no longer any reason for me to keep paying for cable tv so I “cut the cord” and went Netflix. The family has never regretted it since.

    • CarolynDixon

      SamHII I stopped watching o’relly too and now have quit watching hannity.  they are in the toilet for karl rove.

      • DarrellGriffin

        CarolynDixon SamHII I stopped watching Hannity a while back.
        He isn’t quick on his feet and when he has repeated chances to expose talking points as they happen, he just repeats his talking points over and over. In that way, he’s no different than a liberal.

      • CalMichFan

        CarolynDixon SamHII Bill the Great and Amnesty Sean, what a pair of guys!

      • CalMichFan

        CarolynDixon SamHII Bill the Great and Amnesty Sean, what a pair of guys!

  • DaveMeiers

    Bill you hit the nail on the head, the people that are writing the negative comments are all bleeding heart democrats. They would complain about anything that a good American say’s. I am proud to say, that I support that the Bible reference’s that that marriage is constituted by the union of a man and woman. Keep up the good work Bill!

    • The Sentinel

      DaveMeiers 
      You couldn’t be more wrong.
      If you support the bible, you oppose homosexual lifestyles and unions.
      O’Reilly has a history of moderate stances and he’s been wrong too many times to be taken seriously anymore. He’s part of the problem.

  • JohnJurgens

    Bill O is a Jackanapes. They (Catholics) claim a faith but deny its power over them. They pick and choose their sins. (Pelosi, Biden, and now Bill O) No major religion over the last 6000 years has accepted “Gay” marriage. I’m not a Bible Thumper Bill, I just believe what is written in it. Try trashing Islam (Obama) next time, if you’ve got any guts.

    • The Sentinel

      JohnJurgens 
      Excellent.

    • PhillyCon

      JohnJurgens Not all Catholics are like this i.e. Rick Santorum etc.  You are describing, “Cafeteria Catholics.”

      • CalMichFan

        PhillyCon JohnJurgens They’re not Catholics.  They are not even Christians (as their uncharitable behavior, let alone their moral degeneracy, shows) in the generic sense.
        They would have been excommunicated 100 years ago for heresy, when Pope Leo XIII declared “modernism” (today’s highest virtue) a heresy of moral relativism.  Christian Churches (speaking as a practicing Catholic) have become bloated, wealthy whores.  Time for them to be humbled, and reminded that their REAL purpose is saving souls, not hobnobbing with Barack and Bill Ayers.

        • PhillyCon

          CalMichFan PhillyCon JohnJurgens You just proved my point!  Problem is traditional Catholics, or those that are practicing get lumped in with the Pelosis and Ted Kennedys of the world by some Christians.

        • CalMichFan

          PhillyCon CalMichFan JohnJurgens It’s convenient to lump Catholics into the Pelosi/Kennedy mold because those two contemptible political beasts are leftist authoritarians, the kind of stereotype liberals profess to hate but use constantly to justify condemning anyone who doesn’t go along with their evil ways:  “See!  [Insert favorite lib here] is a practicing Catholic!  S/he’s for abortion/gay marriage/whatever!”  
          Um, no.  That person is not a Catholic, or even a Christian, they are liberal agnostic servants of the Devil.  Institutional Churches are made up of fallible people, who are often greedy, power-hungry scoundrels, and would not dream of condemning their fellow travelers.  Religion is in the heart, not the pews.

        • PhillyCon

          CalMichFan PhillyCon JohnJurgens Can I “borrow” your last two lines?  WELL SAID!

        • JohnJurgens

          PhillyCon CalMichFan JohnJurgens yes

      • CalMichFan

        PhillyCon JohnJurgens They’re not Catholics.  They are not even Christians (as their uncharitable behavior, let alone their moral degeneracy, shows) in the generic sense.
        They would have been excommunicated 100 years ago for heresy, when Pope Leo XIII declared “modernism” (today’s highest virtue) a heresy of moral relativism.  Christian Churches (speaking as a practicing Catholic) have become bloated, wealthy whores.  Time for them to be humbled, and reminded that their REAL purpose is saving souls, not hobnobbing with Barack and Bill Ayers.

  • http://www.navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    “We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else,” says Bill O’Reilly? How about you remember that line whenever you jump on people who have the temerity to disagree with you? We have rights and opinions too, Bill, regardless of what you may think. And those rights and opinions count just as much as yours, let alone gay people. I find it sad how O’Reilly now is using the same tactics that the far left uses, which is that if you object to anything on religious grounds you are now considered a cook. Try selling that idea to a Muslim, Bill. Religion still means something to some people, and to have them denigrated by some talking head on TV is insulting. O’Reilly just lost a viewer here.

  • fireme

    Why I refuse to pay for cable. NetFlix is enough for me. Keep wasting your money on watching the fools like O’Reilly.

  • fireme

    Boycott O’Reilly’s show and books.

  • Matt2Matt

    I’m done with the Karl Rove/Frank Luntz/Marc Lamont Hill channel.

  • TheRedWriter

    Good grief!  Why is everybody so emotional.  It’s as if nobody even heard what he said.  His point is that you have to come up with a better argument than “the Bible says so”; or you will lose this debate.

    • SheilaRider

      TheRedWriter the next thing you know because “they are in love” Father and daughters will marry, the guy down the street will marry his dog, and we will have a marriage of hundreds with Polygamy. Where does it end. Homosexuality as well as incest, bestiality, polygamy etc. are immoral behaviors what’s next pedophiles will be deemed great guys and gals that just love kids and should be allowed to love them any way he wants, after all he’s in love. In case you didn’t get that it was sarcasm. Morality matters.

      • DarrellGriffin

        SheilaRider TheRedWriter http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
        “Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.”
        Abnormal and unnatural isn’t just my definition, it’s the dictionary’s as well.
        Are we to change the meaning of that word as well ? Or any other word that doesn’t fit a degenerating social agenda ?

      • tvlgds

        SheilaRider TheRedWriter  Strangely enough, this is the EXACT stance O’Really took a few years ago – I heard it with my own ears. He has completely flip flopped on the issue.

    • CarolynDixon

      TheRedWriter As as Christian I adhere to the teachings of the Bible and in it God clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to Him.  I do not want God’s wrath over me but people like you, O’Reilly, Obama and those justices surely do want God to pour out His wrath on this nation.  DId God create Adam and Steve to procreate His earth? NO!  He created a man and a woman – a male and a femaile – to reproduce.  I’m tired of my rights as a christian being violated and being forced to pay for and support legislation that goes against my christian beliefs.

      • The Sentinel

        CarolynDixon TheRedWriter 
        Well said.

      • CalMichFan

        CarolynDixonTheRedWriterSomehow, modernist/liberal views always get the “nonjudgmental”
        benefit of the doubt, while traditional views are trashed, let alone tolerated, as they’re considered overly
        dogmatic and unfair to impose.
        Funny ol’ double standard, isn’t it?

    • notsofastthere

      TheRedWriter To educate those who are apathetic or undecided, quoting the Bible has no affect on them. They would resonate better if the destructive reality of Gay marriage were brought to their doorstep. This whole argument on the Left about “fairness” is a real disaster, and needs to be addressed.

    • PhillyCon

      TheRedWriter Which may true, and he might have had a point.  The problem is he used Leftist language to get there.  I think that’s what roils many-using Leftist assumptions and language.

    • DonnaCaldwellMoore

      TheRedWriter  another point would be, we are not a theocracy. We don’t base our laws on the Bible, at least not anymore. Our country has become almost completely secular and world views dictate what the population wants their laws to mirror. Under our current structure how many heterosexual marriages do you know that  are actually based on a covenant between the couple and God. That was God’s original plan, but marriages today are “throw away”; when times get tough and partners can’t get along they just divorce and try again.  How is that a covenant? Marriage is thought of as a contract nor a covenant. My point is the US lost it’s ability to hold to Biblical marriage a long time ago.

      • CalMichFan

        DonnaCaldwellMoore TheRedWriter Gracious me, what an advanced thinker you are.  So much superior to the rest of us.  That old-fashioned morality stuff just isn’t operative anymore.  We’re FAR too advanced for that as a civilization.  Let it go, you religious primitives, you say.
        OK.  Sure.  That’s the kind of “advanced, modernist” thinking that’s as old as the hills.  They had that kind of philosophy in ancient Greece and imperial Rome, too.  Just before those two civilizations fell under the weight of their own degeneracy.

  • Sarandipity

    Before  you get all emotional and threatening, try listening to the entire comment and then decide for yourself.  Just because someone else interprets it one way, doesn’t mean it was a) meant that way or b) interpreted correctly.  I chose to use my own values and intelligence to analyze and process information.  When you just read an article written by someone, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right or wrong, but it can very often mean that it’s HIS opinion and you shouldn’t follow it without the full information.  Just sayin’….

  • DarrellGriffin

    1 + 1 = 3.
    I could make a picture or say that all day, it won’t make it true.
    I could have national campaigns to attempt to change that simple equation to add up differently through every method imaginable. It won’t make it true.
    I could sue over and over to make the nation say 1 + 1= 3, and it might work with the right attorneys or judges, but it still wouldn’t be true.
    The only thing I would accomplish is to further degrade the math skills of a society already struggling with math.

  • sDee
  • TruLevinian

    What’s the surprise? He’s a populist turncoat.

  • physicsnut

    Of course, the NY Times says that DOMA is indefensible. Anything to define deviancy down. And all the lib sites are just atwitter that gay marriage has taken over.
    But then – i see that 100 million americans have STDs
    and in one year there were
    14 million new HPV infections
    3 million new Chlamydia infections
    1 million new trichomoniasis infections
    1 million new gonoreah
    1 million new herpes
    3/4 million syphilis
    41000 new HIV
    19000 hepatitis B
    Yeah, well – deviancy has a price – on one’s health.
    But then Leahy is at it again – pushing AMNESTY.
    so now we can add TB and incurable infections from
    superbugs to the list, in addition to banking crises etc
    one could go on and on.

    • 1endtimes2020

      physicsnut   My doctor told me the situation has become much worse in the last 3 years.  The fake rainbow and white daisies can’t hide the facts.  Besides, the distorted rainbow lacks a prominent color.

    • CalMichFan

      physicsnut We don’t discuss such things.  It might hurt somebody’s feelings.
      Anyway, such terrible consequences certainly don’t come from actions.  No, no, no.  It’s an epidemic.  A pandemic!  Coming soon (just like AIDS, remember that?) to monomagamous heterosexuals near you.  Count on it.  Bank on it. Wait for it…crickets.  Hm.
      “AIDS is the only disease in history to come down the road with Civil Rights.”  — George H.W. Bush (who was too morally weak and personally feckless to do something constructive about that terrible fact).

  • TruLevinian

    I love this… Oh, I’m Catholic, but only on MY terms. EARTH TO BILL O. Pick up a catechism sometime Billy. In fact, go pick up a Quran and see how the Muslims view this issue. My guess is it’s dealth with using rocks and ropes. Christians pray for these people while Muslims kill. It’s always the Christians that are the problem simply becasue Christ is the only truth and therefore the only one on the block worth trashing.

  • BillSullivan

    There is some truth in what you say. However, I suppose the citizens have an interest in not allowing people too young to marry; folk to marry their horses and even Muslims marrying 100 women. So, I don’t see the wisdom of NO RULES, necessarily being good, no more than I would see everyone decide on their own what is rape and robbery. We would get a chaotic society. I don’t think Liberty at any cost means allowing everyone to do whatever they want. There must be limits or it will jepardize the freedom of others and the order of society itself.

  • IvanCardona

    They could leapfrog over scripture and twist it all the want but the gay lifestyle is condemned in the Bible. that does not mean we don’t respect and love them as fellow children of God[wayward children] but we don’t compromise on the principles of God’s word. Even from a secular standpoint, the christian position has been defended.

    • CalMichFan

      IvanCardonaA straight man who steps out on his wife is considered a scoundrel; a straight man who has has hundreds of sex partners is considered either unspeakably wicked or mentally ill.
      On the other hand, a gay man who steps out on his longtime “partner” or who has hundreds of sex partners is simply “living the gay lifestyle.”
      Degenerate double standards cannot stand, no matter how hard the perverts who want them, or abet them, may try.  It is against nature, and it will fail.

  • IvanCardona

    Some  may say: ‘should be execute them as ancient Isreai did under the Law? No, because that was a theocracy under the Law of Moses. As christians we leave such matters to God.

  • BillSullivan

    The case against homosexual marriage is a lot stronger logically than people generally make. One of the reasons is because intelligent people have been convinced that the only valid way of looking at the world for a law making purpose is from a secular humanist way. It has to do with the Constitution, rights and where they come from. It also makes clear the danger of changing the concept of all rights comes from God, to it ACTIUALLY comes from man. It shows that where this has been done conflicts have developed with the rights of others. It also shows that it would mean that the courts, if they create new rights by FIAT, will have chosen a RELIGION to forst upon the people.  I guess, no one dares to make this easy case in front of the Supreme Court of these United States. It is logical and brings into the debate concerns that we all should address for the sake of freedom. It also shows a way that this could be done that might satisify some who makes claims for same sex couples that many believe makes some sense. Check it out and let me know what you think.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-and-secular-humanism

  • DocBarry1

    I agree with Mark – what he said really shows how he views Conservatives and now it makes sense how he treated Gov Palin and Tea Party – he is so full of himself – He is number one is only because the competition is so weak   – his latest comment shows his true feelings and color

  • http://hehasfailed.wordpress.com/ He_Has_Failed

    I didn’t say Spanish was ‘the language of the Devil’, I just used it as an example of how something seemingly innocuous can have unintended consequences.  I 100% support Spanish people coming here legally and living as they see fit.  But don’t expect me to speak Spanish or print signs in Spanish or provide Spanish interpreters and special ballots, anchor-baby status and a long list of other abominations.
    The problem with the marriage thing is that is the wrong solution for an ill-defined problem.  Marriage was defined by God and nature long ago.  If gays want to achieve a similar effect of marriage, that can be done through civil unions and tax law reforms but not by the destruction of marriage and then religion, which I think is one of the primary goals of this political movement.  To say gays are excluded from getting married is false.  They possess this right today.  Just not to someone of the same sex.  People will want to marry their dogs and who are we to deny them?  But what happens when the estates are left to the dog and the children don’t get inheritance?  That will happen in this twist, and the possibilities are endless.
    There also has been no real public debate on the issues, besides the political wars going on in the States to pass and overturn it.  Every time it has been voted on the people have said ‘no’.  Now, they want the top court to just wave a wand in the face of that?  Liberals love democracy when it goes their way.

    • CalMichFan

      He_Has_Failed One traditional-family/marriage activist said (very accurately) several years before the Gay “Marriage” stuff started that courts are “like a candy store for the gay lobby.  They can’t win on ballots, so they go to court and get whatever they want.”
      And that, along with moral blindness amounting to willful succoring of evil by our political and religious so-called “leaders”, I think sums up why we’re here:  treachery, betrayal, and a complete absence of decency.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    BillO who?

  • CalMichFan

    Perhaps America has become too prosperous for its own good.  A century ago, Bill and Megyn would have been considered useless cranks with perverted ideas and no discernible talent except charismatic talking. They would have been shunned as “eccentrics” and unless they formed a profitable religion or wildly successful occult business (fortune telling, seances, etc.) would have frozen or starved to death in those more enlightened days.
    Billy O is a pompous, lying, bloviating self-important charlatan, a nasty old curmudgeon who has morphed into a true-blue leftist.  
    As for his religion (or lack thereof), the leaders of his (and my) Church are applauding gays and standing idly aside in the gay marriage fracas.
    Come to that, so are virtually all religious leaders.  Laying low to protect their money and privilege, no doubt.  Well, thanks to people like O’Reilly and Obama, America’s prosperity is likely to end soon.  A Cyprus-style money grab, abetted by Obamacare giving the government direct access to everybody’s bank accounts, is only a matter of time.
    Then we’ll see what becomes of these self-important windbags, when there’s no money to pay their million-dollar contracts and their stashed millions become worthless with inflation.

    • CalMichFan

      And just to add…
      God will be heard from, probably in the not-too-distant future.
      I can’t speak for the Almighty.  However, past history (per the Bible) seems to indicate he won’t take it lying down.  Once people start living degenerate lives, and accepting degenerate practices as “normal,” and especially when clerics who purport to represent Him stand by idly, or even cheering, God has responded with horrific fury, erasing their influence utterly from the public scene.
      We’re overdue for a cleansing of the Temple.  There are plenty of just and decent people who are tired and constantly losing, no matter what we do.   Perhaps God will finally start hearing their pleas and clean up the mess He has, for whatever inscrutable reason, permitted to plague the Earth since the 1960s.

  • CalMichFan

    All you self-righteous wankers condmening moral arguments as a basis for not having gay marriage, OK, here’s one:
    Gays cannot reproduce.  If they are “married,” they would have to get a surrogate or enter into an adulterous relationship (the former is considered morally and legally troublesome even by many liberals, and the latter is (except for Bill Clinton) still not socially acceptable).  
    If gays want children, they must adopt or engage in morally-questionable practices.  Gays adopting deprives heterosexual parents, many who have been on waiting lists for years, of a chance to adopt.  (Side note:  I see lots of  gay “couples” with a whole bunch of adopted kids, while hetero couples are often on waiting lists for YEARS just to adopt one.  Why is that?  Just a thought.)

    • TonyMontana4

      CalMichFan Marriage is not only for people who want to reproduce. What about people who don’t want to have children but get married? What about heterosexual people who can’t have children?

      • CalMichFan

        TonyMontana4CalMichFan  The same tired, dishonest, phony argument, that “some heteros can’t have kids.”
        Two men or two women cannot possibly reproduce.  Unless, as I said, they enter into morally-questionable activity.  (I notice you ignored that part.)  A man and a woman, even
        if one or both are “sterile,” still have the potential to reproduce.
        And it happens
        fairly often, particularly when couples have their own baby following an adoption .  (There’s even an old joke:  What do you call a “sterile” man who sleeps around?  Baby-daddy.)
        Another falsehood:  “Gays marrying is like old heteros marrying.”  NO.  It is NOT. Old people are still capable of the procreative act, even if it yields nothing.  Two gays are just committing sodomy. 

        Idle thought:  all those libs who love to trash Mormons for polygamy are now pushing the functional equivalent thereof, an alternative definition of marriage, for gays, and pillorying anyone who disagrees.  That alone disqualifies social liberals like you from having any credibility whatsoever.

  • GetWhatYouPayFor

    Uh Oh! Sounds like Billy Bold an’ Fresh isn’t doing to well paying to have his ex-wife excommunicated from the Church. He might otherwise explain why it is necessary to call these legal civil unions….MARRIAGE. It is primarily to smear and marginalize religion of any type.

    • CalMichFan

      GetWhatYouPayFor Must be frustrating.  After all, my understanding is that Billy O is God’s personally-appointed right-hand-man, to be the one “Who’s Looking Out for YOU,” in line for the Top Job just as soon as he can get the old guy to get out of the way.

  • IvanCardona

    Plenty of professed Christians are religious ignoramuses who don’t have the ability to defend their faith so they fall prey to the liberal mentality in schools and collages as well as the media. Bill O’ Reilly, the world’s greatest authority[ the Professor Irving Corey of Fox] is one of those misinforming the ignorant masses with his ‘this is allegorical’ opinion on Old Testament accounts.

  • MatthewFivethruseven

    God does not love everyone the same. The love for the human race, in the plan of redemption, is available to all, but only a “few” will benefit from that love. God loves His saints with the indwelling of His Holy Spirit, and this love the wicked have not. God “hates all workers of iniquity”, not with a fleshly hatred, but a perfect one. Jesus and His apostles commanded all men everywhere to “repent (confess and forsake all sin), and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.” Continuing in any sin is proof that one is “covering” their sin, and they will not prosper of find mercy. There is great darkness and delusion today. Adultery and fornication are no longer shameful, which is a sure sign of approaching judgment.

  • MatthewFivethruseven

    The
    apostles are unequivocal;
    Whosoever
    committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the
    law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no
    sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him,
    neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth
    righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is
    of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the
    Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
    Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him:
    and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are
    manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is
    not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1Jn 3:4-10)

  • BillSullivan

    Libertifirst, you are
    a thinker. I like that.
    Here is a problem with your reasoning’s. If the founders had allowed whim, mood
    and just human desire to be the foundations of the Constitution, then you could
    use your formula to end up with a law that allows bestiality oe marriage
    between a woman and her son. Or a muslim or other person to end up with 200
    wives or something. There is simply no way to leave out , revelation, spiritual
    law of better put God and not arrive into confusion.
    Even my thought of government
    getting totally out of marriage, could not be done totally or we would end up all sorts of marriage and the court cases that
    comes from these types of (contractual) agreements. We would still end up
    putting limits on age, number, interspecies and other types, solely on moral
    grounds. We would still have to deal with the fact that in our system how those
    limits were set and still be based up on a fact they are God given. Some of
    these possibly would conflict with the rights of others like, in Canada, where a
    preacher has been accused of a hate crime for preaching the Bible about
    homosexual. The same would come about about bestiality or child marriage. You
    would have also decided religion, since the Supreme Court back in 1961 decided
    that secular humanism is a religion.
    Bill Sullivan

  • BillSullivan

    PART 2
    The founders again were brilliant men. In fact it has been said that their average education would be grade 17 nowadays compares to grade 10 of our Federal legislators today. This is how they solved this dilemma; the word “NATURE’S GOD.” By doing so they in one fell swoop, made all knowledge useful in establishing law but neither the secular nor some potentially misinterpreted, revealed spiritual knowledge to be the foundation. How so?Again by using the word “Nature’s God”, “Meaning that which can be see n and derived from nature and therefore of science.
    We are making a potentially grave error if we remove any of these foundations. This foundation does not pick gods because presupposes that the true God will agree with his creation and therefore science. Any supposed rights that cannot stand on these foundations WILL cause the types of problems we both have mentioned. Unfortunately we all have been miss educated into thinking that the basis for morality (revelation) must not be included nor considered in the formulation of thought about law. And bad Law then becomes the TEACHER, NORMALIZER and basis of Punishment of it’s breaker. Then you get Preachers being persecuted for teaching what their soul CANNOT deviate from. You create a criminal of even the best of men and women.

  • BillSullivan

    PART 2
    That said, I still think we could take government as much out of marriage as possible. Maybe we could make most people happy, without declaring new rights or determining what is righteousness. The law would just be a keeper of record so that they all could legally argue any cases that may come up in court. Not perfect but at least it would not pit people against each other. Well not until someone wants to marry their 13 year old daughter or something.

  • Irislogu

    “WE ” ARE NOT EVERYBODY ELSE.