home
RSS
How Scalia's prophecy became a moral crisis
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that anti-gay marriage laws would fall.
June 27th, 2014
08:20 AM ET

How Scalia's prophecy became a moral crisis

By R. Albert Mohler Jr.special to CNN

(CNN) - One year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, this much is clear: Justice Antonin Scalia is a prophet.

Back in 2003, when the court handed down the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down all criminal statutes against homosexual acts, Scalia declared that the stage was set for the legalization of same-sex unions. That was 2003.

“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as a formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” wrote Scalia.

He was proved to be absolutely prophetic when, just ten years later, the court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional — thus striking down the federal statute defining marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman.

Once again, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, while Scalia handed down a fiery dissent. As before, Scalia was prophetic.

Even though the Court did not rule that same-sex marriage must be legal in all states, it set the stage for that to happen. As Scalia wrote: “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

One year later, it is abundantly evident that we did not have to wait or listen for long.
Almost immediately, challenges to state laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages erupted.

In a staggering series of decisions at the federal and state levels, judges explicitly cited the nullification of DOMA and the central arguments of the Windsor decision in striking down those laws and constitutional amendments.

A year after the death of DOMA, not one major decision has defended any of these statutes or amendments. Kennedy’s opinion has been cited as authoritative in virtually every one of these judicial actions.

This has meant that in a single year, the legalization of same sex marriage has become a reality or received a positive judicial action in states including Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon and a host of other states far from where such unions had previously been recognized.

A year later, it is clear that the Supreme Court remains the central political institution of moral transformation in America.

A year later, it is also clear that the court was riding a vast change in public opinion.

We must also see that the time is almost at hand for that transformation to be made complete, at least in terms of the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

What was not clear a year ago was the velocity of this transformation. Even the architects of the revolution are expressing surprise at the speed of these judicial actions.

By the end of this summer, the Supreme Court will likely need to revisit the question once again, this time responding to the cavalcade of lower court decisions the high court spawned.

There is very good reason to expect a decision mandating same-sex marriage coast-to-coast in the Court’s next term, with a decision to be handed down just a year from now, almost to the day.

Furthermore, the Obama administration has been pushing the agenda vigorously, with the federal government now aligning all agency policies in line with the Windsor decision - even extending to areas the decision was never intended to reach.

Where does that leave committed Christians?

Those of us who believe that human flourishing depends upon the recognition and honoring of marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman see this transformation of marriage into something radically different as a grave threat to human society and human happiness.

We do not argue that these damaging effects on society and its individuals will be immediately apparent, but we are sadly confident that the subversion of marriage will bring devastating effects over time.

In retrospect, we can also see that previous subversions of marriage set the stage for the radical redefinition of marriage in our times.

Our failure to answer the challenge of rising divorce rates was, eventually, fatal to our effort to defend marriage against its redefinition in terms of gender. Some of us saw this danger at the time, but there was no adequate effort to oppose the devastating impact of divorce.

The larger sexual revolution also plays an incalculable role in this transformation. The moral separation of sex and marriage among millions of Americans removed any hope of establishing a lasting consensus on the central importance of marriage and its essence as a monogamous man-woman union.

A year after the death of DOMA, it is also clear that very real threats to religious liberty now loom before us. This is perhaps the inevitable consequence of a moral revolution of this scale.

Will the government now coerce the consciences of churches, religious institutions, schools, colleges, social service agencies, and the like? There is now strong evidence that government at every level will attempt such coercion. Will America abandon religious liberty for the sake of erotic freedom?

Those of us who believe same-sex marriage to be a moral impossibility now face a very daunting challenge — how to live in a society that is moving so rapidly against our moral worldview, even as the society shared that worldview for over 2,000 years.

We face the challenge of finding how to relate to our neighbors and contribute to the common good when we see that very society undermining human flourishing in the name of sexual liberty.

A year after the death of DOMA the listening and the waiting are almost over. The revolution is almost complete. The shoe is dropping fast.

One thing is clear to all – no one was exaggerating when the Windsor decision was declared by both sides to be revolutionary.

We can all agree on that much, just one year after the revolution was declared.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Mohler. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • evangelicals • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Opinion • Religious liberty • Same-sex marriage

soundoff (653 Responses)
  1. Salero21

    The aberrations, corruptions and perversions of this world don't worry me at all. It's when those same aberrations, corruptions and perversions infiltrate the churches, now that's kind of worrisome, but nothing to loose Faith about. It was predicted by the Apostle who unlike Justice Scalia was a true Prophet.

    June 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      You of course mean Saul of Tarsus, the guy you always quote instead of that Evil Occupier from Nazareth, right? Thought as much...

      June 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • Salero21

        Psst... your extreme hypocrisy, and compulsive pathological Lying is showing for the WWW to see.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          But enough about yourself, Sally...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • Doris

        Blablero is probably talking about the sanctimonious, self-righteous chatty cathy Paul. It was alleged that his written word was blessed as divine scripture by Peter. But OOOPS, most NT scholars have come to believe it is unlikely that Peter wrote Peter 2 where such blessing is alleged.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OOOPS..you misrepresented something here..saying mOST NT scholars? HA...truthfully ONLY a handful, in fact do you even know why it was ever questioned?

          June 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Doris

          A handful, kermie? LOL. This should help you for starters:

          Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman (that truthfollower01 uses as a source above), among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] [4] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[5]

          3. Brown, Raymond E., Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible, 1997, ISBN 0-385-24767-2. p. 767 "the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work."
          4. Erhman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. p. 31 "Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.". ISBN 978-0-06-182514-9.
          5. Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14.

          =====

          from Bible.org:

          "Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.

          The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.

          The history of the acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon has all the grace of a college hazing event. This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation."

          =====

          Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42.4 (1999):

          "J. N. D. Kelly in his commentary on 2 Peter confesses that 'scarcely anyone nowadays
          doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.' [1] Indeed, from the very start this epistle has had a difficult journey. It was received into the New Testament canon with hesitation, considered second-class Scripture by Luther, reluctantly accepted by Calvin, rejected by Erasmus, and now is repudiated as pseudonymous by modern scholarship. Joseph B. Mayor agrees with the current consensus when he declares that 2 Peter “was not written by the author of 1 Peter, whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself .... We conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic.” [2]

          "The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter turns on three main problems: (1) problem of external attestation in the early church; (2) stylistic and literary problems with 1 Peter and Jude; and (3) historical and doctrinal problems that seem to indicate internal inconsistency and a late date. Undoubtedly, 2 Peter has a plethora of problems. Most scholars believe its path towards canonical status was littered with pitfalls and detours for good reason."

          1. J. N. D. Kelly,
          A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude
          (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969) 235.
          2. Joseph B. Mayor,
          The Epistles of Jude and II Peter
          (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) cxxiv.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that's still a HANDFULL of scholars..not majority..and bart shouldn't even be included because of his disingenuous book about the variants of the BIble....(he never really gets down to the explicit details of what they are...thus misleading people into thinking the Bible is full of errors-for example...a verse may say "Jesus said to give all your possessions" whereas a VARIANT says "And HE says, give all your possesssions") an extremely low number of variants in the Bibel even change a thing...

          June 27, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          (1) problem of external attestation in the early church; (2) stylistic and literary problems with 1 Peter and Jude; and (3) historical and doctrinal problems that seem to indicate internal inconsistency and a late date. Undoubtedly,<-these are old issues that have not taken any considerations of Jewish culture and time..for example...the church as a whole did not accept 2 Peter simply cause not all of them had the letter! Theydid NOT have fax machines and Xerox machines! making copies was very expensive...etc etc.....second.....stylistic and literary problems arises within the minds of those who lock themselves into thinking people can only write ONE way...I myself am a poet..I use differenttypes of literature to convey the thoughts...limericks, rhyming, etc etc.another issue is that Peter is addressing from different points...1st peter is about heresies from outside church coming in..and 2nd peter isabout heresies coming from within the church....don't take myword for it..look itup

          June 27, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • Salero21

      Oops... I forgot that beside aberrant, corrupt, pervert it's also an Abomination.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        See? This is why you should never leave your thesaurus in the bathroom, Sally; you have to struggle to come up with a list of idiotic synonyms...

        June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
    • Box

      Regular storage procedure. The same as the other food. The other food stopped coming. And they started.

      June 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
  2. neverbeenhappieratheist

    Mr. Mohler (paraphrased) "Waaah, waah waah waaah, SIN! waaah waah waah Satan! waaah waah waaah Yuck!"

    He claims Christians "now face a very daunting challenge, how to live in a society that is moving so rapidly against our moral worldview"...

    Hey Mr. Mohler, no one is forcing you to marry a dude. There is no challenge for you here. You get to live your life and marry a woman if thats what floats your boat. It's pretty simple and yet your entire article is like one long whiny rant about you not getting your way.

    Also, Scalia is not a prophet. Passing laws saying that you can't discriminate anymore would tell anyone that their discriminatory practices will not last very long. I would have been actually surprised if he hadn't seen this coming.

    June 27, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Yeah, but you see, it also means that they can't legally inflict persecution on Teh Gayz(tm), and to them that's the end of the world. "A land where every man is free to suppress Liberty," as G. B. Shaw once put it, is what they want...

      June 27, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • dandintac

      Now neverbeenhappieratheist (a moniker that describes me as well), you know that's not enough for them. It's simply not enough that they are able to marry straight, and no one forces them to marry gay. They want to control who you and I marry also, and also who we sleep with and in what position, and under what conditions, and whether or not birth control is available for us.

      June 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
  3. Salero21

    GOD Created them Male & Female. One woman for one man, one man for one woman, anything else beyond and outside of that ORIGINAL and NATURAL CREATED model is HERESY. And in the case of the Hom.ose.xuals is an ABERRATION against the Natural Created Order.

    June 27, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      If Scalia, or any human for that matter, could produce evidence of their Gods existence, then we can talk about discriminating based on said Gods wishes.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • Salero21

        Atheism is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE anywhere, everywhere, here, there and all over, up and down, left and right, all the time, anytime, every single time and Forevermore.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Which is exactly the response I would expect from someone who has no evidence to support their sad world view.

          Also, the exact response I would expect from a troll like yourself.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Salero21

          Atheists are extreme hypocrite, compulsive and pathological liars. Yours is the stuff of what Charlatans are made of. Thank you very much!

          June 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • Doris

          Atheists – "Charlatans"?

          Hmm – when I think charlatanism, I must confess, what comes to mind is this ridiculous excuse by early Christian apologists (Justin Martyr and others) that the devil was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order (to fool people into thinking that other similar stories before the Gospels came first). Of course people like Salero here are just gullible enough to buy into such a claim for fear of losing their imaginary friend....

          June 27, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • Devin Adint

        The problem with atheism is that to posit the proposition that God does not exist you must also posit the proof that you have knowledge of every corner of the universe. So most atheists realize they can't substantiate their position either and do a two step over to agnosticism. But to say since I don't know is just a lack of courage.... If I place dynamite under a pile of bricks no matter how many times it blows up it will never make a house for that I need architects, engineers and construction workers. When we see design we know there must be a designer... when we see the complex interactions of DNA and mitochondria and vacuole that form cells or the structure of our solar system and its placement in the galaxy just between the spiral arms optimum for life we see structure and there must be a designer.... its quite easy to prove a designer naturalism and chance just can't do that....

        June 27, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Your scientific ignorance is not proof that a god exists. In fact, there is not a single shred if evidence to indicate that any gods exist. Should verifiable evidence surface, then there would be considerably fewer atheists. But until that evidence is presented, there is no point in claiming that any gods, which are all so very obviously man-made, are real and have any power over us.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • Doris

          devin: "The problem with atheism is that to posit the proposition that God does not exist you must also posit the proof that you have knowledge of every corner of the universe."

          Your first problem here is that you don't seem to understand atheism in the general sense. Most atheists do not make any absolute claims about the existence of deities. They simply don't hold a belief in any of them for lack of evidence.

          devin: "So most atheists realize they can't substantiate their position either and do a two step over to agnosticism."

          That's not a two-step. It's simply that, in the general sense, atheism is highly agnostic. It's not that they can't substantiate their position, but rather that, rationally, they don't try to make the same mistake as many theists in making absolute claims.

          devin: "But to say since I don't know is just a lack of courage.... "

          Nonsense. When all the brightest minds in medicine tell you they don't know of a cure for a particular ailment presently – do you accuse them of not having courage?

          devin: "If I place dynamite under a pile of bricks no matter how many times it blows up it will never make a house for that I need architects, engineers and construction workers. When we see design we know there must be a designer... when we see the complex interactions of DNA and mitochondria and vacuole that form cells or the structure of our solar system and its placement in the galaxy just between the spiral arms optimum for life we see structure and there must be a designer...."

          Many of the brightest minds would disagree. But even if some force more intelligent than us was involved in the creation of our universe, it's still a huge leap from there to the Abrahamic God that self-satisfied early man.

          devin: "its quite easy to prove a designer"

          oh really? how so?

          devin: "naturalism and chance just can't do that...."

          lol – who's making the absolute claims now????

          June 27, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • fascinatedspectator

          There absolutely NO logical reason whatsoever that anyone would NEED to "disprove" the existence of something that has NEVER been show to have EVER existed in the first place!

          It is YOU who claims that a magical invisible being controls everything even though you cannot see it, hear it, feel it, interact with it or even speak with it! There is not one single thing in the ENTIRE universe you can PROVE was created by or even "affected" by this alleged invisible magician!

          The burden of "proof" is completely ON YOU!

          We are all waiting...

          June 27, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
        • dandintac

          "The problem with atheism is that to posit the proposition that God does not exist you must also posit the proof that you have knowledge of every corner of the universe."

          Oh what utter tripe!

          I don't believe in Gods. The label we have for that non-belief is "atheist"–a term invented to separate and label those who did not conform to the majority religion. However, I am also an a-fairiest. I do not believe in fairies. But since that is the majority view, we haven't come up with a label for it.

          I do not believe in gods in the same way I do not believe in fairies. Do you, like me, also lack a belief in fairies? I'll presume you do. Do you need to know every last corner of the universe to not believe in fairies? Is this a reasonable bar to leap?

          June 28, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Which is why the Holy Patriarchs(tm) nearly all kept harems, right, skippy?...

      June 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        the Bible did nOT support them keeping harems.....just because something is recorded in the Bible doesnot mean it is supported..for example..ra pe of Tamar, or the men in the Bible having more than one wife...or that Lot committed in cest with his daughters

        June 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Well funny, I didn't read about any smiting going on over it, either. Yeah, a real ringing denunciation, you betcha...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HUH? what ya talking about?

          June 27, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Right, just because it's in the bible and the people who commited some of those acts were not only never punished but still considered Gods faithful servants, shouln't be any sort of quide on what the bible allows. But that scripture about men who lie with men, God meant that one...

          Oh, and don't forget about King David who after murdering Uriah and commiting adultery with Uriahs wife impregnating her, God brings his justice hammer down taking a life because of this sin, that of the newborn child. And then David gets to have more kids and have the messiah born through his lineage...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          EVERYONE suffers in some way or other....they get their punishment...

          June 27, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          King David is called "a man after God's own heart".

          1 Samuel 25:43 states:
          "David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and so both of them were his wives."
          2 Samuel 5:13:
          "And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he had come from Hebron. Also more sons and daughters were born to David."
          2 Samuel 12:8
          "Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel : 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. ' I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"

          June 27, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          read it all...David was a man after Godsown heart DEspite his sins (we ALL sin) David remained true to God..he did not turn away from God..thats how he is a man after Gods own heart....

          June 27, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And God gives some pretty specific instructions to His Chosen People regarding polygamy.
          "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:"
          Deuteronomy 21:15

          You can argue that it doesn't consti/tue an endorsement, but it is at least tacit approval.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          God did this cause of mans hard heart..same with divorce....God hates divorce...read what Jesus says to the Jewish leaders about that....

          June 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "David remained true to God..he did not turn away from God..thats how he is a man after Gods own heart...." cause God would totally murder some guy to bang his wife...

          June 27, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          God is not human..he doesn't do things like humans do..His ways are His..not yours.....you seem to like justice...but you hate the concept of hell.....

          June 27, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          kermi: You don't get it both ways! According to your ilk the bible is the word of your god, therefore everything written in it is also your god's word. Put the God Decoder Ring of Stupid down and face reality! Stop cheery picking and stop screaming foul when caught doing so!

          June 27, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I use context..no "decoding" necessary..I don't know why the heck people have a problem when it comes to the Bible..except that to many..they read it as if it were originally written by AMericans today..rather than by JEWS in a diferent language, time, society and culture! Prove me wrong! SHow me context if IM wrong...can you do it? Jesus told the religious leaders that god allowed laws for divorce because of hardness of heart..and the BIble is EXPLICIT that it was ONe man and ONE woman..to become ONE flesh.....with that..prove me wrong

          June 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No kermi, you use your own interpretation and act Holier Than Thou. You have no more info than anyone else and yet you pretend to...you're an arrogant self-righteous ass. You can't even provide evidence for your god, outside of your own delusional stories and yet you believe we should listen to you and that your word is somehow more important than that of others. Having studied the bible doesn't make you anything more than the weak minded fool we already know you to be. The fact that you like to use that bible for the worse (ie; denying equal rights; telling women what they can/can't do with their bodies) makes you an immoral ass...a true blemish of humanity. What you're not realizing is that you live in a Secular country where your imaginary friend and your bible have no place outside of your home and church...now there are countries better suited to your brand of delusions if you're not willing to respect the founders of the country and what they wrote in the constitution. You're ilk has lost so many battles, this is one more added to that list and it's a wonderful day when that happens.

          June 27, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
      • Salero21

        Wow that's Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE (stupidity). Your Ignorance of Scriptures is not surprising to anyone.

        Look Fool see if you can get out of your Total NONSENSE with the following.

        1st. Tim. 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,...

        1st. Tim. 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of [only] one wife,...

        TI. 1:6 [namely,] if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          And a quote from the Letter to Timothy. Perect. You DO know that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a deaf-mute like you treat Him, right?...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "Perfect." Come on, fingers, work with me...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • tallulah131

      So what you're saying, Sally, is that as a troll you are an abomination? I do agree that you are an abomination.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • G to the T

      What about hermaphrodites?

      June 28, 2014 at 8:03 am |
      • idiotusmaximus

        What about hermaphrodites?

        Right....I've been through Vatican...one of their cherished art works is an HERMAPHRODITE..... a young beautiful girl lying seductively on a cushion from the front view.....most people don't walk around it....if you did the first thing you'd notice is that it's not the beautiful innocent girl you see from the front...it's a beautiful hermaphrodites... the truth is between the 100% male and female there is a range of 98% of mix to what ever degrees....male to female.

        June 28, 2014 at 10:43 am |
  4. Løki

    Mr. Mohler,

    Thank you for enlightening us regarding your anti-American views. But to be clear, your antiquated christian mumbo-jumbo is NOT the law of the land. The U.S. is NOT a theocracy and your silly religious perceptions do not dictate how citizens of our nation should live their lives. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution even at the cost of my own life, and I'm pretty sure there was no mention of your particular cult's rules or who I was/was not allowed to marry.

    Every American should be personally affronted with your conflation of same-sex marriage and the downfall of American morals. Am I to assume that you felt the same way when women's suffrage was granted? Or when equal rights were granted to former slaves? Or when 'mixed couples' wished to mary? I think that you are an insufferably prejudiced asshat. And contrary to your insipid opinion... America would be much better off without your religiously motivated and callous disregard for equality and freedom for it's citizens.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... with certain unalienable Rights ...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~Declaration of Independence

    If some of us are not free... then none of us are free... and I promise that that I will fight people like you to the death before I would allow you to subvert our Nation into your version of a sharia theocracy. I am taking back my flag and motto from those douchebag Teapartiers... Don't tread on Me!

    Wall-to-wall counseling is available upon request to facilitate comprehension.

    Sincerely,
    An American Citizen / U.S. Army Veteran
    MSG (R) C.Castillo

    June 27, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      "Or when equal rights were granted to former slaves? Or when 'mixed couples' wished to mary?"

      Loki, his "church" was quite literally FOUNDED on the principle that Southern slavery was Biblical and just; further, that "church" has NEVER issued a binding, formal apology for its support of slavery, racial etiquette, and Jim Crow; in fact, they were their most ardent supporters. So I'd say that Grand Dragon Mohler did indeed mourn at the idea of them-thur Mud Peeple(tm) got legal equality...

      June 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        there are those who abolished slavery USING the BIble to support the abolishing of it...both herein USA and in England..get facts about history

        June 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So what do you call something that is used both for and against the same position? Useless.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          not at all.....people use things both good and bad..are guns useless? nope....thing is....those who used the Bible for slavery had no support from the Bible, except only with misinterpretation and misrepresentation

          June 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Yeppers, skippy–the Northern Baptists were one, which was what prompted the Southern branch to secede and form their own "church". You might want to read a little history yourself, bright boy...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Yes..I KNOW that already....don't forget the English who abolished slavery as well

          June 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Funny, but the last I looked, this thread WASN'T ABOUT ENGLAND. AT least TRY to stay on topic, bub...

          June 27, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I was making a point, using USA and England, how they used the Bible to abolish slavery

          June 27, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • dandintac

          kermit,

          In those days, any sort of social movement had to be claimed to be supported by the Bible. If you wanted to have any sort of movement, you had to waive the Bible in the air to get any movement at all–any sort of legitimacy.

          But the truth is, the slave owners and slave merchants had far more direct support from the Bible than did the abolitionists, and used the Bible to justify slavery–quite successfully in fact.

          The abolitionists had to turn to va-gue elastic phrases like the "love thy neighbor" sort of thing and stretch it to fit what they wanted. The slavers had quotations from the Bible that directly supported slavery–like the passage that describes how much you can beat your slave, and Jesus' own admonition for slaves to obey their masters.

          June 28, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      The difference between God and the ruling doc.uments of this country is that God is not overly concerned about the happiness of men on earth.

      God desires of men to glorify Him in all they do, think, and say. And that means that those actions and thoughts come with restrictions – restrictions that are in accordance with the nature of God. Specifically, the moral law found in the 10 Commandments. Paul would say that just because something is "legal" that doesn't mean you can (or should) do it.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Paul also said that Christians should remain celibate, but to get married if you can't control your loins.
        By denying gays the right to marry, you aren't giving a Paul approved "out" for those who burn with passion.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          But there is an out: repentance and salvation. That doesn't mean there will never be temptation, but there is freedom from the power of that temptation.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I think the problem here, Theo, is that you somehow think that your religion trumps the Constitution of the United States, but it does not. This is not a theocracy. The wishes of a god that cannot even be proven to exist are not relevant to the laws of a nation that was built for the very purpose of freeing humanity from enforced religion. If you want to live in a theocracy you'll have to move, because this country has never been and will never be a "christian nation", no matter how many christians live here.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • fascinatedspectator

          Excellent response with an eloquent explanation !

          Applause !!!!

          June 27, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
      • Løki

        Theo... I really don't wish to get into this with you today. Your bible and god are meaningless to me, but you have the right to believe whatever you wish... Mr. Mohler is actively trying to legislate away YOUR freedoms and dictating by law what YOU need to believe... Do you not get that?

        June 27, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          All that Mr. Mohler is doing is to work within the given systems to lobby for his particular interest. Even non-believers have that right.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Theo, your attempt to boil this down to a simple case of lobbying saddens me. This is about equal rights for ALL Americans... not religious beliefs.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • johnsonzeb

        I would think that God wants us to be happy. You can still glorify God as the creator and be happy. If God wanted a slave organization he didn't need to create the earth to have it.

        June 27, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
    • snuffleupagus

      Well said, MSG!

      June 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Usually these articles are just funny stupid... but this one got my blood boiling.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • fascinatedspectator

      LOKI – Excellent response!

      I couldn't have stated it any better!
      I stand proud beside you as a defender of freedom for all!

      June 27, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
  5. tallulah131

    This author lives in that special land that evangelicals created for themselves, where history is ignored and bigotry is embraced. The fight for marriage equality has been going on for much longer than a year. The Supreme Court decision simply expedited the process of fairness.

    I would recommend to the author that if he does not like living in a secular land that embraces equality and fairness, he is free to move to the theocracy of his choice. I'm sure Iran would welcome him. Or not.

    June 27, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
    • Salero21

      Well is not really my call, but maybe you too could move also to where your atheistic NONSENSE will be truly appreciated, like in ... NORTH KOREA or CUBA. That's because the USSR does not exist anymore. Hey look Russia is even worst for hom.ose.xuals. So the US of A is the new Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe this country ought to change the name to: THE UNITED STATES of SODOM & GOMORRAH and OBOMO be declared King.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        Your fainting couch is that-a-way, Sally...

        June 27, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Hey sally. How's your mom? I bet she's upstairs crying right now, because the child she had such high hopes for is not only a useless troll, he's also taking up space in her basement. So why don't you grow up, get a job, get your own place and let your mom convert the basement into the crafting room she always wanted?

        June 27, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I pity your mom, Sally. It must have broken her heart when she realized that you are an epic loser and that she should have not had children.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
      • Salero21

        King Obomo of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • tallulah131

          In the right place:

          I pity your mom, Sally. It must have broken her heart when she realized that you are an epic loser and that she should have not had children.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "Hey look, Mommy! I made a funnneeee!!!1!1!one!!!"...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Salero21

          King Obomo of the new kingdom of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          You DO realize the joke gets cold when you keep repeating it, don't you Sally?...

          June 27, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
  6. Theo Phileo

    Apparently whatever I keep trying to say keeps flagging the content filter... UGH...

    Marriage is the first insti.tution ever created, and it was done by God Himself. It is a partnership between one man and one woman. (Genesis 2:18-25)

    The word of God tells us that marriage is to be a demonstration to the world of what a right relationship with God is supposed to look like. In this relationship, the man plays the role of Jesus, while the woman plays the role of the church, so that the world will see their covenant relationship to one another and have an idea of what it is like to be in a right relationship with God.

    June 27, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Marriage is older than the bible. It is not a christian instittuion, it is a human instittuion. Christianity should stop trying to steal things that don't belong to them.

      June 27, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Marriage is older than the bible. It is not a christian inst.ittuion
        -----------------
        I agree that it is older than the Bible, and since Jesus had not yet come in the flesh when Adam and Eve were alive, then it also predates Christianity.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Adam and Eve exist only in the pages of the bible. Try again when you have facts to work with.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Adam and Eve exist only in the pages of the bible. Try again when you have facts to work with.
        -----------------
        We know that Jesus existed, and we know that He is God, for He furnished proof to all men by raising Himself from the dead. Even Dawkins did not intelligently debate this fact, all he did in his delusional "God Delusion" book was to say that the resurrection was ridiculous. Well, of COURSE it is to him, but he did not argue against it because he DARE not. He COULD not.

        And Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve, endorsing only one way of marriage, whereas all else is an abomination. So since we know that Jesus is God, and having spoke of Adam and Eve, we know this to be true.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        "And Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve, endorsing only one way of marriage, whereas all else is an abomination. So since we know that Jesus is God, and having spoke of Adam and Eve, we know this to be true."

        He also spoke about hypothetical Samaritans, tax collectors, Pharisees, and poor women (of course, those are His actual teachings so you might not have read about them)–are you saying they too were all literally real? Do you really think Jesus is incapable of metaphor and allegory? How much of a Dunce do you want to believe Him to be, hmm?...

        June 27, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Homer wrote of Zeus. We know Homer existed. Zeus must be real.

        June 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      So what the Hell should that have to do with civil laws that non-Christians have to follow, Theocrat?...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Harris Papyrus from Ancient Egypt dates back to the reign of Ramesses IV, circa 1150 BCE.
      It contains wedding songs.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Do you consider marriages that aren't blessed by a representative of your religion to be false?
      ----------
      No, not false, since there certainly is an authority within government to do such things (Romans 13), it just isn't God-honoring. And with that you shouldn't have any argument.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
  7. fortheloveofellipsis

    So, Al...when can we be expecting that binding official apology for your "church's" support of slavery, racial etiquette, and Jim Crow? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath, Mr. Grand Dragon...

    June 27, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
  8. tnfreethinker

    Mohler, you are flat-out wrong. We are correcting the moral crisis. There is no threat to religious freedom by granting the LGBT community their American-born rights. Christians, on the other hand, pose a serious and immediate threat to religious freedom.

    June 27, 2014 at 11:58 am |
  9. fortheloveofellipsis

    Yeah, Al. As if I'd give ANY credence to a mouthpiece for a so-called "church" which was LITERALLY founded for the purpose of providing Biblical justification of slavery. No wonder Theo finds them such a perfect fit–white hoods go perfectly there...

    June 27, 2014 at 11:57 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      I challenge you to quote anything that I have ever said in support of 19th century American slavery.

      June 27, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
  10. Phil Moder

    The only rights are the gay rights!

    Where does that leave a committed Christian Go figure!

    June 27, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • Phil Moder

      If a gay person wants a Christian to bake a cake for their wedding, the gay rights trumps the Christian right to believe.

      If a gay person wants a Christian to photograph his wedding, the gay rights trumps the Christian right to believe.

      If a gay person wants to get married in a church by a priest or pastor, the gay rights trumps the Christian doctrine.

      In essence the gay rights trumps what a Christian can and cannot believe. The Christian needs to re-write the Bible and change the Biblical passage to make sure gay rights are included in the Bible.

      June 27, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Phil Moder

        Add a new book, called the gospel of gays:

        Blessed are the gays, for they shall have all rights that trumps the rights of Christian belief.

        Blessed are the gays, for they have the privilege to re-write the Bible as they see fit.

        Blessed are the gays, for they shall rule over Christians.

        June 27, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          So, Phil, have you broken your pearls or your fainting couch yet? I mean, how DARE them-thur Eeebil Gayz expect to be treated as equal citizens in the Republic!...

          June 27, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • observer

          Phil Moderm,

          Tell us EVERYTHING Jesus said about gays.

          Ooooops!

          June 27, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
      • QuestionsEverything

        @Phil

        If a gay person wants a Christian to bake a cake for their wedding, the gay rights trumps the Christian right to believe.

        If a gay person wants a Christian to photograph his wedding, the gay rights trumps the Christian right to believe.

        ---–

        – Neither of these have anything to do with "gay rights v. Christian rights", they have to do following state commerce laws.

        If a gay person wants to get married in a church by a priest or pastor, the gay rights trumps the Christian doctrine.

        ----

        – Site one instance of this occurring in the USA, we'll wait.

        June 27, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        I totally agree.....with you Phil...why cant gays leave us alone? they got what they wanted..leave the chirstians alone and find someone else who will bake their cakes and take photos. I will never be a part of that, baking a cake and taking photos says you support their lifestyle..period....in MY conscious I can NOT do that..and no personcan use a pathetic attempt of using race against me. Nothing wrong with race. They gays are purposefully doing this as propopganda..clear through

        June 27, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Yeah, I get it, kermie. Them-thur Eeebil Gayz(tm) need to get back into their closets to make you feel all nice and comfortable. They ought to just be happy you're not throwing them in jail like you'd like to do, right? Or maybe you'd prefer stoning them to death, theocrat...

          June 27, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          some hogwash you got about me there...stop the stereotyping..makes you look bad

          June 27, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Doris

          It figures that you would find something to agree with in a post that is a complete FAIL.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • Doris

          (based on other posts I've seen from you kermit, of course)

          June 27, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Doris, everything about kermie just SCREAMS "Southern Baptist," the world's largest denomination of fake Christians...

          June 27, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          again you stereotype..Im not southern Baptist..IM not even Baptist..I pretty much go to a NON-denominational church..though I like to go to a Christian and Missionary Allaince church, except there is not one near me....

          June 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Get over it, kermit. I realize that you are upset because the law of this secular nation won't let you discriminate against a minority, but that's part of the deal of living in a land where "all men are created equal".

          Minorities are legally protected from discrimination in this country because of people like you who use the bible as an excuse for your own fear and hate. If you open a for profit business, you are required to adhere to the laws of the land. In certain places, there are laws that forbid businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of their orientation. People who think their religion trumps the law are free to defy that law, but they will face the consequences of their actions, just as a person who refuses to serve people on the basis of their skin color would face the consequences.

          Grow up. Join the 21st century. Or feel free to rejoin the dark ages in the theocracy of your choice. I hear there are plenty to chose from in the Middle East.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the bible as an excuse for your own fear and hate.<-you love to stereotype don't ya..I hate no one nor fear..stop lying a about me ok? stop making false accusations...thanks

          June 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Kermit, I didn't need to say anything. Your own words prove your hate and fear. I just mentioned it so you would know that you aren't fooling anyone.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          sorry....mywors and such doesnot convey hate and fear...if youwnna say that...fine..but don't falsely accuse me..I hate no one and fear no one..my cousin would have kicked you bu tt for such an accusation...She would have called you a liar

          June 27, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I don't know your cousin, kermit. I can only judge you by the words you post here. To me, you show nothing but hate for and fear of a minority.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
      • Doris

        Phil: "If a gay person wants to get married in a church by a priest or pastor, the gay rights trumps the Christian doctrine."

        Let me fix this for you, Phil, so it makes sense:

        If a gay person wants to get married in a church by a priest or pastor, they have to find a church that is willing to perform the marriage in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal.

        June 27, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Doris, please! Don't confuse Phil with actual facts! His head might explode!

          On second thought...

          June 27, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Phil, if a person wishes to operate a for profit business, they are required to adhere to the laws of the land. In certain places, there are laws that forbid businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of their orientation.

        If you do not wish to obey the laws that pertain to for-profit businesses, then you should not operate a business. Your religion does not elevate you over the laws of the land, no matter how special you think you are.

        June 27, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        If a black person wants a Klansman to bake a cake for their wedding, the black rights trumps the Klan's right to believe.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          terrible anaology..blacks cannot change color of their skin.....blacks are born that way..its part of their being human

          June 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Actually, it's a dead-on accurate comparison. Studies indicate that sexual orientation is determined in the womb, by the hormones present in the mothers body.

          On the other hand, kermit, your ignorance is your personal choice.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          wrong..actually..studies are NOT conclusive...the scientists still are out on that issue....read the studies again..NOTICE how they use words like "may be" "possible" etc etc...that's not conclusive language

          June 27, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "Annnnd, one more time, that Golden Oldie–"They Can Pray Teh Gay(tm) Away!" Brought to you by Marcus Bachmann's Exodus Jayzus Camp! Sit back and enjoy the memories..."

          June 27, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "wrong..actually..studies are NOT conclusive...the scientists still are out on that issue....read the studies again..NOTICE how they use words like "may be" "possible" etc etc...that's not conclusive language"

          "Brought to you by the Discovery Inst.itute's New and Improved Anti-Gayinator! Remember, folks, 'We're not just ID anymore!'"...

          June 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Reported in the correct place:
          Well kerm, most studies indicate that being gay is innate. Meanwhile, there's not a single shred of evidence that your god (or any god) even exists. So if we're gonna get persnickety about it, maybe you should prove that your god even exists before using his "words" to judge others.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:03 pm

          June 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      "Your approval is not required. Neither are any church's."–You see, Akira, to people like Phil, that IS persecution. How dare the Eebil Gubmint take away their right to persecute people they don't like! Horrors, I tells ya!...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        That's sort of the point, Akira; people like Theo and kermie WANT this to be a "Christian"(tm) theocracy, and will go to any lengths to secure it. If they ever get close, I'm rediscovering Amendment II...

        June 27, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        People forget this is nOT an oligarchy as welll

        June 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Tell you what – when all the myriad Christian denominations manage to agree on their mythological minutiae to present a united front, they can put forward their proposal for a religious government.

        June 27, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        uhh nooooo.....but when government plays to the minority..the small group...its oligarchy.....they overturned the VOTE of the MAJORITY....such as in California..our votes count as sh** now....hows that for democracy???

        June 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
  11. Doris

    Good grief.

    It seems some Christians are great complainers of persecution here in the U.S., and obviously paranoid and untrusting of the wall of separation – even predicting their own future persecution:

    Mr. Mohler: "A year after the death of DOMA, it is also clear that very real threats to religious liberty now loom before us."

    One only needs to read this article and Theo's post to see this. There is no basis in the U.S. for such paranoia. Christians are still the dominant religion, the wall of separation is still in place and, as Doc pointed out below, for countries where gay marriage is already legal, "NONE of those countries has a church been mandated to perform ceremonies that run counter to their doctrine."

    It's also important to note that Mr. Mohler of the The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, obviously does not speak for all Christians with his opinion. As evident from the recent article on the predominant Presbyterian denomination, we see that there are Christian sects representing millions of Americans who have no problem with gay marriage.

    "If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." –Ben Franklin, from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772

    June 27, 2014 at 11:00 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Doris, tho a RWNJ "Christian," Persecution(tm) is defined as taking away their ability to harm others with their reigious beliefs...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Doris, tho a RWNJ "Christian," Persecution(tm) is defined as taking away their ability to harm others with their religious beliefs...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Sorry for the duplicate post–see what I get for trying to fix my typos...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
  12. myweightinwords

    Marriage Equality is not an attack on anyone's religion.

    You believe marriage equality is immoral? Go ahead. No one is stopping you. HOWEVER, what you believe has no bearing on others. No one is telling you to stop believing it (and if they are, they are the ones who are wrong). No one is going to force you to enter a marriage you do not want (although, historically it was a part of "traditional" marriage to force young women into marriages that they didn't want). No one is going to force church bodies that believe same gender love is immoral to perform same gender marriages.

    This "the sky is falling" routine is getting old. We have been challenged to uphold the freedom and equality that we like to claim this country was founded on. It's taken us a while to rise to that challenge, but we're starting to get it right.

    June 27, 2014 at 10:58 am |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    there may or may not be some force that created the universe ... we haven't figured that out yet ... but it is not this god of bronze age foolishness that is so concerned with what people do while na.ked and so concerned that we praise him all day long and tell him how wonderful he is and so concerned with suppressing science and so concerned with meting out punishment and so concerned with inanities like what you can eat and what days you can work on and what cloth you wear and who you can marry.

    And yet Christians use that creation thing as an escape hatch. They preach all this bronze age foolishness and judge, judge, judge people based on their story book but as soon as it is shown to be scientifically and historically flawed foolishness they panic and dodge and throw out "then who created the universe?" as if that has anything to do with 99% of their infantile fairy story book.

    June 27, 2014 at 10:04 am |
  14. Theo Phileo

    I was just telling my wife yesterday that there is coming a time, and it may be very soon, where the forti.tude of every Christian will be tested to see if his faith will stand in the face of legal implications. And in that day, we will be forced to say with Peter in Acts 5:29 – "We must obey God rather than man."

    The Christian MUST submit to the governing authorities in all things (Romans 13) PROVIDED that they never infringe on the teachings of God, and when they do, we must obey God rather than men, regardless of the implications.

    I pray that in that day every Christian will have the strength to do so.

    Coram Deo, Soli Deo Gloria.

    June 27, 2014 at 10:03 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      "It's true. I am the Chosen One, only I can destroy him, but in order to do so, I need to know what Tom Riddle asked you all those years ago in your office, and I need to know what you told him. Be brave, sir. Be brave like my mother."
      – [Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince]

      This is one of the clearest and briefest statements in all the Harry Potter books proving that Harry was the chosen one! Harry stated in words that could hardly be misunderstood, that whoever believes in Him knows he will rid the world of the evil voldemort. Notice He introduced these momentous words with “It's true.” This is proof!

      June 27, 2014 at 10:06 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Which is essentially the same reason the bombers flew planes into the Twin Towers.
      Religious zealots think the rules of their gods trump human law. You people are dangerous.

      June 27, 2014 at 10:07 am |
      • realbuckyball

        Verum est dicere, quae in Latine est. Si, inquam, sic melius Latine loquar. Collectumque premens.

        June 27, 2014 at 10:09 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        The supposed "separation of Church and state" flows BOTH ways. The government cannot legally force clergy to perform a supposed "wedding" of two ho.mose.xuals.

        June 27, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • realbuckyball

          There is NO STATE law that requires that, or ONE that has proposed that. Show me ONE law that requires religious bodies to do that. There CERTAINLY is no Federal law that requires it. Nice strawman you got going there. Do try to live in the real world.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          In that you are correct. The government cannot and will not force a religious insti/tution to perform any rites that violate their creed.
          However – when you call it "supposed marriage", your prejudice shines through.
          Neither gods nor their shamans are needed for marriage.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          There is NO STATE law that requires that, or ONE that has proposed that. Show me ONE law that requires religious bodies to do that. There CERTAINLY is no Federal law that requires it. Nice strawman you got going there. Do try to live in the real world.
          ---------------
          Did you not read the whole article? It's not a straw man argument, it is a foreseen consequence of the legalization of so-called ho.mose.xual marriage. Courts will soon see it as a denial of human rights, and then they will make it illegal to forbid it. But, they will have to first change the current understanding of the Consti.tution in order to do so.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          your prejudice shines through.
          -----------------
          Of COURSE I'm prejudiced! You say that like it's a BAD thing. I hate sin... But not nearly as much as God hates sin.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          Easy there, trigger.
          There are precendents in other countries – even ones that are predominantly Christian.
          Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all allow same gender marriage and in NONE of those countries has a church been mandated to perform ceremonies that run counter to their doctrine.
          Marriage as a legal inst'itution and marriage as a religious rite are different things – one is not contingent on the other.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          your god really is a hater!

          June 27, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          Do you consider marriages that aren't blessed by a representative of your religion to be false?

          June 27, 2014 at 10:28 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc,
          I hope you're right. This country has a long history of being very kind to religious insti.tutions of all kinds. But you do have to admit, 30-40 years ago, legalized same-s.ex marriage wasn't on anyone's radar... Now you're consideref a freak if you don't agree with society's prevailing notions of "equality."

          My hopes are that religious freedom will forever be a right in this country, since that was the principle upon which it was founded, but my fears are that in the name of "equality" those freedoms will gradually erode until all we have left are our prayer closets in our own homes.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • QuestionsEverything

          @ Theo

          But you do have to admit, 30-40 years ago, legalized same-s.ex marriage wasn't on anyone's radar... Now you're consideref a freak if you don't agree with society's prevailing notions of "equality."

          ------–

          And 50-60 years ago miscegenation marriages weren't all that popular either, but nobody bats an eye about them anymore. Progress and equality are wonderful things.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • realbuckyball

          There is no state that has proposed that, and no state that has NOT gone out of it's way to specifically say religious bodies do NOT have to do that. It is a strawman. The court is presently saying religious bodies are exempt from birth-control laws. There is no trend towards forcing religious insti'tutions to do anything of the sort, and you know it. It's a false projection which has no basis in reality. It's a red herring also, as it's presented as a reason NOT to grant equal rights to everyone, for a fictional possible outcome, which if it were to occur could be dealt with as a separate issue, specifically. It's a crap reason that is not happening, and there is no reason to think it will happen.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • realbuckyball

          "But you do have to admit, 30-40 years ago, legalized same-s.ex marriage wasn't on anyone's radar.."

          -- Neither were racially mixed marriages 100 years ago. "on the radar". Progress works that way. Ain't it grand. So, you're POINT is that progress is bad apparently, and only things that were "on the radar" 50 years ago are good ? How old are you, anyway ?

          Freedom has all sorts of "potential" bad outcomes. Restricting freedoms because they potentially *might* have a bad outcome is irrational. By your reasoning, no one should have a gun, as they "might" in the future use it to commit a crime.
          Please engage your brain one of these days Theo. No rush.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          How old are you, anyway ?
          -------------
          Much older than many who appear on this blog to be under 18... I know they're under 18 because they act like they know everything.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • Science Works

          Hey Theo nnd Scalia believes in a real devil do you ?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Hey Theo nnd Scalia believes in a real devil do you ?
          -------------------
          Stephen Hawking believes in aliens. Do you?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • Science Works

          Oh Theo you are a hoot – remember the fig leaf cover up ?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "Prayer closets"
          Isn't that where a lot of Christians want to send gay people?
          C'mon gays! There's room enough for all of you in God's closet!

          June 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc,
          Do you have no sacred place where you go to meditate on that which is most important to you? Especially in times of great need or anxiety? A place far removed from phones, computers, and all other distractions, where you go alone to grow in strength...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
    • G to the T

      Absolutely Theo – no one should require you to marry another man... oh wait? The new laws don't actually affect you at all do they?

      June 27, 2014 at 10:10 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        If someone's house gets robbed in China, does that affect me? No, but it's still wrong.

        June 27, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • G to the T

          The problem with your analogy is someone is being harmed in your example. That is not comparable with providing equal civil rights to a segment of the population. Indeed, it's the opposite.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          The problem with your analogy is someone is being harmed in your example.
          ------------
          Your as.sumption is that notions of "right" and "wrong" are based solely on whether or not someone else is harmed by the act.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:45 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Yes Theo.
          Sin lies only in harming others unnecessarily.
          All other "sin" is invented nonsense (with "blasphemy" and "heresy" fighting it out for the ti'tle of most absurd).

          June 27, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "Your as.sumption is that notions of "right" and "wrong" are based solely on whether or not someone else is harmed by the act"

          No shizzle, Theocrat! That is the ONLY ground government has to intervene in the business of its citizens–that of direct harm to others! But I forgot–you truly are a theocrat...

          June 27, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Your as.sumption is that notions of "right" and "wrong" are based solely on whether or not someone else is harmed by the act."

          In the realm of civil rights, of course it is. You can think it's "wrong" all you want. It's a free country. It being legal, is a completely different issue.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          The difference is one of definition. Something can be morally right or morally wrong without having any correlation to legality. For instance, it's illegal to drive your car on the sidewalk, but it's not immoral to do so. Also, it's immoral to lie to someone, but it's not illegal. (unless it's under certain situations, like when you're under oath in court)

          There ARE in fact moral absolutes. To say there isn't is to make a self defeating statement:
          "Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?"

          June 27, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Doris

          Theo: "There ARE in fact moral absolutes."

          Unlikely. That's like saying "there are opinions that are absolute truths".

          June 27, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "There ARE in fact moral absolutes. To say there isn't is to make a self defeating statement"

          Is one of those Moral Absolutes(tm) still The Holocaust Was Justified, TheoCrat? And no, you should never EVER be let forget that one, skippy...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • G to the T

          " Something can be morally right or morally wrong without having any correlation to legality." Too you perhaps. Morally right or wrong too you. I prefer to allow for context to color my morality, that way I'm forced to actually think about it before I react.

          Lieing – Of course lieing can be moral. If a terrorist wanted the codes to a nuke and you lied to him about it, is that immoral? If your wife asks if she looks fat in these jeans and you say "no" is that immoral? If they both are, then your morality isn't absolute, it's just rigid.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Something can be morally right or morally wrong without having any correlation to legality."

          So why do many Christians have an issue with letting this be legal while they can still call it "immoral"? Your example of driving on the sidewalks is poor because it directly increases tangible risk to bodily injury of pedestrians, but if you used some other law like paying taxes i'd agree. It may be illegal not to pay your income tax but many people don't consider cheating on their taxes immoral, and in fact rationalize that the taxes themselves are immoral. In reverse, something can be legal like gay marriage or driving 65 instead of the old 55 limits our grandparents may prefer, while still being considered "immoral!" or "way too fast!" by some. The law is not a moral arbiter, it is a social framework to provide as much of a safe and secure environment for us to live and work as we are willing to pay for. Trying to legislate who people are allowed to fall in love with and sign a contract with is nonsense. To those who claim slippery slope garbage apparently don't understand that we already have laws setting age of consent which are in no way effected by allowing gay marriage. These are the same "age of consent" laws governing at what age a person can sign any binding contract, which is what a marriage license is. It is a contract that affords certain benefits for legally tying two parties into a partnership, accepting all financial liabilities that partnership affords under State and Federal law. So until some Alabama congressman puts up a bill that allows pigs, cows and sheep to sign binding contracts, and it passes... or some State lowers their age of consent with a majority vote from the parents of that State, the "Come F* my child bill", there is no slippery slope. So what other argument against it is left? There is none.

          June 27, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what IGNORANCE akira! go take sociology courses......look at REALITY..the BAISC foundation fo society is the family unit..when it breaks down..so does society! SO don't say it don't affect others....we are nOT isands in a stream! Get yourhead out of your rear and see realty for what it is

          June 27, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          seriously..go take sociology courses.....stable relationships and such affect the whole of society...family is the BASIC FOUNDATION of society....when the homes go unstable and all..then I have to pay taxes to help people..to support those who abort....to help the children with counseling (studies shown kids are NOT doing well in single parent homes..granted a FEW I mean a very SMALL FEW are exceptions) this is only the start.....I mean you don't seem to grasp you are NOT there all by yourself..You DO live within a soceity

          July 2, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          LOLOLOL....I scan VERY quickly through lots of this crap and could swear you're all locked in some insane asylum somewhere.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      "The Christian MUST submit to the governing authorities in all thing"s..." That's why I get a giggle when I see car's with Jesus fish speeding.

      June 27, 2014 at 10:34 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        and priests helping themselves to little boys ...

        June 27, 2014 at 10:38 am |
    • FranticRed

      "We must obey God rather than man." If you can show where in the Bible it states that a man cannot marry a man, I would love to see it. All the old testament states is that for a man to lay with a man is an abomination, and Jesus had nothing to say at all on the matter. The closest he came was stating that "a" man will leave his home and be united to his wife – and that was only in reference to the possibility of divorce. Heck, according to Jesus, since two men getting together cannot become one flesh, they actually have more rights under religious law – they can divorce.

      June 27, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        You know something, Red? I noticed that all those proscriptions are directed at men. Do you think...naaaah, couldn't be...but maybe...their version of Gawd(tm) was into girl-on-girl?...

        June 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • FranticRed

          If I were god, I would totally approve of that.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • observer

        Maybe "a man laying with a man" just means that they must have twin beds or bunk beds.

        Christians love to claim that the Bible is mis-translated.

        June 27, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
  15. Dyslexic doG

    For all of you fake christians who believe that being same se.x marriage is a sin (even though it doesn't specifically state it) – I hope you are following God's word and do not partake in the following:

    Eating ham: Leviticus 11:7-8
    Getting a tattoo: Leviticus 19:28
    Rounded haircuts: Leviticus 19:27
    Have injured private parts: Deuteronomy 23:1
    Consulting psychics: Leviticus 19:31
    Gossiping: Leviticus 19:16
    Wives helping out their husbands during a fight: Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    Children cursing their parents: Exodus 21:17
    Getting remarried after a divorce: Mark 10:11-12
    Working on the sabbath: Exodus 31:14-15
    Woman speaking in churches: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
    Eating shrimp, lobster, or other assorted seafood: Leviticus 10-11

    Oh what a bunch of FRAUDS you all are!

    June 27, 2014 at 10:03 am |
    • workingcopy12

      Fraud? You know very well that not a single Christian is under the Law of Moses...the only ones (or so it seems) who argue that O.T. laws apply to Christians are atheists–who may have read the Bible, but never truly studied it. Cite me a atheist Bible scholar who convincingly argues Christians must follow the Lev. regulations.

      June 27, 2014 at 10:18 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        if you take genesis as truth, if you take the 10 commandments as the word of your god, then don't be a fraud and claim the OT is not to be followed when it suits you.

        F R A U D ! ! !

        June 27, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • workingcopy12

          Classic atheist argument–raise Leviticus as the true standard, face the truth that it doesn't apply to Christians, then raise another, unrelated argument (go ahead, try and deny it). I didn't say the O.T. doesn't apply in my life...I'm telling you the Law of Moses (the standard YOU raised), which is a small part of the O.T. does not apply in my life. Of course, you already knew that, but you couldn't pass up the opportunity to show your ignorance, now could you?

          June 27, 2014 at 10:53 am |
        • workingcopy12

          Or, perhaps, was it your standard venom that you couldn't wait to show off?

          June 27, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Basically, Christians want to believe they are no longer under the Mosaic law supposedly written by the God of the bible who to Christians is also Jesus, and those laws are perfect and required for all mankind, no shelfish, no pork, strict saabath keeping, but then they claim that Jesus came and fulfilled the law and forgives them all their sins, that of not being able to follow the law, so they are washed clean in the blood of the lamb. This means they can do all those things that were banned under the Mosaic law because Jesus washes their sins away, except now they make up new sins that don't get wahsed away as easy like being born gay and acting upon it. Even though Jesus left his followers with only two laws, love your neighbor as yourself and love your God with your whole strength and whole mind and whole heart. Apparently most Christians want to pick and choose which laws they still want or not which are usually the ones they like to judge others for doing. According to most if you are gay you'll burn in heII, if you get a divorce you just have to go say your sorry and everythings just fine...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
      • QuestionsEverything

        The point being made is that until Christians stop using Levitical law to support their disdain for SSM, all other Levitical laws should be applied.

        You can hardly read any blog, article or web site about anti-SSM sentiments that does not reference Lev. 20:13.

        June 27, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • QuestionsEverything

          Sorry, the above was supposed to be a response to wc12

          June 27, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • workingcopy12

          I agree with you. That is why you will never read any of my posts which refer to Lev. as authority for how we r to live our lives. My point about Dog's motivation, however, stands.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        The Civil and Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and the Abrahamic Covenant applied to a specific people for a specific time, and unless they are ratified in the New Testament under the New Covenant, they are gone, and are not applicable for today.

        The Civil and Ceremonial laws were in place to govern a specific people, namely, the Jews. They were called out by God to be His chosen people, and as such, as a people they had to be dramatically different from the surrounding ungodly, pagan nations of the time. Israel had to be different because she was to be God’s representative nation in the world. She was to show an unbelieving world what a right relationship to God was to be like, and in order to do that, she was called out to purge the evil from among her. (Deuteronomy 19:19) This called for extreme measures in some cases.

        The moral law (10 Commandments) presented in the Old Testament still applies under the New Covenant because the moral law is reflective of the very character of God. Since the character of God is always the same, the moral law is not going to change.

        The New Testament, in numerous places, including 1 Timothy 1:5-11 will articulate the 10 commandments. These are an adequate summarization of the ethical demands of the Christian life. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

        In the Old Testament, the divine law was written onto two tablets of stone, but in the New Testament, the divine law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15)

        June 27, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Oh, I get it, Theocrat. You get to pick and choose which parts of the OT still apply. Yeah, I'm SO trusting you with my civil liberties–NOT...

          June 27, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Oh really ? So why do they "reflect" the nature of your god ? If your good is "good" and the definition means anything, then evil ALWAYS existed , and your god did not create Reality, now did he. Paul said Christians were free from the old law, or did you not read the NT, Theo ?

          June 27, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        Then riddle me this, Commissioner–if the OT doesn't apply due to the New Covenant(tm), why is your side so desperate to have the Ten Commandments–OT material–put up in every single government building, courthouse, and school?...

        June 27, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Because if you actually read my post, you would see that the Moral Law (10 Commandments) are still binding since they were ratified by Jesus Himself, and in other places in the NT under the New Covenant.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          That wasn't an answer to your post, genius. He seems to have a different take on the OT than you–but then again, he must not be a Reel Crischun(tm), right?...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
  16. Doc Vestibule

    I wonder how this guy figures the US Government should have handled rising divorce rates.
    Make divorce illegal? Perhaps enforce bibilical mandates regarding adultery and forbid divorcees to remarry?
    When speaking from a esoteric "spiritual" standpoint, marriage is whatever a couple chooses to make it.
    It has been long established in the US that Christian churches don't have a monopoly on sancitfying marriages – Muslim, Hindu, Neo-Pagan and all manner of religions impart their own versions of spirituality.
    When speaking from a legal standpoint, gods and their shamans have nothing to do with marriage, save for serving as notaries. There are over 1,000 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
    To deny same gender life-partnerships these rights because some people find the thought of gay marriage icky or offensive is discrimination, pure and simple.
    The "Moral Majority" Christian right made these exact same kinds of arguments last century when it came to inter-racial marriage. The more deeply religious a state's demographic, so more loudly they condemned the terrible affront to society that was inter-racial marriage.

    A few examples –
    From the Mormons, circa 1950 – "Furthermore your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Neg.ro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous."
    – George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKay

    Baptist – circa 1959: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
    – Judge Leon Bazile

    Even late in the 20th Century, fundamentalist inst/itutions still opposed miscegenation
    "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."
    – Bob Jones University

    I live in a country where same gender marriage has been legal for quite some time.
    The "slippery slope" has never reared its head.
    No Churches have been forced to bless unions that run counter to their doctrine.
    There has been no hue and cry to legalize marriages between anything but consenting adults.
    No straight marriages have been destroyed because gay marriage is now legal.
    The fact is that after the initial celebrations by the rainbow flag brigade, everybody very quickly stops giving a sh1t.
    The only change in society is that all life-long partnerships are treated equally under the law – and that is the way it should be.

    June 27, 2014 at 10:00 am |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Resign? Since he is basing decisions about OUR law based on HIS religions, he needs IMPEACHED...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        Actually, so was I, Akira, because I can think of other things that are suitable for him that aren't nearly as polite as impeachment...

        June 27, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
  17. colin31714

    "Moyler says; "We do not argue that these damaging effects on society and its individuals will be immediately apparent, but we are sadly confident that the subversion of marriage will bring devastating effects over time."

    In other words, our ranting claims about the imminent breakdown of society have not transpired, so just like we do with the second coming of Jesus, we kick it to some nebulous point in the future, thereby immunizing our ridiculous claim against empirical disproof.

    June 27, 2014 at 9:59 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      amen!

      June 27, 2014 at 10:08 am |
    • realbuckyball

      He failed to mention even one "damaging effect". He's blowing smoke out his umm, rear end. He's got nothing, and he knows it. There is no "damaging effect". It's a tempest in a teapot. A very small percent of humans are born with SS attraction. It's NOT a "choice". The percent is not rising. They pose no threat to anything or anyone. It's in society's best interest to integrate them. In order to be a "moral crisis" (as anyone who has taken Moral Theology knows, which apparently Mohler has not) a "moral (or immoral) act, MUST involve a "decision". It does not meet the criteria of "moral choice", even in Moral Theology, if there is no choice. One of the highest causes of teen suicide is the perception by teens that they may be gay, and will be forever marginalized and ostracized by virtue of something they are born with. These Fundie Christians are complicit in that evil. Shame on them.

      Shame on you Albert Mohler.

      June 27, 2014 at 10:31 am |
      • fortheloveofellipsis

        bucky, what do you expect from a "church" which has NEVER EVER issued a binding apology for its support of slavery–a position that was its SOLE reason for existence? No wonder Theo loves it. They probably think the Shoah is justified too, just like Theocrat does...

        June 27, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
  18. tbreeden

    Go away, Mohler.

    June 27, 2014 at 9:25 am |
    • realbuckyball

      "moral crisis" LMAO
      Fundies can't stand the world is changing, and shifting out from under their ignorant feet. Change is hard. Poor babies.
      The fact is, (if he existed) Jesus was about valuing "the other". In today's society, "the other" (used to be) people who (science has PROVEN) were born gay. Time to join the 21st Century, even in the Bible Belt, as difficult as that might be, for these old men.

      June 27, 2014 at 9:52 am |
  19. G to the T

    "Those of us who believe that human flourishing depends upon the recognition and honoring of marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman see this transformation of marriage into something radically different as a grave threat to human society and human happiness."

    Humans have had no problem "flourishing" throughout human history with societies that have used a variety of definitions for what we would call "marriage", "love" and "normal". Assuming that relatively modern/western definitions are somehow a necessity for the continuation of the species is a flawed assumption.

    June 27, 2014 at 9:07 am |
  20. realbuckyball

    So what ?
    Poor Little Stupid Not So Bright Al. He forgot one teensy weensy thing. The MOST IMPORTANT thing.
    He forgot to show how this is a bad thing, or demonstrate ONE bad consequence it has had for society.
    Critical thinking is not something that's valued at his school apparently, as the board there continues to allow him to embarrass them all.

    And BTW, thanks Al for demonstrating that you too don't have a clue what Biblical "prophesy" is all about. The role of a prophet was NOT to tell the future.

    Deuteronomy 18:10 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft". In fact what he's doing was forbidden.

    Poor little Al. He was born with a silver Bible in his mouth.

    June 27, 2014 at 8:36 am |
    • realbuckyball

      "Biblical marriage" had many definitions.

      There is not one peer reviewed academic study that demonstrates even ONE poor outcome of actually following through with what the Declaration of Independence says "ALL men, (not just straight men) are created equal"

      AT the end of the Prop 8 appeals Case in California, the judge asked the plaintiff's attorney how exactly SS marriage threatens traditional marriage. He replied : "I don't know, judge, I don't know".

      "Christian's nightmare" ? Really. Maybe Fundie Christians. I'd like to actually see a real poll of believers. I suspect many if not most no longer think this really is a "nightmare". Nothing "nightmarish" has happened. Nothing. In other words, it's "all in their dreams". Grow up.

      June 27, 2014 at 9:19 am |
1 2 3 4 5
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.