TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying Chuck Anziulewicz's 10 most recent comments.

• Jim Wallis Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage — and Had This to Say About Labeling Same-Sex Opponents ‘Bigots’

  April 9, 2013 at 5:14pm

  Meanwhile, Glenn Beck (of all people!) now says that marriage equality for Gay couples is simply about FREEDOM:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mn8Mo9dOoo

• Rick Santorum’s Dire Warning on Gay Marriage

  April 9, 2013 at 3:49pm

  Meanwhile, Glenn Beck says that marriage equality for Gay couples is simply about FREEDOM:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mn8Mo9dOoo

• Rush Limbaugh Says This Issue ‘Is Lost’ for Social Conservatives: ‘It Is Now Inevitable’

  March 29, 2013 at 12:19pm

  In reply to cantstandlibs.

  No, churches will not be sued for refusing to marry Gay couples. Suggesting such a thing is just an effort to whip up a lot of anti-Gay hysteria. Muslim and Atheist and Jewish couples are allowed to marry, and churches have never been “forced” to provide services to them. Nothing is going to change when Gay couples are allowed to marry also.

  It’s really a moot point, though, since none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church, they come from GOVERNMENT.

  It’s also worth noting that Gay people of faith attended churches and synagogues where they are welcomed. There are plenty of churches and synagogues which have provided Gay couples with “holy unions” and “commitment ceremonies” for a long time. In Charleston WV, where I live, there are five churches that are more than willing to provide Gay couples with proper weddings when the time comes.

• Rush Limbaugh Says This Issue ‘Is Lost’ for Social Conservatives: ‘It Is Now Inevitable’

  March 29, 2013 at 11:51am

  In reply to kadster01.

  Is that what you hope will happen?

• Rush Limbaugh Says This Issue ‘Is Lost’ for Social Conservatives: ‘It Is Now Inevitable’

  March 29, 2013 at 11:41am

  Social conservatives haven’t “lost” anything. For Straight couples, absolutely nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Nothing is being “redefined.” Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will be remotely affected whether (or not) Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

  Conversely, allowing Gay couples to marry will have ZERO impact on the number of Straight couples who divorce, have children out of wedlock, or give up unwanted children for adoption.

• Why Are You Seeing All Those Red Squares as Facebook Profile Pictures?

  March 27, 2013 at 9:17am

  In reply to Bamabelle.

  DEAR RIGHT-RIDER:

  If the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.

• Why Are You Seeing All Those Red Squares as Facebook Profile Pictures?

  March 27, 2013 at 8:35am

  In reply to Bamabelle.

  DEAR BAMABELLE:

  So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get “civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government. And let’s say the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you have a problem with that?

• Do Americans Still Believe Modern-Day Society Needs the Bible?

  March 26, 2013 at 11:54am

  I just wish that GOD, in His wisdom and omnipotence, would be just a bit more media-savvy in this day and age. I mean, we’re talking about the same God that allegedly created the Universe (just 6,000 years ago, according to some people), flooded the entire Earth, parted the Red Sea, and whose Earthbound avatar came back to life after having assumed room temperature for the better part of a weekend. Why does He insist on taking such a hands-off approach? We have one Book which has been translated and re-translated, interpreted and re-interpreted, until hardly anyone can agree on what it means. We have dozens of Christian denominations, each with its own unique take on what God expects of us. Wouldn’t God be a little more effective in getting us to behave decently toward one another if He would just put together a website or a television channel or at the very least a 1-800 number? There is a wide variety of contemporary social and economic issues I sure would like to get His opinion on.

• Chief Justice John Roberts’ Lesbian Cousin Will Attend Prop. 8 Hearing With the Woman She Hopes to Marry

  March 25, 2013 at 11:46am

  In reply to Chuck Anziulewicz.

  DEAR 000100111:

  Most American churches today do not provides wedding services for Gay couples, but many do. If a Gay couple really wanted to have a church wedding, it wouldn’t be too hard to find a church willing to do the honors. In Charleston WV, where I live, there are five churches already providing Gay couples with ceremonies. But even so, none of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the church, they come from our secular government. And of course churches have never been nor ever will be forced to provide services to people with whom they disagree theologically.

• Chief Justice John Roberts’ Lesbian Cousin Will Attend Prop. 8 Hearing With the Woman She Hopes to Marry

  March 25, 2013 at 10:30am

  In reply to Chuck Anziulewicz.

  DEAR CAVALLO:

  True, the word “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution. But the federal government has complicated the whole issue by taking a valid interest in marriage for the purpose of tax law, Social Security, and a huge number of other benefits.

  What do you think should happen to a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa if they have to relocate south to Missouri? Do they become “UN-married” by Missouri government decree? Do they get to keep their federal benefits?