It does not matter if you agree with her religion or not. It does not negate her constitutional right to freedom of religion. You know, one of those liberties that the founders thought were endowed by the Creator. Those couples could have gone to another county and gotten a license without a problem. Instead, as usual, they were looking to make an example of a Christian. They wanted to force her to violate her conscience to satisfy their own vanity. So much for live and let live. Gay marriage is only a constitutional right in the collective mind of the progressives. It does not exist in actuality. The Supreme Court made it up out of thin air.
Your rights end where my rights begin... her rights end where they gay couples' right to get married begins.
The Supreme Court ruled, and for all legal purposes in this country, it's over. Case is closed.
guess you forgot the first part of the first amendment then let me remind you Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or in other words the political definition does not have to follow any laws or precedence of religion or in another words any US official swears to uphold the Constitution, which never mentions God at all. And they swear to uphold laws enacted under the Constitution — which means laws that are in compliance with the establishment clause that prohibits any established or official religion. “That’s the main reason the framers didn’t include God in the oath of office. It would’ve contradicted the proposition in the Constitution that said no religious test would ever be required to hold office under the Constitution.”
She is free to practice her religion, at home, at church, at
lunch...but NOT to unconstitutionally discriminate against the citizens of this country.
 September 3, 2015 at 3:28pm
Ahhh….the irony. How does he get up there and do his job with a straight face?
September 1, 2015 at 8:00pm
This woman’s first amendment rights are being violated and you don’t think that is worth fighting for? Turning tail and “picking our battles” is exactly what got us to this point. If you aren’t willing to fight for the first amendment where in the world do you draw the line?Right is right and you either stand on principle or you don’t, no matter if your adversaries number in the millions. Besides, statistically her supporters likely outnumber her detractors.
 August 3, 2015 at 8:57pm
I think this was all just a show vote anyway. If they voted on this issue by itself and it had passed Obama would have vetoed it anyway. That is why Lee was trying to get it added as an amendment to the highway bill last week because Obama would have had a harder time vetoing that bill. Mitch wouldn’t allow the amendment.
It's time for to GOP to quit fearing government closure and use it as a prybar against the DNC at every turn. More nonessential workers staying home is a good thing. Like they said in Dark City, "Shut it down!".
That shouldn't even be legal. The whole adding unrelated amendments to bills thing has got to stop. That is how this country has gotten into the mess of garbage laws that we are mired in today
 August 3, 2015 at 5:55pm
This is a false comparison. People who opposed interracial relationships were either blatantly racist, or had an incorrect understanding of the Old Testament command to the nation state of Israel not to intermarry with PAGANS who were practicing idolatry. These were still heterosexual couples capable of producing children through a sexual union which points to the purpose of marriage. Children and family ties are the purpose of marriage. Marriage existed long before politics and organized religion. It has natural attributes that everyone recognizes because they have experienced them firsthand as a child and then as a spouse. It provides an experiential understanding that mothers and fathers have an obligation and responsibility to their children and they are all tied to each other through a natural bond. It provides a stable and prosperous environment to raise children. This is what the government recognizes as marriage. Government recognizes not defines, which is what makes the Supreme Court’s decision absurd on its face. Homosexual couples cannot produce children without legally drawing in a third party. The government has no reason to recognize love between adults. Traditional marriage confers benefits to the individual and the state (future balanced and responsible citizens that drive the economy). Genderless marriage only confers benefits to the individual. Traditional marriage supporters are not being bigoted they are being logical.
Keep believing that if you want. It doesn't change what I've just said. It's still true whether you like it or not. Have fun on your rocky road ahead.
“These were still heterosexual couples capable of producing children through a sexual union which points to the purpose of marriage. ”
So, heterosexual people who are naturally sterile should not be allowed to get married either since they can not have children? How about old folks who are no longer capable of having children? That is basically the illogic of our statement since marriage is only about having children..
 July 17, 2015 at 5:24pm
I have to say I am torn between two options when I see something like this. Part of me wants to see this person boycotted and fired because that is what the left would do and turn about is fair play. The other part of me just wants them to keep going, growing more and more outrageous as their masks continue to slip, and everyone gets a really good look at who these people are and that their true intentions are not live and let live.
 July 8, 2015 at 3:25pm
No the government should not recognize genderless marriage. Marriage is an institution that existed before government and before organized religion. Marriage is both a private and a public institution. It confers benefits to both the individual and to society. The benefit to society is the perpetuation of the species through child birth and providing a stable environment to raise those children, future citizens. Nations need a stable replacement birth rate to survive and thrive. That is why government has historically recognized and encouraged traditional marriage. Genderless marriage confers none of those benefits. Society benefits nothing by recognizing a couple’s affections which is the definition to which marriage has been reduced. In fact creating families for genderless partners requires the purchase of other’s reproductive material and wombs, which is fraught with ethical questions. The fact of the matter is homosexuals simply did not fit into the parameters that defined marriage and supported its teleogical ends. We don’t issue driver’s licenses to blind people because they cannot fulfill the criteria to qualify. Homosexual couples did not want to conform to the purpose of marriage which should logically exempt them from the institution. You are not advocating liberty, you are advocating license. I could come up with an excuse for almost any behavior using a radical individual liberty argument. But that would not make it anymore moral, just or correct.
 July 6, 2015 at 11:14am
Christians believe that the empathy you are referring to is the law God wrote on your heart, because you are made in His image.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
 July 1, 2015 at 12:45am
As a woman who has been unable to conceive I am sick and tired of that stupid infertility example. First of all if my husband and I chose to adopt, that child would still have a mother and father, a same sex and opposite sex pair of role models. Secondly, do you know how many women I know who the doctor told they would not be able to conceive and then ended up pregnant? Change of life babies are not uncommon in my family. It ain’t over ‘til it’s over, and until then there is always a chance of a happy surprise. Incidentally when my husband proposed I was not thinking about spousal rights. My mind did, however, quickly go to planning when children would fit into our lives.
 July 1, 2015 at 12:12am
My household income is probably in the upper 5-10% percent, which means my tax rate is higher than many people’s including your hypothetical couple who were paying taxes at a single rate. So in your scenario I guess I do not have equal protection, I should sue for equal rights. As for your second example, just because the estate tax is an onerous, burdensome tax that should not exist, does not mean you should redefine marriage. Sounds like all of your objections could be solved by tax reform. By the way those benefits have historically been to encourage procreation and ease childrearing, not encourage love and affection between adults.
 June 30, 2015 at 11:58pm
I agree with you in the sense that we did not fold the percentage of the 3% of homosexuals who want to be married into marriage as we have always known it. Instead we have redefined it for the other 97%. The Supreme Court took an institution that was defined by natural law and biology since the beginning of man because its purpose was the protection of women and their children and arbitrarily redefined it to be primarily about adult affections and desires. Sorry kids. Marriage was an institution with public and personal benefit. The state’s only vested interest in it is the encouragement of procreation to produce future citizens and encourage a strong family structure to raise them, because a nation without a healthy replacement birth rate is a dying nation. Now marriage is genderless which means parenthood is genderless. Mothers and fathers no longer matter, any pair will do. Again, sorry kids. This was a completely arbitrary decision which means at any time it can be arbitrarily changed again. It is now meaningless. The lawyers involved in the Brown’s polygamy case said this decision supported their argument, and there is no rational reason to deny polygamy based on this ruling.
 June 30, 2015 at 11:18pm
I was wondering the same thing based on the usual conservative bent of the comments on the Blaze. There does seem to be a redirect of traffic here for this article from a more lib/prog source.
 June 26, 2015 at 3:41pm
I recently read an article at Townhall that estimated the number of the Lgbt population that had married at around 6%. So for less than .20% of the population we have made marriage and parenthood genderless. For less than .20% of the population we have kicked the door wide open to the federal government being even more involved in marriage, because we have thrown out common sense, natural law, and experiential knowledge for the arbitrary whims of the moment. By arbitrarily redefining marriage based on affection instead of recognizing it is both a private and public institution that serves both private and public purposes much more consequential than affection we have been left without a defense to future reinterpretations. These interpretations will have to be defined and codified by the government leading to more laws and regulations. Traditionalists will also most likely seek laws and amendments to protect their positions. Bigger government, bigger government involvement so .20% of the population did not have to acknowledge uncomfortable truths and reality. There are 3 social safety nets family, church, and government. Destroy the family, destroy the church and what are you left with?
June 10, 2015 at 1:13pm
Your first sentence is very true. I withdrew money from a Chase ATM yesterday and the screen wished me a happy gay pride month. SMH
 May 15, 2015 at 6:56pm
Actually, ChiefGeorge, I think it is a rehash of a system that was tried before and failed miserably. Kind of like the way the progressives are always pushing us toward the same failed policies and always convinced this time they will work, this time they have it all figured out. It is the definition of insanity and the progressive way.
or is it deliberate? If you wanted to destroy a nation you would do what is being done to us. now I don't know who "THEY" are but it seems to me that some one is at the wheel of this dump-truck to hell.
There was also a book that came out recently called “Evolution’s Achilles Heel”.
It is pretty interesting to hear their perspective.
 March 10, 2015 at 1:44pm
First, there is no scriptural case for genderless marriage. It goes against God’s divine plan, purpose, and order. Traditional marriage is foundational because it is life creating. The purpose of sex is procreation. The fact that it feels good and is emotionally bonding is meant to encourage procreation and child rearing and is part of God’s plan. God meant for children to be raised by their biological mother and father. Reducing sex to a form of recreation goes against God’s purpose. Each of our organs has a purpose and misusing them is dangerous and can lead to disease and death.
Secularly, marriage is an institution that protects the family. The traditional biological family has the greatest chance to provide emotional and financial security. It is the smallest form of government and promotes self-sufficiency and responsibility within the family. It imparts benefits to society such as more stable and industrious citizens as well as economic benefits, replacement birth rate, etc. Redefining the institution allows more gov’t intrusions because it will now be the entity that defines marriage instead of using a natural law definition. Once redefined and based solely on affection the possibilities for further modifications to meet passing societal whims are endless. These modifications cannot offer the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. Genderless marriage is already infringing on children’s rights, women’s rights, and first amendment rights.
 March 4, 2015 at 9:08am
Govt’s interest in marriage is children as societies need a replacement birth rate to remain economically viable and should encourage procreative unions. Marriage is a biologically, experientially defined social institution that protects women and their children. Children do best with their biological mother AND father. Marriage is a privilege (another party must agree) and not a right. Reflecting the importance of children, marriage has parameters: the participants are of age, are not related, and the union is 1 man and 1 woman. Gov’t benefits are given to spouses to make it easier to have and support children. Genderless marriage requires that we no longer use biological and experiential factors to define the union. Now gov’t will define who spouses are and their relationships with each other and their children, removing the natural barrier between gov’t and the family and opening Pandora ’s Box. This redefinition will have consequences in family court including custody, child support, and adoptions. It legitimizes less than desirable behaviors like a certain form of sodomy which brings with it a higher risk of disease and death. It encourages dangerous and ridiculous laws like allowing men in ladies restrooms because gender no longer matters. And for those that say gov’t has no role in marriage and think churches should handle marriage I assume you think they should handle divorce since gov’t wouldn’t have to legally recognize the union. Repeat after me: Sharia Courts.
 November 13, 2014 at 7:18am
It appears you have completed the Mad Libs version of the assignment. Well done.