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.
 October 31, 2014 at 10:03am
I would have done a nice compare and contrast between Islam, including its radical elements, Christianity, and Judaism. Then I would have made copies for the entire class.
 October 31, 2014 at 9:57am
So then I guess you have all the particulars of that positioned nailed down as well. Things like who will decide divorce settlements, custody, property rights, rightful inheritance if the government does not officially recognize marriage. This solution sounds simples but it is far more complicated and radical than you can imagine.The reality is the government has a vested interest in natural marriage as it produces future citizens and provides the best environment for their development and stability. A nation requires a 2.11 person population replacement in order to thrive and not be in decline. America is right on the bubble. Want to know why? Not because of replacement by birth but by IMMIGRATION. The government should be encouraging natural marriage not trying to destroy it. Here are a couple of articles that expand on why getting the government out of marriage is not the right solution.
Heaven is for Real cost 12 million to make and earned 100 million total, earning 8 times the cost. The Avengers cost 220 million to make, earning about 6 times the cost of production. So using that simple analysis I would go with Heaven is for Real all day long.
 October 21, 2014 at 4:51pm
And Jesus went on to basically say that Moses had given in to the social and public pressures of his time by granting divorce thereby changing the expectations of marriage, and that Moses was wrong to do so. In other words, Jesus raised the moral bar on marriage saying, from the beginning it was supposed to be one man and one woman in a permanent union.
 October 20, 2014 at 3:17pm
I cannot take him seriously anymore. Even today he reiterated that he does not care if same sex marriage is legal as long as his church does not have to be involved. Well don’t hold your breath. How does he think we arrived at this point? Let me put the dots really close together for him. Same sex marriage is genderless marriage. When you redefine marriage you inevitably will redefine parenthood, in turn making that genderless. So now gender is inconsequential in marriage and parenthood, any combination of mothers and fathers, or husbands and wives will do. Men and women are interchangeable and have no unique attributes inherent to their gender. That then makes it perfectly reasonable to call your children purple penguins instead of boys and girls and allow men to use the same restroom as women and girls. Furthermore, the ultimate goal is not marriage equality or tolerance it is complete and total acceptance and affirmation of their behavior. Which is why the mayor is going after pastors. That is why this will not stop even if genderless marriage is legal in all 50 states. Anyone that disagrees with their ideology or brings the lgbt propaganda into question must be silenced. Truth and reality must be destroyed, the first amendment be damned. If you have acquiesced on marriage and parenthood you have no room to complain when the mayor attempts to intimidate those that disagree with her radical agenda. You sat on the fence while this happened Beck, so shut up already
"Even today he reiterated that he does not care if same sex marriage is legal as long as his church does not have to be involved."
Glen is out of touch with reality. Churches are willingly accepting gay marriage:
And if it becomes totally socially acceptable for anyone of any gender to marry, species and age will be the next "barriers" to go. In the end you will have transgender pedophiles in a three way marriage with their own child and the family dog. The more leverage the mentally unstable are given, the more unstable and perverse society becomes.