Unless you define marriage as it has been defined since the beginning of time in every culture and every time period – i.e., “the union of a man and a woman.” There is no right to get married. I’m divorced. I’d like to meet a nice girl and get married again, but I don’t have a right to it.
In the case of Loving vs. Virginia, the US Supreme Court stated that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."
This is horseshit. The idea of only one-man-one-woman-marrying-for-love is a pretty new invention. Certainly not as old as the idea of multiple wives, or having your family arrange your marriage.
Why aren't you arguing for those?
It doesn't matter what some guy wearing a black robe thinks. That doesn't make it so.
and the SCOTUS is never wrong...oh wait...they reverse themselves quite often...
the SCOTUS also called a clearly defined "fine" in the ACA a "tax"...hence rewriting the Law...something they are constitutionally BANNED from doing..but we didn't hear anybody on the Left screaming about the SCOTUS being wrong or abusing their power nor did we have a President during his State of the Union address admonish the Court for acting inappropriately and deciding incorrectly..
so you can't have it both ways...either the SCOTUS is infallible and Obama is a horse's az for telling them their duty and how to decide, thus overstepping his constitutional authority..or the SCOTUS OFTEN is wrong and decides things for political reasons...as they have frequently over the past 100 years or so...
the SCOTUS does things every day that overstep and sidestep their strictly defined constitutional powers...as does Congress and more often than not, this Presidency. Until WE The People restore the Constitution, they will continue to take us down the road of Soft Tyranny and global destruction...
then when the Islamofascists and outright Communists seize power, the LGBT community will TRULY know what it is to be discriminated against, as they are rounded up and tossed into gulags or simply beheaded, a la the glorious Russian Revolution and Sharia Law.
too bad the LGBT were too stupid to make the right argument from the start - State's Rights and REMOVAL of ALL FED regulation of marriage
 September 5, 2014 at 1:15pm
At present rate, there will be no history for Obama to go down in…
August 28, 2014 at 2:46pm
The opposite of the spirtual is the sensual…
 August 5, 2014 at 2:54pm
The major problem with these people saying that this is a “clear violation of the Establishment Clause” of the Constitution is that they don’t even know what that is. Allowing military members to display a Bible or even to personally share their faith is not the same as Congress making a law regarding an establishment of religion. An established religion would be a faith or denomination fully funded by taxpayer funds as in England or the Netherlands. Their governments pay for church buildings and the clergy’s salaries. In no way do we have that here, nor has anyone suggested such a thing. There is no separation of church and state in the sense that these idiots believe. While they are busy trying to stop “an establishment of religion,” they are violating the rest of the clause – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Prohibiting a military member from sharing his or her faith or displaying items of their faith is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What the Left wants to do is to establish atheism as the state religion. Atheism is a religion. It is the BELIEF that there is no God. That’s a faith. The Left believes in government and themselves as the priests and priestesses thereof.
 July 16, 2014 at 1:14pm
Absolutely! In the “Worker’s Paradise” of the Soviet Union, people spent hours wating for the necessities of life, not just coffee at Starbucks. Try waiting in line all day to get toilet paper, health care, food, fuel. Or, having your gas, water and electricity turned off for hours everyday because there just simply is not enough to go around. The average Russian or Soviet Bloc citizen did this everyday. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you, thanks to Obama and Company! Yes, WE can, but you can’t.
July 16, 2014 at 1:07pm
The “universe-victim theory?” I thought that was a proven fact! At least, it sure seems that way some times. At one time in my life, I decided I was the only actual being in the universe and that the entire universe and everything and everyone in it only existed to make my life miserable. Everyone else might think they had actual meaningful lives, but they really only existed to annoy me. The ultimate expression of this to me was pulling up at a stop sign and looking to the left to discover the entire population of the planet coming down the road. Then foolishly, I’d look back to the right and see … no one! If I had arrived a mere 5 seconds earlier, I could have just crossed the intersection with no problem. Instead, I had to wait. As hard as it has been, I’ve had to train myself not to look to the right. Missed opportunity is a tremendous downer. Ultimately, the thing that cures the universe-victim theory is “Schadenfreude,” i.e., “pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.” This is very therapeutic, since it reminds you that you really aren’t the only person that bad or inconvenient things happen to. I suggest watching the “World’s Dumbest [Whatever]” or “It Only Hurts When I Laugh” videos as therapy if you can stomach the stupidity.
 June 25, 2014 at 10:37am
Actually, he’s paraphrasing Kyle Reese in the “Terminator.”
 June 6, 2014 at 2:11pm
No, it won’t be written in the history books. After America implodes, there will be a new and deeper dark age than has ever been seen. Virtually everything we now know will be lost and America will be remembered very much the way Rome was remembered in Europe in the 7th or 8th Centuries. “Long ago, there once was a race of giants…”
 February 7, 2014 at 8:56am
I apologize rose-ellen. You do certainly have a handle on what has happened in the Middle East. However, your conclusions are simply wrong. I’m unsure as to why. I suspect that you’ve bought into the dhimmitude of the ME Christians. Permanent second class citizens suffering from almost 1400 years of the Stokholm Syndrome such that you’ve decided that the percecutors have a valid point. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The “Palestinian Refugees” left Israel voluntarily at the behest of the surrounding Arab nations so they wouldn’t be in the way while the Arabs annihilated the Jews. Unfortunately for the “Palestinians” it did not work out that way. The Israelis didn’t let them back in after the war and their loving Arab neighbors largely refused to take them in. So they became permanent “refugees.” The “Palestinians” who remained in Israel are full citizens of the country. They vote. They have political parties. They are not treated badly. Their brothers out in Gaza and the West Bak live in poverty in comparison thnks to the likes of Arafat and his successors who got rich off of aid money that never seemed to make it the people the claimed to be working for. Arafat was of course and Egyptian and not a “Palestinian” as there is no such thing and never has been. They are all people from the surounding countries. As for suppressing Muslim Funadamentalists by torture and imprisionment, etc. You fight fire with fire.
 February 6, 2014 at 1:18pm
You seem to have zero understanding of Christians in the Middle East. They do not back dictators. Dictators like Mobarek, Assad, Saddam, etc. were secular leaders. They spent much of their time suppressing Muslim Fundamentalists in their countries. They viewed the relatively apolitical Christians in their nations as more or less benign folks and protected them from the Muslim Fundamentalists who would overthrow the regime and – without provocation – attack the Christian minorities. Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. live with their heads down. They don’t do anything to call attention to themselves unnecessarily. They are second class citizens always on the verge of annihilation. The slightest misstep can produce riots and attacks and homes and businesses destroyed. The thing is all those countries were once totally Christian before the Muslims invaded them in hte 7th, 8th and 9th centuries. Who was being violent and militant them? Let me just say this: If we continue down the road we’re on, much of the Western world will be overrun by the Muslims and a new Dark Age will descend on us all. Your cultural relativism is absurd. Western Civilization, which was built upon a foundation of Christianity is the light of the world, the shining city on a hill, while Islam is a deep, dark pit. Objective history bears this out. Which would you rather, a culture based on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or one based on the values of a 7th Century Arab bandit?
My father 's father was from Aleppo Syria; a Christian going back to the early Christians. My father was born and grew up in Egypt .Very rich, very priveleged. They had a maid who was from the desert and had never seen electricity in her life ]Back when you all were worshipping pagans we accepted Jesus Christ. Prior to that we were Jews, i guess.Though we could be mixed with conquorers and other invaders.AND the Christians were better off financially, then most muslims. They were privileged by the colonialistsand then dictators. The CIA tried to recruit my father[going back to the early 60's here] he refused because he did not want to spy on muslims. [this is cold war early sixties mind you. he died prior to 9-11]. He was jailed in egypt for a while when he returned on a visit to Egypt and was accused of being an israeli spy.he convinced them he wasn't after being jailed a few weeks,i believe.[again early sixties]His view on Israel was that they're both fanatics[the jews and the muslims] but that any one with a sense of fairness has to acknowledge that what was done to the arab[palestinians] was wrong. He witnessed prior to the creation of Israel , foreigners building houses in Palestine . The houses looked different then the already there houses. he asked a [Palestinian] what was going on. They answered; don't you know-people are coming from europe building everywhere.[Zionists]
Repressing fundamentalists means torturing imprisoning and murdering them. Which gave rise to -non fundamentalist alquada. The muslim brotherhood were the first freedom fighters of these brutal and corrupt western back dictators. MB ,alquada were not there to impose radical fundamentalist sharia on everyone-but to topple dictators backed by either Iran, USSR or America.[during the cold war].Radical fundamentalist beliefs are not uniform among these freedom fighters and evolve and change and differ over time and place. Osama was no fundamentalists and no even particularly religious. He supported the uprisings against dictators and opposed Saddam Hussein AND Irans regime. The people have the right to topple dictators and shame on us if we think otherwise. And shame on christians whose only concern is that the dictator favor them !Prior to colonialism arabs lived harmoniously in the mid east as arab muslims, jews and Christians. As harmoniously as Europeans did for 2000years.Our sermon on the mount did not prevent 2000 years of warfare ,genocide and sectarian wars between Christians. We're no less violent and fanatic then we accuse muslims of being. Today their fight is political-not religious and Christians have no business siding with a Stalinist dictator who engages in a holocaust of Sunnis to remain in power. Any one who goes there to topple him is justified by any standard of morality.He's a Hitler and you're apologists for genocide and so is any Christian who suppor
Very well put.
I apologize rose-ellen. You do certainly have a handle on what has happened in the Middle East. However, your conclusions are simply wrong. I'm unsure as to why. I suspect that you've bought into the dhimmitude of the ME Christians. Permanent second class citizens suffering from almost 1400 years of the Stokholm Syndrome such that you've decided that the percecutors have a valid point. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The "Palestinian Refugees" left Israel voluntarily at the behest of the surrounding Arab nations so they wouldn't be in the way while the Arabs annihilated the Jews. Unfortunately for the "Palestinians" it did not work out that way. The Israelis didn't let them back in after the war and their loving Arab neighbors largely refused to take them in. So they became permanent "refugees." The "Palestinians" who remained in Israel are full citizens of the country. They vote. They have political parties. They are not treated badly. Their brothers out in Gaza and the West Bak live in poverty in comparison thnks to the likes of Arafat and his successors who got rich off of aid money that never seemed to make it the people the claimed to be working for. Arafat was of course and Egyptian and not a "Palestinian" as there is no such thing and never has been. They are all people from the surounding countries. As for suppressing Muslim Funadamentalists by torture and imprisionment, etc. You fight fire with fire.
October 1, 2013 at 2:00pm
I think she meant “…grandmother at sewing club…”
October 1, 2013 at 1:58pm
There aren’t many players of any color that can outthink Manning. There really isn’t any call for the racist comment.
October 1, 2013 at 1:56pm
No, it’s just that Liberals have no sense of humor.
July 31, 2013 at 1:29pm
Actually, Americans stopped supporting Small, Incompetent Government in favor of Large, Incompetent Government.
July 29, 2013 at 12:47pm
Everytime the race hustlers discuss this trial, they immediately start talking about social justice and correcting past wrongs and a culture of bias and racism, etc., etc. One has to wonder how long it will be before a prosecuter will ask a defendant on the witness stand, “Is it true that your great-great-grandfather owned slaves?” Or maybe, “Is it true that you have never donated any money to the United Negr0 College Fund?” After all if we’re going to drag “The History of Race in America” into every trial that involves a Black person and someone of another race, then no one will ever get EQUAL justice again. The defendant can only be guilty of what he or she has personally done. I’m not guilty of slavery or Jim Crow or Separate But Equal, and I shouldn’t have to answer for those things. Unfortunately, the Black Liberation Theology practiced by Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson says that all White people are guilty of what all past White people may have done to a Black person. Just saying you believe it was wrong and that you’re sorry it happened isn’t enough. When you say that, they hold out their hands for payment.
 July 26, 2013 at 2:44pm
Context is very important in this matter. The Deut. 22:13-29 passage covers many scenarios realted to rape and infidelity. The scenario being argued over is:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
I always felt that the situation descibed – when compared to the verses above it – implied that the woman consented to the sexual encounter because in the previous verses the use of force is explicitly mentioned whereas it isn’t here. In this particular case, they both are being forced to marry each other because they had sex outside of marriage and got caught. Of course, as the rabbi above pointed out, she could opt out. The phrase, “and lay hold on her,” is somewhat problematic to this view as it could imply force, whereas verse 25 actually uses the word force. I’m not sure of the exactness of the translation of the Hebrew to English. Maybe someone else could elucidate.
June 18, 2013 at 1:11pm
The first thing you have to remember is that the Bible is not about the US. It’s about God’s plan for the salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ. A major player in that plan is God’s chosen people, the Children of Israel. The Bible discusses, in-depth, the history of the relationship between God and Israel. What the US does or doesn’t do is of little relevance to this story except maybe very peripherally. I believe we, as a nation, will be judged based on how we treat the nation of Israel as well as how we as a nation – just like Israel – stay faithful to God. The US seems to prosper when we are close to and positively support Israel (our economy soared from the time we recognized Israel as a nation in 1948 until the late 1990s when we began to side with Israel’s enemies and to pressure Israel to divide up their land. Now, I know people will say that our economy rises and falls based on our own decisions – and that’s true – but God allows some people to be listened to more sometimes and less at others. Is it coincidental that the same folks that cause trouble for Israel, also advocate policies that damage our economy? The more we allow them to be ascendant here, the more we suffer. We should support Israel, but I don’t believe we will for much longer. An,d our poor decision to support Israel’s enemies in Libya, Egypt and now Syria may ultimately be our undoing.
June 2, 2013 at 1:15pm
I listen to Rush’s show virtually every day. I don’t always agree with him, but I have to say, he has never said anything hateful about or to women. He says things all the time that are hateful to Liberals – like the Truth. I was listening to him the day he first discussed the Fluke woman. There was no vitriol and no hate for this woman or women. He only asked what one would call a woman who expected someone to pay for her to have sex. After all, that was what this shameless woman was testifying about – the gov’t should pay for her birth control with our tax dollars so that she could have sex with men she wasn’t married to without being “punished with a baby” (to use the president’s phrase). Rush said you’d call such a woman a slut. He never said “Sandra Fluke is a slut.” Back in the good old days, or what the Liberals call Hell, a woman who had sex with someone she wasn’t married to was called a slut, tramp, whore, trollop or any of several other such names. Most women worked hard – at least publicly – to maintain a good reputation. Now they testify before Congress about how they need someone to pay for them to have consequence-free sex. Things have sure changed. No one could honestly argue that it’s for the better.
BTW, of the 26,000 recent sexual assaults in the military, 14,000 were assaulted men (about 1.4%). So, who’s actually doing the raping? Could it be the increase in homosexuals admitted to the ranks? Certainly Rush doesn’t advoc
 June 2, 2013 at 10:39am
I’ve always believed that two adults should have what they want when it comes to personal relationships. If you are attracted to someone of another race and they’re good to you, so be it. Not my business. It’s a personal matter and should be left as such. But, that’s where I have problems with the social engineering that goes on in the media. I don’t think the media should actively promote interracial or homosexual or polyamory or any other type of relationship to the exclusion of the mainstream. Though these relationships certainly exist, they are far from the norm. Yet the media – in movies, TV shows and commercials – bombard us continually with these images. It smacks of brainwashing. Sometimes, it almost seems like there are only interracial, homosexual or polyamory relationships in movies, TV shows or in commercials. There’s at least one such thing going on in virtually every show. Now, I’ve known many people involved in interracial relationships – even been in a couple myself – and I found that your interests, faith, values and goals are far more important than the color of your skin. I don’t think people should be hating on others for being involved in a relationship that makes them happy if it doesn’t hurt others. But, the media should not be pushing it on us. As for the actual commercial, I just figured that Cheerios cast the cute little girl (who is biracial) first which left them with no real choice but to create a biracial family for the comme
What did you really expect was going to happen when they posted this trashy mixed relationship story? Do you really believe people are going to cheer for more decadence in this country that is already inundated with every societal scourge known..........
BONNE.. can i borrow your time machine? i've always wanted to visit 1885.
@Eastinfection--- why don't you head back east 'till you land where you came from, Scotland I believe-- Trust me, we won't care that you leave....
DONALD... i'm a 1st generation American.
Do you know what that means?
It means i was born in the US to parents that were born elsewhere.
My Dad moved here in High School (before he volunteered for service and became 82nd Airborne and fought in Vietnam).
My Mom moved here when she was 5years old.
So.. no.. i'm not "from" Scotland... but my parents are.
Fortunately, you don't get a vote on where i get to live (which has been in rural North Carolina for the last 15years)
Peddle your paranoia somewhere else.
May 22, 2013 at 12:16pm
Actually, knowing our PC gov’t, this may be as easy as leaving a female FBI agent alone to question the suspect who, MMA or not, thinks he can intimidate or attack the agent and she had to shoot him. The article says the agent felt threatened and had to defend themselves. They don’t ever state the gender of the agent. I’ve heard that female police officers shoot suspects more often than their male counterparts because they can’t physically deal with a large male perp. I’m not trying to slight female FBI agents or police officers, but there are times they should not be left on their own. The same would be true for a smaller male agent or officer being left to guard or interrogate a larger or beligerant suspect. If there is a conspiracy, it may be no more than covering for their own stupidity.