Clearly you are ignorant of Christianity.She has “ALL Authority” when her speech and actions reflect what is written.You seem equally ignorant of American Government/ and American Law which were a reflection of English law– and based upon the laws dictated by God ,Himself. The Laws of Nature –or the Divine Law/ Revealed Laws of Scripture. As Scriptures clearly reflect Jesus that Rabbi from Nazareth called Christ by His chosen disciples themselves called Christians first at Antioch as He apparently told certain Pharisee (Scripture Lawyers of the day) of Marriage and asked “have you not read…” Matthew 19:4 — The cited Genesis 1:27– and 2:24 –which were the basis
for Marriage under American Law in every State until 2003 and our US Constitution grants no power over Marriage to the Federal Govt.
September 2, 2015 at 6:58am
Pretty good at reading sign I was a Medic attached to serve with the pukin ‘buzzards in another jungle for the most part they was strack
 September 2, 2015 at 6:48am
Kentucky State constitution Section 5 The Civil Rights,privileges or capacities of NO Person (I suppose that includes Christians) shall be taken away or in anywise diminished or enlarged on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenent,dogma or teaching. NO human authority (I suppose that would include Judges?) shall in any call whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” Sounds clear to me.
The government is NOT to discriminate against the moral and religious citizen. But the enemy of God and Country would have us all as Sodom anyway –eh?
 September 1, 2015 at 4:13pm
John 1776? so you have no problem with the religious test being forced on evey employee of the State– NO Christians allowed (unles they are willing to submit–and be as Sodom and like unto Gomorrah?
 September 1, 2015 at 4:09pm
We stand together inthis.her fundamental rights are being denied. Thie entire LIE of “marriage Equality is NOT about equality under the law–like most everything about that chosen lifestyle it is ALL about the forced submission of Christians to the willof the Sodomites.
 September 1, 2015 at 4:00pm
Article 5 State constitution “… No human authority shall in any call interfere with the rights of conscience.” apply that-Think_ twice 2. Her rights are violated when the godless State divorced from God attempts force her–and all Christians to deny their faith. The LIE of “marriage equality” has nothing to do with equality under the law– IT has everything to do with forcing the submission for Christians to embrace the SIN of the Sodomites.
Seems to me whatmost of the Preachers I know are most afraid of is their Church Board–and losing sheep if they speak with too much boldness. John Jay was a man I can agree with –it seems to me the preacher is (or ought be) free to animadvert on any subject he finds repugnant. When government encourages and embraces behavior that exposes us to the displeasure and vengeance of He that is Lord of ALl a national Crime(Sin) is committed that warrants national punishment (Calamities) so said Luthe rMartin in Maryland ,Jan.1788 and George Mason in the Constitutional Convention Aug.22,1787 Neither men were preaching in church but both spoke the truth. Marriage under American Law ,and American society was a Religious Rite and interest long before it became a political right. The Church has a right to defend Marriage as it is reflected in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and as it was “in the beginning.The Religious Right to speak of the Sins of Sodom also predated any political right to embrace such sin as lawful. Mans right and his Duty to God –the fundamental individual Rights of Conscience were once held sacred by our Government (Feb. 1776 Roger Sherman, George Wythe, and John Adams agreed) Now our government confuses that fundamental right with a right given by the State? and speak of a right to worship– changing the fundamental rights of man. The problem today is too many American have been BEGUILED by that Old Deluder Satan
 August 25, 2015 at 4:33pm
FrankieBaby– you rocked it.–It hink what concerns me is we accept the fact that Hitler and the Nazi are old history–we haven’t found the stuff to defeat the Muslim –like we did the Ottoman Turks in WWII., like we did the Barbary Pirates when Jefferson sent the USMC to the shores of Tripoli. Today’s American Presidents would rather be slaves to Islam than have our Marines Break their swords again. And that bothers me a great deal.
April 16, 2013 at 8:11am
But how do you and your ilk explain Article III of the twice passed Northwest Ordinance Religion,Morality, and Knowledge being necessary to good Government and the Happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” How do you and your kind explain the history of American education 1607–1865? How do you explain Justice Joseph Story -1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States on the General if not universal sentiment in America when the Constitution was adopted.Dr.Benjamin Rush on teaching the Bible in School? OR all the other voices from the Founding era up to 1892 unanimous US supreme Court decision church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States “…this is a Christian nation…” and the book by Justice David Brewer published in 1905 “the United States a Christian Nation” Es verdad none of this matters to the enlightened atheist.and the dogma taught by those who hate God.
April 16, 2013 at 7:51am
Yes and as at Ft.Hood will the domesticated terrorist in the White House declare it to be a workplace incident? As with Benghazi will he arrest Pamela Geller for inciting the Muslims–as he did that movie producer who made his film about their bloody prophet?
April 14, 2013 at 6:37am
It matters if that State allows the Rainblow flag of the Reprobate Nation be displayed.To the Moral and Religious sodomy is still a Crime of Infamy worthy of death. It matters also because the only other flag I know of that has been treated thus–is the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy.It matters because the soviet Communist reflection in the Flag of the Offensive United Nations is allowed in almost any State and the Laws and Goals of the United Nations pressed upon us all and no-one is allowed complain,nor remove it.
April 12, 2013 at 8:49am
Only thing I can add to what you posted–if possible–is in my opinion the Second Amendment merely recognized a fundamental right that has existed at least since the Gospel of Luke was written (Luke chapter 22 verse 36) Note; Thomas M.Cooley tracked the Second Amendment right back to the English Bill of Rights adopted long before our American Declaration of Independence) Congress has no authority over the Second Amendment unless it tosses the entire Constitution or has a Constitutional Convention as provided by the US Constitution. Like Mark Levin broadcast their action
Thursday was unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is not subject to an up or down vote.
April 12, 2013 at 8:34am
Tom do you really believe the Crap that Race– and Sexual Orientation can be equated? modern Science can discern reasonably well if an item is male or female– from the womb to the tomb. Science cannot discern equally well if an item is homosexual–or heterosexual -or when the same sex behavior /orientation began –or when it might end.Science can notice only the affects of such deviant behavior. i.e disease–physiological changes that are a result of the behavior. As Dr.Dean Hamer who was “expert witness” in the Amendment #2 political trial published a decade after he announced he had found a genetic model for male homosexuality continuing research has Not
verified by independent study his published research. To the contrary it has NOT gone well for him. And he noted that his assistant who claimed she found a female/lesbian model–in study of twins and triplets–Dr.Dean Hamer said she suggests what genetic science has not –i.e. that a child born of a homosexual parent could be more like the mother than that child’s sibling twin or triplet.(study of genetic twins and triplets) General Colin Powell published in Crisis in 1993 that to compare skin color to sexual orientation is” a convenient but invalid argument.” His views on Gays in the Military may have changed– but he said he stands by his view on the comparison of race and behavior. _-and I agree with him in this.
April 11, 2013 at 9:33am
T’anks– 65Mustang. We do so agree, Until/unless the State produces the transcript of the lecture and I can see for myself if there was any misrepresentation– I must stand with this Sheriff T.
April 11, 2013 at 9:25am
INDYGUY– We agree–T’anks. We were taught Army Values at ft.Campbell Ky. in 1969– when I saw how the enemy savaged Lt.Gen.Jerry Boykin for speaking at a christian church as a Christian Soldier I was aware the Values had been changed. Now the man who once led the Delta Force is now VP at Family Research Council .These e-mails according to FRC were sent five days before a shooting in the lobby of FRC by a man carrying a 9 mm handgun and 80 rounds extra Ammo and 15 Chick Fil A sandwiches. the Court prosecution’s review of a computer at Floyd Corkin’s home showed he was a follower of the Southern Poverty Law Center. leading me to wonder if Jack Rich is also. Major Malik Hasan who planned and prosecuted Jihad at Ft. Hood –in what the Army does not call a terrorist act but a workplace incident. Maybe the Army Values Jack Rich is speaking of as “Our Army Values” are those of the “soldier of Allah” who still draws Army Pay and those he killed or wounded denied the Order of the Purple Heart– Maybe those are the Values Jack Rich defends. Mr.Jerry Boykin of the FRC does reflect the Army Values we were taught at Ft.Campbell. Mr.Allen West of Florida also reflects the Army Values we were taught at Ft. Campbell. As does that Honorable Roy S. Moore -of Alabama . Pastors Arnold Murray of Shepherds Chapel , and Pastor Charles Stanley and yes even Mr. Perkins of FRC-who all served ,and were trained by the USMC. reflect my Values. need I continue?
April 9, 2013 at 4:32pm
Those who say the Bible says in several places we are to obey the law of the land.Ought study carefully the sermon preached by Samuel West in 1776 –On the right to Rebel” I find the sermon clearly puts the Christian response to bad government. when the magistrate begins to call evil good and good evil they cease to be ministers of God and become instead ministers of Satan and it becomes our duty as much as possible to resist and oppose them..Francis Schaeffer much closer to our time gave a Christian response to bad government. and remember the confessing church –when the Nazi attempted to control the church.
April 4, 2013 at 9:25am
funny thing watching those boys in blue being used as window dressing. A good number of them seem to have resented being used to dress up that campaign stop–reminded me something I heard an old cowman say once– you can dress up the cow poop all you want but it will still smell the same and it will always be dung. Obama can say whatever he wants–and have as many cops– or soldiers– or children –or whatever he chooses as window dressing but he will always be dung.
April 3, 2013 at 7:32am
I walked out of a College course back in the early 80′s when the unwashed College professor said that Vietnam didn’t mean nothin’ “Because we lost!” There is nothing between the two except an animus toward the veteran. I didn’t lose nothin’ and there was a similarity in the age and experience between me and Dan. The College I went to did not kick me out . sounds like Dan has one heck of a case if he can afford a lawyer-These days unless you can purchase justice there is None.
March 29, 2013 at 7:53am
SHAME on the man who would be President -if he were a natural born citizen-a Patriot if he were not a Communist–a Christian if he were not an unbeliever.Shame on Obama for forgetting the United States Constitution and laws made pursuant to it–that he is by law sworn to defend but has opted to”change” instead. Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God. And Obama is no god.the difference between Obama and dung is dung can be used to make good things grow –Obama is just plain Toxic.
March 27, 2013 at 8:56am
The US Constitution does NOT speak of “Marriage” for “marriage” is a States rights issue. The supreme
court has No standing. — except when it comes to behavior–ie. the stacking of legal cases prior to the admitting of Utah into the Union ,Reynolds v. the United State,1878–Murphy v. Ramsey and Others, 1885–Davis v. Beason,1890– Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. the United States,1890 .Back when we were yet that nation established a Christian nation –as found true in Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States,1892 and book by David Brewer The United states a Christian Nation ,1905. -upheld in 1931 U.S. v. Macintosh, cited from in 1952 Zorach v.Clauson- declared controlling legal precedent 1991 Chapman v. the U.S. The rebellious progressive and the unbeliever will reject Reason.
Marriage is a state issue. Yet no state nor any other government may pass any law that violates the Constitution, so says the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law. The argument must be made that a homosexual does not deserve the exact same treatment by state law as a heterosexual. That argument has yet to be made. The same Constitutional reasoning that struck down 17 state bans against interracial marriage in 1967 will eventually prevail in this case as well. The 14th is not about popular, if it were blacks would still have to pay a fee to vote
You are absolutely right, Marine. Good comment.
"The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law"
The 14th amendment was written for slaves (blacks). A black man/woman is anatomically identifiable by biology as a class or group of people. A "homosexual" is purely defined by what their sexual desire is. Is that the criteria for which we classify a group? What about bisexuals? What about pedophiles? What about incest? What about gays who turn straight or vice versa? You can't answer it.
Bottom line: Marriage is now and has ALWAYS been defined as a man and woman because they can pro-create and create a family. A "homosexual" couple is by definition NOT EQUAL to a heterosexual couple.
Also, a homosexual man has the EXACT SAME rights as a straight man. A Black man did not, nor was it possible for him to have the EXACT SAME rights as a white man. Your arguement is foolish and lacks reasoning.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings. It's just fact.
Marine: Your argument fails to hold water. Homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexuals in regard to marriage. Any homosexual can marry anyone of the opposite sex the same as a heterosexual. Additionally, your argument makes a compelling case for sibling to sibling, parent child and adult child marriage.
So you are equating paying a fee to vote to the issuance of a license by the state? Seems like a stretch to me.
Obtaining a license is not a right. Otherwise we could not be denied drivers licenses, ether. If licenses cannot be denied, then I guess they are really just a tax, not a license at all (which implies some criteria is met to obtain it).
I'm not a doctor, should I be able to get a medical license? What's the legal difference between the two?
If we were jailing homosexuals for proclaiming they were married and for living together, you'd have a valid point and my support. Whining that society won't accept your behavior as normal and license it really doesn't trigger my sympathy.
@ jeffile and the others who are hung up on incest and pedophilia
Sexual relations between a sister or brother is already a crime in most states, and pedophic activity is criminal universally. No one is suggesting the 14th gives license to commit criminal acts, only that if any government offers benefits to some citizens that the law be applied equally to all. Religious organizations can acquire tax exempt status as long as the are not breaking existing laws. Not just Christian churches, but those of all denominations. The fact that most people in America are Christian and heterosexual has no relevance at all when it comes to applying the 14th. Marriage is a legal opportunity available to anyone so long as said opportunity does not imply criminal activity such as incest, pedophilia, or polygamy. Homosexuality is not criminal activity. Therefore those who are homosexual do not surrender any portion of their rights as Americans to equal protection.
It would have been nice if you had actually cited some sources to prove your statements.
Let me ask you, does the constitution consider marriage a right?
Who were the first people in America to get married? Judeo Christians or gays?
Homosexuality was around during the time of the Founders, so why wasnt it listed as a right?
Is a mental disorder considered a right? So are schizophrenics constitutionally protected as well?
You're a troll and all you do is sabotage higher discourse. Get lost.