‘Gay Marriage’ Rooted in Fraud, Child Rape

by J. Matt Barber / on April 19, 2015 at 12:41 pm /

Share via email

The very notion of “gay marriage” is an artificial construct. It’s the aberrant byproduct of the sexual revolution, which, itself, was largely instigated by bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.

Alfred Kinsey

Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

While his “research” has been universally discredited and exposed as fraudulent, ideologically motivated and even criminal, it remains, nonetheless, the primary source behind today’s “sexual orientation science.”

For this reason, and many others, the novel notion of “gay marriage” sits atop a house of cards.

On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to attempt, once and for all, the deconstruction and redefinition of the institution of marriage. The court will then hand down a decision by the end of June. In anticipation of this landmark case, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel has submitted to the Supreme Court a friend of the court brief that reveals the criminally fraudulent foundation upon which the “marriage equality” Tower of Babel has been raised.

Among other things, the brief features the findings of Dr. Judith Reisman, the foremost expert on Kinsey’s pseudo-scientific cultural activism. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a visiting professor of law at Liberty University School of Law and works hand-in-hand with Liberty Counsel.

As the brief reveals, most people are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”

It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.

Kinsey’s research also determined that rape doesn’t really hurt women. In his 1953 volume “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” at page 122, Kinsey wrote, “Among the 4,441 females [reporting rape] on whom we have data, there was only one clear cut case of injury … and very few instances of vaginal bleeding, which however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”

Kinsey claimed that, like himself, over 30 percent of men are homosexual (today’s legitimate research has established this figure to actually fall somewhere between 1-3 percent). There can be no doubt that, if he were alive today, Alfred Kinsey would be one of the loudest voices clamoring for the redefinition of marriage.

“For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts,” notes the brief. “Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

“Changing millennia of history must always be approached with trepidation,” the brief continues. “In this case, the change must be rejected outright not only because it is seeking to redefine something which cannot be redefined, but also because the proposed change is grounded in fraudulent ‘research’ based on skewed demographics and the sexual abuse of hundreds of infants and children.”

The brief pleads with the Supreme Court not to “erase millennia of human history and dismantle the granite cornerstone of society in favor of an experimental construct that is barely a decade old.” Instead, Liberty Counsel asserts, “This case presents the Court with the opportunity to affirm and preserve the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, the foundational social institution upon which society was built and the future of the nation depends.”

In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman:

Marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
“An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).

“Older than the Constitution and the laws of any nation, marriage is not a creation of any government, but it is an obvious relationship between one man and one woman. Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

It is a tragic commentary on America’s moral freefall that the highest court in the land would consider, even for an instant, perverting the cornerstone institution of marriage to reflect the psychotic image and anti-social activism of a man who, himself, was a criminal pervert.

Liberty Counsel is calling Christians to unite in fasting and prayer for three days before the Supreme Court hears the case – on April 23, 24 and 25.

At this point, prayer alone may save marriage and keep, at bay, the wrath of a just and Holy God.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

J. Matt Barber

View all articles by J. Matt Barber

Leave a comment with your Facebook login

retiredday

Thank you for having your facts straight and telling the truth. These days there is a strong resistance to the truth and a preference for lies. Everything about the argument in favor of “gay marriage” is built on lies that people prefer to believe over the truth. In a rational setting, the concept of “equal rights” doesn’t even apply. There is nothing “equal” about gay rights. They are demanding society at large to disregard God’s authority to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Marriage in the eyes of God is only something that can happen between a woman and a man. So-called gay marriage is bogus. It’s a lie. By their unrighteousness they suppress the truth (Romans 1:18).
- Thisoldspouse
  
  In my estimate, “rights” that require that other’s rights be negated are no rights at all. And these are exactly what “gay rights” require.
  - http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz
    
    Uh, in case you didn’t know, Gay people have never told Straight people they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
    - Thisoldspouse
      
      Yes, they have. They have taken the fundamental language of marriage away from men and women by neutering the legal marriage application of these timeless terms. Even when requesting that the existing language be retained, Gaystapo thugs sneered that it isn’t ‘inclusive’ enough. Language is the essence of life as a society, and to the degree that it can be radically changed, the former meanings are denied.
      - http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz
        
        NOTHING is changing for people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual). The marriage equality movement was never some sinister plot to make homosexuality compulsory. Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will be affected when Gay couples are allowed to tie the knot also.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        Sure, and nothing is changing for the genuine currency held by people when someone counterfeits legal tender. Sure. That’s why counterfeiting legal tender is illegal. How much more valuable is marriage-the glue upon which any civilization depends, and upon which all children depend?
        
        The movement to counterfeit marriage has never been about anything except the narcissistic and vain quest for homosexuals to make something 100% illegitimate appear to have some shred of legitimacy. They are willing to burn down civilization-and who cares about the children who will be hurt in the process-in the hopeless quest to feel better about that which there is nothing to feel good about.
      - franklinb23
        
        That’s an odd assertion.
        
        One million people can call canned Spam “good” or even “real meat”, but it hasn’t changed my opinion that it is neither.
  - Kara Connor
    
    Explain what right of yours has been negated.
    - retiredday
      
      The right to publicly proclaim the Biblical admonition against homosexuality; “the free exercise” of religion, that is the right to live out your life in society according to the authoritative word of God, without the threat of losing your job, business, or your freedom of choice to not do business with or not hire or otherwise associate with individuals whose morals your religion teaches are an abomination.
      - http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        Very true. As I’ve often pointed out, two diametrically opposed value systems cannot peacefully coexist within the same jurisdiction. One will necessarily dominate the other
        
        We are just beginning to see that truth played out as homosexual activists and their “useful idiots” in government have begun a war on religious freedom and property rights, leveraging the power of government to FORCE people to not just “tolerate” their view, but to actively participate in efforts to lend false credibility to illegitimate and immoral practices.
        
        Without even getting into the God-given right of a child to a mother and a father, this assault by the counterfeit marriage movement constitutes pure tyranny.
      - Kara Connor
        
        You never have had the right to ignore public accommodation laws. That is a special right you are trying to get.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        We’re not even talking about public services here. We’re taking about private property (you know, privately owned by private individuals, from the fruits of private labor), and the God-given right of conscience guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution.
        
        While you may hold private property rights and the right of conscience in contempt, the U.S. Constitution and the founders who created this country did not:
        
        Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison
        
        No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. – Thomas Jefferson
        
        Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. – New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution
        
        Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. – John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court, author of the Federalist Papers
        
        Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. – Thomas Jefferson
        
        It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. – James Madison
        
        Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison
        
        The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams
        
        I know it must be disappointing for you, but here in reality where most folks live, you have no special right to force other people to affirm your immoral choices.
        
        Kara Connor
        
        And you clearly don’t understand what a public accommodation is. Being a private business does not mean it isn’t a public accommodation. If your conscience stops you obeying the laws governing such a business then don’t open one. No one is forcing you to do so. I repeat, you want special rights to ignore laws.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        No, it is YOU and your fellow Leftists who do not understand the difference between public property and private property. Public property belongs to all citizens for all citizens (should) be paying taxes for its purchase and upkeep. Private property is property which was purchased by private individuals for their private use and is owned by private individuals. That means YOU and everyone else don’t get to tell them how to use their private property.
        
        I seem to recall another set of cultural elites who once thought themselves entitled to tell other people what they could and couldn’t do with their own private property. They were known as the National Socialists, and most educated people know how that turned out. We don’t need to do it again, and certainly not in a free nation like the United States.
        
        I know Leftists like yourself get all hot and bothered at the prospect of telling other people what to do, especially with their own private property, but that’s just now how a free nation works. If you want to see a business run in a certain way and do certain things, in a free country like ours, YOU get to put forth YOUR capital and YOUR labor and create a business that will do that. In a free nation, you DON’T get to impose your will on other free people and force them to do your bidding-especially when it violates their God-given and constitutionally-protected religious freedom and right of conscience.
        
        When there’s a choice between the founders view of private property and God-given rights, versus the view of modern Marxist Leftists, I’ll go with the founders view every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
        
        http://liberallogic101.com/?p=23867
        
        retiredday
        
        Bob, you are so right. It is those who argue for the so-called “equal” rights of gay marriage who want special rights, not traditionalists. They ignore little details like those quotations taken from our founders. They don’t want the real principle of Liberty with restraint, as set forth in the Constitution. They actually support tyranny, which is what it will take to force a traditionally moral society to accept licentiousness. In fact a great example of tyranny is the use of the power of the courts to make “public accommodation” trump the most basic God-given right: the freedom of conscience to believe, speak, associate and conduct your life in accordance with God’s laws.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        Indeed. It is beyond obvious that they will ignore ANY and ALL facts that get in the way of what they want. That is why I say the homosexual movement is profoundly narcissistic. It is completely, purely, and totally about me, me, me…and facts, along with everyone else’s freedom and welfare, be damned.
        
        DCM7
        
        If you can’t appeal to anything higher than the law — which can be changed, which can be unjust, and which you apparently wouldn’t respect yourself if you didn’t agree with it — then you might as well not be trying to appeal to anything higher than your own personal preferences.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        Incisive and very well said!
      - franklinb23
        
        “The right to publicly proclaim the Biblical admonition against homosexuality”
        
        Retired: there is no law that bans street preaching or using even extreme speech against homosexuality in public.
        
        Case in point: Ruben Israel
        
        http://officialstreetpreachers.com/Main%20Page.html
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        If we go the way of socialist Europe (which is the way homosexual activists and other Leftist want the United States to go), we will completely lose the right to tell the truth, as has happened in Europe and Canada.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/the-coming-tolerance-telling-the-truth-is-a-crime-22307
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/free-speech-homosexual-boot-30294
        
        retiredday
        
        To quote Kara, “Blah blah leftist blah.” Incrementalism goes like this: legalize gay marriage, then make it a (“hate speech”) crime to say anything against it. Etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. It would really shock me to actually hear reasoned debate come from your direction.
  - glenbo
    
    >”In my estimate, “rights” that require that other’s rights be negated”<
    Wait…don't you have this backwards? Aren't gays rights denied so that Christians can enjoy their rights?
    I'm confused!
    - WXRGina
      
      No, Spouse doesn’t have it backward. Sodomites have no rights denied.
      - franklinb23
        
        Do you support non-discrimination laws for employment that protect people from being fired for their chosen religious affiliation (whether it’s Christian, Jewish, Mormon or otherwise)?
        
        If so - and you reject these same protections for gays - I’d say that gays do not have rights that are extended to others.
        
        In addition, it would give the so-called rights of religious employees precedent over the rights of private employers to hire and fire at will.
        
        WXRGina
        
        What? I reject your fallacious premise. The First Amendment was forged in blood, based on God-given reality. These men weren’t messing around, and they never dreamed their efforts would be abused to cover grotesque, degenerate BEHAVIOR as sodomy and “transgenderism” is. Move along, Franklin, because you are arguing untennably for Hell’s position, and I have no patience for it.
        
        franklinb23
        
        Gina, it’s pretty interesting how a reasonable question sends you off the rails on the crazy train.
        
        “These men”? Like who, may I ask?
        
        Brilliant as many of them were, they weren’t perfect. Ben Franklin visited prostitutes. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Those are facts, ma’am.
        
        Look, you were the one that stated that “sodomites are not denied rights”.
        
        Then you turn around and say “sodomites are undeserving of rights”.
        
        These are mutually exclusive statements.
        
        Sorry, but this makes you either ignorant or an intentional liar.
        
        Honestly: what’s with the anti-gay vitriol? How has your life been damaged by a gay person? Were you violated in some way, shape or form? It’s the only explanation I can think of, because your seething hatred is a bit over-the-top.
        
        WXRGina
        
        Deflecting the issue to the sins of others in no way justifies what’s happening with the degenerate, militant homosexual movement in our nation today.
        
        I made no “mutually exclusive” statements. Sodomites-for that’s what you guys are-already have all the same rights as every other American. There is no justification of granting *special* rights to people on the basis of their perverse, disgusting, unnatural, immoral and dangerous sexual behavior.
        
        As for what you perceive as “anti-gay vitriol,” I would correct you to say it is pro-liberty, pro-truth, pro-morality, pro-Constitution common sense. At the same time, I will also tell you that we are sick of the radical homosexual assault on all of the above things in our nation today. You can whine about my tone all you like, but you’re still, and will remain, dead-wrong.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        I agree. When you comprehend the damage that sexual perversion and the undermining of marriage and family does-not just to society as a whole, but to the individuals who end up hurt physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually-it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. And contrary to one of the most prominent lies of our modern culture, it is RIGHT to get angry at injustice and when people are being deliberately misled into harm.
        
        When you throw in the multi-level assaults on freedom that this issue threatens (religious freedom, property rights, state’s rights, the right of self-government crushed at the hands of judicial activists), it’s downright derelict and immoral not to get upset and a little angry at the incalculable damage this insanity threatens.
        
        WXRGina
        
        Yes, Bob, if the so-called “moral majority” had been much more vocal and animated about basic, timeless truth this whole time, instead of sitting meekly by, maybe we wouldn’t be in this outrageous position we’re in today.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        I’d be willing to bet any amount of money we wouldn’t be anywhere remotely in the same galaxy as this position.
        
        I’ve seen the truth attributed to Edmund Burke played out so many times in both directions, I know it to be fact: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
        
        WXRGina
        
        The truth, that. Oh, would that we had heeded it “back then!”
        
        retiredday
        
        Talk about deflecting issues, most of the pro-gay marriage comments here completely ignore the substance of this straight forward, fact-filled article. When you compare responses to this article, it is easy to see who has real compassion for their fellow human beings and who has total disregard for anyone who gets in their way.
        
        WXRGina
        
        Right-e-o, Mike!
        
        franklinb23
        
        Retired: It’s because I’m not sure what relevance Kinsey’s flaws have to do with the entirety of the gay population. He was a sole sex researcher who had some influence, but only some. Do you really want to insist that Kinsey is solely responsible for the gay rights movement? Ridiculous.
        
        You guys get annoyed when being compared to Westboro (despite their clear knowledge of Scripture and willingness to die for it), yet you want to lump gays together as if we were part of a massive cabal.
        
        Sharing a sexual orientation does not guarantee that one will share anything else in terms of values. There are gay rapists and pedophiles, but there are also gay men and women who have died in the service of their country and for the good of others.
        
        Look, I think it’s important to have ideals, but I also think one must have an awareness of one’s own inability to live up to those ideals. Otherwise, you become obsessed with punishing those who fall outside of that narrow range of “permitted” behavior and/or belief. You then become a vigilante: so hungry for justice that you become cruel.
        
        I’ve said this to gay rights activists as well as to religious activists.
        Someone said it better than I, though:
        
        “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. “- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
        
        retiredday
        
        Even Job, who was blameless and upright was upbraided by God because he was more focused on arguing his case before God than accepting God’s almighty authority over him. It is God who is telling you to stop justifying yourself in your own eyes, repent and come to him. You’re trying to drag all of society down the slippery slope with you, but a few of us here are telling you we won’t go along with you because we aren’t deceived. That’s the way it is. I advise you to look to your immortal soul and think about eternity.
        
        DCM7
        
        “He was a sole sex researcher who had some influence, but only some.”
        More than you acknowledge, at any rate. And it’s interesting that he’s still widely spoken of in “liberal” circles as if he was a purely positive influence.
        
        “you want to lump gays together as if we were part of a massive cabal”
        Given how organized the “gay rights” movement is, sometimes it’s hard to acknowledge that not every “gay” person is an active part of it. But there are things about homosexuality that are going to be true regardless of who they apply to and what those people do.
        
        “Sharing a sexual orientation does not guarantee that one will share anything else in terms of values. There are gay rapists and pedophiles, but there are also gay men and women who have died in the service of their country and for the good of others.”
        Technically true, but missing the point: that same-sex attraction is an abnormal and unhealthy state, which doesn’t exist in anyone without something having gone seriously wrong. It also misses the point that homosexuality inherently leads to certain unacceptable ways of behaving, regardless of the extent to which some individuals may manage to avoid those.
        
        I want to make it very clear to you that I do not hate “gays” or consider them worse than myself. My own sins are massive, and it is only by the grace of God that I’ve left them in the past. My concern about homosexuality stems in part from what I’ve seen it do to people close to me. That spurred me on to learn everything I could about it. And even in my advancing years I am still learning about God’s design for sexuality and how far people of all kinds have departed from it. I don’t want to deny anyone rights or keep them down; I just want to give the warning that there’s a price to pay for what we do, regardless of how hard it may seem for us to do otherwise.
        
        retiredday
        
        “I want to make it very clear to you that I do not hate “gays” or consider them worse than myself.”
        
        I am in total agreement! My family had homosexual friends when I was growing up, so I accepted them. And I became friends with many homosexuals as a result of being involved in theater. But when I turned my life over to Christ (at 31 years old) my whole world view radically changed as I read and studied the Bible. When God says something is sin, who are we to argue with him? Sin is a life and death issue. And that’s the truth I want every gay to get hold of. We don’t hate them. We want them to know eternal life.
        
        What we hate is when militant homosexuals try to force us to accept their sin, and go along with the lie that it isn’t sin at all. It’s perfectly “normal”. None of us are perfect. But you either honor God’s standards or stand opposed to them. We choose to stand with God and live.
    - http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
      
      Yes, you are confused. Homosexuals already enjoy the same rights as everyone else. What they do NOT have the “right” to do is counterfeit marriage, nor do they have the “right” to force free people to participate in their immoral activities.
    - Thisoldspouse
      
      Once again, no one’s right are being denied, including homosexuals.
      
      A “right” is not just being able to do something that you want to do, especially when it affects others.
      - glenbo
        
        >”A “right” is not just being able to do something that you want to do,”<
        Marriage isn't a right?
        But what about the 1138 federal + hundreds of states "rights" and benefits that instantly accompany marriage once 2 people enter into one. There's the right to one's spouses' insurance, the tight to inherit, visitation rights, adoption rights survivor's rights.
        Perhaps marriage by virtue of the fact it has many rights attached to it, by definition is indeed a right unto itself.
        
        DCM7
        
        Marriage isn’t just a “right.” It’s a privilege, and a relationship has to meet certain requirements to be considered one.
        No one merits any special right to waive any of those requirements just to suit their own preferences.
        
        DCM7
        
        “Would you accept having others decide for you what kind of car you are allowed to own and drive?
        And would you accept being denied to own and drive a particular kind of car you truly love to own based ONLY upon the feelings and beliefs of others?”
        
        As it happens, I’ve used the “driving” analogy myself:
        http://www.americanclarion.com/right-drive-wrong-side-road-30093
        http://www.americanclarion.com/mature-people-9981
        
        At any rate, your analogy doesn’t hold any water because it starts which an assumption that we know to be false: that a “gay” relationship is no more different from a healthy, normal marriage than one kind of car is from another. The reality (to reference the first article linked to) is that it’s as different from a healthy, normal marriage as driving on the wrong side of the road is from driving on the correct one. And real life bears this out, whether you acknowledge it or not.
        
        The rest of your post is basically just more straw-men demonstrating that you haven’t understood (or aren’t dealing with) the points that have been made.
- glenbo
  
  >”So-called gay marriage is bogus. It’s a lie”<
  How do you know the existence of God isn't just a lie?
  - retiredday
    
    I know the existence of God isn’t a lie because God is my father. I know my father in heaven. I know the existence of God isn’t a lie because God the Son is my Savior and Lord whom I know intimately. I am seated with him in the heavenly places. I know the existence of God isn’t a lie because God the Spirit lives in me, counsels me and teaches me how to live from day to day. But as the Bible tells me, this is all foolishness to you because the things of God must be spiritually appraised, and those without the Spirit will not understand.
    
    For those who want this sure knowledge, it is freely given to anyone who is willing to receive Jesus, confess their sinfulness to him, turn away from sin and begin living for God. That means denying the self. How can we know this gospel is real? Read, study, learn and meditate on God’s word. It is the Truth. And it will withstand every assault from the father of lies.
    
    But do you ask because you’d really like to have the sure knowledge that God is real? Or are you asking a rhetorical question that you don’t think anyone can answer? I think you really aren’t asking a question at all. But in a mocking way you are stating that the existence of God is only a figment of my imagination, which justifies you in your imagination to be convinced there is no God who has created you, has authority over you and will hold you to his standards.
    
    If you have scholarly integrity or intellectual integrity, you will examine the reliability of Scripture. I have. I have no doubt of it’s authoritative reliability. Many scholars through the ages down to and including the present day have witnessed to the reliability of Scripture. Those who mock the Bible and choose to remain ignorant of its message do so at their peril.
    
    Sexual deviants and those who practice all other kinds of sin can’t stand the idea that a Sovereign God with all authority holds us accountable to his standards, not to our own. Taking a rebellious stand against God and trying to defend your so-called “rights” to do whatever you want to do because you want to do it, is in the end about as effective as spitting in the wind. But I understand how easy it is for those who do not believe in God to convince themselves they are doing nothing wrong.
    - glenbo
      
      >”I know the existence of God isn’t a lie because God the Spirit lives in me,”“Those who mock the Bible and choose to remain ignorant of its message do so at their peril.”<
      I wouldn't say that I "mock" the bible, but I do question the morality of the condoning of slavery and the murder of innocent people for innocuous reasons.
      I would have to say though, that I have not been convinced that It is indeed the word of God and not just a fabrication of man largely due to the flawed science and its questionable morality. I have indeed read it.
      That said, I do have a question: What is this "peril" you mention and why would anyone be deserving of it?
      - DCM7
        
        “I do question the morality of the condoning of slavery and the murder of innocent people for innocuous reasons.”
        “the flawed science and its questionable morality”
        You say you’ve read the Bible. That may be, but the statements you’ve made demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of what’s in it. They are shallow and baseless claims which have been refuted time and time again — so shallow and baseless that you destroy any potential credibility of yours simply by stating them with a straight face.
        With all respect, it’s clear that you need to be listening more than speaking regarding the subject at hand for quite a while.
        
        glenbo
        
        >”the statements you’ve made demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of what’s in it.”<
        So God never gave instructions on owning a human being as property?
        Or are you just creating a rationality in order to push something out of your mind to avoid cognitive dissonance, since you cannot explain why any loving god would do such a thing?
        
        DCM7
        
        “So God never gave instructions on owning a human being as property?”
        I don’t have to create any “rationality” to avoid cognitive dissonance. I merely have to understand what has actually been written about.
        What the Bible refers to as “slavery” actually had very little in common with what that word brings to our minds today. (Side note: One mistake many people make is to read the Bible — or, for that matter, learn about anything from history — without understanding that our 21st-century ways of seeing things are mostly completely irrelevant to comprehending things in the past.) What’s called a “slave” in the Bible would probably be better understood to our modern, narrow minds as something between “servant” and “employee.” There is no relevance to anything like African-Americans being kidnapped and treated like property.
      - retiredday
        
        You reject my testimony to you that God is real because he is the Stranger you have never met. Or in your own words, “…he doesn’t exist in my mind.” Your disbelief does not discredit my testimony. You just don’t believe. That’s your choice. You, along with everyone else on Earth, are free to deny reality. But the reality of God’s existence does not need confirmation from your disbelief. That’s your loss, not mine.
        
        You also are either a liar or totally unaware of who you are when you say, “I wouldn’t say that I ‘mock’ the bible (sic)…” Everything about your comment drips of a smug condescension that mocks Biblical truth:
        
        “I see. He exists in your mind…”
        
        “Ok. I get it now.”
        
        “What is this ‘peril’ you mention and why would anyone be deserving of it?”
        
        If what you say is true (“I have indeed read it.”) then you know exactly what I mean. And if you have indeed read it, you obviously did not care to understand it, but rather held it up to your own prejudiced standards of interpretation. You obviously have made no effort to understand slavery as it was practiced by ancient Israel. It was completely different from the slavery of early America. And that slavery was ended largely because of the efforts of Bible-believing Christians. After all, it was for freedom that Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1).
        
        Also, by referring to, “the murder of innocent people for innocuous reasons” you underscore the popularly held secular world view that it is not what an authoritative God says that counts, but what you think, in your own poorly informed opinion, that really counts. It’s what you call murder that counts. It’s what you call innocuous that counts. If that’s the mindset you read Scripture with, then you will never hear God. You have declared in your thinking that you have already made up your mind. You don’t want to be bothered with a greater reality that is beyond you.
        
        And, as I said, you are free to do that — especially in a free society. But those who lift themselves up in their pride against God do so at their peril. And you know exactly what I mean, but your conscience has been seared (1 Timothy 4:2), so you mock what I say. Because of that, I give up trying to “reach” you, but hope that others who read this will be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

Marriage equality for Gay couples has NOTHING to do with Kinsey. It has more to do with Gay individuals and couples living openly, with integrity, and being valued members of the community; it has more to do with the fact that, unlike 30 years ago, most Straight people are aware of Gay friends, family members, and co-workers, and with that awareness has come dramatically increased acceptance and support; and it especially has more to do with social networking in the internet age, when Facebook has made the proverbial “closet” virtually obsolete.
- Thisoldspouse
  
  LOL! Taking it up the poop chute involves ‘integrity.’ Wow!!!
  - franklinb23
    
    So I take it you find non-missionary style sex amongst heterosexuals to be “perverse” as well?
    - http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
      
      Interesting, the (false) choice that it has to either be (a) the most mundane and normative thing imaginable, or (b) the most unhealthy and perverse thing imaginable.
      
      That’s why it’s called a “false choice.”
      - franklinb23
        
        That’s not an answer.
        😉
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        No, a false choice is not an answer.
      - franklinb23
        
        Are you saying that heterosexual sex is “mundane”? Hmm …
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        I think you know what I meant. The most mundane sex I ever had was pretty incredible.
    - Thisoldspouse
      
      Yes, I never said otherwise.
- retiredday
  
  “Marriage equality for Gay couples has NOTHING to do with Kinsey.”
  
  Wrong. The Kinsey reports changed popular attitudes toward all aberrant sexuality. It confused people’s thinking because a so-called “expert” put forth lies intended to give the impression that there really is no such thing as aberrant sexuality. What we had been raised to know as immoral was now being sold as something lots of people do. “It’s all good.” was based all on lies.
  
  Further, there is no such thing as marriage equality. It is a construct of faulty secular thinking.
  
  And while society wallows in the “awareness” of their own narcissism, they are foolishly oblivious to the fact that one day they will meet their Creator and will have consequences to pay for. That’s why God sent his only Son — to redeem you from those consequences.
  
  And by the way, the Good News is never obsolete.
- http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
  
  Obviously you don’t know much about Kinsey and his work (and probably don’t want to know, or don’t want others to know). Maybe you didn’t get past the headline in your reading, either. It’s easier to maintain faith in liberal fantasies that way.
http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

I didn’t ask you for a Leftist definition of a “public accommodation.” I told you the difference between public and private property.

Apparently you hold the typical Leftist contempt for freedom and private property.
- Kara Connor
  
  I gave you a legal definition. Are you really this far in reality denial?
  - WXRGina
    
    No, “Kara,” Bob is not the one who is in denial of reality.
    - Kara Connor
      
      I challenge both of you to look up the legal definition of a public accommodation and post it here if you believe I am incorrect. A privately owned business can be a public accommodation. That is simply a statement of fact, and my name is Kara, by the way.
      - http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        Private property by definition (and I’m not talking about Leftist distortions of fundamental rights; I’m talking about common sense and reality) belong to the public. Property is either public (i.e. purchased and owned by the taxpayers of the government for government use) or it is private (purchased and owned by PRIVATE individuals for their PRIVATE use).
        
        If you contend that government can wave a wand and make PRIVATE property become “public” property, then this is no longer a free country, but one characterized by tyranny, and the liberty cherished by those who founded this country and crafted our constitution is crushed:
        
        Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison
        
        No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. – Thomas Jefferson
        
        Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. – New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution
        
        Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. – John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court, author of the Federalist Papers
        
        Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. – Thomas Jefferson
        
        It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. – James Madison
        
        Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison
        
        The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams
        
        So I’ll ask you again: I wonder if you could explain to me the liberal (what passes for) logic that says because you sell goods or services to people, that this act somehow amounts to a forfeiture of religious freedom and property rights. I just don’t get that, so you’ll have to explain that “logic” to me (though I’m pretty sure I know the real answer).
        
        Now I know that the Left just loves to tell people what to do. After all, it was the Democrats who defended the “right” to keep black Americans enslaved prior to the Civil War. And it was Democrats who left the United States to protect their “right” to enslave certain Americans. And it was Democrats who, after a Republican president defeated their efforts to keep some Americans enslaved, continued to try to deny certain Americans their full rights (e.g. property rights, the right to vote, etc.). And it was Democrats who came up with laws to institutionally deny certain Americans their full rights and access that other Americans enjoyed. And it was Democrats who came up with the Jim Crow laws that (rather like the Democrats today want to tell private property owners what to do with their own property) told private business owners what to do with their own property. And it wasn’t until Democrats figured out they could get more mileage out of pandering to black Americans and by making black Americans further dependent on government for protection and provision, that the Democrats shifted their tactics-or as Democrat President Lyndon Johnson said of Democrat support for civil rights legislation: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
        
        So, understanding all these historical facts, can you walk me through the Leftist “logic” that justifies forcing a person to do or not do certain things with their own private property simply because of the magical tranformative act of selling goods or services to people?
        
        jnail7
        
        You seem hung up on the tangent of public vs private property, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is commerce. Opening a business to the general public, using land zoned for commercial use, and taking advantage of incentives in place to promote the creation of businesses to benefit the general public, is purely a choice mediated by the social contract of operating such within the bounds of the law. Another choice would be top open a private “club” where services are not available to the general public. The former is described legally as a public accommodation. The latter is not, and as such, likely does not qualify for any benefits that are available to support those that are public accommodations.
        
        Commercial zoning is an excludable and rivalrous resource (look up common good(economics)). It is in the government’s constitutional interest to manage that resource (power to regulate commerce). Such property has legal limitations dictating the permissible usage of such property. If you do not agree with the limitations, then do not buy such property. (No different than the arguments concerning ‘gated’ communities and requirements to sign homeowner association contracts as a condition for purchase). Basically, your rights concerning the use of your privately owned property end based upon what rights you voluntarily gave up in exchange for purchasing said property.
        
        Basically it comes down to personal choice of a business owner. If you want the power to arbitrarily discriminate concerning your clientele, open a private “club” that only caters to “members”. Otherwise, trying to do the same with a public accommodation makes you the one asking for special rights and exceptions to the law.
        
        Now, as far as your red herring ad hominem rant on the history of Democrats, you are superficially correct. Those that self-claimed as Democrats during that time did do what you listed. However, you perfectly demonstrate the key danger of the party system that George Washing warned against in his farewell address. You are suckered in by the branding of the parties so that a label is flung around without any meaningful context. The largest group that you allude to were nicknamed “Dixicrats” and depending on the historical sources either abandoned the Democrat party over that party’s failure or moved to the rival party to set about undoing that party’s successes. Either way, it does not really matter as the party system robs individual candidates of identity in regards to their entire constituent base in favor of party branding. Too many people vote based on party rather than the strengths and weaknesses of the potential candidates. Our national conversation about governance only superficially revolves around the actual issues, but mainly revolves around how one party can get control. It becomes less and less about representing the people and more and more about representing the party platform. That very concept should scare the crap out of a constitutional patriot. Sadly there aren’t many of those left. Most everyone else just cares about trying to justify why they shouldn’t have to follow the laws or dictating what happens within peoples’ actual private households.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        This has EVERYTHING to do with private property, i.e. property rights, i.e. the right of a free and private individual to do as they see fit with THEIR property that THEY own with THEIR money and THEIR investment of THEIR labor.
        
        Why is that so hard for Leftist to understand? Is it the inherent animosity toward freedom and private property held by the Left? Is it the deeply ingrained instinct to tyrannize those who disagree with you?
        
        According to Natural Law, the act of selling a product or service to the public does not involve the forfeiture of one’s right to control the property owned by the one providing the product or service. If you think it does, then by all means, point that out from Natural Law-the law upon which all legitimate law is based.
        
        According to the U.S. Constitution. the act of selling a product or service to the public does not involve the forfeiture of one’s right to control the property owned by the one providing the product or service. If you think it does, then by all means, point that out from the U.S. Constitution-the highest law of our nation, and the one with which all other lesser laws must harmonize.
        
        According to all state constitutions. the act of selling a product or service to the public does not involve the forfeiture of one’s right to control the property owned by the one providing the product or service. If you think it does, then by all means, point that out from a state constitution-the highest law within that state, and the one with which all other lesser laws must harmonize.
        
        I’ll let you in on a little secret. Zoning laws exist to establish planning and use order within a certain limited jurisdiction. For example, it makes no sense for anyone to build houses next to an industrial complex; it makes for everyone being unhappy and causing lots of civil and legal turmoil.
        
        Zoning law does NOT exist to force private property owners to do the bidding of people with whom they disagree and serve those they do not want to serve, especially when the goods or services being demanded violate the conscience and religious liberty of the property owner.
        
        For a badly-needed lesson on liberty, I’d highly recommend you read what black economist Walter Williams has to say about private property and freedom (a man who, incidentally, has lived long enough to experience first-hand some of the Democrats beloved tyranny): http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/06/02/the_right_to_discriminate/page/full
        
        Oh, and sure, go ahead and write off over 150 years of Democrat love of tyranny. If there were only a few isolated instances of tyranny from the Democrat Party, or it it had ended 150 years ago, then you might have a case for dismissal. But it isn’t isolated, and it didn’t end 150 years ago. It continues today.
        
        So I’ll ask you, too: walk me through the Leftist “logic” that justifies forcing a person to do or not do certain things with their own private property simply because of the magical tranformative act of selling goods or services to people?
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        I should add that it’s extremely interesting that the Left considers immoral behavior an unwavering condition of being allowed to do business in the United States. Not that moral behavior be a requirement (which would make some sense), but immoral behavior, in the mind of a Leftist, is an absolute requirement to be “allowed” by the government to run a business. In what was once known worldwide as the epitome of a free country.
        
        Most interesting indeed.
        
        retiredday
        
        An important consideration of zoning laws is that they are the purview of local municipalities. But the gay agenda is to force society to change by using the power of central government (a dictatorial concept). Those who argue for legally institutionalizing gay marriage don’t give a rip for the constitutional rights of the States or the People (local government). They want us all to have to bow to the dictates of the federal government. In matters of marriage, that is unconstitutional, just as Obamacare is unconstitutional. So they do an end run around the constitution by redefining marriage, changing the laws by changing word meanings. Screw the principles our founders gave us.
        
        glenbo
        
        >”This has EVERYTHING to do with private property, i.e. property rights, i.e. the right of a free and private individual to do as they see fit with THEIR property that THEY own with THEIR money and THEIR investment of THEIR labor.””According to all state constitutions. the act of selling a product or service to the public does not involve the forfeiture of one’s right to control the property owned by the one providing the product or service”<
        
        So if someone owns a restaurant and a black couple sits down at the restaurant owner's lunch counter, the owner can legally turn them away simply because he doesn't like blacks?
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        It would help you greatly to read what black economist Walter E. Williams has to say on the subject of private property and freedom of association.
        
        http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/06/02/the_right_to_discriminate/page/full
        
        That is, if you have a mind that can move beyond your narcissistic agenda and genuinely seek understanding.
        
        retiredday
        
        “Basically, your rights concerning the use of your privately owned property end based upon what rights you voluntarily gave up in exchange for purchasing said property.”
        
        Here is an example of the conflict between the philosophy of law called “positivism” and natural law, from which our Constitution and American jurisprudence was derived, established, developed and then abandoned by a godless judiciary. Nevertheless, the Constitution still means what it says, no matter how much the positivists try to pervert it.
        
        The American ideal of commercial property rights includes reserving the right to refuse service (not accommodate) those who offend you as a matter of conscience. That means that “discrimination” is a good thing when it comes to morals.
        
        The civil rights movement in the 60s brought about the correct application of that principle, that race is not allowable as a basis of discrimination. However, traditionalists argue that the concept of moral behavior, particularly based on ones religious tenants, is in fact a primary application of the idea of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
        
        Christian’s have the God-given right not to be forced to associate publicly or engage in commerce with anyone who is morally offensive to them. There is a separation between private intercourse and social intercourse. In a free society, those who choose perverse morals do not have the right to force everyone to accept them.
        
        But that’s exactly the purpose of the gay agenda in arguing for so-called “equal” rights for the twisted concept of same sex marriage.
        
        jnail7
        
        You continue to miss the point that all one has to do is run their business as a private club that caters to members only. You get to screen all potential customers before hand for qualifying for membership, thus openly and honestly marketing your deeply held religious conveniences. To do otherwise is asking for special rights/privileges.
        
        retiredday
        
        Your point is wrong, as has clearly been explained here.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        …and unnecessarily limit your potential customer base, just to satisfy the desire of a few tyrants who consider themselves entitled to dictate terms for other people who those other people will use their own PRIVATE property.
        
        In a free country, government does not get to dictate that you must surrender your religious liberty, your right of conscience and your freedom of association, just to run a business.
        
        In a free country, private citizens get to decide who they will associate with and what they will do with their own private property. That is a privilege that (should be) available to all citizens…but apparently isn’t what homosexual activists want:
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/hypocrisy-homosexual-tyranny-exposed-35058
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/the-new-america-leftist-double-standard-37543
        
        Freedom is always the superior way…but obviously, homosexual activists aren’t interested in freedom, only in forcing everyone to affirm their immoral behavior.
        
        jnail7
        
        How would you be limiting your customer base (aside from your own self-imposed limitations)? Your free country rant conveniently ignores the reality that there are situations in which you would support government “interference” in situations in which you personally would benefit. It also ignores that you are completely free to open your own private, member only, business.
        
        What you are arguing would be like the owners of a football stadium telling the referees that they have no place upholding the rules of the game that conflict with your deeply held convictions for how the game should be played. You are free to have the game played by your own rules, but you will not be hosting official conference games.
        
        In a like manner, the moment you open your business to public commerce instead of private commerce, you are participating in the “big leagues” and subject to the rules of the game that apply to all other participants. No one forces you to join, you choose to join. There is your freedom.
        
        Personally, I am for business owners being allowed to operate their public business according to their own self-professed deeply held religious convictions, with one caveat. They should publicly post their entire list of deeply held religious convictions that they will not violate, with direct links to their religious texts that justify such convictions and be held legally accountable if applied hypocritically based upon the entire religious text that is the source of their desired discrimination. Because, honestly, if a person could do such and avoid hypocrisy, then they have earned the right to discriminate.
        
        Finally, the smart evangelical would gladly sell their services to heathens as they could make use of the resource gains to propagate their religious ideology.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        You continue to display either a dismal and fundamental lack of understanding of freedom, or a dismal and fundamental contempt for freedom.
        
        A business offers its goods and services to all who want to purchase those goods and services at the price and condition set by the seller.
        
        A club, on the other hand, by design limits its clientele, and in doing so, limits its “customer base.” Even you can’t be so obtuse as to not understand that.
        
        And again, there is no justification in a free country for government to force a business to accept commerce associations it does not want simply to force someone’s will on another free person.
        
        And no, there is no legitimate comparison between property rights and religious freedom, and the hypothetical scenario you painted.
        
        If a football stadium owner wanted to tell referees that, they could. However, the referees would be free to say they want no part of that limitation and leave the employ of the stadium. If such rules were not acceptable to the free associations between the stadium owners and any sports associations they freely associated with (i.e. the NFL), the other associations could disassociation themselves with that stadium.
        
        In a free society, people are free to associate with people who want to associate with them, and free NOT to associate with people with whom they don’t want to.
        
        Sure, we could leverage the power of government to force free market business owners to post a list of immoral acts with which they will not participate. We could also force them to wear yellow stars on their clothing and post yellow starts on their doors. That would fit right in line with the entire agenda of the Left.
        
        Not in a free country, I don’t think so.
        
        It is once again obvious from the fact that I have to explain such elemental concepts to you that you and your fellow Leftist hold freedom in pure contempt. I cannot believe that an adult human being in America could be stupid enough to fail to understand such fundamental things; there has to be a willful and contemptuous rejection involved, out of love for forcing other people to your will.
        
        That is not even remotely similar to the American way.
        
        jnail7
        
        It appears you confuse the activity of association with the activity of commerce. The individual is free to associate with any other individual. The activity of commerce revolves, not around association, but around the trade of goods or services. A key American value is that every citizen has equal potential for success in the Market. For that to be upheld, every citizen must have equal potential access to the Market (meaning if they possess goods/services of equitable value, then they are provided the opportunity to barter with others possessing equitable goods/services). Our Market has the advantage of a standardized currency whose value is backed by our government. The value of such currency is intended to be independent of the attributes of the possessor, except where specified otherwise in law (such as minimum age requirements for purchase). This means that my $1 has the same demand power that your $1 has. Conversely, on the supply side, if you want to take advantage of the currency supported Market, then you must play by the rules and honor the independent value of the currency in rending products or services as demanded within the limitations of available supply. Your goods/services do not have religious values, they are things, which once purchased, are no longer yours to dictate beyond any pre-arranged terms for sale that can be supported legally. This means, in the case of the baker, that the production of wedding cakes of specific styles and decorations is their supply, available to any who can meet the required value for exchange. What is done with such a cake after purchase is immaterial, whether it be for a heterosexual wedding, homosexual wedding, polygamist wedding, high-speed camera explosion internet schtik, community play prop, inappropriate gift for the homeless, sexual fetish, etc. There is no explicit associate with the baker and whatever happens to the cake that was purchased, thus no implicit right to “not” associate with such as, by definition, no association exists in the first place.
        
        When it comes to running a business, mind your own rather than trying to stick your nose into other people’s private business. Sell the best product/service you can. Be profitable. Grow. Have deep personal convictions? Great, prove it by living them in your own life instead of trying to remove the splinters out of other people’s eyes. If your convictions are Biblically based, then you should already know that all of your customers are sinners. If you truly believe that selling your product to a sinner violates your convictions through some mechanism of implicit endorsement, then you have no position to sell anything without violating your conviction.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        I confuse nothing. Commerce is association. You cannot possibly be that obtuse. There can be no commerce or trade without association.
        
        The overriding American values with regard to private property are property rights and limited government. The people who founded this nation and crafted its constitution were extremely clear on this point:
        
        Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison
        
        No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. – Thomas Jefferson
        
        Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. – New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution
        
        Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. – John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court, author of the Federalist Papers
        
        Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. – Thomas Jefferson
        
        It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. – James Madison
        
        Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison
        
        The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams
        
        It is absolutely unbelievable that a supposedly rational human being would make this statement in connection with the efforts of sodomites to FORCE free business owners to join them in their attempt to counterfeit marriage: “When it comes to running a business, mind your own rather than trying to stick your nose into other people’s private business.”
        
        If sodomites had a shred of decency, they would mind their own business, keep their immoral and unhealthy acts out of the public arena, and not attempt to FORCE good people to participate in their immoral acts. Absolutely unbelievable!
        
        The fact that you would attempt to distort and pervert things like property rights, the right to trade the fruits of one’s labor, and even currency shows the insane depths to which the Left will sink in order to “justify” tyranny.
        
        Your complete hostility and contempt for freedom and American values is now beyond question. You are truly disgusting.
        
        Kara Connor
        
        Blah blah leftist blah. So no, you can’t refute my legal definition.
        
        DCM7
        
        Your “legal definition” has already been refuted more than once here, by more than one person. You just can’t acknowledge that.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        Sadly, that’s what fundamental laws like Natural Law and the U.S. Constitution are to Leftists: just “blah blah blah” that interfere with their efforts to quash the freedom of people they don’t like.
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
        
        In order for the position taken by Leftists here to be consistent (not that this is every an obstacle for Leftists), you would have to take the position that a Jewish or Muslim butcher should have to butcher pork on demand, even though it violates their conscience and their religious liberty.
        
        You would also have to take the position that a Jewish business should be forced, upon demand, to make a pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler cake or other pro-Nazi paraphernalia.
        
        You would also have to take the position that a Jewish business should be forced upon demand to make pro-holocaust products (or holocaust-denial products, as the case may be) if a customer desires.
        
        You would also have to take the position that pro-homosexual business should, upon demand, have to provide products which celebrate authentic marriage and point to the counterfeit nature of homosexual attempts to emulate marriage, or that a pro-homosexual business should have to, upon demand, provide goods or services in support of a pro-marriage gathering or one that highlights the fact that homosexual behavior is immoral and unhealthy.
        
        You would also have to take the position that a business owner who had been molested as a child should be forced upon demand to create materials in support of a pro-NAMBLA, pro-B4U-Act, or other pro-pedophilia group and their activities.
        
        You would also have to take the position that an atheist business owner should be forced, upon demand, to provide goods and/or services for a Christian group’s event glorifying God and/or the Bible and celebrating America’s Christian heritage.
        
        You would also have to take the position that an evolutionist business owner should be forced, upon demand, to provide goods and services for a creation conference that refutes materialism and atheism, and points to creation as the only logically consistent explanation for the universe and everything in it.
        
        You would also have to take the position that a pro-homosexual business should be forced, upon demand, to provide “God Hates Fags” signs and other materials for the Westboro Baptist rabble and their events.
        
        You would also have to take the position that a female business owner should be forced, upon demand, to make materials for Muslims calling for women in America to be forced to wear burkas and show proper obedience to their husbands, or to provide goods and services for male chauvinists demanding literature and other support for their event calling for women to stay “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” and properly obedient to their overlord husbands.
        
        While a Leftist might be nutty enough to argue for such things, no rational American ever would. So why should Christians be forced to surrender their property rights, their right of conscience and their constitutionally-protected religious freedom?
        
        (Actually, even Leftists aren’t nutty enough to argue for this sort of thing, because they’ve already been arguing against being forced to play by the same rules):
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/the-new-america-leftist-double-standard-37543
        
        http://www.americanclarion.com/hypocrisy-homosexual-tyranny-exposed-35058
  - http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
    
    You provided a Leftist definition which ignores property rights. Apparently it is YOU who is deep in denial of reality.
    
    I wonder if you could explain to me the liberal (what passes for) logic that says because you sell goods or services to people, that this act somehow amounts to a forfeiture of religious freedom and property rights. I just don’t get that, so you’ll have to explain that “logic” to me (though I’m pretty sure I know the real answer).
    
    Now I know that the Left just loves to tell people what to do. After all, it was the Democrats who defended the “right” to keep black Americans enslaved prior to the Civil War. And it was Democrats who left the United States to protect their “right” to enslave certain Americans. And it was Democrats who, after a Republican president defeated their efforts to keep some Americans enslaved, continued to try to deny certain Americans their full rights (e.g. property rights, the right to vote, etc.). And it was Democrats who came up with laws to institutionally deny certain Americans their full rights and access that other Americans enjoyed. And it was Democrats who came up with the Jim Crow laws that (rather like the Democrats today want to tell private property owners what to do with their own property) told private business owners what to do with their own property. And it wasn’t until Democrats figured out they could get more mileage out of pandering to black Americans and by making black Americans further dependent on government for protection and provision, that the Democrats shifted their tactics-or as Democrat President Lyndon Johnson said of Democrat support for civil rights legislation: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
    
    So, understanding all these historical facts, can you walk me through the Leftist “logic” that justifies forcing a person to do or not do certain things with their own private property simply because of the magical tranformative act of selling goods or services to people?
glenbo

>”Older than the Constitution and the laws of any nation, marriage is not a creation of any government, but it is an obvious relationship between one man and one woman. Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’”<

The operaative word here is society.

Marriage isn't "natural." It is secular.

Religion cannot dictate or legislate the affections of any 2 people. If you don't like gays, TOUGH. Gay marriage is here to stay and if you don't like it, tough. Move on to legitimate issues, like the 19,000 children that die every day.
- http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
  
  No, marriage isn’t secular. It was instituted by the Creator of the universe and all human beings at the time he created the first male and female.
  
  And no, no religion can dictate the affections of any two people. In fact, no one is even attempting to stand in the way of two people sodomizing each other.
  
  But you do NOT have the “right” to counterfeit something as important as marriage by throwing that valuable label on something that clearly is not and cannot meet the definition of marriage.
http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

Apparently, in the Leftist version of “America,” the price of citizenship is different for Christians. If you’re a Christian, it might cost you a few thousand dollars, your conscience, and your God-given religious liberty to be a citizen of Leftist “America”:

http://liberallogic101.com/?p=24335
WXRGina

There is no “right” to counterfeit marriage. Two people of the same sex cannot make a marriage. It is impossible. You are only kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

Homosexuals are subject to the same definitions and requirements as everyone else. In order to marry, you must find a partner who consents, who is of legal age, who is not a close relative, who is not married to someone else, and who is of the opposite sex. It doesn’t get more equal than being held to the same standard as everyone else.

Homosexuals no more have the “right” to call something by a name that does not describe it than a person has a right to print something off their computer and call it a “$20 bill,” or to submit a maple leaf to a business owner and demand he accept it as a legitimate $20 bill, or call himself a cop when he has not met the requirements to actually be a cop.

If homosexuals insist on engaging in the dangerous, immoral and unnatural behavior of sodomy, no one is stopping them, but they do not have the “right” to submit a counterfeit for marriage and have it recognized as something it is not.

Why can homosexuals be fired for engaging in homosexual behavior? Not that many would be, but if they were, it’s called “property rights” (something I believe has been discussed in no small detail here) and “freedom of association.”

At this point, you cannot legitimately claim you don’t understand the concept of “property rights” because I’ve spent considerable time trying to educate you Leftists about it here. But if you don’t understand what “freedom of association” means, it means that you, as a PRIVATE citizen have the FREEDOM to ASSOCIATE with people you want to, and the freedom NOT to associate with people you don’t want to.

If you are a government employee, you don’t have that freedom with regard to the goods and services you provide. If our congress has passed constitutional laws which require a government agency to provide certain goods and services to certain people, and the chief executive has signed those constitutional bills into law, then you as a government employee of that government agency do NOT have the choice of whether or not to provide those goods and services and you do NOT have the choice of whether or not you will provide those services to people you don’t like.

A PRIVATE citizen who owns PRIVATE property is NOT a government employee and is NOT a custodian of GOVERNMENT property. nor are they an agent of GOVERNMENT policy and law. They are a PRIVATE citizen who owns PRIVATE property that they purchased and maintained with their PRIVATE money and labor, and neither you nor the government gets to force them to provide goods or services that they do not wish to provide-ESPECIALLY if doing so violates their conscience and their God-given, constitutionally-protected religious liberty.

That includes baking a wedding cake. A wedding cake is a product that has one purpose-the recognition of a legitimate marriage; creating a wedding cake for a fake wedding would help perpetuate a fraud (in other words, a counterfeit), which is itself an immoral act (surely you understand that fraud is an immoral act), as is homosexual behavior, and as is the attempt to counterfeit the unique and incalculably valuable relationship of marriage. Forcing a Christian business owner to participate in a fraud like this, to lend credibility to something that has no credibility, is a violation of their conscience and their First Amendment-protected religious liberty.

Hopefully this is clear enough for you to understand-that is, if understanding is even a priority for you.
retiredday

I’ve noticed some commenters don’t really want to deal with the issues addressed by the article they comment on. What they really want is to take the discussion off topic so they can talk about the stuff they want to talk about, which they consider to be supremely important because it’s what they think. And of course, the whole world needs to sit up and pay attention to them because they are so very special. Essentially, they reject God’s authority and place themselves on his throne, pretending to have some authority, when in fact they do not know what they are talking about.
- http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
  
  That’s par for the course for Leftists. They don’t consider themselves encumbered by things like facts, logic, reason, reality, context or topics. Their modus operandi is to seize any opportunity whatsoever, commandeer it to the advancement of their agenda, and ignore anything that gets in the way of that agenda.
  
  If only our side was 1/10th as dedicated, we could run rings around their propaganda and have society laughing in derision at it while, unlike them, armed only with the facts and the truth. But we run from the shadows of lies.
retiredday

“Then why can’t they marry each other?”

For the same reason a brother can’t marry his sister or a human can’t marry an animal: Because marriage is by definition between a man and woman. That’s why homosexuals insist on changing the definition of marriage.

Recent American Clarion Articles

Counterfeit Marriage: What It’s Really About
What is the push among homosexual activists to counterfeit marriage about? Is it really about marriage...or is it about power? Ultimately, it is probably about pain--pain the homosexual is suffering from wrongs and deceptions perpetrated against them in the past.
Orthodoxy Lost: An Open Letter to Jim Wallis and All The Liberal Lukewarm Christians
The orthodox Christian has grown excessively weary of the activist agendas of liberal Christians who turn the gospel and biblical truth upside down while promoting secular progressive agendas that undermine the Constitution and a country founded on traditional, Judeo-Christian
Public School says No Prayer; Students do it Anyway, Secularist Baffled
President George Washington made a claim with respect to “religion and morality” stating, “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and
A Cowardly, un-American deal with Iran
No sane, responsible person does business with rogues that cannot be trusted. Not even a simple deal. Our national anthem says that America is the "land of the free and the home of the brave." Free and brave people don't do deals like
Homosexual Movement Is Grave Threat To Freedom
Up until now, apologists for the militant homosexual/“transgender” movement have aggressively insisted that Christians (and others standing in opposition) will still be free to live their faith and conscience in the wake of the Supreme Court’s illegal imposition on our nation of same-sex
Kentucky Clerk Exposes Supreme Contempt for US Constitution
The lawless Left is threatening a county clerk in Kentucky with contempt of court charges for having the audacity to obey the rule of law, the law of Kentucky, and the U.S.
Former Homosexual David Pickup Advocates for Therapy Freedom
After being sexually abused at a young age by a pedophile, David Pickup began experiencing same-sex attractions that lasted throughout much of his life. He later participated in authentic reparative therapy that he says helped saved his life. Today, Pickup is a licensed marriage and family

‘Gay Marriage’ Rooted in Fraud, Child Rape

Similar Posts:

Subscribe by Email

Like us on Facebook

Recent American Clarion Articles

Recent Archives

Monthly Archives

Recent Comments

September 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Aug
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

‘Gay Marriage’ Rooted in Fraud, Child Rape

Similar Posts:

Subscribe by Email

Like us on Facebook

Other Social Media

Recent American Clarion Articles

Recent Archives

Monthly Archives

Popular Topics

Recent Comments