New ad from gay-rights group: Republicans support gay marriage too, you know

posted at 8:01 pm on February 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Something new from the Respect for Marriage Coalition keyed to their splashy new poll about same-sex marriage. Want evidence of how much the phrasing of poll questions can influence the responses you get? Here you go:

Voters express strong support for the notion that the ability to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and Constitutional right for every American, including gays and lesbians. Three-quarters of voters (75%) believe that it is a Constitutional right, up from 71% in 2011. This sentiment spans across party lines, as 91% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 56% of Republican voters all believe the freedom to marry the person you love is a Constitutional right.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans now support gay marriage? Wow! Wait. No. Well, sort of. Here’s what Quinnipiac found in December when they asked the question more bluntly:

q

That result is more expected. In fact, according to the AP, just 21 of the 47 Republican legislators who’ve voted for gay marriage in the past three years are still in office.

In theory, the RFMC’s result is more germane to the gay-marriage debate than Quinnipiac’s. The Quinnipiac question could be interpreted by a respondent as a question about moral support; the RFMC is asking more specifically about legality. And yet, thus far, the results of state referenda more closely resemble Quinnipiac’s evenly divided topline number than the RFMC’s. There’s a messaging lesson in that for gay-marriage supporters: If you want to win over conservatives, speaking the language of the Constitution helps. Which, I assume, is what Ted Olson and David Boies are banking on if/when the Supreme Court rules in their favor on Prop 8. A constitutional ruling could soften pockets of resistance on the center-right; my hunch is that it’ll do the opposite if it ends up legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states in one fell swoop, but we’ll see. No doubt Anthony Kennedy is wrestling with that as we speak. (Interestingly, 70 percent of Republicans in the RFMC poll thought gay marriage would be legal within “the next couple of years,” whether or not they themselves support it.)

Here’s the ad followed by the longer clip of Cheney addressing gay marriage in 2009. If the RFMC is smart, they’ll do a separate ad devoted just to him; Laura Bush and Colin Powell will help with centrists, but only Cheney stands even the slightest chance of making a dent in opinion on the right. If anything, Powell’s inclusion here will firm up righty opposition. I’ll leave you with this provocative gauntlet-tossing from Ace, addressing the endless recent intraparty skirmishes:

I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Just curious if you see gay marriage as a hindrance to small govt’ – or any marriage?
(Not talking about what churches, synagogues, mosques, secret clubs do or do not sanctify.)

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Now please answer my questions…

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Now please answer my questions…

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

You sort of gave a cagey answer there, to be honest.

So what would you define yourself as?

I don’t.
You might consider me to be some form of
progressive libertarian.
Can I just go with Red Sox fan?

Who did you vote for?

Obama.
And…Reagan.
And lots of others of all types and stripes.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 3:55 PM

You sort of gave a cagey answer there, to be honest.

How in the heck did I give you a cagey answer? You asked me if I thought that just gay marriage was big government. I said no, that I thought all marriage was big government. I thought that marriage in general was made to benefit the state until the state figured out that it had more power splitting hetero couples and becoming daddy itself. How in the heck is that cagey?

Obama.

Aww so this whole line of thread was because I called you out as the liberal you were. You are just mad that I was right.. LOL..

And you are not a libertarian if you are voting for Obama sweetie. Obama is about as intrusive as they come.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Why do you think I am mad?
Maybe all the conservatives and libertarians you deem not to be are…but not me. Sweetie.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Maybe all the conservatives and libertarians you deem not to be are…
verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

E.g. Allah & Ed…’liburls!’.
Ha.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

E.g. Allah & Ed…’liburls!’.
Ha.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I am sure Allah and Ed are surprised to know that the voted for Obama..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I am sure Allah and Ed are surprised to know that the voted for Obama..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Have you changed your criteria this quickly?

No, a genuine conservative- conserves hence the name- so wouldn’t be for gay marriage.
A genuine libertarian is small government so wouldn’t be for creating bigger government to recognize another sexual relationship.
So that leaves you being a liberal.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Roger B. Taney stabbed the federal process in the heart in the Dred Scott decision. There is no original understanding of the Constitution without understanding how federalism was supposed to work.

Before Taney’s decision, “Due Process” was a process having the force of law, by whatever legal processes the people of that jurisdiction had decided. Taney created “Substantive Due Process” and actually single-handedly also created an Incorporation argument in the same step. A couple years prior to his landmark case, Scott was refused an emancipation suit, because he could not prove he was owned. Thus the official interpretation of the State of Illinois of Mr. Scot was he wasn’t anybody’s property. Thus, there could be no takings unless Illinois simultaneously saw him as the property of the Emerson widow.

But Taney gave Illinois an F. 1) Regardless of what Illinois saw as his status, Scott was owned, 2) Illinois should have known this, 3) People can be owned, and among other things that he was sure about, that easily could have been pulled out of the majority opinion as precedent, had not the people nullified it by amendment is that Black people could never be fully equal citizens to white people because the founders “intended” it to be so.

The people and the representatives of the State of Illinois not only needed to have come up with a different opinions, but also different legal decisions and construances.

See, before this time the people of Illinois were allowed to vote for what they conceived as the type of state they wanted to live in. It didn’t have to be aligned with a prevailing political ideology, until Taney burdened us with the idea that before the people are allowed to make a decision, the experts needed to be on board. And before the very progressive idea that the self-government of the people–by proxy–was a dangerous idea.

And the descretion of the people has been increasingly endangered ever since. If Ace wants to play into that, and give it the emotional treatment of a liberal, I can do him one better:

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still bitter, clinging to their guns or religion, or still wigging out over people who aren’t like them, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda for their anti-immigrant sentiment.

See it has all the hallmarks of liberal methodology: 1) it’s emotional! It has a time-factor–people should be different by now. It has that weirdness factor, where liberals always want you to feel wierd for maintaining a position, and finally it nullifies the dissenter. “Wigging out” doesn’t permit any content of their opposition. It’s just an Opposition That Should Not Be.

I’m sorry, I can’t pretend that it’s not a STYOOOPID hyperbole that “protection”, as in “equal protection under the law”, has anything to do with whether the state sanctions what you want to call an equal union, or that people aren’t esteeming your union as equal. I can’t pretend to find it a credible argument that marriage is a “right”, without noticing that it modernizes the term “right” to do so.

I also cannot pretend to grant any credibility to the argument that “Big Government” is refusing marriage licenses to the same people we refused them to when government was 1 percent of the current size. Or that it’s in anyway “conservative” to “get the government out of the business” of an institution its been concerned about since its founding, and mentions in the founding document. It seems to me that people on the right half have absorbed phony Alinskyan message strategy as opposed to conducting an argument.

And while I have a right to my vote, my conscience, my discretion, my construance, my methodology and my voice, your superficial schoolyard taunts and liberalisms do nothing for me.

Axeman on February 21, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Here’s one: I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.

Of course, Ace doesn’t judge you. He just thinks you’re “wigging out” and he thinks that’s “weird”. He’s not scolding you, either. Everybody’s okay with being “weird” and that their values is just a matter of “wigging out” and being “weird”.

And he doesn’t think, the liberals “judge” and “scold”?! But he’s right; liberals just realize that we are different: some people deny Global Warming and are kind of like Holocaust-deniers–because some people are Holocaust deniers–whereas some people aren’t. That’s right. And the libs don’t think being Racist is wrong, they just know that some people like the Tea Party, are going to be racist, it’s all part of the diversity thing that they are into. They treat it all as differences of opinion, that’s all.

My Lord, Ace! Step out of the kool-aid stream for a freaking second!

Axeman on February 21, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Axeman on February 21, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Brilliant analysis, Axeman.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Exactly, Axeman.

The reason people like ZachV and verbaluce cling to gay-sex marriage is because it provides a socially-acceptable smokescreen for what is pure antireligious bigotry and hate on their part.

ZachV needs the government to legitimize him because he is not legitimate, and he knows it. He’s a pathetic and helpless boy who doesn’t have anything but his sexual orientation and sees it as a meal ticket to get himself welfare.

Could he do better? Of course. But as a gay liberal, he is fed a constant diet of brainwashing that he’s a helpless moron who everyone hates and who needs to do whatever the Obama Party says in order to survive.

People like verbaluce and Ace simply don’t like social conservatives and others, and use “gay rights” as a convenient excuse. No one seriously belives that either verbaluce or Ace or their ilk see particular value or worth in marriage; they’re just using it as a cudgel.

What people need to realize is that verbaluce, Ace, ZachV, and other gay-sex marriage supporters are nothing more than Al Sharptons, screaming their own version of “racist” to bully and bash conservatives into shutting up and giving them what they want.

Once you recognize that, you see them as the immature, worthless, spoiled brats they are. You also realize that giving marriage to immature, worthless, spoiled brats like ZachV will only degrade and destroy the institution.

northdallasthirty on February 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

northdallasthirty on February 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Well, I try to be no kind of cultural supremacist. So I don’t find it quite as important to characterize people, as critique what they put out. If a conservative is shaming other conservatives in the mode of liberal politics, I’m going to make that point.

And I find that increasingly a problem to find people in the media stream thinking and expressing themselves in the way of the prevailing political culture.

But I appreciate some of the ways that Ace distanced himself. He introduced it thusly:

I get to play to. If we’re going to have a Festivus Airing of Grievances, I’ve got some myself.

And he concludes it this an interesting allusion to Hobbes: “If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.”

Thus, in the frame that he used, he is simply providing his voice. My insistence that I have a voice, right or wrong, would be lessened if I did not allow him his. So although I think the content is a shaming, in that mode of self-oblivious liberal utterance, on Ace’s page it doesn’t read so much as the authoritative take.

I illustrated the self-oblivious part of it in my second post: if people chose a certain party, so that they can express judgment and scolding–how can that align with judgment and scolding you may see on the otherside?

As somebody rightfully points out in the comments. Judgment and scolding seem to be human universals. I have to agree. I don’t know how to express how clear that comes as a major theme in the Gospels and Paul’s writings. Thus a tradition that comes from the Gospels, should contain that force, where as a shallow feel-good narrative like the Less-judgy-than-thou liberals, neither understands that nor through emotionalism can provide much restraint, and instead provides an avenue for this shallow scape-goating that I find them engaged in.

Axeman on February 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Few questions for the holier than thou.

1) Do you really want to enforce the bible as the moral standard?

2) If yes, have you read the bible?

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).

triple on February 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Oh, and since homosexuality should be punished by death (like most things in LV).. do you support the death penalty for those who engage in homosexual acts?

If you don’t agree with the penalty, then why do you agree with the ban itself?

triple on February 22, 2013 at 12:46 AM

Republicans support gay marriage too, you know

OR:

Republicans Support The Political Re-valuing of The Foundational Roots of Civilization.

Satyricon 2.0.

profitsbeard on February 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM

Axeman on February 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

You took that many words to say that everyone judges, and that it’s a major theme in the Gospels? Ace’s post must have really been effective and struck a nerve.

I agree with him that there are plenty of anti-homsexual bigots in our party. Have you seen the comments on this site in recent months? All of your flowery language and tangential philosophical and historical references you use to dance around that truth doesn’t change things.

It does appear that many of these people hold prejudices against homosexuals and work backwards from that prejudice to find ways if legitimizing their irrational issues with other human beings who are attracted to the same sex.

Yes, it is irrational. I agree with Ace on this one. Tired of pretending like the “gays are icky” attitude is worthy of respect. At some point you just want to say: grow the hell up and welcome to reality, you prejudiced, immature whiners. The problem is yours, not with same-sex attraction. Consider yourself judged and scolded.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 4:15 AM

You took that many words to say that everyone judges, and that it’s a major theme in the Gospels? Ace’s post must have really been effective and struck a nerve.

I agree with him that there are plenty of anti-homsexual bigots in our party. Have you seen the comments on this site in recent months? All of your flowery language and tangential philosophical and historical references you use to dance around that truth doesn’t change things.

It does appear that many of these people hold prejudices against homosexuals and work backwards from that prejudice to find ways if legitimizing their irrational issues with other human beings who are attracted to the same sex.

Yes, it is irrational. I agree with Ace on this one. Tired of pretending like the “gays are icky” attitude is worthy of respect. At some point you just want to say: grow the hell up and welcome to reality, you prejudiced, immature whiners. The problem is yours, not with same-sex attraction. Consider yourself judged and scolded.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 4:15 AM

Behold all Ace and Bluegill did is call you a homophobe but in a more long-winded version.. Love it when our side uses the liberal playbook..

BTW, you twit- no some of don’t have prejudices and the fact that you and Ace ASSUME because we disagree on a policy and moral issue that we hate a whole group a people makes the problem YOURS. Consider yourself judged and scolded.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:35 AM

You took that many words to say that everyone judges…

Actually, that kind of indicates that you’re not very good at deciding what words are about what. I spent most of the 6:22 PM post illustrating the absurdity of saying that liberals refrain from judging. And then about 20 words on that particular topic, expressed here (hold on, there are words, to get through:) “As somebody rightfully points out in the comments. Judgment and scolding seem to be human universals. I have to agree.”

The other 70, sketch the case that that religious scripture can actually provide this observation and, with hope, some mitigation (if in indeed is as sound as I represent). Arguing counters to x is not simply restating that everybody does x.

You’re not very good at determining what words provide what points.

Secondly, you’re not very good at determining what arguments imply.

Ace’s post must have really been effective and struck a nerve.

True, it did strike a nerve. It struck the nerve of yet another person on the right half acts like a liberal using liberalesque narrative and Alinskyan tactics, and the success of the liberal narrative. As it would take words to repeat them, you can see what I describe as the “hallmarks of liberal methodology” in my 6:06 PM post.

It’s the same nerve that listening to something that is really dumb strikes. It’s the same nerve that watching you recede on making any point whatsoever strikes.

You suggest a trivialness to my obliquely-mentioned, but illustrated point that judging is universal. That can’t support Ace’s introductory statement that we join one particular party to give vent to our peculiar urge to judge and scold. QED. So the more trivial we agree that point is, the less effective that point is.

You must be used to the effectiveness of the Alinskyan-ish “struck a nerve” ploy. I’m not so enamored of it. You got “mad”, thus it must be true. Would mean both that liberals worship Obama and that the Tea Pary is racist–because we (the TP) react to the spreading of that narrative. It’s an effective argument, it’s just not a very good one. Why we conservatives might actually be “terrorist” and “zombies” because we had a reaction to that characterization as well. But I guess that leaves liberals as actually “commies”, because they don’t like that characterization, either.

And really, judging how mad gays are about being portrayed as ruining civilization–that must really be true, too. Right? Because it “strikes a nerve” and they feel they have to chime in about it.

See this is when we make rules and test them–not just apply the liberal methodolgy of proctologically extracting them, setting them on fire and letting them fly. We can disqualify the prattle.

This is what is wrong with acting like a liberal. We use words like “irrational” but we don’t really apply any rational methodology. Instead we use the aggregate, pre-fab “rational worldview” and make emotional arguments. We can’t define things. We can’t tell what words mean what. We can’t tell when we stress that a point is trivial when we are arguing the “effectiveness” of something that implies something entirely different.

It’s ultimate effectiveness however, is out of my hands. It’s effective if it acheives its goal. I have admitted the historical effectiveness of liberal narrative, so as a form of liberal narrative, it is effective.

It is not effective in getting me to conclude or argue or defend the idea that it is in some way anything above progressive opinion management.

I agree with him that there are plenty of anti-homsexual bigots in our party. Have you seen the comments on this site in recent months? All of your flowery language and tangential philosophical and historical references you use to dance around that truth doesn’t change things.

Again, I have to apologize that my post had words that you had to read. And too many of them, at that! But you dismiss it all as “flowery language…dancing around the truth” and that’s very typical of that plug-your-ears mentality of the emotional progressive.

Now, I would have ended my post here, and saved the rest of the words that will appear in it–you are forewarned, Here There Be Words:

I agree with him that there are plenty of anti-homsexual bigots in our party. Have you seen the comments on this site in recent months?

Yeah, and there seems to be nobody offensive in the other party, right? I don’t correct everybody who calls the President “jug-ears” or “donkey-ears”, either. I don’t exactly like that their cheap shots are visible coming from my former party, either.

After many conservatives have been waylayed on talk shows–where they came to talk about something else–about WHAT offense to the liberal worldview was said last night by some completely unrelated conservative and asking them “Are you now or have you ever been in agreement with anything we can make sound like that”, asked to disown, or add their voice to the volley of disapproval, or be painted with the same brush, just so the press has days of material to discuss how excrable we conservatives are–and after Obama’s lecturing the nation about “civility”, and being pressed by whatever conservative press there was to respond to Hoffa’s “take out the Tea Party” statement, to which he responded “I’m not a speech cop.”, I can’t beleive that it hasn’t penetrated your SKULL that to be selectively outraged at your own party is not AN EFFICIENT TACTIC!!

One conservative, who said something stupid was admitted as “an embarrassment to the Republican party”, despite that conservatives universally disowned Akin’s statement very soon afterwards. But the Dems in the effectiveness of blurring one thing into another, and push this through the media, harped on how whatever made Akin do this was distributed throughout the party, and everything became “Akin-esque”. And again, one key tactic was to argue that a quick dismissal of Akin was a result of your very effective “struck a nerve” law of human behavior and that we were quick to distance ourselves from Akin because we were guilty of thinking like Akin.

And tying Mourdoch and Akin around the neck of a party I no longer identify myself with, was a big part in winning Obamacare Round II. Because you ALLOW them to SUCCEED with their narrative.

See, again, we illustrate your lack of analysis. Your methodology is to try to pin me down with comments made on a board I sometimes post on and with people who I share at least part of a worldview with. While I disected the words that Ace himself used and likened it to words that Obama actually used.

But in order to be non-judgmental, perhaps I should just become a Democrat, where none of them ever post on boards where other people have made comments about being glad someone’s dead or wishing cancer on somebody. Gee, which PARTY should I be seen with?! Perhaps that’s why I identify in the last 4 yeas as a CI: Conservative Independent.

Can I add some trivia: people are boorish on both sides. Can I point out that it makes it rather trivial then that people in the mixture of things called “conservative” have behaviors that I have not approved? Can I point out how irrelevant that makes the point that people post things on boards which have not passed my approval process?

I’ll let you know that I’m not a libertarian. People on this board say libertarian things! I argue against them some of the time. I’m somebody that appreciates that Orwell was a socialist and yet many people on this board equate socialism with totalitarianism, despite that one of the most-concerned, most-frequently-quoted writers against tyranny is Orwell.

I’m going to try to compress my view of the Repbulican “losing streak”. In 2008 we ran a guy who made his media career with headpats from the media as a “good Republican” for playing Disown the Conservative on any given chance. And then, we got the etch-a-sketch, conservative-in-the-primaries Romney, who could be quoted on his share of disowning “hair-on-fire” conservatives.

Disowning conservatives is really working for you guys. Keep it up.

Axeman on February 22, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Behold all Ace and Bluegill did is call you a homophobe but in a more long-winded version.. Love it when our side uses the liberal playbook..

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I beheld. I think among the list of things that would pass bluegill by, is the irony that I haven’t scolded enough homophobes on this site. Or that homophobes are still in 2013 allowed to post on a conservative site. Or people are still allowed to chose how they regard “same-sex attraction”.

It’s also funny that he puts it this way. Most guys I know have “young-chick attraction”. But I’m pretty sure that if they wanted to quit their “breeder” life and engage a union on the basis of the type of person they are most attracted to, that a number of people would think that it was “icky”. And we just couldn’t stop them from feeling that way!!

And yet the basis of an orderly society of the family unit is equated with something which is still argued in terms of “attraction”.

Aren’t some people attracted to kids? Eventually, we’ll just need to get over that too. As long as its current and the in-thing to do, and somebody can call us all poopy for not being with the times.

For whom this might have “struct a nerve”, and need this explained: I’m not equating homosexual attraction with pedophile attraction. Mainly, I’m trivializing attraction as a basis of normalcy and the force that popular opinion should play in normalizing that acceptance that it’s just a difference of attraction.

If you are the least bit conservative and feel the illegitimacy of the liberal narrative in any way, then you know that social pressures don’t always have to be about legitimate cases. Thus if they can ignore the ground of whatever your conservative basis is, they can ignore a commonsense observation that a child and an adult of the same sex are different cases. Just like they ignore that slavery based on the theoretical inferiority of a race and thinking some kind of attraction is “icky” have pronounced differences. Its is all about ignoring lines of distinction, for the appeal of how many people have been gulled to feel the same way already. Because the current moral reaction against slavery has the emotional impact it does: Homophobia IS JUST racism. Not because it is, in any analytic sense, but because they can make it to be.

Axeman on February 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM

1) Do you really want to enforce the bible as the moral standard?

2) If yes, have you read the bible?

triple on February 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Yes. And clearly YOU haven’t.

He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Acts 10:10-15

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Galatians 3:10-14

Perhaps you should be honest about your hatred and bigotry towards Christians and anyone who follows the Bible, rather than humiliating yourself by trying to pose as a Biblical scholar and exposing your utter lack of knowledge.

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4