Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on March 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It’s thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.

But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.

***

Members of the same gender have been coupling off for centuries, sometimes with ceremonies that look rather marital to modern eyes. Here in America, gay marriages predate the modern gay rights movement. Six years before Stonewall, the 1963 book The Homosexual and his Society described informal gay weddings where “all the formalities of [a] legally certified and religiously sanctioned ceremony are aped with the greatest of care.”…As gay life became more visible, so did those permanent partnerships, and as social tolerance of homosexuality grew, more people accepted the partners’ marriages as real. In 1992, long before any state recognized gay marriage as a legal right, Suzanne Sherman could fill a big chunk of a book by interviewing gays who had married and officiants who had blessed their unions. Such marriages were eventually honored by institutions outside as well as inside the gay community. By 1993, the list of companies that allowed domestic partners of the same sex to share benefits included Microsoft, Apple, HBO, Warner Bros., and Borders. By 2007, gay couples who wanted to get married at Disneyland were free to purchase the Fairy Tale Wedding package….

And so a social institution took hold: first among gays themselves, then in the larger community and marketplace. Finally the government took notice.

***

The real reason for the court to invalidate the law would be that it supposedly has no rational basis and is born of “animus” toward gays. This is the brief against Proposition 8, which was struck down by a federal appellate court, the famously activist Ninth Circuit, on grounds that it has no “legitimate reason.”

In this view, the promoters of Proposition 8 came up with a definition of marriage that has stood for centuries in the West and is endorsed by every major religion simply as an imaginative way to stick it to gay people. Every serious contender in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008, including Barack Obama, supported this same definition, presumably also out of the same simmering hostility to gays.

Supporters of traditional marriage believe that the institution exists as an expression of society’s interest in children’s being raised by their biological fathers and mothers. You can say that this understanding is dated, given what has become of marriage the past 40 years. You can say that it is too pinched, given evolving mores. You can’t say it is inherently hateful.

***

As the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases involving two high-profile laws to do with same-sex marriage – California’s Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal.

Although public opinion on this topic has been consistent for the last few months, it has reversed markedly from as recently as a year ago. In May 2012, just after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, 51 percent of Americans said it should not be legal for same-sex couples to marry…

Politically, most Democrats (63 percent) and independents (56 percent) favor legalization of same-sex marriage, while most Republicans (56 percent) do not. Still, support for same-sex marriage among Republicans has increased from just 13 percent in May 2012 (after the President announced his support of same-sex marriage) to 37 percent today.

***

Via PRRI.

pr

***

For right now, it is probably best to treat the question of whether a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage as having an ambiguous answer. Polls are on the verge of saying that they do, but the ballot results are more equivocal.

By 2016, however, voters in 32 states would be willing to vote in support of same-sex marriage, according to the model. And by 2020, voters in 44 states would do so, assuming that same-sex marriage continues to gain support at roughly its previous rate.

Thus, even if one prudently assumes that support for same-sex marriage is increasing at a linear rather than accelerated pace, and that same-sex marriage will not perform quite as well at the ballot booth as in national polls of all adults, the steady increase in support is soon likely to outweigh all other factors. In fact, even if the Supreme Court decision or some other contingency freezes opinion among current voters, support for same-sex marriage would continue to increase based on generational turnover, probably enough that it would narrowly win a national ballot referendum by 2016. It might require a religious revival among the youngest generation of Americans to reverse the trend.

***

The pace of American acceptance of same-sex marriage rights in the course of less than a decade is staggering. Does anyone doubt that a gay marriage ban, passed by popular vote in California in 2008, would be rejected today by a resounding majority? A national consensus is forming, albeit at varying rates depending on the region, around the notion that denying gay Americans the rights that straight Americans enjoy is anathema. A Supreme Court decision which imposes this notion on the groups and individuals who continue to oppose same-sex marriage rights will give them a grievance to rally around. They will be handed their own injustice and become convinced of their own martyrdom. Such a decision would prolong the conflict that same-sex marriage poses today which, if left to state and national legislatures to remedy, would be a relic of the past in short order.

For gay couples who believe that even one more day is too long to have to wait to have access to the rights that straight couples enjoy, you’re right. But the consequences of imposing this value on the nation’s recalcitrant traditionalists by judicial fiat, if history is any guide, will do the cause of marriage equality far more harm than good.

***

LOPEZ: If the Supreme Court overturns DOMA and throws out Proposition 8, what will it mean for marriage? What would it mean for religious liberty?

GALLAGHER: It means the Supreme Court takes away the core civil rights of 7 million Californians to vote on the marriage question. It shuts down the question democratically (and also shuts out therefore the religious-liberty provisions that have accompanied most gay-marriage laws in the states). It means our traditional understanding of marriage, cross-cultural and historical, but including the vision of Genesis, will be redefined as bigotry. And marriage will be undefined in a new way. What is marriage? Why is the law involved in marriage? Why only two people? Why not close relatives too old to produce children? All these questions, which have clear answers in our classic understanding of marriage, become unclear and undefined. The answers we will come up with in the future are no longer certain. I suspect the strongest result will be a renewed push to get government out of the marriage business altogether, and Left and Right will come together to complete the de-institutionalization of marriage.

The feminist radical proposal of my youth in the Seventies will become the conservative orthodoxy of my middle age!

***

I’ve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.

I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage. In suing over “marriage” itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of God’s Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than God’s on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.

***

[T]his is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality. Once gays can marry, they’ll be expected to marry. And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats. I believe we’re witnessing the high water mark for “People should be able to do whatever they want, and it’s none of my business.” You thought the fifties were conformist? Wait until all those fabulous “confirmed bachelors” and maiden schoolteachers are expected to ditch their cute little one-bedrooms and join the rest of America in whining about crab grass, HOA restrictions, and the outrageous fees that schools want to charge for overnight soccer trips.

I know, it feels like we’re riding an exciting wave away from the moral dark ages and into the bright, judgement free future. But moral history is not a long road down which we’re all marching; it’s more like a track. Maybe you change lanes a bit, but you generally end up back where you started. Sometimes you’re on the licentious, “anything goes” portion near the bleachers, and sometimes you’re on the straight-and-narrow prudish bit in front of the press box. Most of the time you’re in between. But you’re still going in circles. Victorian morality was an overreaction to the rather freewheeling period which proceeded it, which was itself an overreaction to Oliver Cromwell’s puritanism…

Of course, predictions are hard, especially about the future. Nonetheless, here is mine: whatever the Supreme Court decides, gay marriage will soon be legal throughout the land. But this will not mean that we drive ever onwards towards greater sexual freedom–rather, it will mean quite the reverse. The sexual revolution is over. And the revolutionaries lost.

***

***

Via Mediaite.


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

libfreeordie on March 27, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Man, am I glad you are here. I was getting ready to hang a “Gay Help Wanted” sign in the figurative online window!!!

I have a serious question and truly do not mean to offend. In Japanese culture, there are elaborate, ritualistic forms of suicide. Seppuku, Harakiri (a form of seppuku), and, of course, kamikaze missions and the rites observed by the warriors prior to their missions. My question – and again, I mean no offence – is this: Do gay men have a word to describe the ritualistic suicide of an individual over homosexuality?

I ask because I, along with about 61 million other people in Britain, are watching David Cameron commit slow, ritualistic, political suicide over gay marriage. For some unknown, unfathomable reason, Muffin is killing his political career because of his weird preoccupation with same-sex marriage. As an aside, in the UK, there are men, women, and muffins. A muffin is my term for a heterosexual public schoolboy, who has a weird fascination with homosexuality. (Public schools in the UK are schools like Eton, Harrow, etc, not PS 35 or Che Guevara Middle School).

SSM is not a pressing issue in the UK. Yes, Brits support it, for the most part, but most aren’t going to get their bees up about it. They are MUCH more concerned about the economy, jobs, the triple-dip, and the authoritarian, soviet-style apparatchiks of the EU in Brussels. Yet, Muffin Cameron is like a dog with a bone. HE. WILL. NOT. LET. IT. GO.

The European Court of Human Rights just ruled that same-sex marriage is not a “universal human right.” The rank-and-file of the Conservative Party (Tories) is in revolt. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, a Fabian Socialist, who fought the CofE to admit gay priests and women AND LOATHED THE TORIES, retired over Muffin’s insistence that SSM be legalised. Red Ed and Clegger, who are both complete idiots and babbling buffoons, cannot believe their luck.

The country is broke and Muffin’s two main concerns are joining with LibLab to censor the press (in payback for breaking the expenses scandal – don’t buy the hacking scandal hue-and-cry excuse because those journalists that broke the law – ~80 – are in or going to prison with the exception of Piers Morgan) and gay marriage.

Surely, you’ve heard of The Three Tenors. Well, LibLabCon is offering its own version of The Three Fiddlers. Fiddling while London Bridge is falling down.

I’m waiting to see Muffin on the telly any moment, standing in the buff in ’round of candles in Picadilly or in front of Bucks, howling something before he plunges a giant phallic symbol into his heart.

Strange. Strange. Strange.

Anyhoo, is there a gay slang name for homosexual, ritual suicide or Munchausen by proxy homosexual, ritual suicide?

[He's straight, married, and has had 4 tots (1 died)]

Thanks, sincerely. Really. I’m actually not joking even though it seems like it. It is the Mad Hatter subject matter that is absurd, not the concern or question.

Resist We Much on March 27, 2013 at 1:56 AM

You know, everyone has some place, or some thing, that is so special to them that it fills them and renews them.

For some people, it’s a bright, sunny, day and a cloudless, blue sky. For others it’s a moonlit night and a gentle, pillow soft, breeze, with a sky full of stars.

For some it’s a walk on the beach, for others its a drive in the mountains, or following a woodland stream.

For others it’s the sound of their child’s laughter, or watching them sleep, healthy and safe.

Whatever it is, find it, hold onto it. Savor it. Don’t let anything or anyone deprive you of that peace and fulfillment. It belongs to you.

thatsafactjack on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 AM

You’re Beautiful – and you’ve got it perfectly right.

tonight – I saw Richard Thompson and Emmylou Harris with Rodney Crowell

Richard was brilliant – I got to meet and talk to him backstage and got some pictures with him.

Emmylou and Rodney kicked off with Gram Parson’s “Return Of The Grievous Angel” and ended up with their second encore being “Love Hurts”

In between – they recreated 0ver 50 years of Eclectic American Musical threads and roots.

It was Magical.

I’d like to meet you sometime……that seems unrelated, but for some reason, I needed to say that.

“Out with the Truckers and the Kickers and The Cowboy Angels…”

williamg on March 27, 2013 at 1:58 AM

Goodnight, Jackie…….

williamg on March 27, 2013 at 1:59 AM

williamg on March 27, 2013 at 1:58 AM

lol! You’re very kind, williamg. :)

thatsafactjack on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 AM

williamg on March 27, 2013 at 1:59 AM

Goodnight, williamg. Sleep well. :)

thatsafactjack on March 27, 2013 at 2:02 AM

For All We Know – Chet Baker

I bid you all a fond goodnight. It’s been a pleasure, as always. See you soon.

thatsafactjack on March 27, 2013 at 2:03 AM

Goodness Gracious, Jackie:

LOVE Chet Baker! :)

williamg on March 27, 2013 at 2:09 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SGAcP7Zh6U

williamg on March 27, 2013 at 2:12 AM

DA GASCÓN STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT MARRIAGE EQUALITY CASES
*****************************************************************

“The time is now for our country to affirm that a person has a fundamental right to marry whom they love and have equal protections under the Constitution.

We are proud San Franciscans today for our role in the biggest civil rights issue of our time beginning in 2004 when then Mayor Gavin Newsom led the nation by allowing same sex couples to marry. The marriage equality movement was further shaped by City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s lawsuit to strike down a state ban on gay marriage.

Nine years later on this historic day, I stand with the majority of Americans who believe discrimination on any level is not who we are as a nation. I remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will move us toward the side of history that we can be proud of.
===

https://www.facebook.com/SFDistrictAttorney/posts/445950688819638

canopfor on March 26, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Gas-can, who apparently wrote his own wiki, is the worst thing that ever hit the Mesa AZ Police Dept. Not only did crime NOT go down 30% on his watch, it got worse, and in my neighborhood it became unbearable. A person with a pickup truck who stopped at the traffic light 2 blocks from my house would find their vehicle swarmed by Spanish speakers who didn’t know that not everyone driving a pickup is there to hire illegals. The illegal community in Mesa swelled under his leadership, knowing that nothing was going to happen to them. The situation probably improved after he left but I don’t know because I escaped before that – between Gascon, Janet Napolitano being governor at the time and John McCain being Senator for life, I completely lost my enthusiasm for Arizona, took a haircut on my house and got the hell out.

I generally presume that anything Gascon says, the opposite is true.

Shay on March 27, 2013 at 2:25 AM

RWM rocks. (:

SparkPlug on March 27, 2013 at 2:26 AM

listens2glenn on March 27, 2013 at 12:45 AM

The Fed needs to be audited for sure..: )

Dire Straits on March 27, 2013 at 1:11 AM

.
Sorry, I had to leave for a bit … but, yeah … they do.

I’m also quite certain that the people responsible for authorizing an audit today, haven’t forgotten John F. Kennedy. : (

listens2glenn on March 27, 2013 at 2:38 AM

Resist We Much on March 27, 2013 at 1:56 AM

That comment was all kinds of awesome.

steebo77 on March 27, 2013 at 2:42 AM

good morning HA

SSDD-lsm will begin their pontificating on conservative scotus not banning prop 8 and defending doma

Constitutional RIGHT!!! get with the program, you’re neanderthals for not wanting SSM, yada yada yada and coming from gop talking heads who support SSM

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 6:34 AM

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 6:34 AM

Do you ever sleep? :)

Rovin on March 27, 2013 at 6:44 AM

Moprnin’, HA! Slightly O/T: The Obama Strategy: Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Statistics My take.

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 6:49 AM

Its not a federal matter. It’s a states rights matter.

TX-96 on March 27, 2013 at 6:53 AM

Rovin on March 27, 2013 at 6:44 AM

just a little bit :)

*clink* coffee mug

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 6:55 AM

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 6:49 AM

spot on KJ…spot on

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:01 AM

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:01 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

I just calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM

DOMA will be dropped…just get a eeryore feeling about that

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:06 AM

however, if the court strikes down DOMA, how do SSM proponents still cry this is their constitutional right to marry?

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:10 AM

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 6:49 AM

Right on target, KJ. So about DOMA…if the administration can decide not to follow the law of the land, maybe we should do the same with obamacare? Just ignore it.

indypat on March 27, 2013 at 7:13 AM

Does Scalia understand what his role as a Supreme Court Justice is? What justice has ever asked a lawyer “when did X become unconstitutional.” The Lawyers job is to present an argument for why something IS unconstitutional. The judge’s job is to decide the merits of that argument and to make a ruling. Has any judge before Scalia asked a lawyer to do their job for them? Utterly insane.

libfreeordie on March 27, 2013 at 7:22 AM

indypat on March 27, 2013 at 7:13 AM
Thank you!

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM

libfreeordie on March 27, 2013 at 7:22 AM

nothing wrong with that question….where does it say in the constitution re: marriage? Hence DOMA was enacted…

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:25 AM

Utterly insane.

libfreeordie on March 27, 2013 at 7:22 AM

When you have grown men and woman arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States that men having sexual relations with other men should have that practice codified by legislation…what ISN’T insane?

Cleombrotus on March 27, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Does Scalia understand what his role as a Supreme Court Justice is?

libfreeordie on March 27, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Do you? Rhetorical question, clearly you do not.

What justice has ever asked a lawyer “when did X become unconstitutional.” The Lawyers job is to present an argument for why something IS unconstitutional. The judge’s job is to decide the merits of that argument and to make a ruling. Has any judge before Scalia asked a lawyer to do their job for them? Utterly insane.

The lawyers job is to present a case. The Justice’s job is to explore the issue and poke holes in it. You’re clearly pissed off that Ted Olson, smart as he is, got shot down by Scalia. The truth is those in favor of sodomy really don’t have all that strong a case which is why they are out there whipping up hysteria and trying to attach themselves to civil rights pioneers. Which is really disgusting because the march on Selma and what those civil rights pioneers experienced has nothing to do with sodomites being able to “marry.”

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 7:36 AM

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 6:34 AM

What? No report from Morning Joe today? Rachael Madcow didn’t come out and admit what we all know about which team she plays for? Mika didn’t say anything stupid? Joe didn’t make the absurd claim that he’s a conservative in favor of sodomy? Nothing for us today?

In any case, good morning in what apparently is Gay America- since that seems to be more of an interest than even Honey Boo Boo even though, as far as I am concerned, this is not even in my top ten of issues to care about.

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 7:41 AM

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:10 AM

i guess my thinking is wrong…

continue with my coffee…

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 7:41 AM

morning HN
no mika or joe this week…but barnicle is doing a heckuva a job bloviating about crazy folks who don’t want SSM…and we are idiots for not wanting background checks…

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:43 AM

no mika or joe this week…but barnicle is doing a heckuva a job bloviating about crazy folks who don’t want SSM…and we are idiots for not wanting background checks…

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:43 AM

I wonder where Barnicle stole those ideas. Though, unlike when writing about cancer-ridden children, I guess you don’t have to give attribution to DNC talking points.

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 7:48 AM

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:10 AM

Unfortunately heterosexual marriage is linked to the government through tax laws, which SSM will say gives them the right to argue the case.

MarshFox on March 27, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 7:48 AM

the msdnc playbook, different players same teleprompter…didn’t watch tingles or wolfie yesterday I’m sure they were bashing scalia big time…

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:51 AM

MarshFox on March 27, 2013 at 7:49 AM

gotcha

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 7:52 AM

ATW, love you to pieces, but how does a Jew NOT believe in the devil, since Job is I the OT ?
Serious question .. Really wonder.

P.S. free-willer, here, too. :-)

pambi on March 26, 2013 at 11:45 PM

According to Christian theology, Satan is the enemy of God.
In Jewish theology, Satan has a different role.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 9:25 AM

There is a misconception that if a Jewish person becomes a Christian that they stop being Jewish, that is not true.

SWalker on March 26, 2013 at 11:34 PM

From the perspective of following Judaism, a Jew who becomes a Christian is no longer a Jew.

One cannot believe both that…
God is an absolute unity (Judaism) AND a tri-unity (Christianity).
Jesus is God (Christianity) and was not God (Judaism).
the Messiah will come exactly once (Judaism) and will come twice (Christianity).
the New Testament is divinely inspired (Christianity) and is not divinely inspired (Judaism).
the Law of Moses is eternal (Judaism) and Jesus fulfilled the Law (Christianity).
Satan is the enemy of God (Christianity) and an agent of God (Judaism).

From a religious perspective one can be a Jew or a Christian. But not both at the same time.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Exactly. Claiming to be a Jew who believes in Jesus is like claiming to be sort of pregnant. It’s impossible.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 9:25 AM

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

So do you believe in the Old Testament or the New Testament?

bluefox on March 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM

So do you believe in the Old Testament or the New Testament?

bluefox on March 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I believe in the Hebrew Bible. (“Old Testament” is a Christian term.)

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

To be clear, the Hebrew Bible corresponds to the Old Testament (with some changes in the order of the books and insignificant numbering of verses.) To Jews, the 39 Hebrew books are our complete Bible.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 2:00 PM

So do you believe in the Old Testament or the New Testament?

bluefox on March 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I should also point out that with the word “or”, your question implies a choice between the (fine, I’ll use your term for the sake of this discussion) Old Testament and the New Testament. But it’s not an equal dilemma. The New Testament explicitly affirms the validity of the Old Testament. Consequently, while one can believe in the Old Testament and reject the New Testament, the converse is not true: One cannot believe in the New Testament and reject the Old Testament.

In other words, hypothetically speaking, if in fact the NT is not true (ie. divinely inspired), the OT could be true or false. But if the OT is not true, the NT cannot be true.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 2:06 PM

pambi on March 26, 2013 at 11:39 PM

gophergirl on March 26, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Yep. Even more sick of FB today. Probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to log off for a while before I get too annoyed.

I agree with everyone here who has said that there are much more pressing matters to be concerned with than this, and which are obviously are not being addressed at all.

PatriotGal2257 on March 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM

To be clear, the Hebrew Bible corresponds to the Old Testament (with some changes in the order of the books and insignificant numbering of verses.) To Jews, the 39 Hebrew books are our complete Bible.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 2:00 PM

So you reject the New Testament. Thanks for clearing that up, since it’s better for you to clarify it, than I.

bluefox on March 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM

So you reject the New Testament. Thanks for clearing that up, since it’s better for you to clarify it, than I.

bluefox on March 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM

To be specific, I reject the authority of the New Testament and the assertion that it is divinely inspired.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4