Quotes of the day

posted at 8:31 pm on June 27, 2015 by Allahpundit

Hillary Clinton, at the end of what she described as “an emotional roller-coaster of a day,” called on Republicans running for president to stop opposing the expansion of gay rights and move on to other issues.

“Instead of trying to turn back the clock, they should be joining us in saying, ‘No, no to discrimination once and for all,’” the Democratic presidential frontrunner said at an evening gathering of the Democratic Party of Virginia held in the Washington suburb of Fairfax. “I’m asking them, ‘Please don’t make the rights, the hopes of any American into a political football for this 2016 campaign.’”…

“We can sum up the message from the court and the American people in just two words: Move on,” she said.


Many Republican strategists privately say they believe 2016 will be the last year their nominee can get away with not supporting gay marriage rights. The key question, they say, is whether by 2020 the damage to the party will already be done.

“It may be a fatal problem for them as the generation turns,” said Charles Francis, who served as chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition, an alliance of gay and straight Republicans that worked with the administration of President George W. Bush. But after Mr. Bush decided in 2004 to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Mr. Francis resigned.

“Republicans have had a few opportunities, a few exit ramps,” Mr. Francis said, “and they’ve steadfastly failed.”


In Alabama, two officials announced another method of resistance: If they couldn’t stop same-sex marriage, they would stop marriage itself. They said they would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight, ever again.

“I will not be doing any more ceremonies,” said Fred Hamic (R), the elected probate judge in rural Geneva County. The other was Wes Allen (R), the probate judge in Pike County. Both said that state law doesn’t require their counties to issue marriage licenses at all. If people want to wed, they can go to another county.

“If you read your Bible, sir, then you know the logic. The Bible says a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman is an abomination to God,” Hamic said. “I am not mixing religion with government, but that’s my feelings on it.”


[E]ven many [gays] who raced to the altar say they feel loss amid the celebrations, a bittersweet sense that there was something valuable about the creativity and grit with which gay people responded to stigma and persecution.

For decades, they built sanctuaries of their own: neighborhoods and vacation retreats where they could escape after workdays in the closet; bookstores where young people could find their true selves and one another. Symbols like the rainbow flag expressed joy and collective defiance, a response to disapproving families, laws that could lead to arrests for having sex and the presumption that to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender was shameful.

“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for “Fun Home,” a Broadway musical with a showstopping number sung by a young girl captivated by her first glimpse of a butch woman. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”…

“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,” Mr. Marcus said.


The majority offers little more than hand-waving about the slippery slope where all this points. Religious institutions will still have protection under the First Amendment, they say, to “teach” their opposition to same-sex marriage, but the extent of that liberty is not defined. History suggests it could be rapidly curtailed — to prevent religious institutions from having codes prohibiting employees from engaging in homosexual relationships, for instance, or even, someday, forcing the institutions themselves to perform same-sex ceremonies. The majority opinion offers no standard for where freedom of conscience may protect individuals. And if marriage is a fundamental right and the court must update its meaning with the times, what stands between this opinion and legalized polygamy? (A decade or two?)

Those battles will now have to be fought on a legal landscape where invented constitutional imperatives regularly sweep aside democratically written law. The decision is a breathtaking arrogation of political power by the judiciary, a serious loss for the autonomy of the states and the people. Its damage will not be easily or soon undone.


The problem with gay marriage is not gay marriage. People of the same sex getting married will not destroy America. But it will impact America in serious ways that have ramifications for people well outside the scope of these unions – and not just the baker, photographer, florist or gazebo owner who have been highlighted to this point as the victims of overly litigious bureaucrats seeking bigots to destroy. The consequences of this decision will most rapidly be felt by religious schools and non-profits, as those who once fought for civil liberties for all will turn on those whose liberties they find to be inconvenient. Already the ACLU has announced they will no longer defend federal religious freedom laws they once fought for vociferously, because they now believe the freedom to practice one’s religion amounts to nothing more than a freedom to discriminate.

In such context, there is a very pressing need for all who believe in civil and religious liberty, despite their disagreements about marriage, to unite against the civil liberty hypocrites and the cultural and corporate elite in defense of our First Amendment freedoms. Gay marriage does not require the use and abuse of government power to trample our right to speak, associate, and practice our religion, but the aims of the secular left and the victim-hunting social justice warriors do require such overreach. These rights are essential. They are what makes us America. And they deserve defending by all who believe in the freedom to think, associate, speak, and believe.


LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.

This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.


Since the ’90s, approval of divorce, premarital sex, and out-of-wedlock childbearing have climbed steadily, and the belief that children are “very important” to marriage has collapsed. Kennedy’s ruling argues that the right to marry is essential, in part, because the institution “safeguards children and families.” But the changing cultural attitudes that justify his jurisprudence increasingly treat this safeguard as inessential, a potentially nice but hardly necessary thing.

And the same is true of marriage itself. America is not quite so “advanced” as certain European societies, but our marriage rate is at historic lows, with the millennial generation, the vanguard of support for same-sex marriage, leading the retreat. Millennials may agree with Kennedy’s ruling, but they’re making his view of marriage as “a keystone of the nation’s social order” look antique. In their views and (lack of) vows, they’re taking a more relaxed perspective, in which wedlock is malleable and optional, one way among many to love, live, rear kids — or not…

Too many Americans clearly just like the more relaxed view of marriage’s importance, and the fact that this relaxation makes room for our gay friends and neighbors is only part of its appeal. Straight America has its own reasons for seeking liberation from the old rules, its own hopes of joy and happiness to chase…

The case for same-sex marriage has been pressed in the name of the Future. But the vision of marriage and family that made its victory possible is deeply present-oriented, rejecting not only lessons of a long human past but also many of the moral claims that inspire adults to privilege the interests of their children, or indeed to bring children into existence at all.


The shift in opinion has had many causes. Some of it has taken place household by household and neighborhood by neighborhood; voters are considerably more likely to support same-sex marriage if they know a gay or lesbian person personally. Meanwhile, gay characters are now much more common, and are portrayed far more positively, on television and in the movies. The hard work of thought leaders like Sullivan (who is a friend of mine) and activists like Evan Wolfson has helped to catalyze the process…

In the United States, gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to the law of the land in just a couple of decades. Homosexuality has gone from “the love that dare not speak its name” — something that could get you locked up, beat up, ostracized or killed, as is still the case in much of the world — into something that’s out-and-proud, so to speak.

In my view, of course, Americans have gotten the question of gay marriage right. So I’ll be among the 60 percent celebrating the decision tonight.

But as Graham writes, there are any number of issues on which the moral consensus we have today will be regarded as backward by our children or grandchildren. So as you celebrate or commiserate tonight, maintain some humility too. Gay marriage wasn’t the first issue on which society changed its mind, and it surely won’t be the last.




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

When you’re hurting other people, it’s time for you to be judged.

TBSchemer on June 28, 2015 at 3:39 PM

To think I almost went to church and missed thee!


Axe on June 28, 2015 at 4:40 PM

how much forward notice did the WH get on the SC decision..?
who put the rainbow floodlights on the WH lawn and when??
have there always been multicolored flood lights on the WH lawn??

just wondering..

going2mars on June 28, 2015 at 4:45 PM

INC on June 28, 2015 at 3:23 AM

All excellent points.
“The Wheel weaves as the Wheel will” is not just an asinine fictional theology, it’s the one Kennedy lives by.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 4:56 PM

Solaratov on June 28, 2015 at 3:21 AM

There’s probably been a mix of blackmail and bribery not to mention utter lack of character.

It’s as if we’re in one of those dystopian/disaster films at the very beginning when those in charge are gobbling up everything they can for themselves. We’ve yet to reach the part about halfway through when things begin to completely fall apart and those who were on the take are among the first to meet disaster.

INC on June 28, 2015 at 3:30 AM

IF only it worked that way outside of Hollywood.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 4:58 PM

However, when they are “married”, it’s going to be a whole new ball game. There are going to be lawyers, and formal agreements that must pass legal standards. While one may get the house, the other can insist that it be sold and the money divided 50-50…no matter who gets upset. And, there’s going to be the question of alimony!! Who pays?

Oh! It’s going to be a comedic feast. Almost worth the cost of admission.

Solaratov on June 28, 2015 at 3:37 AM

Some of the early SSM couples have already discovered this.
I suspect there won’t be very many tying the knot once the first run of enthusiasm wears off (see this for example).
However, the damage has already been done: if not one other SS couple ever gets married, the court decision remains, and the ability of the Left to persecute and prosecute dissenters continues unhindered.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:01 PM

Any two people, regardless of their sexes, must be allowed to receive the same legal benefits as any other two people.

If you can’t accept this principle, then you can’t call yourself a constitutional conservative.

TBSchemer on June 28, 2015 at 3:44 AM

Why are you stuck on “two” people?
Are you an anti-polygamy bigot?

All of the questions you have “raised” in these threads was argued and evaluated on scores of occasions prior to the decision, but you have totally ignored the entirety of the discussion.

Why can’t you just take “yes” for an answer and leave dissenters alone?

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:04 PM

I think it’s absolutely critical we begin pushing for a constitutional amendment to end the lifetime tenure of federal judges. Yes, it’s a long hard slog and it may take years, but if we’ve learned anything since the Warren court it’s that federal judges are to often willing to abandon judicial principles and ethics to act on political and ideological agendas. When they do, it’s almost always disastrous.

We need a mechanism to hold judges accountable. In my opinion that means standing for a non-partisan recall election. We must be able to weed out the worst of them, at the least. In fact, the very moment a serious movement begins to change the status quo, a disincentive to depart from a judge’s duties is created. We will begin to exert some pressure for restraint simply by forcing the issue.

It’s all we’ve got, and it must be done.

novaculus on June 28, 2015 at 3:54 AM

I agree with you, and there are a number of articles on the web with good suggestions. “Lifetime tenure” sounded good in the 18th-century when only a relatively few lived past 60. As late as 1940s, Social Security was set to kick in a few years AFTER the expected lifespan of most people.

Mandatory retirement, regardless of party, ideology, or political issues of the day.
See this post on PowerLine about age and judiciary ideology.

Now, I want to offer a second, and perhaps more powerful, explanation: age. If Supreme Court Justices were appointed directly out of law school, I strongly suspect that liberals would be complaining about Democratic-appointees growing in office. It’s commonly acknowledged that the trajectory for young men is to move to the right as they begin to assume the responsibilities of adulthood, including paying mortgages and helping to support and raise children.

But Supreme Court Justices are almost always past age 50 when they are appointed. By then, the children are, or soon will be, raised; the mortgage has, or soon will be, paid off; and the Justices are looking forward to grandchildren.

These developments shouldn’t drive anyone to the left, but I believe the aging process itself often does. Why? Because conservatism, especially conservative judging, is predicated on the absence of a certain kind of sentimentality (I say “certain kind” because there is a sense in which the main strand of conservatism is quite sentimental). It is predicated on not letting “feelings” dominate the decision-making process.

RTWT – makes an interesting case.
Also susceptible to experimental testing, to see if judges decisions do change ideological direction as they age, when controlled for other factors.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM

Good morning. Hope everyone had a peaceful night.

There will be many thoughtful and sober discussions in churches across the country this morning. Things are gonna get real interesting real fast. So many of my friends are fearful of the government now. What a mess.

esr1951 on June 28, 2015 at 5:57 AM

Here’s one today, although the Baptists and others are already on record.

The Church issued the following statement Friday:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court’s decision does not alter the Lord’s doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice.”

The Church has outlined its doctrine and position on marriage in the document
The Divine Institution of Marriage.

Which says this:


In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which declares the following truths about marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that…

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.[1]

Since the publication of that statement, there have been many challenges to the institution of marriage. Prominent among these challenges has been the recognition by several national governments and some states and provinces that same-sex marriage—formal unions between two individuals of the same gender—are the equivalent of traditional marriage. Yet God’s purposes for establishing marriage have not changed. One purpose of this document is to reaffirm the Church’s declaration that marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman.

A fourth purpose of this document is to reaffirm that Church members should address the issue of same-sex marriage with respect and civility and should treat all people with love and humanity.

The Vital Importance of Marriage

Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage:…

From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. … Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.[4]

For millennia, strong families have served as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization….
Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. …

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.[7]

In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.

A large number of people around the world recognize the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated. Because the issue of same-sex marriage strikes at the very heart of the family and has the potential for great impact upon the welfare of children, the Church unequivocally affirms that marriage should remain the lawful union of a man and a woman.

Unchanging Standards of Morality

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God has established clear standards of morality for His children, who are accountable before Him for their behavior. Such standards cannot be changed by the reasoning, emotions, personal interests, or opinions of mortal beings.[10] Without the higher authority of God, as revealed in scripture and by His prophets, secular society will flounder and drift.

Many advocates of same-sex marriage argue that traditional standards of sexual morality have changed and that “tolerance” requires that these new standards be recognized and codified in law. If tolerance is defined as showing kindness for others and respect for differing viewpoints, it is an important value in all democratic societies. But as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”[11]

The Savior taught that we should love the sinner without condoning the sin. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, He treated her kindly but exhorted her to “sin no more.”[12] His example manifested the highest love possible.

In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.” No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God. Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Religious Freedom?

As governments have legalized same-sex marriage as a civil right, they have also enforced a wide variety of other policies to ensure there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. These policies have placed serious burdens on individual conscience and on religious organizations.[13]

In the United States, the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion is coming under pressure from proponents of same-sex marriage. Some of these proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages.[15] The First Amendment may protect clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but other people of faith have faced and likely will continue to face legal pressures and sanctions. … Where same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, it inevitably conflicts with the rights of believers, and religious freedom is diminished.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

The possible diminishing of religious freedom is not the only societal implication of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect your marriage, so why should you care?” is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing same-sex marriage will not immediately and directly affect existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations.

In addition to undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage, legalizing same-sex marriage brings many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of concern to parents and society.[18] When a government legalizes same-sex marriage as a civil right, it will almost certainly enforce a wide variety of other policies to enforce this. The implications of these policies are critical to understanding the seriousness of condoning same-sex marriage.

The all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? While some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children, traditional marriage provides the most solid and well-established social identity for children.[19] It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. No dialogue on this issue can be complete without taking into account the long-term consequences for children.

As one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably entail changes in school curricula….
Throughout history, the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong, independent families are vital for political and religious freedom.

Civility and Kindness

The Church acknowledges that same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it can be divisive and hurtful. As Church members strive to protect marriage between a man and a woman, they should show respect, civility, and kindness toward others who have different points of view.

The Church has advocated for legal protection for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”[23] In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances to protect gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment.[24]

The Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman “neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.”[25] Church members are to treat all people with love and humanity. They may express genuine love and kindness toward a gay or lesbian family member, friend, or other person without condoning any redefinition of marriage.


Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.

The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”[26]

This document is a revised and updated version of “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” first published by the Church in 2008 (.pdf file).

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM

Obama DOJ to Fast Track $3.2 Million in Tax Dollars to Each Charleston Victim’s Family

Wow, all this time I had no idea the DOJ gave victims’ families money when they get murdered. There’s been what, at least 160 murders in Chicago alone so far this year? That’s a lot of money!

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 28, 2015 at 5:06 AM

Thanks for sharing. I was going to send money but it looks like I gave at the office.

talkingpoints on June 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM

That’s pretty much how I feel about most appeals for help these days, if it involves any group which already receives government welfare.
I give money to my church for charitable and humanitarian issues, because every penny so specified goes directly to the cause (the LDS organization absorbs the overhead using other donations).

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:28 PM

was just imagining Roberts’ decision on the sure to come battle between freedom of religious expression and forced active participation in same-sex marriage.

“The phrase free expression of religion is just a typo.”

“What they meant to say was free expression of religion when it is convenient.”

“It was also clear that the founders meant that free expression of religion is only acceptable when it falls within the bounds of political correctness. We know this because the Bill of Rights is a political document.”

“Actually the founders meant to say freedom from exercise of religion-they were just victims of inartful drafting.”

We know this because in the preamble they state “insure domestic tranquility” so clearly the purpose of the document is to have people be friends.

talkingpoints on June 28, 2015 at 7:41 AM

Well said; you would like Doc Zero’s take on this in “The Marriage Mandate”.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:29 PM

My take: http://wp.me/pSio7-3uF Gay Marriage and American Christianity: Intended Consequences

kingsjester on June 28, 2015 at 8:01 AM

Prophecy applies to more than one era:

Our nation may be witnessing the Hand of God being taken off of us.

…since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. – Romans 1:28

Without being anchored on the Solid Rock, America would have been a failed experiment, assigned to the dustbin of history, years ago.

LDS Doctrine and Covenants 101

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, December 16 and 17, 1833. At this time the Saints who had gathered in Missouri were suffering great persecution. Mobs had driven them from their homes in Jackson County; and some of the Saints had tried to establish themselves in Van Buren, Lafayette, and Ray Counties, but persecution followed them. The main body of the Saints was at that time in Clay County, Missouri. Threats of death against individuals of the Church were many. The Saints in Jackson County had lost household furniture, clothing, livestock, and other personal property; and many of their crops had been destroyed.

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

81 Now, unto what shall I liken the children of Zion? I will liken them unto the parable of the woman and the unjust judge, for men ought always to pray and not to faint,

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:38 PM


Horatia on June 28, 2015 at 3:47 PM

That was a beautiful essay, and so important.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 5:42 PM

TBSchemer on June 28, 2015 at 4:23 AM

Lil feller, I think that you’re a little confused. In the first place, I haven’t even mentioned the 14th Ammendment. Second, you seem to get some idea in your head – right or wrong – about what you think/believe someone may have said…and you latch onto it and keep bleating about like a lost lamb trying to find its mama. You did it all last night (and, in the process, shit all over our qotd get-together)…and you’re prepared to do it again today. It’s rather tiresome, TB. Knock it off!

Solaratov on June 28, 2015 at 5:50 PM

need some saw dust?

going2mars on June 28, 2015 at 4:50 AM

Sawdust…glitter for real men.


Solaratov on June 28, 2015 at 5:59 PM

CW on June 28, 2015 at 4:23 PM

A gay marriage never hurt you. You can’t judge. How many times do I have to make this point before you actually listen to it?

TBSchemer on June 28, 2015 at 6:34 PM

You can’t judge. How many times do I have to make this point before you actually listen to it?

TBSchemer on June 28, 2015 at 6:34 PM

Who says CW can’t judge? You? Nobody listens to you.

And, since nobody listens to you, why don’t you just stop blatting about it?

You really are starting to bore everyone, you know.

Solaratov on June 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8