On gay marriage, Bush co-opts polarizing issue

[LindaBee2]

http://www.iht.com/articles/126065.html

On gay marriage, Bush co-opts polarizing issue
Brian Knowlton IHT Thursday, January 22, 2004

WASHINGTON By raising the possibility of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, President George W. Bush invoked a polarizing issue that both Democrats and homosexuals said Wednesday that they feared might be used against them.

At the same time, conservative groups, representing the core base of Bush's support, loudly applauded his words.

Bush framed his comments carefully in his State of the Union message to the nation Tuesday. He did not explicitly call for a constitutional amendment now, but, hardening his earlier language, said that it could become "the only alternative." "Activist judges," Bush said, had "begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives." "On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard," he said. "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

Gay rights groups saw Bush's comments - the first time he had raised the issue in a State of the Union speech, and his most pointed message yet on the subject - as an attempt to roll back gains they had made in states like Vermont and Massachusetts toward the right to marry or enter civil unions that protect their legal status.

"We are obviously disappointed," said Michael Adams, a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights group. "We think it's very unfortunate that the president insists on using the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their families as red meat for his political base." Adams added, in a phone interview, that he hoped Bush did not push the issue. "We don't view rights of gays and lesbians as a political football," he said. The opposite view was expressed by Gerald D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

"We feel marriage should be between one man and one woman, and hopefully that will continue to be not only the law of the land, but help a perpetuation of society," he said. His group is actively pushing for the State Legislature to overturn a state court approval of same-sex marriages by means of a constitutional ban.

Some Democrats also suggested that Bush had raised the thorny issue chiefly to appease and energize his conservative base in a presidential election year. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, had suggested as much earlier. Conservatives like "Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party," he told the Advocate, a gay oriented publication. "It's an absurd issue, and it's one of the reasons I'm running." Such cultural issues as gay rights and abortion have often disfavored Democrats; Bush's stance on marriage is likely to draw favor, for instance, in important electoral states of the South. A New York Times/CBS poll in December found strong support for the idea of a constitutional amendment to allow marriage only between a man and a woman - even among people traditionally seen as gay-rights supporters, such as Democrats, women and people on the East Coast. The nationwide poll found that Americans, by 55 percent to 40 percent, favored such an amendment.

The issue might cut further against Democrats because two leading presidential candidates, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, are identified, at least by association through their states' actions, with the issue.
.
The New York Times

Back to Start of Article WASHINGTON By raising the possibility of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, President George W. Bush invoked a polarizing issue that both Democrats and homosexuals said Wednesday that they feared might be used against them.
.
At the same time, conservative groups, representing the core base of Bush's support, loudly applauded his words.
.
Bush framed his comments carefully in his State of the Union message to the nation Tuesday. He did not explicitly call for a constitutional amendment now, but, hardening his earlier language, said that it could become "the only alternative." "Activist judges," Bush said, had "begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives." "On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard," he said. "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
.
Gay rights groups saw Bush's comments - the first time he had raised the issue in a State of the Union speech, and his most pointed message yet on the subject - as an attempt to roll back gains they had made in states like Vermont and Massachusetts toward the right to marry or enter civil unions that protect their legal status.
.
"We are obviously disappointed," said Michael Adams, a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights group. "We think it's very unfortunate that the president insists on using the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their families as red meat for his political base." Adams added, in a phone interview, that he hoped Bush did not push the issue. "We don't view rights of gays and lesbians as a political football," he said. The opposite view was expressed by Gerald D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
.
"We feel marriage should be between one man and one woman, and hopefully that will continue to be not only the law of the land, but help a perpetuation of society," he said. His group is actively pushing for the State Legislature to overturn a state court approval of same-sex marriages by means of a constitutional ban.
.
Some Democrats also suggested that Bush had raised the thorny issue chiefly to appease and energize his conservative base in a presidential election year. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, had suggested as much earlier. Conservatives like "Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party," he told the Advocate, a gay oriented publication. "It's an absurd issue, and it's one of the reasons I'm running." Such cultural issues as gay rights and abortion have often disfavored Democrats; Bush's stance on marriage is likely to draw favor, for instance, in important electoral states of the South. A New York Times/CBS poll in December found strong support for the idea of a constitutional amendment to allow marriage only between a man and a woman - even among people traditionally seen as gay-rights supporters, such as Democrats, women and people on the East Coast. The nationwide poll found that Americans, by 55 percent to 40 percent, favored such an amendment.
.
The issue might cut further against Democrats because two leading presidential candidates, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, are identified, at least by association through their states' actions, with the issue.
.
The New York Times WASHINGTON By raising the possibility of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, President George W. Bush invoked a polarizing issue that both Democrats and homosexuals said Wednesday that they feared might be used against them.
.
At the same time, conservative groups, representing the core base of Bush's support, loudly applauded his words.
.
Bush framed his comments carefully in his State of the Union message to the nation Tuesday. He did not explicitly call for a constitutional amendment now, but, hardening his earlier language, said that it could become "the only alternative." "Activist judges," Bush said, had "begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives." "On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard," he said. "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
.
Gay rights groups saw Bush's comments - the first time he had raised the issue in a State of the Union speech, and his most pointed message yet on the subject - as an attempt to roll back gains they had made in states like Vermont and Massachusetts toward the right to marry or enter civil unions that protect their legal status.
.
"We are obviously disappointed," said Michael Adams, a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights group. "We think it's very unfortunate that the president insists on using the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their families as red meat for his political base." Adams added, in a phone interview, that he hoped Bush did not push the issue. "We don't view rights of gays and lesbians as a political football," he said. The opposite view was expressed by Gerald D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
.
"We feel marriage should be between one man and one woman, and hopefully that will continue to be not only the law of the land, but help a perpetuation of society," he said. His group is actively pushing for the State Legislature to overturn a state court approval of same-sex marriages by means of a constitutional ban.
.
Some Democrats also suggested that Bush had raised the thorny issue chiefly to appease and energize his conservative base in a presidential election year. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, had suggested as much earlier. Conservatives like "Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party," he told the Advocate, a gay oriented publication. "It's an absurd issue, and it's one of the reasons I'm running." Such cultural issues as gay rights and abortion have often disfavored Democrats; Bush's stance on marriage is likely to draw favor, for instance, in important electoral states of the South. A New York Times/CBS poll in December found strong support for the idea of a constitutional amendment to allow marriage only between a man and a woman - even among people traditionally seen as gay-rights supporters, such as Democrats, women and people on the East Coast. The nationwide poll found that Americans, by 55 percent to 40 percent, favored such an amendment.
.
The issue might cut further against Democrats because two leading presidential candidates, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, are identified, at least by association through their states' actions, with the issue.[/quote]

So typical. It never occurs to gay extremists and their supporters that the President's thoughts on marriage are genuine. Don't they know that he's a religious man? Has that even registered in their brains?

[Morgan]

It never occurs to gay extremists and their supporters that the President's thoughts on marriage are genuine.

If I may ask, what exactly makes someone a "gay extremist"? Is any gay person who wants the right to marry an "extremist," in your eyes?

Don't they know that he's a religious man? Has that even registered in their brains?

Do you remember the last time this came up?

It's registered.

Unless, of course, I don't qualify as an "extremist" after all.

[LindaBee2]

If I may ask, what exactly makes someone a "gay extremist"? Is any gay person who wants the right to marry an "extremist," in your eyes?

Someone who screams, "Hey! He's a bigot, because he won't accept my lifestyle!!"

[Morgan]

*rereads article*

So... were those hypothetical "gay extremists" you were talking about, or is "He's a bigot, because he won't accept my lifestyle" your way of paraphrasing "We are obviously disappointed... We think it's very unfortunate that the president insists on using the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their families as red meat for his political base?"

[LindaBee2]

Gay extremists are people who:

1 - Scream, "He's a bigot because he won't accept my lifestyle."

2 - Assume that, whenever a religious man supports a bill that will define marriage as something that should only take place between one man and one woman, he's doing it for political gains. (And yet, these are the same people who'll probably throw a hissy fit if they are accused of doing the same thing.)

3 - Push for special rights for gay people. Ex: the Harvey Milk High School. Meanwhile, every other kid who's been bullied is told to "Deal with it."

[Aineo]

*rereads article*

So... were those hypothetical "gay extremists" you were talking about, or is "He's a bigot, because he won't accept my lifestyle" your way of paraphrasing "We are obviously disappointed... We think it's very unfortunate that the president insists on using the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their families as red meat for his political base?"

Now that is the pot calling the kettle black. Gay activists have been using the Democratic Party for decades to push their goals, that a liberal court appointed by Democrats.

[Morgan]

Linda,

2 - Assume that, whenever a religious man supports a bill that will define marriage as something that should only take place between one man and one woman, he's doing it for political gains.

Ah. Well, I think in this case it's a matter of timing. He's bringing it up now, when he's up for re-election. That, and personally, I tend to assume that anything a politician does is being done for political gains.

(And yet, these are the same people who'll probably throw a hissy fit if they are accused of doing the same thing.)

Except there apparently isn't any political advantage to supporting gay marriage. None of the serious Democratic candidates are doing it, that I'm aware of.



Aineo,

Gay activists have been using the Democratic Party for decades to push their goals, that a liberal court appointed by Democrats.

I think you're missing some words here; I'm not sure what you're saying past the comma. As to the first half, well, people do tend to try to use political parties to push their goals, do they not? That's part of how our country's form of democracy works. And our President's current stance on gay marriage is also part of that -- he's offering to push for one of the goals of the people who will be voting for him. Nonetheless, the people who will be negatively affected by that push are likely to be disappointed, at the very least.

[Aineo]

Morgan, the Democratic Party started wooing the gay vote over 20 years ago, and gay activists wooed the Democratic Party. Bush is stating a personal opinion, as have Democrats who are running for election. So to assign a negative position to the President while not doing the same to other politicians is taking a hypocritcal stance on a topic dear to you.

What I like most about President Bush's speech was the call for Congress to get the court system back under their control, which is their Constitutional responsibility.

[Morgan]

Aineo,

Morgan, the Democratic Party started wooing the gay vote over 20 years ago, and gay activists wooed the Democratic Party.

Did they? I wasn't there... well, not to the point of politically aware, at least.

Their presidential candidates still won't stand up and say they're in favor of gay marriage. So the fact that I'd choose any Democrat over Bush on this issue has less to do with what the Democrats are offering, and more to do with what Bush is threatening.

Bush is stating a personal opinion, as have Democrats who are running for election. So to assign a negative position to the President while not doing the same to other politicians is taking a hypocritcal stance on a topic dear to you.

I beg your pardon? I'm "assigning a negative position" to him because he wants to codify my legal inability to marry into the Constitution of the United States, such that my state will not even be able to grant me that right. The topic is indeed dear to me, but I fail to see where hypocrisy enters the picture.

What I like most about President Bush's speech was the call for Congress to get the court system back under their control, which is their Constitutional responsibility.

Yes, you've said. Perhaps you could answer my question about this on the other thread?

[LindaBee2]

What I like most about President Bush's speech was the call for Congress to get the court system back under their control, which is their Constitutional responsibility.

I was waiting for that moment for a long time. I just hope the Courts grant his wish. I'm tired of Liberal Courts (especially the 9th Circuit in California) distorting the meaning of the Constitutional Amendments.

Off-topic question: What does "Aineo" mean?

[Aineo]

Aineo,

Morgan, the Democratic Party started wooing the gay vote over 20 years ago, and gay activists wooed the Democratic Party.

Did they? I wasn't there... well, not to the point of politically aware, at least.

I was, so get your facts straight.

Their presidential candidates still won't stand up and say they're in favor of gay marriage. So the fact that I'd choose any Democrat over Bush on this issue has less to do with what the Democrats are offering, and more to do with what Bush is threatening.

Clinton made promises to the gay community to get their support and when he attempted to implement them had to back down. So, again, get your facts straight. Gay marriage was not an issue when Clinton was in the White House.

Bush is stating a personal opinion, as have Democrats who are running for election. So to assign a negative position to the President while not doing the same to other politicians is taking a hypocritcal stance on a topic dear to you.

I beg your pardon? I'm "assigning a negative position" to him because he wants to codify my legal inability to marry into the Constitution of the United States, such that my <I>state</I> will not even be able to grant me that right. The topic is indeed dear to me, but I fail to see where hypocrisy enters the picture.

And banning gay marriage is dear to me as it gives our youth the wrong signal, and if you are as concerned for the 97% who are not gay as you are for the 3% who are gay you would understand this.

What I like most about President Bush's speech was the call for Congress to get the court system back under their control, which is their Constitutional responsibility.

Yes, you've said. Perhaps you could answer my question about this on the other thread?

What thread?

[Morgan]

I was, so get your facts straight.

If I saw the relevance of the the interactions between gay activists and the Democratic Party circa 1980, I would need to do some research. At the moment, though, I don't see the point.

Clinton made promises to the gay community to get their support and when he attempted to implement them had to back down. So, again, get your facts straight. Gay marriage was not an issue when Clinton was in the White House.

Presidential candidates, I said, not Presidents. Specifically referring to the current batch.

And banning gay marriage is dear to me as it gives our youth the wrong signal,

I agree... it tells them that gay people are fundamentally different, and unequal, compared to straight people. Definitely the wrong signal.

...and if you are as concerned for the 97% who are not gay as you are for the 3% who are gay you would understand this.

Since I do not see why permitting gay marriage will have a detrimental effect on straight youth, you're right, I don't understand. This seems rather beyond the scope of the thread, however -- perhaps you'd care to start a new one?

What thread?

This one. (The last paragraph.)

[Aineo]

We have beat this horse to death more than once. We are a nation of laws, not a nation governed by the courts. States have passed laws limiting marriage to man + woman, in fact Congress passed DOMA under Clinton, so until the courts got involved the whole issue was settled. President Bush merely reitereated as his opinion a Federal Law.

[Morgan]

Which horse? The effect of gay marriage on straight youth? Or the right of the Federal government to impose a specific definition of marriage on the states? DOMA defines marriage at a Federal level -- there is nothing in it that prohibits, say, Massachusetts, from granting marriage licenses to gay couples. It just means that those marriages will not be recognized at a Federal level, nor will any other state be forced to recognize them. But Bush is evidently pushing for something stronger -- presumably a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit all the individual states from ever granting homosexual marriage licenses.

This isn't Congress v. "the courts." It's Federal v. State.

[Aineo]

Which horse? The effect of gay marriage on straight youth? Or the right of the Federal government to impose a specific definition of marriage on the states? DOMA defines marriage at a Federal level -- there is nothing in it that prohibits, say, Massachusetts, from granting marriage licenses to gay couples. It just means that those marriages will not be recognized at a Federal level, nor will any other state be forced to recognize them. But Bush is evidently pushing for something stronger -- presumably a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit all the individual states from ever granting homosexual marriage licenses.

This isn't Congress v. "the courts." It's Federal v. State.

Other states could be forced to recognize gay unions under the U.S. Constitution. You know that as well as I do.

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

As to, which horse, we covered this on why we oppose gay unions.

[Morgan]

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

So... are you saying that DOMA is unconstitutional?

Eh. Feel free to disregard that as rhetorical. For my part, I've deleted a perfectly good paragraph of horse-beating. If you ever want to go another round, you know how to start it.

[Aineo]

No, I am not saying DOMA is uncontitutional, however, the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution could be a point of contention between states that legalize gay unions vs. those who forbid such unions by statute. If a Colorado gay couple go to Mass. and get "married" and then return to Colorado, is the Mass. union valid in Colorado?

BTW, we discussed ongoing psychological studies regarding the possibility of changing sexual orientation. You don't feel they are necessay and I do. Here is a link to New Directions and the latest on such studies being conducted. As long as gay activists are not willing to agree that sexuality is not innate and immutable I will continue to oppose gay unions and the advancement of any gay agenda based on simply getting out the truth.

[Morgan]

Yes, I can see where that could be a point of contention. But do you really think that a Constitutional definition of marriage is the right answer?

And that's a horse of a different color... well, I don't recall ever saying that studies were "unnecessary," although no one seems to be doing the type of study I believe is <I>most</I> necessary. But I don't see how any of this is relevant to the present discussion. Are you really saying that if a majority of gay activists became convinced that sexuality was subject to voluntary change, and said so publicly, you would then support gay marriage?

I find that difficult to believe.

[Aineo]

No, I will not change my mind on gay marriage. The reason I posted the link to New Directions is to show you that research is being done on the possibility of changing one's sexual orientation. As to spontaneous change, I did not bring that up this round, however, it will be interesting to see what happens if a gay union breaks up because one partner has a "spontaneous" change and divorces their partner.

[Morgan]

No, I will not change my mind on gay marriage.

Then maybe you shouldn't say things like "<I>As long as</I> gay activists are not willing to agree that sexuality is not innate and immutable I will continue to oppose gay unions," etc. (Emphasis mine.)

The reason I posted the link to New Directions is to show you that research is being done on the possibility of changing one's sexual orientation.

I'm aware, thank you. I still don't see the relevance to this thread. If I was offered an inexpensive and instantaneous means to completely change my orientation, 100% guaranteed, I would politely decline... and I would still want the right to marry.

As to spontaneous change, I did not bring that up this round, however, it will be interesting to see what happens if a gay union breaks up because one partner has a "spontaneous" change and divorces their partner.

Presumably the same thing that happens when straight unions break up because one partner was actually gay. I would expect it to happen less often, however, since there is far less motivation for a straight person to "go gay."

[Aineo]

Gay activism is based on a pack of lies, promoted by anti-God forces such as the ACLU, NOW, NEA and other groups that have no real idea of the consequences of ignoring our Creator.

As to what I posted about gay activists, they won't admit that sexuality is not innate and immutable so if they did start telling the truth that would mean this country is again realizing that God is sovereign not hormones that people won't control. You can promote gay unions in this life but, as I posted in the other thread "God will not be mocked".

[Morgan]

I have no intention of "mocking" a God I disbelieve in. "This" life is the only one I perceive as being real. And I do not see why your beliefs concerning God, morality and the afterlife should overrule mine, when the issue in question affects my life, and not yours.

I understand that you are concerned about people who, in an environment where being gay is legally equivalent to being straight, would choose to live in accordance with their orientation, rather than trying to change it. But that will be <I>their</I> choice -- just as it is now.

They will not be forced to choose gay marriage, simply because it is available to them. They will still be able to act in accordance with their own religious beliefs. But if gay marriage is unavailable, then those who <I>would</I> choose it will continue to be limited by other people's religious beliefs, even if those beliefs contradict their own.

[jmc5682]

Keep religion out of politics. Bush has every right to be a Chrisitian, but he has no right to use his beliefs in some fictitous supernatural being to not allow gay marriage. How is gay marriage so wrong? Divorce among Hetro's is rampant, as is abuse. Why is it that Britney Spears can get married and annulled in 2 days and no one says that is a mockery of marriage.

Two people who love each other completely can hurt no one. I have been with my partner for nine years and my biological daughter lives with us. She is a happy hetrosexual well adjusted young woman. I personally don't care if they call it marriage or civil unions or anything else. I just want the same right as any hetro couple. Not special rights. The same rights!

[Aineo]

Keep religion out of politics. Bush has every right to be a Chrisitian, but he has no right to use his beliefs in some fictitous supernatural being to not allow gay marriage. How is gay marriage so wrong? Divorce among Hetro's is rampant, as is abuse. Why is it that Britney Spears can get married and annulled in 2 days and no one says that is a mockery of marriage.

Two people who love each other completely can hurt no one. I have been with my partner for nine years and my biological daughter lives with us. She is a happy hetrosexual well adjusted young woman. I personally don't care if they call it marriage or civil unions or anything else. I just want the same right as any hetro couple. Not special rights. The same rights!

You want the same rights but only by redefining marriage, that is requesting "special rights". No culture in the history of the world has ever legalized same-sex unions. No culture or society has ever stated that same-sex unions are in any way equal to or should be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage. As to Britney, you must be living on cloud 9 all the media ridiculed her for her quickie marriage and annulment. As to the divorce rate it has declined from it peak in the 1940's, and appealing to unstable hetero's marriage and divorce rates is ludicrous. Would you jump off the Hoover Dam if heterosexual's did?

[Morgan]

No culture or society has ever stated that same-sex unions are in any way equal to or should be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage.

Canada.


And "it's always been like this" is a <I>damn</I> poor excuse for discrimination. Did women seek "special rights" when they wanted to be able to vote, redefining citizenship against all the weight of historical precedent? (And the U.S. wasn't the first country to sign off on that one, either.)

[Aineo]

No culture or society has ever stated that same-sex unions are in any way equal to or should be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage.

Canada.


And "it's always been like this" is a <I>damn</I> poor excuse for discrimination. Did women seek "special rights" when they wanted to be able to vote, redefining citizenship against all the weight of historical precedent? (And the U.S. wasn't the first country to sign off on that one, either.)

This is such an insipid excuse to legalize an immoral lifestyle it does not bear addressing. The U.S. should not allow Canada or anyother country to dictate our mores for any reason. As a nation we have been instrumental in leading the world and to now follow other countries down the slippery slope to destruction is ludicrous.

.

Matt 19:3-6
3 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said,' For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 "Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
NAS

Gal 3:24-29
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
NAS

Rev 21:1-8
21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, 4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. " 5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." 6 And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7 "He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NAS

I will put my faith and trust in the sovereign authority of our Creator long before I will in fallible men who allow liberal concepts to lead us down the primerose path to hell.

I have reopened your thread Why do you oppose gay marriage?.

This thread is closed, however, you can continue your liberal ranting on this thread. I have stated all I intend to on this subject. I am just as intractable as you are so to continue to beat this subject is a total waste of time for those who accept the sovereignty of God.