Archive for same sex marriage

Lesbian Identity

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on February 11, 2021 by andelino

Jen Hatmaker celebrates daughter’s lesbian identity
by Shane Idleman

Jen Hatmaker recently celebrated her daughter’s lesbian identity, saying, “I’m so glad you’re gay.”

Many say that we cannot take a position on homosexuality because all positions will hurt someone. Here’s my question: “Are those who defend homosexuality, or who say nothing, truly loving the homosexual, or are they simply seeking to avoid conflict?” If they are more worried about being liked than being truthful, do they really care for homosexuals more than the person who is willing to risk their reputation, and quite possibly their safety, in order to speak the truth in love?

The answer is obvious. Authentic Christians love the truth, and others, so much so that they are willing to risk the consequences of confrontation in order to help others. This is genuine love, not hatred. “When we become so tolerant that we lead people into mental fog and spiritual darkness, we are not acting like Christians—we are acting like cowards” (A.W. Tozer).

Many who support their children’s same-sex attraction often say, “I don’t think scripture clearly states much of anything regarding this issue.” This simply reveals that they are not spending much time in God’s Word, but instead, may be reading liberal authors. The implications of homosexuality are not hints here and there in the Bible, they are crystal clear. At the core of this battle, is the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word (e.g., “did God really say”). With that said, let me share with you what I wrote in 2014:

I have nothing but compassion for those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle. Those who strongly believe in the Bible and God’s will regarding sexual behavior, also strongly believe in unconditional love and forgiveness.

The ability to relate to a person on their level, show genuine concern, and love them regardless of their lifestyle is the mark of true Christianity.

Unfortunately, Christians often embrace one of two extremes. At one extreme are those who insult, or who are violent toward, those trapped in this lifestyle; homosexuality appears at the top of their sin list; there is very little love or compassion. The other extreme excuses this sin and looks the other way. Both extremes are wrong and offer a false impression of genuine Christianity. We must extend compassion but without compromise. Jen got it right by loving her daughter, but wrong by endorsing and supporting her lifestyle.

If warning, confronting, challenging, and advising can all be categorized as “hate-speech,” as many say, then, based on this definition, many parents hate their children. But of course the opposite is true: Parents love their children, so much so that they warn, confront, challenge, and advise daily.

Certain “rights” and “wrongs” called absolutes are given by God to save people from themselves. Nearly all of our social issues are related to the stability and structure of the God-ordained family.

Would we say, “I believe that those who embrace pornography can live in harmony with biblical Christianity.” Or, “I believe that those who embrace adultery can live in harmony with biblical Christianity.” Of course not. Unfortunately, one of the greatest mistakes in our culture today involves not being able to discern between right and wrong.

The battle cry is focused on “individual rights,” instead of what does God’s Word say?

When we speak of constitutional rights, we are referring to “God-given” rights. God orchestrates these rights—the definition and the perimeters—they correspond with His nature, His will, and His Word. When we replace “God-given rights” with “man-given rights” we create an environment where there would be little recourse, and no end to what man could advocate.

God’s Word is very clear on the dangers of “homosexuality, adultery, pornography, and other sexual sins.” If our sexual preferences run contrary to God’s Word we must change our preferences, not the other way around.

Gay marriage is not about “rights”—it’s about sexual “choices.” But can we legislate morality? No, we cannot change a person’s heart by forcing a set of laws or rules upon them, but we can deter wrongdoing. You may say, “Times change.” And you are correct, but God’s standards do not. No matter how many laws are passed in favor of same-sex marriage, it will not change God’s mind. His principles are guardrails through the canyons of life. They don’t prevent us from enjoying life; they protect us from falling.

Consider the following in light of Jen Hatmaker’s recent comments:

The “moral” laws in the Old Testament such as killing, stealing, lying, adultery, sexual immorality, and so on are all valid today. Jesus referred often to the Old Testament, and said that He didn’t come to abolish it, but to fulfill it. Although many of the ceremonial and dietary laws of the Old Testament do not necessarily apply today, the moral laws do. They are as significant today as they have been throughout history.

For example, Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” To suggest that this verse is invalid today is to advocate the dangerous practice of redefining or deleting what God has said. Not to mention other stories in the Old Testament that highlight the dangers of same-sex attraction.

The consequences of wrong actions may have changed, but the moral implications remain the same. For instance, even though we no longer stone to death those who commit adultery, this does not mean that adultery is acceptable or any less dangerous. Adultery is wrong even though there aren’t legal consequences. The laws of a nation should reflect God’s Word, but they are never above it!

Jesus condemned “all” sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman when He said, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (Matthew 15:19). Jesus was implying that all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is harmful and immoral. The word “fornication” in the Greek is porneia; where the word “pornography” comes from.

An argument cannot be based solely on silence. To suggest that Jesus approved of homosexuality simply because He did not use the term “homosexual,” is to imply that He approved of necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. But, of course, we know better.

Other passages in the New Testament are clear on this issue as well. Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 are good places to start. In short, mankind did not see fit to acknowledge God and they suppressed the truth; therefore, God gave them over to a depraved mind—to do those things which are not proper.

Homosexual behavior, and sexual sin in general, is comparable with dishonoring the body and turning from God. “The sexual disordering of the human race is a judgment of God for exchanging Him for the creature” (John Piper).

Jesus said that since the beginning of creation, God created them male and female in order that they would be joined together and become one flesh. He adds, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9).

Jesus would often speak out against sin, but His love and mercy also reached out to those who regretted and hated their condition. Forgiveness is a mark of genuine faith. We should have compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, but at the same time, we should not condone or excuse this type of sin any more than we condone or excuse any other sin.

As a final word of encouragement, if you’re hopeless, depressed, and confused, look to the One who created you. He has the answers. No matter what you have done, you have the ability to turn to Christ and start anew.

It’s all about Who you know: “If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9).

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come. The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

We can’t be right and wrong on issues of morality. God’s way is the only way.

Same Sex Civil Unions

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on November 20, 2020 by andelino

Even the Catholic Church is surrendering to the lawless spirit of our age.

Pope Francis has endorsed same-sex civil unions for the first time since he was elected pontiff, according to the Catholic News Agency. His comments were actually uttered in a feature-length documentary, which premiered on October 21 at the Rome Film Festival. The documentary primarily explores Pope Francis’s views on climate change, immigration and economic equality. His comments on homosexuality come halfway through the film.

Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” he states. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

The fact that Pope Francis supports same-sex civil unions is unsurprising. Back when he was still working as the archbishop of Buenos Aires, he endorsed “same sex civil unions” as an alternative to “same sex marriage.”

But publicly repeating this position as pope represents a historic shift for the Roman Catholic Church. In 2003, the Vatican’s office on doctrine taught that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

This means that Pope Francis is breaking with a precedent set by his predecessors Pope John Paul I and Pope Benedict XVI. The fact that Francis is able to do this without causing a schism in the Catholic Church shows how much the world has changed in the past few decades.

When Pope John Paul II was elected in 1978, no nation recognized “same sex civil unions” or “same sex marriage.” In 1989, Denmark became the first nation to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by unmarried same-sex couples. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to legally recognize “same sex marriages.”

Now, 18 nations recognize “same sex civil unions” and 29 nations recognize “same sex marriages.” Data suggests that 2 in 3 Americans and 3 in 4 Germans support “same sex marriages.” This means that most people in the U.S. and Western Europe probably find the fact that Francis only supports civil unions as a conservative position.

A number of Catholic leaders have come out contradicting Francis’s comments on “same sex civil unions.” Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò said the pope’s comments “constitute a very serious cause of scandal for the faithful.” Cardinal Raymond Burke said the pope’s comments “generate great bewilderment and cause confusion and error among Catholic faithful.”

And Cardinal Gerhard Müller said the pope’s comments are “purely private expression of opinion, which every Catholic can and should freely contradict.” Despite this criticism from some Catholics, Francis knows that public opinion supports “same sex civil unions”, so any cardinal willing to challenge him on this issue is unlikely to build much of a following. Most conservatives have given up the battle against “same sex civil unions.”

In 1983, the Vatican issued a law code that included 700 fewer laws than the code released in 1917. “The moral and spiritual trend in the world is toward more liberalism—more permissiveness. Now even the Roman Catholic Church, in order to keep alive in an immoral and unrighteous world, is relaxing and giving people what they like to call ‘their rights.’”

Now, 37 years later, Catholic “cult” leaders are even putting “same sex civil unions” on the negotiating table. Communist philosophers and far-left activists have been trying to redefine family for a century. Now even churches and religious institutions are surrendering to this line of thinking.

Almost no one is standing up for the “biblical” definition of family.

The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9), and it does so for good reasons. To find out why God teaches against homosexuality and effeminacy, read the free booklet Redefining Family. It contains vital biblical truths and inspiring hope that even churches no longer teach!

His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called on Catholics to pray for Pope Francis after issuing his remarks on gay civil unions. “Every true Catholic, every true Catholic priest, every true Catholic bishop must with deep sorrow and a weeping heart regret and protest” against these remarks, he said.

“Those who advocate same-sex civil unions are ultimately unjust and even cruel against those persons who are living in these unions.”

 Bishop Schneider calls faithful to pray for Pope Francis to “convert”

Homosexuality

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on May 27, 2020 by andelino

Did Jesus Say Anything About Homosexuality?”
By Shane Idleman

My hope is that readers will read the entire article before drawing conclusions. I have nothing but “compassion” for those trapped in “sexual” sin. Those who strongly believe in the Bible and God’s will regarding sexual “behavior” also strongly believe in unconditional “love and forgiveness.”

To say that authentic Christians “hate or fear” those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle demonstrates a gross “misunderstanding” of the Christian faith. To “confront in love” simply comes from a “desire” to honor God and to truly “love and care” for others. “The ability to relate to people on their level, show genuine concern, and love them regardless of their lifestyle is the mark of true Christianity.”

In case you don’t continue reading, let me offer some encouragement: “if you’re hopeless, depressed, and confused, look to the One who created you. He has the answers.”

No matter what you have done, you have the “ability” to turn to Christ and start anew: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

It’s no surprise that the church, and our nation, desperately need to hear “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” to awaken, convict, and restore. It was not so long ago that we were concerned about “the fall of America.”

America cannot fall because she has already fallen. We are now picking up the pieces of a “broken” nation reflected in our laws, lives, families, and children. America’s moral heartbeat has ceased because we cut off the source of life. We need “resuscitation, renewal, and revival of the truth.”

When people, groups, denominations, or movements “depart” from absolute truth, and thus, quench and grieve the Spirit of God, they become mechanical in their approach to Christianity and lose the ability to guide. The Word of God is not in their hearts “like a burning fire” (Jeremiah 20:9), but relative, powerless, and debatable. This is what we see today.

Unfortunately, those who are sounding the alarm are often categorized as “irrational, judgmental, bigoted, and intolerant.” But how can we warn if we won’t confront, correct if we won’t challenge, and contend if we won’t question? We must speak the truth in love…the Bible is crystal clear on “sexual sin, including homosexuality.”

Why is there a “lack of conviction” today? The reason may not be in the pew, but in the pulpit. Much depends on the “prayer life” of the preacher. Pastors, preachers, and teachers must spend extended time in “prayer” to be truly effective—God prepares the “messenger” before we prepare the message. Luther’s motto, “He that has prayed well has studied well,” rings true.

I’m convinced that the majority of the churches in America are seeking to please the “masses rather than convict.” Judgment is never mentioned; repentance is rarely sought; and sin is often excused. We want to “build” a church rather than “break” a heart; be “politically” correct rather than “biblically” correct; “coddle and comfort” rather than “stir and convict.”

This leaves people “confused and deceived” because we teach and live a form of Christianity “void of repentance and void of truth.” Consider the following in light of Jesus’ teachings…in light of the truth:

The “moral” laws in the Old Testament such as “killing, stealing, lying, adultery, sexual immorality,” and so on are all valid today. Jesus referred often to the Old Testament, and said that He didn’t come to abolish it, but to fulfill it.

Although many of the ceremonial and dietary laws of the Old Testament do not apply today, the moral laws do. They are as significant today as they have been throughout history.

For example, Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination….” To suggest that this verse is “invalid” today is to advocate the dangerous practice of “redefining or deleting” what God has said. Jesus referred to the Old Testament often in regard to “moral behavior.”

The consequences of wrong actions may have changed, but the moral implications remain the same. For instance, even though we no longer “stone to death” those who commit adultery, this does not mean that adultery is “acceptable” or any less dangerous. Adultery is wrong even though there aren’t legal consequences.

Jesus condemned “all” sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman when He said, “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornication’s…these defile a man” (Matthew 15:19).

Jesus was implying that all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is harmful and immoral. The word “fornication” in the Greek is porneia; where the word “pornography” comes from. We cannot say, “But I was born this way,” because we were all born to “lie, cheat, lust, and deceive,” but this doesn’t make it right…it makes us “sinful and in need of a Savior.”

An argument cannot be based solely on silence. To suggest that Jesus approved of homosexuality simply because He did not use the term “homosexual,” is to imply that He approved of “necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality.” But, of course, we know better.

Other passage in the New Testament are clear on this issue as well. Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 are good places to start. In short, mankind did not see fit to “acknowledge” God and thereby “suppressed” the truth; therefore, God gave them over to a “depraved mind” to do those things which are not proper.

Homosexual behavior, and sexual sin in general, is comparable with “dishonoring” the body and “turning” from God. “The sexual disordering of the human race is a judgment of God for exchanging Him for the creature” John Piper wrote.

Jesus said that since the beginning of creation, God created them male and female in order that they would be joined together and become one flesh. He adds, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9).

Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s plan since “creation.” No matter how many laws are passed in favor of “gay marriage”, it will not change God’s mind or His Word. Mankind often “rebels” against God; this is nothing new.

In closing, Jesus would often speak out against “sin”, but His love and mercy also reached out to those who “regretted and hated” their condition. Forgiveness is a mark of “genuine” faith.

We should have “compassion” for those who struggle with “same sex attraction” because we all struggle with sin, but at the same time, we should not “condone or excuse” this type of sin any more than we condone or excuse any other sin.

Amazing Disgrace

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on December 4, 2015 by andelino

Amazing Disgrace 02

The British band “Coldplay” will feature a sample of Obama singing “Amazing Grace” in a song on its forthcoming album, “A Head Full of Dreams” says Chris Martin the band’s singer and former husband of actress Gwyneth Paltrow.

Note to Coldplay: “If you like your new album, you can keep your new album.”

Amazing Disgrace 04

I didn’t know Muslims “sang” amazing grace!

Wouldn’t the Islamic battle-cry “Allahu Akbar” been a more “appropriate” song for Mullah Obama to “chant?”

It’s kinda weird, a “gay” loving Muslim, raging “abortionist” and advocate for “same sex marriage” praising God!

Amazing Disgrace 03

Any Christian “hymn” Obama puts on his lips is “blasphemy.”

Amazing Disgrace 01

Obama’s amazing disgrace
Obama’s Amazing Disgrace of a Eulogy
Obama’s Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians
Obama: ISIS just ‘a bunch of killers with good social media’

New Holiday Tradition

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 24, 2015 by andelino

Starbucks Red Cup 01

Jewish “Grinch” Howard Schultz, founder and CEO of Starbucks does “not want your business” if you are a “Christian,” if you are against “same sex marriage,” if you are law-abiding “gun owners,” or if you are not willing to discuss “racial relations” with corporate baristas.

It’s that time of year when Starbucks “baristas” shove “non-festive” red cups in your “face” and making “inflammatory” remarks such as “Happy Holidays” in their stores.

Standing behind counters, “green-clad” baristas serving coffee addicts “overpriced, tasteless” coffee in red cups, without ever mentioning “Christmas” or the saving power of “Christ,” which is one of the most “terrifying” religious assault of our times.

Starbucks Red Cup 08

Coffee addicts are forced to “pay up front” for lattes and cappuccinos as tattooed baristas with “chilling” smiles announce “Thank you…have a great day” as you painstakingly “wait” for your beverage  to arrive.

Another “non-festive” issue is when baristas ask if you would like a “receipt,” instead of reciting the “Nativity” narrative from the Bible word-for-word to “addicts” as is done in more “civilized” parts of the world.

I believe these green-clad “baristas” are trying to send a clear message: “If you’re going to enjoy a warm drink on a cold winter evening, you’re going to have to convert to corporate paganism.”

You’re going to love this year’s new Starbucks “Holiday Tradition” cups.

“In the past, we have told stories with our holiday cups designs. This year we wanted to usher in the holidays with a purity of design that welcomes all of our stories,” according to Jeffrey Fields, vice president of “design and content” at Starbucks.

Starbucks Red Cup 03

Starbucks Red Cup 06

Starbucks Red Cup 09

Starbucks Red Cup 05

Starbucks Red Cup 07

Starbucks Red Cup 12

Starbucks Red Cup 14

Starbucks Red Cup 11

Starbucks Red Cup 15

Starbucks Red Cup 16

Starbucks Red Cup 17

Starbucks Red Cup 18

Starbucks Red Cup 19

Starbucks Red Cup 13

T’was the night before November, when all through the town,
No home coffee pots were heating; they had all been shut down.
Starbucks gift cards were placed on their counters with care,
In hopes that the next day, red cups would be there.
The coffee addicts were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of snowflake designs danced in their heads.

But the next morning, outside, there arose such a clatter,
I sprang down the street to see what was the matter.
A quick glimpse of plain red, and at once did I know,
That people would really never let this thing go.

There was only, alas, but one thing to do.
Show the world that plain cups could be festive, too!
Why, when you’ve got them alongside Rudolph and Elf,
You can put all your rage away on a shelf.

Starbucks Red Cup 10

The iconic Starbucks “Christmas” cup has featured several winter-themed designs since it “first” appeared in 1997.

Past “designs” have ranged from minimalist “snowflakes” and hand-drawn “reindeer” to a winking “snowman” and decorative “ornaments.”

Starbucks Red Cup 04

Melissa Click “thinks” students and faculty members at “Mizzou” should form a “human chain” around all Starbucks stores to keep the “Christians and the media” out so all can enjoy their “caffeine” addiction in a “Safe Space.”

Starbucks Red Cup 02

I hope when “Christians” go to Starbucks they will “dial 911” to report the “hurtful” red cups.

After all, the “red cup” video is what started the “riots” on college campuses.

The Starbucks Fall Drink Menu is Out of Control

Starbucks doesn’t hate Jesus
The Holiday Whose Name Dare not be Spoken

Fixed Income

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 13, 2015 by andelino

Fixed Income 01

Hillary redefines “living on a fixed income.”

Hillary Clinton recently described herself and Bill as “dead broke” after they left the White House, even though they were both “alive and dripping” with money.

One might “imagine” they even had to “sell off” their underwear, depending of what the meaning of “underwear” is.

Hillary Broke 03

In the meantime, many Americans live in “poverty” or on a low “fixed income.”

Seniors have to “live” on meager Social Security because their “age” makes them unemployable.

Others, in their twenties, are both “unemployed” and carry a staggering “debt” with no hope of ever “paying” it off.

Over 93 million people in America are “not in the work force.” No jobs. Unemployment at 8.9%.

Meanwhile, Bill and Hill, just a few years after being “dead broke,” are worth about “$80 million.”

Fixed Income 05

How did this “happen?” Well, it’s easy. They just “fixed” their income.

That means the “dead broke” Clintons solicited favors from “gullible” Americans in “advance” for Hillary’s “imminent” presidency.

Fixed Income 03

Having thus “fixed” her income, Hillary can now “rightfully” claim she knows what living on a “fixed income” is really all about.

Bill Clinton “chimed” in that it all depends on your definition of “fixed.”

Fixed Income 02

What the “poor, unemployed” and undocumented “illegal” aliens need to understand is how the “change of words” accommodated the Clinton’s “agendas.”

Hillary already has successfully redefined “marriage” to mean anything that involves “love, loyalty, fidelity, or comity.”

As a result, “heterosexual” marriage is now defined as “racist, sexist, intolerant” union that stands in the way of “true” village community, where everyone is “exactly” the same.

Only when America recognizes our “sameness” will society fully “embrace” true diversity.

“Peace” and “harmony” will follow according to Hillary’s “promises” if she is elected as the next gay president.

We must “learn” from our “wordsmithing” leaders, Bill and Hill Clinton.

Long live “tyrannical” powers to protect the masses as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” will once again flow across the Nation.

Hillary Clinton NO 2016

Rainbow Houses

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on July 13, 2015 by andelino

SCOTUSocracy 04

In a landmark 5-4 “decision” in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al., the United States Supreme Court “ruled” that all Americans, regardless of “sexual” orientation, have the “constitutional right” to marry, but limited the “scope” of its decision to only Americans with something to “offer” a partner.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that “by virtue of their exclusion from the institution of marriage, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.”

The court concluded that “…the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

However, we make clear that this “opinion” does not award any “rights, liberties, dignity or benefits” of any kind to lonely “single” people that have probably never even had a “girlfriend.”

Rainbow House 01

In “commemoration” of the Supreme Court’s ruling to “legalize” same-sex marriage the “Rainbow House” lit up in colors.

With this “fabulous” move, the building formerly known a the “White House” has been made into a display of “punitive” acceptance and “mandatory” tolerance and “made our union a little more perfect” according to President Obama.

Upcoming “renovations” are planned to include “multi-gender” restrooms, replacing the white man’s “bowling” alley with a Caligula-class “steam bath and hot-tub” complex, renaming the first family’s living rooms “Reggie’s Nest,” and the Lincoln Bedroom after “Sandra Fluke.”

Rainbow House 00

The newly colored “Rainbow House” and both houses of Congress are in “progress” of becoming true metaphorical “gay” houses.

Besides tearing “down” the Jefferson Memorial, future plans call for the repainting the “Rotunda” in rainbow shades of color and the “removal” of all those paintings of white men as “penance” for over 200 years of evil “white” male hegemony, many of which were “slave” owners.

Obama recently said no longer must my “Rainbow House” be a symbolic monument to old “white” men with “powdered” wigs, former “slave” owners and purveyors of “genocide” of indigenous people. It must become a monument to “defeat” those right-wingers who stole an “election” and continuously try to “undermine” progress.

image

After the Supreme Court “unilaterally” made gay marriage the “law” of the land, Obama made a statement from the “Rainbow House” that included this lie:

“I know that Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition, in some cases, has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact and recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

In other words, “If you like your religion, you can keep your religion.”

Rainbow House 02

This statement from our president is no “truer” than his lie during the “ObamaCare” debate about being able to keep your “doctor and insurance.”

Obama knew he was lying then. Obama knows he is lying now about “protecting” religious freedom.

Legalizing “same sex marriage” is not the endgame for the Left, it is in fact the “creation” of a weapon that will now be used to “marginalize, punish, terrorize, and decimate” the Christian religion, its practitioners, and the Church itself.

The small business owners and CEO’s already targeted for extinction by the Left are just the beginning.

Churches that “refuse” to perform same sex weddings will not only be relentlessly shamed as “bigots” by the left and their allies in the mainstream media, their “tax-exempt” status will be also challenged; their ability to perform “public services” will be curtailed or extinguished.

Rainbow House 05

‘The media is smoothing this “jihad,” but it is already happening.

Obviously, the government will take “religion’s” place. Obama can sing “Amazing Grace” but he doesn’t believe a word of it. He is a proven “liar,” and his comments about “respecting” religion are a tactical “move” to get us to take “down” our guard.

Author Brad Thor shared something decidedly “strange” about the Obama administration’s reaction to the landmark ruling on gay marriage, making it legal all across America:

“The only major event the #Obama administration wasn’t caught off guard by and didn’t have to read about in the papers,” Thor wrote.

Rainbow House 06

He likely referred to “instances” when Obama and others have said he and his administration “didn’t know” about major goings on such as “Fast & Furious” and the “IRS” targeting conservatives until “reports” came out in the media.

Here’s a “Supercut” of such instances:

All should be alarmed that a history of slavery exists that is at odds with the “Current Truth.” The constant flux of “revisionist” history is what separates us from the “animal” kingdom.

As we all “celebrate” the passages of marriage rights for the LGBTFQAPBCU©, we must continue the “progression” to other marriages and rights.

Rainbow House 08

We cannot stop at LGBTFQAPBCU© because that is not progression. These are the days where “everyone” can be “anything” and marry “anyone” they like.

From “animals and plants” to just about anything, marriage is a “privilege and a right” that the government lends out to all persons.

Last, but not least, we must find “equal” rights also for “pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and incest.”

I am sure “Rainbow Warrior” Obama is still figuring that out.

Rainbow House 07

CIw13KqVAAA48Kk

SCOTUS Says Same-Sex Marriage Is a Constitutional Right
SCOTUS Declares Itself God, Redefines Marriage and Rights
Obama Admin Flaunts Rainbow White House After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Obama On Gay Marriage: ‘If You Like Your Religion, You Can Keep Your Religion’
The Gay Pride House is Obama’s house
Valerie Jarrett Turned Rainbow House Gay

Out of the Closet

Posted in sex with tags , , , , , , , , on July 11, 2015 by andelino

Out of the Closet 07

The Supreme Court expanded same-sex marriage rights across the country, a “crowning” achievement but also a “confounding” challenge to the “LGBTFQAPBCU©” community that has often prided itself on “being different.”

That “now” means we must find a new spectacular “victim” group, put it up front as “cannon” fodder, use them as “human” shields in our unstoppable “progressive” march towards “Next Tuesday” and “discard” them after they have “fulfilled” their historical mission as “tools of the revolution.”

Out of the Closet 00

The more “victories” that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are “fading” out. And so just as the gay marriage movement “peaks,” so does a debate about whether gay identity is “dimming,” overtaken by its own success.

“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”

John Waters, the film director and patron saint of the American marginal, warned graduates to heed the shift in a recent commencement speech at the Rhode Island School of Design.

“Refuse to isolate yourself. Separatism is for losers,” he said, adding, “Gay is not enough anymore.”

Out of  the Closet 02

No one is arguing that “prejudice” has come close to disappearing, especially outside major American cities, as waves of “hate crimes, suicides by gay teenagers and workplace discrimination” attest. Far from everyone agrees that “marriage” rights are the “apotheosis” of liberation.

But even many 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 isolation.”

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.

Out of the Closet 04

“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 show stopping 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.”

Ms. Kron is 54, and her “sentiments” seem to resonate among gay people of her “generation” and older. “People are missing a sense of community, a sense of sharing,” said Eric Marcus, 56, the author of “Making Gay History.”

“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,” Mr. Marcus said. But he warned against “too much nostalgia.”

The most vocal “gay rights” activists may have celebrated being outsiders, but the vast majority of gay people just wanted “what everyone else had,” he said, the ability to fall in love, have families, pursue their careers and “just live their lives.”

Back to the Closet 01

Mainstream “acceptance” does not necessarily cause “minority” cultures to wither. Other groups have been both “buffered and buoyed” by greater inclusion. But being gay is “different” from being a member of an “ethnic or religious” minority.

Many gay children are born into “heterosexual” families, and same-sex couples often have “offspring” who are straight. There is less “continuity,” several gay sociologists said, and there are fewer “traditions or holidays” that reinforce “identity” and unite the generations.

The “unifying” experience for many gay people is not “marriage” but coming “out of the closet.” In 1997, as Ellen DeGeneres rehearsed the sitcom scene in which her character came out, she broke into tears every time she rehearsed saying, “I’m gay.”

ellen crying

She was welling up because of “shame, you know, self-hatred, and all of these feelings that society feeds you to tell you that you’re wrong,” she said in a later interview.

But many gay people in their “teens, 20s and 30s” today say the phrase “coming out of the closet” does not apply to them because they were “never in one.”

For Ariel Boone of Oakland, Calif., who began to describe herself as “queer” in 2008, when she was 18, the time between when she realized her “attraction” to women and when she started telling others was “maybe 12 hours.”

Blaine Edens told her parents in 2013, when she was 22, sharing the news with her father in Arizona and her mother in Montana. They each said, “Yeah, we know. We’re sad it took you this long,” she said.

Back to the Closet 05

For too many artists and writers to count, being “gay” infused their work with an outsider “sensibility,” even when they were not “explicitly” addressing those themes.

Their private lives and identity gave them “a cunning and sophisticated way of looking at the world and questioning its normative notions,” said Todd Haynes, the director of “Far From Heaven” and the coming film “Carol,” based on the lesbian romance novel “The Price of Salt,” by Patricia Highsmith.

Back to the Closet 03

Rainbow-hued “Just Be You” messages have been flashing across “Chase” A.T.M. screens in honor of “Pride” month, conveying “acceptance” but also corporate “blandness.”

Directors, filmmakers and artists are talking about “moving” past themes of “sexual orientation,” which they say no longer “generate” as much dramatic energy.

So, the “LGBTFQAPBCU©” plan is simple: “Redefine what it means to be gay in small, subtle bits until the majority accepts themselves as Holy Homosexuals.”

This will also help the “cause” of the revolution as it will “abolish” the idea of the “family” unit as being the building block of society and will, instead, place the “Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing State” as the building block of society.

Back to the Closet 06

Gay Love Wins? Uhmmm…not so fast
Farm couple sued for discrimination say they were “set up”
What will gays do once the same-sex “marriage” battle is over?

SCOTUSocracy

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on July 8, 2015 by andelino

SCOTUSocracy 02

SCOTUSocracy
By Michael L. Grable

A more adult United States of America would impeach six of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices.

Misapplying the U.S. Constitution is one thing. Usurping the constitutional powers of the federal legislature is altogether another.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has done plenty of the former during the last century. So far in this century, however, it has brazenly embarked on the latter. After its ObamaCare and homosexual marriage decisions, Americans must now realize they no longer live in a democracy. They now live in a “SCOTUSocracy.” They are now governed by judicial rather than political decision-making.

In both its ObamaCare decisions, SCOTUS rewrote federal law. In its homosexual marriage decision, however, it went even farther and actually wrote de novo federal law. SCOTUS has no constitutional power to write or rewrite federal law. In fact, SCOTUS has no constitutional power even to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law.

SCOTUSocracy 05

The net effect is this: not only has SCOTUS usurped the constitutional powers of the federal legislature, but it has now also denied Americans their most basic constitutional right – the right to democratically govern themselves through their political representatives.

You see, Americans elect their political representatives every two, four, or six years. Thus do Americans, through their political representatives, democratically make and execute their own laws. If Americans don’t like the way their legislators make their laws, they can elect new legislators who will make laws they do like. If Americans don’t like the way their executives execute their laws, they can elect new executives who will execute their laws the way they do like. That’s how the governing will of sovereign people democratically expresses itself in a Republic.

The very word “Republic” says it all. The word derives from “res publica.” That literally means “the public thing.” The American Republic is a form of government (the thing) in which the American people (the public) are – by the land’s supreme law – sovereign.

But Americans don’t elect federal judges every two, four, or six years. In fact, federal judges aren’t elected at all – ever. Instead, they’re appointed, for the duration of their entire lives. If Americans don’t like the way their judges adjudicate, they can’t elect new judges who will adjudicate the way they do like. Americans can only endure judges until they resign or die. Or else impeach them.

SCOTUSocracy 03

Most Americans probably don’t realize that SCOTUS has no constitutional power to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law. That it has done so for 212 long years stems simply from its unilateral judicial assumption of that unconstitutional power in an 1803 case involving William Marbury’s dispute with James Madison over the delivery of a justice of the peace commission to which John Adams had appointed Marbury. Thus, the power of the majority of unelected lifetime judges to have recently forced Americans to purchase something they didn’t want to purchase (ObamaCare) and to accept something they didn’t want to accept (homosexual marriage) is an artifact of a mere justice of the peace commission 212 years ago. From little acorns do great trees grow.

But for Marbury’s insignificant commission and John Marshal’s 1803 usurpation of judicial review power, the constitutionality of federal legislation would have been left exactly where it should have remained all along – with the sovereign American people rather than with (as now) nine unelected lifetime judges who are as likely to exercise their own personal political prejudices as they are to strictly construe the Constitution (putatively the land’s supreme law). Then, if the American people, in their sovereignty, had thought the acts of their political representatives unconstitutional, they could have elected other political representatives who could have, by opposing acts, remedied their predecessors’ unconstitutionality.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his ObamaCare decisions, has in effect twice now rewritten federal legislation – once to transform an unconstitutional penalty into a putatively constitutional tax and once to include in a phrase what the phrase itself excluded. In both cases, this was despite the plain language of federal legislation. The effective result is that the federal government’s ruinous takeover of the nation’s private health care system is a judicial fiat imposed on the American people rather than a political decision made by the American people’s political representatives. If the legislature “in artfully” drafted ObamaCare, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself more “artfully” drafting a legislative amendment. Roberts should be impeached.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his homosexual marriage decision, has in effect now written federal legislation DE-rationalizing one of the foremost of all mores governing human association since time immemorial. This was despite the plain language of, in this case, biological legislation. The effective result is that sexual deviancy’s takeover of the nation’s conjugal tradition is a judicial fiat imposed on the American people rather than a political decision made by the American people’s political representatives. If the states’ same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself proscribing them. Kennedy should be impeached.

SCOTUSocracy 04

Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer should also be impeached, but Kennedy was the balance of SCOTUS power that resulted in constitutionally denying the states and the American people their right to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex. Besides, Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves after having both, previously and prejudicially, officiated at same-sex marriages. That would have left only Sotomayor and Breyer to fruitlessly fob off their personal political prejudices on the states and the American people. Anyway, neither Sotomayor nor Kagan has – by inclination or circumstance – heretofore displayed much personal interest in marriage (either heterosexual or homosexual); Ginsburg has displayed more interest in the feminist movement and the ACLU than she has in the Constitution; and Breyer…well, he’s the administrative law mouse Bill Clinton let loose in SCOTUS.

Everyone knows there’s zero chance of this occurring, but here’s what should, in a more adult America, occur. The people’s representatives should either impeach six of the nine SCOTUS justices or else legislatively override Marshall’s 1803 unilateral assumption of judicial review. Either would be fully consistent with the legislature’s express constitutional powers. Alternatively, the people should replace their political representatives until they have political representatives who will do one or the other. In fact, this should have happened half a century or more ago.

The only possible conclusion is that the American people are too immature to preserve either their sovereignty or their Republic.

They have traded their democracy for what now amounts to a mere “SCOTUSocracy.”

SCOTUSocracy 01

Lifestyle Choices

Posted in sex with tags , , , , , , on February 22, 2015 by andelino

Greatest Love Letters 01
President Barack Obama’s “gay allies” are ignoring his “endorsement” of the long-standing claim that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

“I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice… Let them live their lives and under the law they should be treated equally,” he said 25 minutes into his interview with GloZell Green, a YouTube personality.

Obama’s statement “violates” progressives’ “demand” that Americans “believe” there’s “no choice” in sexual orientation.

gay-obama

But Obama’s statement reflects “mainstream” views.

A May 2014 poll by Gallup showed that only 42 percent of Americans believe all gay people are “born that way,” regardless of choice.

Thirty-seven percent of Americans believe that “homosexuality” is linked to upbringing and environment.

That’s a shift from 2013, when 47 percent said “gays” are born that way.

Gay advocates fiercely dispute the “lifestyle choice” argument, partly because they want to “elevate” the status of “homosexuality and homosexuals” in American society.

Obama Gay Boy Kiss

Instead of “arguing” that homosexuals’ “choices and actions” are good for society, gay “advocates” argue that they have “no control over their sexual preferences.”

However, heterosexuality has high status not because heterosexuals “lack choice,” but because they freely spend much of their lives “selflessly” raising the next generation of Americans from “infancy to adulthood,” at great risk to their “bank account, social standing and mental health.”

But progressives’ “silence” about Obama’s comment is likely “rational.”

By “remaining” silent, they “minimize” the political impact of Obama’s “endorsement” of a commonly held views.

Also, “progressives” know they can quietly “push” Obama to “reverse” his statement in the next few weeks.

After all, they “already” pushed Obama to “change” his 2008 campaign-trail statements on the “definition and purpose of marriage.”

Gay Rights Ruling 02

In fact, Obama used the same interview to announce his “endorsement” of the progressive demand that the Supreme Court use its power to “redefine marriage for the benefit of gays and lesbians.”

They want the court to “force” states to award marriage licenses to “single-sex couples”, even if the states have constitutional amendments “prohibiting” same-sex marriage.

“I will tell you peoples’ hearts have opened up on this issue,” the president said during a recent interview.

“I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice, the fact of the matter is they’re not bothering you. Let them live their lives and under the law they should be treated equally.

“And as far as me personally, just to see all the loving gay and lesbian couples that I know who are great parents and great partners, the idea that we would not treat them like the brothers and sisters they are, that doesn’t make any sense to me.”

“My hope is that they go ahead and recognize what I think the majority of people in America now recognize, which is two people who love each other and are treating each other with respect, and aren’t bothering anybody else, why would the law treat them differently?” Obama said.

obama-gay-sex-billboard

Bathhouse “Barry” should know. He would come out if he wasn’t so afraid of “Michael” Michelle who’s already living the “lifestyle of choice.”

Obama gets pass on describing being gay as ‘lifestyle choice’
Yes, gay is a choice. Get over it

%d bloggers like this: