Frankin Graham To Buttigieg: Repent

Rev. Franklin Graham has declared that presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg should “repent” his “sin” of being a homosexual. Graham explained that homosexuality “something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized.” It is a bizarre and deeply insulting declaration. I have seen no evidence of Buttigieg flaunting anything. He has conducted himself as any candidate in embracing his spouse and discussing his marriage. When heterosexual candidates cite their marriage, it is not declared “flaunting.”

Not to be outdone  Pastor E.W. Jackson denounced Buttigieg’s candidacy as an effort to establish a “homocracy.”

The South Bend, Indiana mayor has answered questions about his sexuality and emphasized that “I get that one of the things about Scripture is different people see different things in it.”

Graham shared a CNN story about the town hall on Twitter, and said, “Presidential candidate & South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg is right—God doesn’t have a political party. But God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by.”

He added: “Mayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women.”

Buttigieg’s comments however seem not only more measured but moral on this issue: “It can be challenging to be a person of faith who’s also part of the LGBTQ community and yet, to me, the core of faith is regard for one another. And part of God’s love is experienced, according to my faith tradition, is in the way that we support one another and, in particular, support the least among us.”

234 thoughts on “Frankin Graham To Buttigieg: Repent”

  1. I’m not inspired by Buttigieg’s candidacy. He’s basically exploiting identity politics and talking in the usual generalities, refraining from offering any discernible policy on any controversial issue that can be pinned down so he can leave his options open (which always results in propping up a status quo that is unjust and precisely what needs to be changed). For example: It’s just wishy-washy (“hope” tropes are nauseating – we’ve seen this movie before with Obama), more of the same from the Democratic middle, which has to go.

    But one interesting thing he is doing rhetorically that is very promising, and what other liberal-side candidates should start doing themselves, is exactly what Professor Turley is alluding to here. He is repossessing religion and religious values, those of Christianity in particular, from the left side of the political spectrum from the religious right and, by extension, the Republican Party, which does not own God but has unwarrantedly arrogated God to itself and what God means for way too long. This is all to the good and should be rigorously pursued. It’s about time.

    1. The Census Bureau data on blacks in the City of South Bend (as opposed to those living elsewhere in St. Joseph County) show they have income levels about 40% of national means and 49% of local means. That’s consistent with the thesis that it’s a population that’s composed thus: 20% people tenuously attached (at best) to the labor force, 60% low skill service employees, and 20% semi-skilled hourly employees. Nothing within the conventional functions of county and municipal government can do much to improve the human capital adhering to these people, though adult education through community and technical colleges might help. Collective consumption and income redistribution so structured to limit or extinguish perverse incentives is the work of state and federal government. Improving the schools is a joint venture of the state and local authorities (and requires the federal authorities withdraw from any involvement); institutional set ups most place are such that the municipal government is just about the least consequential actor in such endeavours. The one thing county and municipal government can do is vigorously enforce the law and rebalance local tax burdens. The division of labor between counties and municipalities is salient here, as is statewide policy. It’s a reasonable wager the South Bend police have not adopted certain best practices, and you can blame Butt-gig there. (They’re still understaffed).


    Normie: I think gays should be hanged and women have no rights!

    SJW: OMG – you horrible bigot, you must be a Trump supporting Republican!

    Normie: No, I’m a Muslim and those are my relgious beliefs!

    SJW: oh, I’m so sorry, I hope you don’t think I’m an Islamaphobe.

  3. OT: Nine Radical Policies 2020 Democrats Are Putting On The Table

    Packing The Supreme Court
    Lowering Voting Age To 16
    Forcing Schools To Let Male Athletes Compete On Girls’ Teams
    Abolishing Electoral College
    Killing Private Health Insurance
    Terrorists And Mass Murderers Get to Vote In Federal Elections
    Government Penalties For ‘Misinformation’
    Free College
    Wealth Confiscation

    Full explanation at:

    1. That number will rise as the candidates continue their march to the left. Now that Biden has entered the fray, you can add saving the world from President Trump. 😉

    2. Don’t forget:
      Open borders
      Abolishing the Electoral College
      Repealing the 2d Amendment

      1. Kevin, keep the list and publish so that those uncertain who to vote for can see what the Democrats are going to push down their throats.

  4. I thought the Bible said we’re all sinners except Jesus and Mary.
    Everyone on that stage should repent.
    That being said Buttigieg is reasonable and measured, but with that ridiculously unpronounceable name he has no chance in the general election in the south. If the Dems wish to cede the south to Trump I’m sure he’ll be jumping.

      1. L4D:
        You know darn well it’s going to be pronounced “BUTT-gig-er” and that will result in lots of snickers followed by lots of folks voting otherwise. Oh, Pete hardly knew ye.

      2. L4D,

        Until you present a certificate of completion from the L4D Project, you are still in the throes of addiction. Go back to the L4D Project, complete your recovery and present your token in order to participate in these forums…because we care

        1. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

          — Matthew 22:35-40

        2. Were it not for the demonstrable fact that Be-A-Straw-Man is a Charlatan, then the Charlatan, Be-A-Straw-Man, would have already known that God and only God can Command the Love of God, the love of one’s neighbor, the love of one’s spouse, the love of one’s parents, the love of one’s children, the love of one’s country and the love of any other subject or object of Love.

        3. And, for another thing, God’s gift of Grace is God’s to giveth or to taketh away as God sees fit. No Charlatan can award himself God’s Grace. No Charlatan can deprive his neighbor of God’s Grace.

          Verily Estovir is a false confessor of his faith.

  5. Mespo,
    Maybe he was referring to all of those Christian suicide bombers?? He probably will provide examples for us.

      1. Dave 137:

        When your examples go back 700 years and ignore the civilizing effect of this religion, you probably ought to get a new argument. On a related note do you think the St. Louis Browns will win the pennant his year?

      2. This is 2019…..update for Dave 137. The claims he made about a “Christian Taliban” were not about prior centuries.
        That “warning” was his perception of the threat of Christian theocracies similar to the Taliban sprouting up.
        Good thing that we have vigilant, paranoid people like that to defend us against a “Christian Taliban”.

          1. Going back 10 years to cite an isolated murder is really a stretch, in an attempt to manufacture a so-called “Christian Taliban”.
            The actual Taliban provides numerous, recent , and ongoing demonstration s of murderous religious zeal.

              1. If YNOT ever comes up with an actual idea beyond posting bitchy little one-two sentence comments, she’s free to put it in a comment. That would break an established pattern of the sole content if her posts, and I doubt if there is any capability on her part to advance beyond troll-scum activity.

              2. Tom, have you noted how YNOT provides one sentence insults and never engages in debate. Is that because he is stupid?

    1. They are a problem, Tom. I particularly am impressed with their consistent subterfuge of growing up Muslim, attending the mosque and screaming “Allah Akbar” before each and every mass murder. Decidedly clever.

  6. God does not have a mouth. His commandments and rules come out of his rear end. And God may be a she. Or a gay guy. God spelled backwards is dog and you are better off asking your dog for advice than spending lots of money on some church. The biggest thieves in America bear a cross. The Cat O Lic church has a lot of pedophiles who commit crimes on children.

    1. Job 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind.

      Admittedly the whirlwind is not a mouth. However, it is not immediately clear that a whirlwind comes out of the Lord’s rear, either.

  7. Buttigieg should appologize, but not for being gay. He should appologize for playing politics at another human beings expense. From what I have heard Buttigieg was treated well by Pence and was considered by Pence a working partner in government with nice things to say. For political gain Buttigieg insulted Pence who responded with friendliness and good heart.

    Buttigieg lost an opportunity to show himself as an independent thinker who was willing to work with others with different beliefs.

    1. Allan said, “Buttigieg should apologize . . . [edit] . . . for playing politics at another human beings expense.”

      Pence said in his [2006] speech [cited below], “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.” Pence also called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of “God’s idea.”

      L4D says Pence should apologize for playing politics at the expense of other human beings.

      1. Pence wasn’t playing politics. That is his religious belief which wasn’t created in a recent time frame or for political use.. But take note how he accepted Buttigieg’s homosexuality and didn’t call him names. Buttigieg acted in the opposite manner.

        I listened to Pence being questioned about Buttigieg’s nasty public attitude towards Pence. Pence’s reply was decent and understanding. Buttigieg had a chance to show the nation that he wasn’t a partisan jerk and to advance acceptance of homosexuals. He didn’t have the b-lls.

        1. Pence’s speech was given in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If that’s not playing politics, then it is a clear-cut violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

          1. I don’t think it’s any violation of separation of Church and State. There is such a thing as civil union / partnership. Pence’s argument was based on his religion and his understanding of the Bible that talks about marriage. If you want seperation of Church and State don’t advocate for the State to change the Bible’s meaning of the word marriage.

            1. The word marriage does not appear in The Constitution of the United States of America. Neither does the word spouse, man, woman, child, family and the list goes on. Meanwhile, Pence and his cohorts were the one’s literally trying to put the word marriage into The Constitution contrary to the wisdom of the framers

              It’s a reasonable inference that the framers of The Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of marriage because they did not think that marriage was a federal issue nor a federal question. And because The Common Law had developed the legal status of marriage as a secular social institution long before the framer’s framed The U. S. Constitution.

              Did you know that the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion in very nearly the same breath with which it forbids the establishment of religion?

              It’s frequently difficult to believe that you, Allan, truly are as imbecilic as you pretend to be on this here blawg.

              1. All kinds of “reasonable inferences” can be read into the mindset and intentions of the frame of the Constitution.
                It is “a reasonable inference” that they were not anticipating that the definition of marriage would be changed to formally ( legally) include same marriage.
                On the issue of the states deciding the definition of marriage; most states voted against same-sex marriage.
                It was the court system that found a way to nullify what most of the states had already decided.
                And make it “a federal issue”.
                So the “inferences” drawn re the framers’ “intent” don’t support an “intent” that a SCOTUS decision, by a branch of the federal government, should mandate that all states recognize same-sex marriage.

                1. I don’t think that the Constitution mentions “travel”, or “a right” to travel.There were some things that are assumed to be so basic that the framers did not ( and probably could not) address, or specifically “mention”.

                  1. Admittedly, the framers were a sketchy lot. However . . . There’s nothing at all sketchy about the prohibition against the establishment of religion. The guarantee of the free exercise of religion is perfectly consistent with the prohibition against the establishment of religion. And all of the opponents of same-sex marriage base their opposition upon explicitly religious precepts and tenets. Therefore, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would violate both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of The First Amendment.

                    1. First L4B talks about drawing ”nferences” about the framers of the Constitution, and that they made mention of marriage. There y leaving it upto the states.
                      Now she stretches Establishment Clause to extreme limits to defend gay marraige. The idea that marraige is between a man and a woman is not only a Christian concept. As noted, Christians did not invent marraige”.
                      Marriage is an institution of societies that had a traditional and accepted definition of what marriage was for centuries. (Justice Kennedy said “millennia”)
                      Opposition to gay marriage was not simply a religious objection. With the coarse of bary a generation, we sue supposedly “learned” or “discover” how to redefine an institution that had been a cornerstone of Western societies ….a legal and civil and secular cornerstone, that can be entered into with or without a religious ceremony.
                      I’d have to review the decision where 5 SCOTUS judges “knew better” ( again, a quote from Justice Kennedy, mulling over the Court making a decision upending an institution and societal norms that had been well-established. But I don’t think that the Court used the establishment clause as a key basis for their decision.

                    2. wrong and idiotic. as if you need to believe in God to detest homosexual degeneracy., here to tell ya, nope

                2. The SC is responsible for deciding issues where rights guaranteed in the constitution are in question. The framers did not write the 14th amendment on which the SC decision on gay marriage was based, nor would they have known as we do now, that sexual orientation is most likely set before or early after birth and not changeable. That is the best science on this question and anecdotally confirmed by considering if we each somehow made a decision about who we were attracted to and how early in life we became aware of that attraction. I certainly never made such a decision and started thinking girls were cute at least in early elementary school.

                  1. PS Marriage was not invented by Christians and is an ancient if variable fundamental part of social cohesion universal to our species. Christians don’t own it, though of course they are welcome to their version of the institution which we all should and mostly do respect and honor. Those feeling somehow threatened by gay marriage are misunderstanding sexual orientation, which is not changeable, though it is possible one could be unsure of that orientation and especially if there were social penalties against theirs. If anything, allowing gay marriages encourages the institution and it’s many benefits to both society and the individuals engaged in it.

                    1. “Those feeling somehow threatened by gay marriage are misunderstanding sexual orientation, which is not changeable …”

                      You ought to tell that to my neighbor’s daughter who went through eight years as a lesbian only to find out she’s really heterosexual and is about to welcome her first child with her male spouse. Funny how immutable laws aren’t so when based on favored speculation.

                    2. Good for her mespo, but she didn’t change, she finally discovered her true nature.

                      Do you think you could change your sexual orientation? Do you know how many people try to not be gay? Almost all of them.

                      There is a discussion of sexual orientation here with footnotes citing what we know of this issue.


                  2. Correction on the first comment to L4B …..her initial comment was that the framers did NOT mention marriage.
                    Again, without reviewing the decision, I don’t think it was the First Amendment that the Court focused on. Anon is correct that it was the 14th Amendment that allowed the Court to “find a way” to force the states to recognize gay marriage.
                    I think the legal theory that 5 of 9 Justices worked with was that in staying with the established definition.of marriage, the states were violating Constitutional protections of gays to marry.
                    That is an extreme interpretation of Constitutional “rights”, but if that is the interpretation and conclusion, then the Court can use the 14th Amendment to force acceptance of their new definition of marriage.
                    Anyone who disagrees with those 5 justices is portrayed as having a “phobia”, or a religious zeolot who disagreed with the decision on soley religious grounds.Or both.
                    While those are handy tools to use in discrediting those individuals and and those states that are opposed to gay marriage, but it isn’t an accurate assessment of the voters in most states who voted against gay marriage.

                    1. Mespo,
                      If the same standards and legal rational used in the Over fell sp? case are applied to polygamy, it’s difficult to see how states can deny polygamous marriage. (I think that JT made that same argument in his involvement in a the “polygamy issue….I don’t have time to shift through the archives to see if I remembered that and am presenting that correctly).
                      In at least some cases, a “big tent” definition of marriage could include incestuous marriages. If the 14th Amendment is applied as a means of forcing states to recognize a “fundamental right” for gays to marry, then these same legal gymnastics can be applied to further “expand” the definition of marriage using the 14th Amendment.

                    2. It’s a reasonable wager that Anthony Kennedy has a poof in his extended family he dotes on, which is why we’re all stuck with this rubbish.

                    3. I’ll post here wherever I manage to find a reply box; numerous typos, etc. by me due to no visibility of the words I type until they’re posted. The case was “Obergerfell”, I think. I lesft out part of that name inadvertantly and wasn’t able to correct it before posting.

                    4. There is a lot “discrediting” on both sides – see this thread – but sticking to the issue, the court used equal protection. Why wouldn’t gays, who are not and never will be attracted to the “correct” sex, a fact not of their making, be denied the same legal rights to couple with someone they love and want to commit to just as hetreos do? There is no injury to others and in fact the benefits to those individuals also benefit society in that families provide stability and support to it’s members. Those who do not wish to marry people of the same sex are not forced to, and given the facts of sexual orientation, it is not catching, though many hiding in the closet will no longer need to. Good.

                    5. The polygamy argument does not fit the ruling. No one today enjoys a right to polygamy, so equal protection does not apply. Of course some may argue for that practice but they can’t rely on this precedent.

              2. “It’s a reasonable inference that the framers of The Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of marriage because they did not think that marriage was a federal issue nor a federal question.”

                Diane, then the decision should have been left to the States. Civil union exists. People can have a religious marriage where the marriage is not recognized by the state. Marriage has more than one meaning and that creates a lot of dificulty.

                There are a lot more issues involved that were created by federal law so that can bring the federal government into the picture when the question of marriage is defined.

                1. Response is to Anon, why would a brother, attracted to his sister, s situation “not of his own making”, be denied the right to marry her? Assuming that fertility is not an issue, what is the justification for denying their Constitutional “right” to marry, and to force the states to recognize that “right”.
                  It’s true also that Obergerfell was not about polygamy; it was “merely about ” turning societal norms on it’s head by force-feeding those states that would not get with the agenda of gay ‘marriage”.
                  Once you open up that door, then we can include other categories of classes that states previously denied their C
                  “constitutional right ‘ to marry.
                  You have 5 justices decided that what can not be done politically must be done few jure till those states “get their minds right”.
                  OK ….if the Court sees fit to redefine an established institution in Western society that has existed for centuries (or millennia, according to Justice Kennedy), let:s see if we can get another 5 Justices at some point to tinker with it some more.
                  If most states are arrogant enough to disagree with those Justices playing with clay, there’s not much in the way of recourse to counter those molding tortuously “molding the clay of the Constitution”.

                  1. Should be “de jure”…given the lack of a practical format in these threads for smartphones, there were numerous other typos I made that I won’t bother to correct.

                  2. 1. A desire for incestual relations is an attraction toward a specific individual, not a sexual orientation toward a gender, or even a large but limited group. Sexual orientation is a defining characteristic of all of us and as best we can discern scientifically and through our own experience, not changeable.
                    2. No American currently has the right to incestual relations, so equal protection does not apply. As with polygamy, if you favor that behavior you can certainly make the case politically and legally, but the gay marriage ruling is not precedent.

                    You are obviously aggrieved by the fact that gay marriage is somehow an affront to those who think it is “wrong”, yet those people are in no way victimized by the granting of this fundamental and beneficial right to a significant number of Americans to whom it was denied previously. We are not talking about legalizing sexual behavior – a separate issue – but legalizing the rights and responsibilities attendant to family building.

                    1. PS The states may not enforce laws which violate constitutional rights, which is the basis for the gay rights decision. You may not agree with the application of that principle in this case, but it is not somehow an injustice whenever states laws are overturned by the SC because of it. That’s their job.

                    2. PS The states may not enforce laws which violate constitutional rights, which is the basis for the gay rights decision.

                      The notion that a pair of dudes has a constitutional right to some sort of legal recognition is, of course, fictional But a fiction which appeals to Anthony Kennedy. It has no value, and the people who advocate it have no integrity.

                    3. It’s a Constitutional right in America Absurd – deal with it – and your ignorant and primitive hostilities are based on a stone age desert tribes fictional tale of their favored place in an all powerful god’s conscience. There were thousands such fictional beings before and unfortunately there will be thousands in the future.

                    4. Tom Nash says: April 26, 2019 at 10:18 AM

                      Anon is correct . . . [edited for “effect”]

                    5. All of the “alternatives” mention are outside of the traditional understanding of what marriage was for centuries, or “millennia” according to Justice Kennedy.
                      Once you force a change of the established marriage contract ( man as husband, woman as wife), you are in fact opening the door to “redefininh” marriage for other groups claiming that they were”denied their rights under the 14th Amendment”.
                      If the Court can find a way to upend the established definition of marriageto accommodate one group that was not covered in the “millenia-old” understanding and legal status of what a marriage is, they can “find a way” to conclude that other groups falling outside of the definition of marriage are unfairly excluded and must be allowed to marry because a of an equally expansive interpretation of the 14 the Amendment.
                      If there is a sufficient political motivation to effect a redefinition of marriage, whether as exemplified in the Obergfell case, a Court can read and invent a variety of “rights” into the 14 the Amendment.
                      As an aside, the 10th? Circuit Court ruled that the “Sister Wives” polygamy plaintiffs lacked “standing”, since they were not subject to enforcement ( criminal charges) in their jurisdiction.
                      I don’t think there was a specific ruling by the 10th on the polygamy statute itself. So that appears to be another area where a SCOTUS, if inclined, could decide that denying polygamous marriages is a violation of 14 Amendment rights.

                    6. Tom, as I wrote above:

                      1. A desire for incestual relations is an attraction toward a specific individual, not a sexual orientation toward a gender, or even a large but limited group. Sexual orientation is a defining characteristic of all of us and as best we can discern scientifically and through our own experience, not changeable.
                      2. No American currently has the right to incestual relations, so equal protection does not apply. As with polygamy, if you favor that behavior you can certainly make the case politically and legally, but the gay marriage ruling is not precedent.

                      Other than overturning tradition – not really a legal issue is it, and a neutral statement depending on the positive value of the tradition – what is the problem with gay marriages? The benefits are obvious to both those individuals directly affected and society. Besides the other arguments against them, the same cannot be said about either incest or polygamy and there are provable negative features of both. Primarily, and unlike being either gay or straight, incest and polygamy cannot be claimed as basic to anyone’s nature and set early and unchangeable. Denying those practices does not condemn an entire and significant class of people to illicit coupling or loneliness.

                      Why would anyone, outside of those with strong religious beliefs which are not the concern of the state or anyone but them, object to allowing gay marriage. I don’t get it.

                2. The Braille Reader with Mittens on His Hands said, “[T]he decision should have been left to the States.”

                  What do you think a constitutional amendment does, you Ham-Fisted Butterfingers, you? It literally leaves the “decision” up to the State Legislatures. Why else would Pence have supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Do you remember that Pence called heterosexual marriage “God’s idea” that had to be “enforced” by “enshrining God’s idea” in the U. S. Constitution?

                  1. It was not “edited for effect”… was a typical stunt on the part of L Fool D. That comment was made in reference to “Anon’s” statement that the Court used the 14th Amendment to force states to recognize gay marriage.
                    A reason for rarely engaging that lying sack of **** who posts as Late4BBreakfast or “anonymous” or “Diane” is that it’s too much a hassle untangling her lies and distortions. That can easily take 5-10 times as long as an exchange with a normal, straightforward person.
                    L4D is neither. But she likes to play games and Pat herself on the back for the crap that she pulls here, and considers herself to be oh-so-clever.

                  2. “What do you think a constitutional amendment does, you Ham-Fisted Butterfingers, you? It literally leaves the “decision” up to the State Legislatures.”

                    That you make no logical sense Diane, is nothing new to the blog.

                    1. Pence’s speech [2006] was given in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

                    2. Diane, what you now say makes sense but doesn’t explain or make sense of what you said earlier.

              3. From L4B’s earlier comment: ” Because the Common Law had established marrage as a SECULAR institution”. That is a point I was making in challenging the claim that objection to gay marriage is a First Amendment violation. If it were soley a religious or a Christian concept that marraige was between a man and a woman, then it could be treated as a First Amendment issue.
                L4B’s statement is a recognition that marriage and definitions of marriage are not simply a religious concept. (The capitilized word “secular” was my cpitalization that I added for emphasis…she did not capitilize it in her comment).

                1. L4D said, “Pence said in his [2006] speech [cited below], ‘societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.’ Pence also called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of ‘God’s idea.’”

                  L4D also said, “Pence’s speech was given in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If that’s not playing politics, then it is a clear-cut violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

                  Ptom-Job Gnash-Job said, “If it were soley a religious or a Christian concept that marraige was between a man and a woman, then it could be treated as a First Amendment issue.”

                  Key words: “constitutional amendment” and “God’s idea.” Key concepts: The Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. Pence supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Pence called it “God’s idea” that needed to be enforced by enshrining God’s idea in The U. S. Constitution. The basis for the Obergefell decision was NOT the point that I was making. Therefore, Ptom-Job’s rebuttal is . . . “irrelevant” to the point that I was making.

                    1. There are exactly two ways in which The Job Bros., Tom and Allan, could fail to distinguish between a constitutional amendment versus a Supreme Court decision. They are 1) illiteracy and 2) dishonesty. The belatedly proposed option #3) “a maze of contradictions” is not on the menu. It’s either illiteracy or dishonesty. Pick one. And eat it. Or choke on it. Your choice. Enjoy.

                    2. “exactly two ways in which The Job Bros., Tom and Allan, could fail to distinguish between a constitutional amendment versus a Supreme Court decision.”

                      Diane, you make little sense.

                    3. Pence said in his [2006] speech [supporting a constitutional amemdment defining marriage as between a man and a woman], “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.” Pence also called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of ‘God’s idea.’”

                    4. There is absolutely nothing in ANY of my comments that indicates failure to distinguish between a Constotutional Amendment and a SCOTUS decision.
                      There is a pattern of lying on L4B’s part that is so deeply ingrained that it appears to be compulsive.
                      As someone else noted, she can not stop lying.
                      While that may be an acceptable tactic in her coven’s doctrine, repeatedly proving that she effortlessly lies through her teeth is not a big plus in trying to score points for her propaganda platform here.
                      There are very few people who comment here who come even close to her that fool’s constant lying. For the first 3-6 months after she started commenting here as Diane or Late4Dinner ( later as anonymous or L4D project), I mostly overlooked her habit of distortions and outright lying.
                      She has found a good place here, and perhaps on other open forums, where there is no set standard or provision against compulsive liars like her.
                      After the first 3-6 month of overlooking that lying sack of ****:’s games here, I have commented and will comment from time to time when anonymous low- life trash like her repeatedly pull the same crap over and over again.

              4. Totally unimaginable in 1789 that today we would be so crazy to elevate queer partnership to the level of state sanctioned marriage. I mean there have always been some homosexuals but never have then run amuck before as now.

                1. Anonymous,
                  Jefferson was not specifically relerring to forcing recognition of gay marraige, but his concerns that the Constitution could be treated as “clay to be molded” by Supreme judiciary were well- founded.
                  Whatever objectives that can not be achieved though a normal political process can, relatively easily, be achieved by 5 SCOTUS members who “know better”.
                  The possibilities of achieving a particular political end by the Supreme Court are virtually unlimited, given the “right composition of the Court.

                2. Non-Name said, “Totally unimaginable in 1789 . . . [edit] . . . there have always been some homosexuals but never have then run amuck before as now.”

                  Islam and Ottoman Times


                  They don’t only sleep with men, they sleep with women too, they drink too much, they … In Islamic cultures homosexual relationships were not very open. … old fashioned, hard to understand Turkish which is called Ottoman and are in literature … In this palace sultan kept many young boys who served the men in the army.

  8. Job 38:1-18

    The Lord Answers Job

    38Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind:
    2 ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
    3 Gird up your loins like a man,
    I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

    4 ‘Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell me, if you have understanding.
    5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
    Or who stretched the line upon it?
    6 On what were its bases sunk,
    or who laid its cornerstone
    7 when the morning stars sang together
    and all the heavenly beings* shouted for joy?

    8 ‘Or who shut in the sea with doors
    when it burst out from the womb?—
    9 when I made the clouds its garment,
    and thick darkness its swaddling band,
    10 and prescribed bounds for it,
    and set bars and doors,
    11 and said, “Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
    and here shall your proud waves be stopped”?

    12 ‘Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
    and caused the dawn to know its place,
    13 so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
    and the wicked be shaken out of it?
    14 It is changed like clay under the seal,
    and it is dyed* like a garment.
    15 Light is withheld from the wicked,
    and their uplifted arm is broken.

    16 ‘Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
    or walked in the recesses of the deep?
    17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
    or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
    18 Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
    Declare, if you know all this.

    1. Job “kept the faith”, regardless of what adversity was thrown at him. Had he been forced to read L4B’s comments here, that would have been the final plague that would have done him (and his faith) in.

      1. If I started addressing you as Job, then would my comments here become the final plague that does you and your faith in?

        1. You can safely and accurately call anybody “Job” if they have to scroll past your endless verbiage here every morning.
          Same applies for the “Jobs” who occasionally read some of your comments.

          1. You mean like Tom-Job, Bill-Job, Allan-Job, Olly-Job, Mespo-Job and my personal favorite Triply-Absurd-Job??? Those Jobs???

              1. I was talking about our regular early AM hyperpartisan propagandist.
                She has one counterpart to cover the other shifts.
                I don’t want to get personal.
                So,….I won’t mention names of the coven’s lead spokeswoman or the One from America’s Heartland, Hollywood.

                1. If you don’t want people to take liberties with your highly ambiguous comments, then you have to eliminate the as much of the ambiguity from your comments as you possibly can, Ptom-Job.

                  1. That isn’t ambiguous; I was being tactful in not mentioning the names of our two confirmed propagantists here. The early AM propagandist seems to be working longer shiftd.

                    1. Just because you think you know what you were talking about doesn’t mean that anybody else is supposed to know what you were talking about.

                      For instance, if you think that you were being tactful rather than ambiguous, then somebody else might be dubious about your tact.

                    2. On L4B’s comment about “ambiguity”; ….it’s safe to say that anyone who has read a fraction of the comments in these threads knows who I was referring to. So I doubt that “anyone else” failed to grasp that.
                      And those who have not previously read comments here will figure it out soon enough.

                    3. Tom Nash says: April 25, 2019 at 9:44 AM

                      “You [L4D] can safely and accurately call anybody “Job” if they have to scroll past your [L4D’s] endless verbiage here every morning. Same applies for the “Jobs” who occasionally read some of your [L4D’s] comments.”

                      Tom Nash says: April 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM

                      I [Job] was talking about our [any and every Job’s] regular early AM hyperpartisan propagandist [L4D].

                      Tom Nash says: April 26, 2019 at 4:06 AM

                      That isn’t ambiguous; I [Job] was being tactful . . .

  9. The real problem is that Buttigieg use of his homosexuality as a flail against Mike Pence is an explicit condemnation of Pence’s religiosity (saying that Pence’s complaint should be with the “Creator” who made Buttigieg gay). Graham’s statement, which one may disagree with or even abhor, doesn’t excuse Buttigieg’s own conduct here.

    1. Pence puts words in God’s mouth. Putting words in God’s mouth is black letter blasphemy. Black letter blasphemy is explicitly condemned.

      1. Excerpted from Time Magazine:

        In 2006, as head of the Republican Study Committee, a group of the 100 most-conservative House members, Pence rose in support of a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Citing a Harvard researcher, Pence said in his speech, “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.” Pence also called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of “God’s idea.”

      1. He’s a child of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. His father as a professor had a sweet deal in regard to his workplace rules, but otherwise there is no indication of privilege in his life.

          1. His father died three months ago.

            His father came from a large family (8 children) in what has long been Europe’s most intently Catholic country. Three of the eight emigrated, for whatever reason (Malta’s not a poor country, BTW). One of the eight is an explicit lesbian. Prof. Buttigieg married a women nearing middle age who only had time for one or two children. Their only son declared himself a homosexual, and they grin through it as that is the fashion in faculty subcultures.

            Joseph Buttigieg never had a proper requiem.

        1. YNOT, Pence was not a bigot concerning Buttigieg, but Buttigieg seemed more interested in attacking Pence who accepted and dealt nicely with Buttigieg. Therefore it appears the real biggot was Buttigieg as he kowtowed to a position that was untrue.

  10. “And part of God’s love is experienced, according to my faith tradition, is in the way that we support one another and, in particular, support the least among us.” Yet Pete has spent his whole campaign trashing VP Pence who has nothing but kind words to say about the man. Pete is a hypocrite or a liar, maybe both.

  11. From a Biblical perspective, why hasn’t Graham denounced death penalty supporters? What about Iraq war supporters, that type of war is not supported by the Bible. What about judging other people? The King James Version of the Bible actually omits many parts of the original Bible. Anyone can cherry-pick any part of the Bible they want, to mean almost anything. According to Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian, Jesus himself never denounced homosexuals.

    1. AZ:
      It’s the same tired argument that if you don’t condemn everything you can’t condemn anything. Where were you, AZ, when the press was making up lies about just about anything? See how easy it is to play. Graham can say what he wants to say and you can respond but arguing as you do makes Graham look like Solon.

    2. AZ:
      “According to Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian, Jesus himself never denounced homosexuals.”
      But Jesus did teach Paul who classically wrote to the Romans:

      “ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

      Paul has some good authority based on the great commission from Jimmy’s mentor: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matt 28 19:20.

      Graham is on firm theological ground.

    3. From a Biblical perspective, why hasn’t Graham denounced death penalty supporters?

      Because there is no ‘Biblical perspective’ which denies the validity of capital sentences. See Fr. Avery Dulles, SJ’s work published for general audiences on just this subject.

    4. There is no Jimmy Carter Magisterium. He’s an ordinary Baptist layman. Christian teaching on the sexual life is Biblical and ancient. There has never been a time in the history of the visible or invisible Church when the practice of sodomy was not regarded as inherently sinful.

    5. according to some kooks Jesus was queer too.

      btw the Pope condemned the Iraq invasion. The news media never much covered that one.

      Graham prolly thinks poorly of the Pope anyhow, whichever one sits with his pointy hat on his throne in Rome, as my favorite character said in “Gangs of New York”

      1. btw the Pope condemned the Iraq invasion.


        There are utterances by the Pope which require belief, utterances which require obedience, and utterances which require respectful attention. And only respectful attention. (Francis is enough of a chucklehead that this last is a challenge). The Pope’s remarks on political topics are in the realm of prudential judgment. They don’t require the level of adherence you posit.

  12. If Franklin Graham were a Muslim making the same statement you liberals would be making every excuse possible for him. Certainly there will be no condemnation of it.

    But he isn’t and therefore deserves the worst condemnation possible.

    Every previous generation and all major religions have traditionally condemned homosexual behavior. Of course, they were mistaken bigots and we know better!

    Don’t worry, tolerant liberals, hate speech laws will take care of bigots like Graham in another 25 years.


  13. Graham is an embarrassment to Christianity. If he thinks it’s his role to comment on any and all biblical digressions where are his requests for repentance from another well known person?

  14. Graham considers homosexuality a sin as generations of Christians have. He entitled to his opinion and faith without recrimination. Buttgeiger wants a cafeteria-style Christianity that ignores his lifestyle. Graham, as a leader of the faith, doesn’t. To each his own, but Graham has the better end of the theological argument and the credentials that his opposition doesn’t have.

  15. I wonder what disparaging nickname Trump will call the gay Mayor should he win the Democratic nomination?

        1. Pierre is likelier than petro– (“?”) What’s the Greek version of Peter? And don’t tell me it’s Peter. Unless it is Peter.

    1. Trump has a large gay following but they are probably not obnoxious people intent on inflicting their private tastes on others.

      Explicitly Pro-Gay leadership figures are often like so many other self appointed “community leaders, fraudulent.

      The opposition to Mayor Pete not stray into gay baiting. It rather should drill down on his exaggerated claims in respect of economic “revitalization” and so forth and just let the gay stuff slide down into the cracks and be forgotten. tee-hee

  16. Franklin Graham’s condition is “something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized.”

      1. Christian Dominionists seek theocracy, Messy. They want small government, so long as it aligns with their version of warped morality. Well, they can shove it.

        1. Maybe Dave 137 will provide a list of largely or predominantly Christian nations that have established Christian theocracy.
          Let’s see how that list stacks up against the list of Muslim theocracies.
          That would be a could way of countering the impression some may have of “Dave 137” that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and is prone to wild exaggerations with asinine claims of a “Christian Taliban”.

          1. The Russian Federation is awfully close to the mark of a Christian Theocracy. But they’re not exclusively Christian. We’ll need a definition of a Theocracy that differs from a State-established National Church. Could you work one up for me, Tom-Job? I’d do it myself, but they’re coming to take me away now even as I reach for the mouse button . . .

            1. I’ll look at the Russian Church- State relationship in their Constitution and in practice.
              I will also check out the number of Russian Orthodox suicide bombers “at work” in Russia and internationally, and check to see if they execute infidels in their stadiums.
              Or maybe L4D, our resident Expert on All Things, can save me the trouble of that search with more information.
              “Or not”. Maybe a deflection from her, instead?

              1. there are a few countries with officially established Catholic churches, including the hotbeds of Catholic bigotry, COSTA RICA and MONACO

                why i heard they burnt a heretic just the other day in Monaco and all the folks in furs emptied out from the casinos just to watch her roast. (Cue Mel Brooks “The Inquisition”)

                1. IIRC, The Serbian Orthodox Church was the first National Church. The chronological rankings get hazier after that, but they include The Greek Orthodox Church and The Russian Orthodox Church. I do not remember when The Ukrainian Church separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church. But there’s a chance that it might have happened before The Serbian Orthodox Church was established. I’m further guessing that the Anglican Church was the last, or most recent, National Church to have been established.

                  In any case, one might readily surmise that the expansion of The Ottoman Empire may have been either the driving force behind the break-up of The Eastern Orthodox Church or an opportunistic exploitation of whatever other force may have broken up The Eastern Orthodox Church. Did you know that the expansion of The Ottoman Empire coincided with the most significant episode in The Jewish Diaspora?

          1. Anon,
            There are no “reply boxes” above to respond to your recent comment, so I’ll have to post it here. Virtually everything you said in the two points you made at the start of your comment applied to homosexuality, until very recently.
            Gradually, psychologists who “knew” this was a recognized disorder went along with the program and reversed that position. Decriminalization and a far greater degree of acceptance of gays followed.
            You are apparently assuming that incest is less common than homosexuality. I don’t know if that’s the case, or what you base that on. Polygamous marriages probably are far less common than gay marriage, but “de facto” polygamy, in certain pockets of the country, exist whether or not the jurisdiction formally recognizes those marriages
            It is not a stretch and does not take much of an imagination to substitutive “polygamous marraiges” for “gay marraiges”, and follow the same 14th Amendment route to force states to recognize polygamous marriages. If there is enough support on the SCOTUS bench in favor of finding for polygamous marriages, interpreting ( or stretching) the 14th in the same manner as in Obergfell is “doable”.
            I think those parallels are hard to miss.
            As far as demonstrating harm in forcing states to accept gay marriage, I don’t think American society is going to come crumbling down because a million or so gays and lesbians have married. Nor do I think there is a sufficient threat of damage to America in forcing the states to sanction polygamous marriages.
            If they are reproductive issues involved in an incestious relationship, that is a valid government issue. Different states have different allowable “relativity” in regulating marriages.
            But if there is a family “relationship” involving a post-menopausal woman, or a man with a vasectomy, or a women whose tubes are tied, the states’ prohibitions re incestious relationship apply when equally. Whether or not there is possible risk to offspring.
            If you’re “what’s the harm on it” type of question is to be the standard….i.e., the state has to demostrate damage or injury to regulate sexual conduct or marriage, then we can legalized bestiality as well.
            Assuming that both it is “consensual” by both “parties”, the dog who makes advances by humping legs can “go all the way” with a consenting woman. If you’re going to challenge me by asking “who is harmed”, or what are the states’ interest in regulating sexual activity and/ or marriage, it’s a fair question to you to ask you to give YOUR “what’s the harm” answer.
            I don’t think that is the primary standard …. the need to demonsrate “harm” for a state to set standards for marriage. Most states voted down gay marriage initiatives or referendums when they were on the ballot. What “flys” in San Francisco, or Seattle, or Boston, or Portland Maine doesn’t necessarily cut it in the he Dakotas or Texas or Alabama or Nebraska or Idaho.
            If all of those states mentioned accept gay marriage as “right”, then it is in line with their cultural norms. But it is legitimately the right of the state to decide whether or not it wants to require a cultural norm deeply embedded in Western society gets tossed overboard within the coarse of a generation. Or by the stroke of the SCOTUS pen.
            Nationally, I don’t think there is much of a “cultural consensus” on what the basic structure of our society should be. But forcably unravelling those norms via an extremely aggressive interpretation of the 14th Amendment seems to me like a bad idea.

            1. The difference between those who might pursue incestuous marriages vs those gay is – as I think I have said repeatedly above, and you have not addressed, – is that being gay – or straight – is basic to our nature, set early and possibly before birth, and unchangeable. In that way it is like race and equal protection applies. Beyond the science which confirms this – it is not limited to political policy statements by psychiatrists as you imply – is our personal experiences. Did you decide to like girls? Do you think you could change and start liking boys? I couldn’t, and the hundreds of thousands, or millions of gays who tried to change couldn’t either.

              You bring up an interesting point about society holding a higher standard than not doing harm, and worth considering at length. However, in the case of gay marriage, as I noted above there are also serious and significant positives for both those individuals and society. No harms beyond breaking tradition and offending the religious beliefs of others who are not forced to marry somebody they don’t want to and the benefits to society of increased social stability for a significant number

              1. continuing:

                …significant number of it’s members and their achieving access to an institution most of us would say is the most important in our life – marriage.

                Kind of a no brainer, isn’t it?

                As to the states deciding thus, it is perfectly legitimate and in fact their most important job for the SC to decide matters involving constitutional rights. A majority of any states voters should not have veto power over those rights.

              2. Anon,
                The “science” of determining if a person is born gay is far from exact. When the psychiatric professional had labeled homosexuality as a disorder, I don’t think their focus was on whether gays are ” born that way or made that way ” as they develop from infancy.
                And when the profession dropped that “disorder” designation about 45 years ago, they did not do it on the basis of whether gays are “born gay”.
                So to present the “born gay” theory as scientific fact is overstating the case. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that some people are “born gay”.
                Fruedian threory is neither proved or disproved scientifically. And part of his theory is that there is a “natural” Oedipus Complex. Now there are adherents to that theory that early in childhood, boys are attracted sexually to their mothers. If in fact they are “born that way”, does that mean it:’s should be considered “normal” or “natural” or “acveptable” to legally recognize a mother-son “marriage”?
                Whether that “couple” is “programmed’ that way at birth, of whether it develops, is not that easily sorted out. And various theories about incest are far from being scientific fact.
                So, .A—.I think that the “science aspect” of is greatly overstated. When homosexuality was, for generations, considered a “mental disorder” by the profession, and “treatable”, that was more in the nature of “their best guess” of the day. People may well have accepted that as scientific fact, but that doesn’t mean that it was.
                And when they dropped that disorder label in the 1970s, that, again, was not a “scientific” decision. So we disagree on the (scientific) certainty of whether gays were inevitable born that way.
                B.—–; I used the “Oedipus Complex” example to illustrate that if even if there are incestous leanings present at birth…..innate characteristics that prediposes some individuals to engage in incestous sexual relations, it does not follow that that class is deprived of their Constitutional rights by not redefining marriage to accommodate them.
                Overriding the states’ ability to prohibit incestuous marriage by an extreme interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment is “doable” IF enough SC Justices hammer it around enough.
                I think we’re at an impasse in that you’ve presented your “case” and I disagree with it, just as I’ve presented my “case” and you disagree with that.
                Beyond what each of us has already said, I think we’d be going around in circles emphasizing and re-emphasizing each major element that we’ve already covered.
                Just summarizing our opinions on the case has been very time-consuming consuming. If this debate (over Obergfell) came up in a Con.Law class, I’d love to review the majority decision and the 4 dissenting opinions and “re-litigate” the case.

                1. Tom Nash:
                  “The “science” of determining if a person is born gay is far from exact.”
                  We have no idea why homosexual tendencies exist. Nature or nurture are irrelevant considerations from a social policy standpoint. Were society to accept all natural human tendencies, there could be no crime of rape for example. No one of any consequence has any political (as opposed to moral or ethical) problem with the practice of homosexuality, but the social policy issue is whether the practice is to be tolerated or endorsed. I have no problem with tolerance but I find endorsement beyond the pale from a human survival standpoint.

                  1. Mespo,
                    In medical science and elsewhere, there is a tendency to look at what we know at a given point in time with an inflated sense of “we now know it all”. Looking backward, we can see that (once) firmly held convictions by a consensus of medical researchers and clinicians…that those convictions can be turned on their heads by subsequent knowledge gained.
                    So even in the “more scientific'” fields of anatomy and physiology, what we “know” today, or “think we know” today, can be suspect or discredited based on additional knowledge and experience in the future.
                    I’m not putting down the field of psychiatry, but theories that abound in that field can look more like guesswork than the more “concrete science” of anatomy and physiology.
                    So especially with regard to that field of medicine, I’m pretty skeptical when someone claims “scientific proof”.

                    1. Tom:

                      Agreed. I think science is like standing on a boat’s deck approaching an unknown shoreline. As we approach, we first get general outlines and come to perceive distances and relationships. That all can change as we get ever closer and learn the details. The difference is we never get to the shore in science.

                    2. Tom, Mespo, I have to side with science, but it has to be rigorous science done by the rules for such things – and accurately reported.

                      Sexually dimorphic structures in the brain “proving” a physiological basis for homosexuality were announced with great press fanfare despite the study having less predictive value than the press reported. The researchers were honest, but the reporters got the bit between their teeth and said things the research paper didn’t support..

                      We see a lot of reporting on science that either trivializes its subject or misrepresents its importance entirely. Unfortunately, we’re past the golden age of science reporting, Gina Kolata and Richard Preston are examples of a rare minority of rigorous investigative writers on the science beat.

                      Gays and lesbians don’t bother me. Nature has shown that they don’t pose a threat to human reproduction; the police blotters show that they aren’t involved in actual sex crimes more than straights are.

                      Buttigieg only needs to repent of his leftist chiliasm.

                2. Tom, I think you are concentrating too much on psychologists, who are not doing the most interesting work in this area and are not the source for “the best science” on the subject. For an interesting overview on the different biological factors being studied try:


                  For example, one theory, noting a corelation between having numerous male older brothers and being a gay male is st studying the possibility that a mother’s immune system triggers reactions to bearing numerous male children, resulting in an increased likelihood of a gay son eventually. There could be more than one cause, and that is an example only. It’s either that or getting his a.s kicked for so long.

                  In any case, “the best science” is the best knowledge we have on matters of fact, and it would be foolish to ignore it.

                  1. Anon,
                    I didn’t have time to do more than a quick read of the linked WikiPedia piece. The opening sentences note that the question of sexual orientation is thought to be a combination of factors; I didn’t see anything in it that supports the contention that an infant is “born gay’.
                    There is no universal theory or consensus on the cause(s) of same-sex orientation. To present that primary cause as a genetic predisposition or somehow present at birth is to overstate confidence in that view. That overstated case is what I was disputing.
                    I don’t ignore the various theories presented, but when it comes to a “less-tangible” field of science like the workings of the mind, there is lot of room for debate. And a need for a healthy skepticism.
                    “Buying into” or overphasizing the validity of a particular theory in the field of human behavior is what strikes me as foolish.
                    To latch on to even something like a consensus is a bad idea IMO. One would not have to “ignore” the consensus of the putative experts to disagree with the consensus ( until the 1970s) that homosexuality, or “inversion”, is a mental disorder.
                    People could point to that pre 1970s position of the APA and claim it’d be “foolish” to “ignore” it, because that’s what the “experts” tell us.
                    That’s why I think it’s important to have healthy skepticism of various theories, and not overstate those theories as some sort of definitive scientific evidence.
                    There is one additional factor I meant to bring up previously; there were are still are deep divisions on the issue of gay marriage. There was an ongoing debate about the issue, and no national consensus on that issue. If a state or a region was leaning in the direction of approving gay marriage or prohibiting it , that is properly a political/ legislative matter. The Court’s Obergfell decision essentially short-term circuited that debate by forcing all states to recognize gay marriage.
                    I know the standard response is that the 14th Amendment somehow guarantees the “right” of gay marriage. The problem with the idea of a “living Constitution” v. “literalism” is that the former allows almost carte blanche leeway in reading almost anything you want into the Constitution to in pursuing a particular political agenda.
                    In the Obergfell case, I agree with one of the dissenting opinions that the Court majority decided the case with the “aphorism of a Chinese fortune cookie” an extreme interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Leave a Reply