Congressional Bible Study Teacher Urges Officials to Oppose Marriage Equality as Matter of ‘Theology’

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Disapproval of sexual perverts?

We should never condone what we know is wrong

We should never condemn others for what we believe is wrong for ourselves least the tables be turned in the end. The ultimate perversion is bigotry and mindless judgement of others

 

[Polishprince]

We should never condemn others for what we believe is wrong for ourselves least the tables be turned in the end. The ultimate perversion is bigotry and mindless judgement of others

Considering how much you condemn Christians for their belief that marriage is between one man and one broad only, your statement is sort of ironic.


Libtards are the most intolerant of political stands.

 

[martybegan]

And the influence of sectarian religion in our political and government institutions. Our national legislative body works, or should, for all Americans.

Except bakers and photographers of religious belief, fuck them, right?

 

[martybegan]

We should never condemn others for what we believe is wrong for ourselves least the tables be turned in the end. The ultimate perversion is bigotry and mindless judgement of others

LOL, progressives are all about punishing thoughcrime.

 

[Clyde 154]

Yet they supported someone who believe a marriage was between a man and woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman............on the side.

Yeah its called "FREEDOM". What hypocritical BS.........you argue that language that is not present in the constitution be added via Judicial Fiat (there is not one word concerning MARRIAGE.......of any type, found in the US CONSTITUTION or following amendments........when there is language that states that WORDS NOT FOUND in the CONSTITUTION belong to the STATES/PEOPLE to legislate as the people choose ....i.e., the 10th amendment)...........and then you bitch because someone is presenting suggested legislation to finally address this fact.

Anyone. Find one single word that addresses MARRIAGE in the constitution. If that language is not there there and THE PEOPLE want that language to exist in the Constitution there is only 1 legal remedy ................ an amendment.

The judicial system does not possess the authority to change one word of the constitution, especially the supreme court, its duty is to arbitrate existing law not legislate new language never considered previously via precedent.

Read the 10th article of the States Bill of Rights concerning content not found to exist in the Constitution. Powers not delegated to the United States..i.e, the Federal Government...by the constitution (again, find the power to social engineer the tradition of marriage as a power delegated to the Feds in the Constitution), nor prohibited by the States/People (The People and the States are synonymous as used) are reserved to the STATES respectively.........

When the court takes it upon itself to inject new social traditions via fiat upon THE PEOPLE void of any type of representative choice.......we are no longer living in a free Republic, but are being ruled via group of unelected civil servants with lifetime political appointments (SCOTUS).....its nothing less than judicial tyranny.

Marriage was always (established SCOTUS precedence) managed by THE PEOPLE/STATE until a rouge court decided to legislate NEW LAW from the bench in 1973 by adding words not found in the constitution through a power not delegated to them by the PEOPLE........MARRIAGE.

Anyone.....find one legislated law prior to Roe v. Wade that addressed marriage and defined same sex marriage as acceptable tradition which came from legal representation(legislated at the state level) of the PEOPLE prior to NEW LAW coming from the court in 1973 in relation to the tradition of marriage. Constitutionally......SCOTUS should have kicked Roe v. Wade back to the state or origin instead of adding language not found in the constitution.

We are not living in nation ruled over via a 12 man oligarchy .............the United States of America is a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBIC whose law is calibrated by Constitution not unelected judges. This type of republicanism (not a political party but a system of government) is guaranteed at every level by the direct language found in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Considering how much you condemn Christians for their belief that marriage is between one man and one broad only, your statement is sort of ironic.


Libtards are the most intolerant of political stands.

I do not condem Christians. I condemn bigots. Only the stupidest among the stupid think that all Christians are intollerant bigots like you. I reccognise the fact that many Christians welcome gays into their churches and support marriage equality. It is only your primitive, ridged and limited intelect that causes you to see every thing in stark black and white terms and therefor think that everyone else does too

 

[pknopp]

Yeah its called "FREEDOM". What hypocritical BS.........you argue that language that is not present in the constitution be added via Judicial Fiat (there is not one word concerning MARRIAGE.......of any type, found in the US CONSTITUTION or following amendments........when there is language that states that WORDS NOT FOUND in the CONSTITUTION belong to the STATES/PEOPLE to legislate as the people choose ....i.e., the 10th amendment)...........and then you bitch because someone is presenting suggested legislation to finally address this fact.

Anyone. Find one single word that addresses MARRIAGE in the constitution. If that language is not there there and THE PEOPLE want that language to exist in the Constitution there is only 1 legal remedy ................ an amendment.

The judicial system does not possess the authority to change one word of the constitution, especially the supreme court, its duty is to arbitrate existing law not legislate new language never considered previously via precedent.

Read the 10th article of the States Bill of Rights concerning content not found to exist in the Constitution. Powers not delegated to the United States..i.e, the Federal Government...by the constitution (again, find the power to social engineer the tradition of marriage as a power delegated to the Feds in the Constitution), nor prohibited by the States/People (The People and the States are synonymous as used) are reserved to the STATES respectively.........

When the court takes it upon itself to inject new social traditions via fiat upon THE PEOPLE void of any type of representative choice.......we are no longer living in a free Republic, but are being ruled via group of unelected civil servants with lifetime political appointments (SCOTUS).....its nothing less than judicial tyranny.

Marriage was always (established SCOTUS precedence) managed by THE PEOPLE/STATE until a rouge court decided to legislate NEW LAW from the bench in 1973 by adding words not found in the constitution through a power not delegated to them by the PEOPLE........MARRIAGE.

Anyone.....find one legislated law prior to Roe v. Wade that addressed marriage and defined same sex marriage as acceptable tradition which came from legal representation(legislated at the state level) of the PEOPLE prior to NEW LAW coming from the court in 1973 in relation to the tradition of marriage. Constitutionally......SCOTUS should have kicked Roe v. Wade back to the state or origin instead of adding language not found in the constitution.

We are not living in nation ruled over via a 12 man oligarchy .............the United States of America is a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBIC whose law is calibrated by Constitution not unelected judges. This type of republicanism (not a political party but a system of government) is guaranteed at every level by the direct language found in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

People get benefits by being married. Taxes etc. The Constitution most certainly does not allow the government to discriminate. If you want the government completely out of marriage, fine, I'm OK with that.

 

[Mac-7]

Don't lose sight of the fact that we are talking about marriage under civil law, not the rules of various faith groups. Condonation or condemnation has no role in this. Legal civil marriages must remain available to all couples regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. Faith groups can do as they wish. Some faith groups allow religious marriages of same-sex couples and some don't. Some faith groups allow religious marriages when one or both of the couple have been married before, some more than once before. And don't forget that some people are not members of a faith group and they shouldn't be bothered by outsiders.

What is your problrm?

You are throwing a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo at me because I dont approve of gay marriage

Sheesh

The unelected demigods in black robes have already rendered my opinion null and void

Homo’s are legally allowed to do disgusting things to each other, yet here you are demanding approval also

You go way too far

 

[Mac-7]

We should never condemn others for what we believe is wrong for ourselves least the tables be turned in the end.

Thanks for your concern, but I’ll take that chance

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yeah its called "FREEDOM". What hypocritical BS.........you argue that language that is not present in the constitution be added via Judicial Fiat (there is not one word concerning MARRIAGE.......of any type, found in the US CONSTITUTION or following amendments........when there is language that states that WORDS NOT FOUND in the CONSTITUTION belong to the STATES/PEOPLE to legislate as the people choose ....i.e., the 10th amendment)...........and then you bitch because someone is presenting suggested legislation to finally address this fact.

Anyone. Find one single word that addresses MARRIAGE in the constitution. If that language is not there there and THE PEOPLE want that language to exist in the Constitution there is only 1 legal remedy ................ an amendment.

The judicial system does not possess the authority to change one word of the constitution, especially the supreme court, its duty is to arbitrate existing law not legislate new language never considered previously via precedent.

Read the 10th article of the States Bill of Rights concerning content not found to exist in the Constitution. Powers not delegated to the United States..i.e, the Federal Government...by the constitution (again, find the power to social engineer the tradition of marriage as a power delegated to the Feds in the Constitution), nor prohibited by the States/People (The People and the States are synonymous as used) are reserved to the STATES respectively.........

When the court takes it upon itself to inject new social traditions via fiat upon THE PEOPLE void of any type of representative choice.......we are no longer living in a free Republic, but are being ruled via group of unelected civil servants with lifetime political appointments (SCOTUS).....its nothing less than judicial tyranny.

Marriage was always (established SCOTUS precedence) managed by THE PEOPLE/STATE until a rouge court decided to legislate NEW LAW from the bench in 1973 by adding words not found in the constitution through a power not delegated to them by the PEOPLE........MARRIAGE.

Anyone.....find one legislated law prior to Roe v. Wade that addressed marriage and defined same sex marriage as acceptable tradition which came from legal representation(legislated at the state level) of the PEOPLE prior to NEW LAW coming from the court in 1973 in relation to the tradition of marriage. Constitutionally......SCOTUS should have kicked Roe v. Wade back to the state or origin instead of adding language not found in the constitution.

We are not living in nation ruled over via a 12 man oligarchy .............the United States of America is a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBIC whose law is calibrated by Constitution not unelected judges. This type of republicanism (not a political party but a system of government) is guaranteed at every level by the direct language found in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

Then is it safe to say that you also disapprove of the Loving v. Virginia rulling?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What is your problrm?

You are throwing a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo at me because I dont approve of gay marriage

Sheesh

The unelected demigods in black robes have already rendered my opinion null and void

Homo’s are legally allowed to do disgusting things to each other, yet here you are demanding approval also

You go way too far

So, are they doing those :disgusting things" because of marriage? Some heterosexuals, married or not, do some of those same things, and more. If you're opposed to same sex marriage, you ned a better reason.

 

[Mac-7]

If you're opposed to same sex marriage, you ned a better reason.

No I dont

Homosexuality should never have been legalized in the first place

 

[TNHarley]

I really have to wonder what is wrong with these people! My guess is that they are very miserable and loveless in their personal lives to the point where they hate the idea that others have found happiness. Another possibility is that they are living in an alternative reality, a sort of religious psychosis. In either case they are a danger to the concepts of civil rights, equal protection under the law, and most importantly, the commitment to secular goverment and the rule of law.

Congressional Bible Study Teacher Urges Officials to Oppose Marriage Equality as Matter of ‘Theology’ | Right Wing Watch

Religious-right opponents of marriage equality have never accepted the Supreme Court’s 2015 pro-equality ruling in Obergefell to be legitimate. Many are

www.rightwingwatch.org

Selected excerpts:


Well that pretty much confirms both of my hypothesis as does this



So who's ear does in the government this jackass have :

Since 2010, Drollinger has led weekly Bible studies for members of the U.S. Congress. Capitol Ministries claims 45 congressional Bible study sponsors, including Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Johni Ernst, Tim Scott, and James Lankford and Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan. During the Trump administration, he added weekly Bible studies for members of Trump’s Cabinet and eventually sub-cabinet officials. Drollinger says he continues to lead weekly Bible studies for former Cabinet members and White House senior staff via Zoom.

Trump officials, including Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, helped open doors for Drollinger to establish ministries to “disciple” high-level officials in other countries, a project he continues to pursue.

We could have guessed. My only surprise in that Margory Tailor Gren and Lauren Boebert were not mentioned. These people need to but the fuck out of other peoples privstr lives and get a life of their own

Nut cases. Just like the people that say extermination of the white race is a good idea. Heterosexuals will the demise of the human race etc.

 

[Polishprince]

People get benefits by being married. Taxes etc. The Constitution most certainly does not allow the government to discriminate. If you want the government completely out of marriage, fine, I'm OK with that.

A homosexual has always been able to get married just like anyone else- to a broad.

"Same sex" marriage is a new, special institution, a special right.

 

[Clyde 154]

People get benefits by being married. Taxes etc. The Constitution most certainly does not allow the government to discriminate. If you want the government completely out of marriage, fine, I'm OK with that.

The federal government has no place dictating the regulations of traditional marriage. As far as taxes go there is already legislation in existence to deal with benefits of taxation (if you can call a tax a benefit in any form) its called a legal CONTRACT. Your argument is based upon a logical fallacy. You are making an argument based upon the fallacy that its righteous to tax or not tax individuals based upon the tradition of marriage in the first place.

As always.........the progressives legislate the cause of a problem (unrighteous taxation without representation...i.e, a progressive tax system that punishes those that actually earn and gives to those who do not earn)....and then they claim to be the solution to a problem they created in the first place. Its who they are.......its what they do.

Example: If the only reason to allow same sex marriage is for tax purposes.....and its made legal under the current system of taxation.....consider the following, what if someone wanted to cohabit in order to take advantage of said law........an uncle demands the right to live with and marry his niece in order to tax advantage of the tax clause in relation to same sex marriage (Homosexuals declare its not about sex but about love) this couple simply entered the marriage to game the system, they did not sleep together but simply shared the same address under a legal marriage contract.

Where does this slippery slope end? Marriage to animals? Marriage to inanimate objects? Marriage to self?

The courts have no business in dictating social mores' or social traditions. The duty of SCOTUS is not to "interpret" law but to ARBITRATE EXISING LAW......meaning to compare any suggested acts of legislation against the very source of CALIBRATING LAW in this nation the existing language found in US Constitution and following amendments. When no language is found to compare......as detailed in Amendment No. 10 SCOTUS has no recourse but to allow THE STATES to legislate as the citizens of that state desire.

The Constitution is not a document that demonstrates the authority of the Federal Government and Courts......its a document that details the LIMITS of authority THE PEOPLE have granted the Central Government and Court systems. Its a negative contract.

If you desire homosexual marriage to be legal at the national level................simply amend the constitution through the will of a supermajority of peoples.....and stop attempting to dictate through an Oligarchical Judicial Authority that has never existed in this Republic.

When you attempt to pass national laws with as simple 50+1 majority the only thing produced is civil unrest as you have the nation divided practically down the middle........the end result always ends as detailed in the federalist paper No. 10. Violence and Revolution.

Look around the nation, look out your window, what do you see today.......the sparks of revolution between this divided populous is already visible. The left spent 2 years attempting to burn down this nation......yet only reacted when a one day protest existed on Jan. 6, 2021 with charges of violence against a conservative populous that was tired of being pushed around by idiots who claim this republic is a social democracy.

 

[pknopp]

The federal government has no place dictating the regulations of traditional marriage. As far as taxes go there is already legislation in existence to deal with benefits of taxation (if you can call a tax a benefit in any form) its called a legal CONTRACT. Your argument is based upon a logical fallacy.

Example: If the only reason to allow same sex marriage is for tax purposes.....and its made legal under the current system of taxation.....consider the following, what if someone wanted to cohabit in order to take advantage of said law........an uncle demands the right to live with and marry his niece in order to tax advantage of the tax clause in relation to same sex marriage (Homosexuals declare its not about sex but about love) this couple simply entered the marriage to game the system, they did not sleep together but simply shared the same address under a legal marriage contract.

Where does this slippery slope end? Marriage to animals? Marriage to inanimate objects? Marriage to self?

The courts have no business in dictating social mores' or social traditions. The duty of SCOTUS is not to "interpret" law but to ARBITRATE EXISING LAW......meaning to compare any suggested acts of legislation against the very source of CALIBRATING LAW in this nation the existing language found in US Constitution and following amendments. When no language is found to compare......as detailed in Amendment No. 10 SCOTUS has no recourse but to allow THE STATES to legislate as the citizens of that state desire.

The Constitution is not a document that demonstrates the authority of the Federal Government and Courts......its a document that details the LIMITS of authority THE PEOPLE have granted the Central Government and Court systems. Its a negative contract.

You can consider it whatever you want. I'm speaking about the realities of how it is.

 

[Clyde 154]

You can consider it whatever you want. I'm speaking about the realities of how it is.

The reality of "HOW IT EXISTS...is, homosexuality is detailed as a sin in Christian Doctrine", and you can't condemn anyone for simply declaring the truth as its recorded in the very source of all Christian doctrine........the Holy Scriptures. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

As stated.....the government has no authority to change the conditions of the tradition of marriage as defined in the very first amendment of the US Constitution, FREEDOM OF RELIGION. But.........SCOTUS has attempted to declare that one amendment overrides another. The 1st is made null and void by a SPEICIAL INTERPRETATION of the 14th? No where can I find an amendment that declares the 1st has been rescinded.......as was found in the amendments concerning the ban of liquor sales.

If you want.....legislate law that allows same sex marriage, give them special treatment and allowances that come with anyone that has a demonstrable handicap. Just state on the license, this couple is homosexually married. Give them their own handicapped parking, etc., Just don't attempt to declare that everyone must change their traditions to fit into some SPECIAL INTEREST narrative. The majority establishes both law and tradition in a representative free republic.......it can be no other way, unless you want despotism. Thus the constitutional mandate for a SUPER MAJORITY ratification when it comes to RIGHTS both CIVIL and HUMAN.

There is not one right in this nation that has not been the product of a MAJORITY..........women's right to vote and own property, the civil rights acts of the 50's and 60s....etc., all have come about through the will of the majority. When you attempt to force feed any minority position under the pretense of human or civil rights......you have a problem, you have ceased being a free republic governed by the will of the people......you are now under the rule of a 12 man politically appointed OLIAGARCHY.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I really have to wonder what is wrong with these people! My guess is that they are very miserable and loveless in their personal lives to the point where they hate the idea that others have found happiness. Another possibility is that they are living in an alternative reality, a sort of religious psychosis. In either case they are a danger to the concepts of civil rights, equal protection under the law, and most importantly, the commitment to secular goverment and the rule of law.

Congressional Bible Study Teacher Urges Officials to Oppose Marriage Equality as Matter of ‘Theology’ | Right Wing Watch

Religious-right opponents of marriage equality have never accepted the Supreme Court’s 2015 pro-equality ruling in Obergefell to be legitimate. Many are

www.rightwingwatch.org

Selected excerpts:


Well that pretty much confirms both of my hypothesis as does this



So who's ear does in the government this jackass have :

Since 2010, Drollinger has led weekly Bible studies for members of the U.S. Congress. Capitol Ministries claims 45 congressional Bible study sponsors, including Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Johni Ernst, Tim Scott, and James Lankford and Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan. During the Trump administration, he added weekly Bible studies for members of Trump’s Cabinet and eventually sub-cabinet officials. Drollinger says he continues to lead weekly Bible studies for former Cabinet members and White House senior staff via Zoom.

Trump officials, including Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, helped open doors for Drollinger to establish ministries to “disciple” high-level officials in other countries, a project he continues to pursue.

We could have guessed. My only surprise in that Margory Tailor Gren and Lauren Boebert were not mentioned. These people need to but the fuck out of other peoples privstr lives and get a life of their own

What's wrong with these people is they're hateful, bigoted conservatives who have nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

The reality of "HOW IT EXISTS...is, homosexuality is detailed as a sin in Christian Doctrine", and you can't condemn anyone for simply declaring the truth as its recorded in the very source of all Christian doctrine........the Holy Scriptures. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

As stated.....the government has no authority to change the conditions of the tradition of marriage as defined in the very first amendment of the US Constitution, FREEDOM OF RELIGION. But.........SCOTUS has attempted to declare that one amendment overrides another. The 1st is made null and void by a SPEICIAL INTERPRETATION of the 14th? No where can I find an amendment that declares the 1st has been rescinded.......as was found in the amendments concerning the ban of liquor sales.

If you want.....legislate law that allows same sex marriage, give them special treatment and allowances that come with anyone that has a demonstrable handicap. Just state on the license, this couple is homosexually married. Give them their own handicapped parking, etc., Just don't attempt to declare that everyone must change their traditions to fit into some SPECIAL INTEREST narrative. The majority establishes both law and tradition in a representative free republic.......it can be no other way, unless you want despotism. Thus the constitutional mandate for a SUPER MAJORITY ratification when it comes to RIGHTS both CIVIL and HUMAN.

There is not one right in this nation that has not been the product of a MAJORITY..........women's right to vote and own property, the civil rights acts of the 50's and 60s....etc., all have come about through the will of the majority. When you attempt to force feed any minority position under the pretense of human or civil rights......you have a problem, you have ceased being a free republic governed by the will of the people......you are now under the rule of a 12 man politically appointed OLIAGARCHY.

The Christian Bible also says that anyone that marries after divorcing or marries someone that has been divorced is committing adultery. (a sin). Should the government only allow one marriage per person?

 

[Lysistrata]

The beliefs of one individual faith group as distinguished from the beliefs of another one. It can denote one particular group that is part of a larger umbrella religion, such as Catholics or Presbyterians, which are part of the larger Christian religion, Hasidim or Reformed, which are parts of Judaism, Sunni and Shi'ite, obviously both Muslim.

Using just the name of the umbrella religion, i.e. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. to describe a person does nothing to inform anyone as to the person's actual beliefs. The article does not state this man's sect/denomination, it just implies that he is a member of a Christian one. Christians do not all agree on marriage equality.