Gay Marriage To Be Overturned, Suit Filed, SCOTUS Will Overturn Obergefell. #MRGA
(youtu.be)
𝕊ℙ𝕀ℝ𝕀𝕋𝕌𝔸𝕃 𝕎𝔸ℝ𝔽𝔸ℝ𝔼
Comments (108)
sorted by:
Honestly, I don’t have any problem with gay people. To each his or her own. As far as marriage goes it’s between a man and a woman. I’m fine with them having some kind of contract that allows them to receive the same benefits as a true marriage. Just keep your gay shit away from me and I’m good. Don’t flaunt it in my face and expect me to agree.
Agree but you missed one of the most important points....
Marriage is originally a religious institution. The government didn't invent it. They didn't define it. Therefore they don't get to redefine it.
I 100% agree with you about the contracts. If people want to make partnership contracts then that is within the government's authority to issue and enforce.
That being said I don't believe that employers should be forced to recognize those contracts in the workplace if that violates their religious beliefs. For example if your job includes health benefits for you and your spouse, I don't believe that a Christian employer should be forced to pay for those benefits for a gay marriage. Don't like that? Don't work there. Companies that want to attract fagots in the workplace can offer those benefits and companies that don't, won't. This will also help prevent conservative institutions from sliding left rapidly.
Thank You I agree 100%
If marriage is a religious institution then divorce should be illegal expect for adultery.
Divorce is an extremely huge deal in the New Testament. Like people underestimate how serious Jesus took divorce.
Marriage is a church institution? Sorry I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you on the broader question of whether the state should be involved in it or not but what do you even mean when you say that it’s a church institution? Do you mean “church” invented it? Do you mean it’s something churches support and involve themselves in or what? What exactly does that mean and how do you suppose that impacts whether the state can or should be involved and how? Should the government simply not issue marriage licenses at all? Or do you think that if they do they should only issue them to straight couples or what?
When I say marriage is a church institution, I don’t mean that Peter was sitting in Rome in 50 AD drafting up wedding paperwork, or that some medieval bishop invented the idea one rainy afternoon after losing at chess. I mean that marriage is a creational ordinance from God, given before there even was a civil magistrate, and entrusted to the stewardship of God’s people. In other words, the “church” didn’t invent it, but the Author of Scripture did, and His people have always been the primary guardians of it. The state didn’t create it any more than the state created gravity, and therefore the state doesn’t get to redefine it without looking like a toddler trying to “redefine” bedtime.
So how does that impact state involvement? Well, biblically speaking, the magistrate’s role is to recognize and protect what God has established, not to pretend it can legislate reality into existence. If the state wants to require marriage records for property and inheritance purposes, fine—but that’s an administrative function, not a theological one. What the state must not do is try to make a counterfeit covenant and then stamp its seal on it like that somehow makes it genuine. That’s like a DMV deciding your bicycle is a semi-truck because they issued it a license plate.
Should governments stop issuing marriage licenses altogether? Ideally, yes—because the state should not be in the business of “authorizing” what God has already commanded and defined. They should recognize lawful marriages (male and female, covenantal, permanent) as they recognize any other pre-political reality. But if they are going to issue licenses, they have no more right to issue them for two men than they do to issue “pilot’s licenses” to penguins.
In short: marriage belongs to God, is stewarded by the church, and should be respected by the state. The state is a witness to the covenant, not the author of it. And when the witness tries to forge the document, it’s time to take the pen away.
“I mean that marriage is a creational ordinance from God, given before there even was a civil magistrate, and entrusted to the stewardship of God’s people. In other words, the “church” didn’t invent it, but the Author of Scripture did, and His people have always been the primary guardians of it.”
So the Bible should be used to define it based on…what exactly? It’s a religious claim you’re making, but it’s a real-word practice engaged in by many other cultures that predate the Bible. So how exactly do you expect such an argument to hold weight wity the Supreme Court if in fact they agree to hear this case? So the Bible says stuff about the God it touts ordaining marriage, how would such an argument hold up in a court of law? Again, I’m not saying it shouldn’t, and I genuinely appreciated and enjoyed your answer, I’m not sure I disagree with it, but I’m not sure I feel comfortable with it yet either. How do you think the most conservative justices on SCOTUS will view that argument and why?
Well, the short answer is that this “religious claim” is only religious in the same way “gravity is real” is religious. Yes, the Bible reveals it, but it also happens to be woven into creation itself. Marriage is not a denominational quirk like whether you sprinkle or dunk at baptism. It’s a creational ordinance rooted in male-and-female biology, the begetting of children, and covenant fidelity. The Bible doesn’t so much “introduce” marriage as it does identify, define, and fence in what God already built into the world before anyone was around to scribble hieroglyphs about it.
As for the “other cultures predating the Bible” bit, that’s like saying “people believed in air before scientists wrote it down, therefore the scientists can’t define it.” The existence of marriage across cultures is actually proof of its creational universality, not evidence that it’s up for reinvention. When pagan cultures got marriage right, it was because they were borrowing God’s blueprint, even if they refused to give Him credit. When they got it wrong, the results were predictable—broken homes, social collapse, and men marrying goats.
Now, on the matter of SCOTUS—America’s own legal tradition is already soaked in biblical categories whether people admit it or not. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn’t drop out of the sky in Philadelphia in 1787; they were distilled from the general equity of God’s law. And if that sounds like preacher-talk, just go read the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), where they explicitly stated that “this is a Christian nation.” That wasn’t some theocratic slip of the tongue—they were simply recognizing the obvious historical DNA of our law.
Even the most conservative justices know they are operating in a framework that assumes certain pre-political realities—rights given by a Creator, not the state. Marriage is one of those. If a case like this went before the Court, the strongest constitutional argument is also the strongest biblical one: the state is a witness and protector of what God ordained, not a sculptor free to chisel out whatever statue it likes.
Or, to put it bluntly, if the government claims the authority to redefine marriage, it is claiming to be God. And the last time a civil magistrate tried that, we called him Pharaoh, and he ended up chasing Israelites into the Red Sea.
This is a Q forum. Q not only says "God Wins" but like our founding fathers, also quotes bible verses. The Christian worldview is the objective standard that this movement, like our nation, is built upon. You can either stand on the objective foundation of Truth and morality that comes from that worldview or you can reject it.... But if you do, there is no objective truth or morality. Everything just becomes preference. That has utterly failed throughout history. But if you want to be a socialist, go right ahead.
It seems that sex itself is more akin to the comparison you made to gravity than marriage itself. If we’re getting biblical with it, then that leaves the door wide open to polygamy, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all practiced it. So is it one man and one woman, just men women regardless of the number of women? If the state’s job is to support that which makes a nation strong and to keep it from collapsing in on itself, as you seemed to imply there, then how can the state NOT be involved in setting parameters for marriage? And if the Bible is to be out guide on how marriage should be structured according to the state then what would you argue that structure to be if the fathers of what you called God’s chosen people, who the Bible suggests walked in God’s ways, then why isn’t polygamy being considered as a legitimate marital structure? And if it’s not, then what happens to the claim that the Bible is the authority we are following, or ought to follow, in light of that?
You’re right that sex is a creational reality, but marriage is the covenantal framework God built for it—sex without marriage is like electricity without insulation. It still works, but you’re going to burn the house down. Gravity may be unavoidable, but so is the fact that God designed male-and-female covenant as the context for fruitful, ordered, multi-generational stability. That’s why marriage is not just a religious rite, but the operating system for human civilization.
On the polygamy point: yes, Abraham, Jacob, and others practiced it—and if you read the accounts closely, every time polygamy shows up, family drama comes right along with it like a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. Scripture records polygamy the way a police blotter records robberies—it’s there in the record, but that’s not the same thing as God’s endorsement. From Genesis 2 onward, God’s design was crystal clear: “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife” (singular). Jesus Himself reinforced this in Matthew 19, and He was not ignorant of Abraham’s biography.
As for the state’s involvement: yes, the magistrate bears the sword to protect what makes a nation strong. But here’s the distinction—God defines marriage, the state recognizes and safeguards it. The state doesn’t get to decide what marriage is any more than it gets to redefine what a “mile” is. If you hand Caesar the authority to invent the definition, you’ve just invited him to turn your covenant into a social experiment.
So, to answer your “why not polygamy?”—because polygamy violates the creational pattern, fractures the unity between husband and wife, and historically destabilizes societies. God’s Word is not inconsistent; it records man’s sin without rewriting God’s design. In the same way the Law records murder without suggesting we adopt it as a judicial policy, it records polygamy without suggesting we make it the marital standard.
If we actually followed the biblical model—one man, one woman, covenant before God—we’d have a social order that strengthens families instead of fraying them. And if that makes the state’s job easier, all the better. But letting the state define marriage is like letting the fox write the rules for the henhouse. You might get a rulebook, but you’re not going to like the ending.
But you're obviously not a Christian. Are you an atheist that believes in evolution? Because if so, by what standard do you have a problem with any of this? You're just matter floating through space acted upon by time and chance signifying nothing. Your ancestors were fish. Nothing matters. Everything is subjective. Who cares? Why are you being so inconsistent with your worldview right now?
That being said I don't have Bible studies with atheists. If you want to tell me that you're a Christian and what church you go to and who your pastor is we can do a little conference call and discuss your theological shortcomings with your Church leadership and they can help get you back on the right path. If not, you just need to repent and believe the gospel.
In terms of the wrongness of gay "marriage" it goes right back to Genesis: First with Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." and then Genesis 2:20-24, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."
I believe they were saying it is a religious thing and not a government thing. AKA government marriage is only to screw over men with the guise of no fault divorce and alimony and child support etc. If these things were fair to men then they would work. As they are now is one of the top reasons marriage rates are abysmal and divorce is SO high. Modern feminism ideas have gutted it as well.
It was originally a religious institution, but it's been more than 2,000 years of government involvement.
I honestly don't even care if the government calls the certificate it hands out "marriage" as long as it's not forced on the church to recognize that.
That being said, I disagree about health insurance. Health insurance is secular as is the dollar bill, which was directly dealt with by Jesus....in coin form, at least. If ceaser says we pay for health insurance tax, we pay for it l.
I will say that this argument has always felt like people wrapping their greed in the scripture, to me. But I admit, growing up I had a lot of jackasses around me that would use the same argument for denying charity. 'God wants them to be poor/homeless and suffer so I'm not giving them money' sounds a lot like 'God doesn't support gays so Im not going to give them money [for healthcare]' to me.
I don't believe that people should be forced to hire anyone they don't want to work with, however - but that's been gone since the 60s.
😂
Are you serious? Bro please tell me that was a typo and you're not that ignorant.
And what ignorance do you suggest I possess?
Saying the government has been involved in marriage for “more than 2,000 years” is like saying the DMV has been around since the invention of the wheel. No, not even close. For most of history, governments weren’t running the marriage counter at all. They might have recorded who was married—like you might write down who owns which cow—but they didn’t create, define, or preside over marriage.
Civil governments didn’t start inserting themselves into the actual regulation of marriage until much later, often for reasons like controlling property, inheritance, and—let’s be honest—tax revenue. In the United States, the real intrusion didn’t ramp up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and even then it was often more about social engineering than biblical principles.
So no, the state hasn’t been the matchmaker for two millennia. They’ve been more like the nosy neighbor who wandered into the backyard wedding, grabbed the guest book, and started telling everyone where to sit. Marriage is God’s institution, and history shows the state is the latecomer who thinks showing up to one party means they invented the whole thing.
Except, I didn't say they were a 'matchmaker,. I said they've been 'involved in'. Often under the same reasons you cite for 'regulation' - taxes, property, and inheritance.
You dismiss the earliest involvements because they aren't as destructive or intrusive as the West has been in the last 50 to 100 years. You even ignore the church's long secular regulation of marriages - including "proper" ways to have your marriage officiated, how to divide your estate to your heirs (only recognized if you were in the church, otherwise your assets were seized), and how much tithing you should render based on how much if God's blessing you received via sons.
Any of that sound familiar? It sounds like property, inheritance, and taxes to me. By a secular and (eventually) supranational government of corrupt men seeking power, money, and control no less.
We have been so far separated from the original natural, Godly concept of marriage that many "religious marriage only" notions still consider it only valid if a man pretending to be holy tells you it's so.
First you were supposed to accept it, then you were supposed to agree with it, then you were supposed to encourage it, then you were supposed to celebrate it. If you don’t do all of that, there’s obviously something wrong with you.
Thats kind of a cop out, isnt it?
But you should have a problem because God had a problem with Sodom and Gomorrah.
God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
When my daughter was around middle school age we both headed to Costco near us.
We headed back toward the food section and out came a queer worker. Flailing his arms like he was drowning and letting everyone know what he was about.
It visibly upset my daughter.
The next day I got ahold of the SouthWest regional manager for Costco.
He did the usual spin that we cant discriminate yada yada.
But I said oh but you must be descriminate of the people you interview and hire.
You dont want proselytizers in your stores.
Shoppers want to see hard working, helpful workers and aside from that they dont want to see a "scene" they would not like.
Get your managers under control.
Next time I was in the store a couple weeks later, he was gone. Never seen him again.
I remember Obama saying he (I think the term he used) evolved into thinking, or re-thinking gay marriage and decided it was fine. I guess so, if Michelle is actually Mike.
I didn't care about gays and what they do once upon a time, that is until their sexual deviancy turned towards the children. Now I'm at a point to were it needs to go away and freaks need to go back into hiding.
The hiding freaks are the ones that made it public and blew it up into what it is now. We need a society where people aren't grown into freaks.
Mass uprising if this happens. I’m ready!
LFG
I’m thinking this is part of the plan. Get the libs to stage a massive uprising. Then the military is the only way.
Talk about a slippery slope ... ... in more ways than one ...
Meh. As a straight dude I'd say pick better battles.
MAGA is the majority of the nation. As such, within that teeming mass of millions, many Trump voters are homosexual. Many Trumpers have family members they love who are homosexual. Why make them choose between MAGA and their loved ones - we need to get over this somehow.
I rip on them all the time (here, not to their face :) for their behavior. Still, being victims of early childhood sexual abuse is nearly universal among homosexuals of both genders. They're never gonna be able to just 'turn over a new leaf' and suddenly start finding the opposite sex attractive instead.
I just don't see this issue as worthy of our mental energy. Why drive a stake of division through MAGA?
Let this go
Weak people can rip on others behind their backs. That is cowardly and disgusting.
A person who can rip on someone to their face is strong and honorable. Be a strong frog.
This is a good battle. Those same deviants who were preyed upon in their youth now prey upon the youth of today. It doesn't matter if the children are from gay or straight men's homes. The apathy you demonstrate is part of what has brought us to today.
LOL dumbest comment ever.
Walking up to random, obviously gay men and taunting them, calling them flaming faggots to their face, isn't strong and honorable. It's called being a colossal asshole in public to strangers. Only douchebags poke fun at people to their face to hurt their feelings, whether gay, disabled, black, Chinese, whatever. That isn't funny. That, my misguided friend, is disgusting. Stop doing that.
But I bet you don't do it to huge gays who look like they spend hours every day in the gym, because they might bend you over and make you their little bitch. Instead, you cowards pick frail, effeminate ones whom you can insult to their face, and then tell yourself you're a big strong man.
My favorite stand-up comics are the anti-woke, non-PC variety. They make fun of people on stage but not out in the world to their face. That would be weak and rude.
Be a considerate frog.
Resorting to insults is a sign you are losing the argument, just saying.
Bigger issue, why are you making fun of people with mental issues in the first place.
Sure we joke around on gaw, but still why would you trash talk like you just did here, is that really the real you? Does anonimity really make you so decensitied to morality you think it is now ok to insult and abuse others?
If you are on GAW, you should be aware "wokism" is a mental disease, trans people have gender dysphoria, along with any other number of issues. What you originally posted was the idea that you think it is ok to poke at people with mental illness as long as it is online and you are safe.. you were the one that said, ...
"I rip on them all the time (here, not to their face :)"
My tongue in cheek statement was basically meant to say, don't go talking around behind people's backs, and don't say stuff about a person you wouldn't say to their face. That is common decency.
A persons moral fiber is tested when they have no reason to exercise it. Im not saying I'm perfect by any means, but yeah, own what you said, or correct it.
because you're retarded :)
More sauce for you, and some serious prayers going up as well!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/new-supreme-court-asked-overturn-same-sex-marriage/
LET US PRAY!!
All Thanks be to God, and His Natural Law
This isn't it. Not the hill to die on. We've finally got the plan in action and these theocrats want to rile up the libtards now??? LGBT are less than five percent of the population. Take out bisexual women and it is less than three percent of the population. Now factor in half of actual gays likely want nothing to do with marriage because they live in a constant hedonistic state and you see it's not worth wasting time and optics on this issue
If you're worried about marriage...you have a culture war to fight with millenials and Gen Z who see no point to marriage. The rising number of people who think celibacy or abstaining from relationships is preferable is what you need to worry about.
I have to agree.
The point of marriage is to build families between men and women.
Anything else is just a distraction and not conducive to helping people improve their lives, community and nations.
Fags and carpetmunchers everywhere would riot nationwide.
Bring it :))
I am tired of the gays imposing their shit to us, take a look at this lady she was placed in jail for several days for not wanting to marry them, what sh..it is this? They are imposing us specially to our kids and babies. They are very dangerous people and very vindictive with women.
I think anyone who got shafted during the cake bake drama will be getting serious payback.
Hopefully justice will prevail to all of them who suffer too much with the consequences of these freaks.
So do not care about this. A lot of good, patriotic conservatives who are gay. I want the trans insanity to stop. I don't want to take away privileges from gay people.
We have the best gays
Gay is not a conservative value at all. I'm not gaslit so easily by people online like you speaking matter of factly about things.
Do you understand what the tenants of conservatism are? Nothing about it aligns with gay anything.
I'm not trying to "gaslight" you. I'm just stating an opinion, one that you are free to disagree with. But bear in mind, if SCOTUS were to overturn same sex marriage with DJT in office, you know who will be blamed.
Not ideal at a time where we're trying to get the country to unite on recognizing the tyranny we've been living under.
What interest do you have in gay marriage? What does you or anyone else in a productive society gain from it?
Did you read my comment above about how gay people cannot reproduce? Their only method of reproduction is indoctrinating the children of straight people.
Opinions and facts are two different things but while we're on the subject of opinions, I, personally, do not care for liberal anything. People need to pull their own weight, stop asking for handouts and recognition, and internalize the idea that if they want something out of life they're going to have to do it themselves.
Conservatives don't want to pay for your man made vagina surgery when you decide to go full delusional gay.
This is obviously a very touchy subject for you as evidenced by you downvoting my very simple response and appeal to political pragmatism.
"What interest do you have in gay marriage?"
My interest in gay marriage is my general enthusiasm for people to have personal freedom. I didn't choose to be straight, just as gay people didn't choose to be gay. And I have known several very patriotic, conservative gay people that I believe deserve to have the right to secular marriage.
"What does you or anyone else in a productive society gain from it?"
I am not interested in my own personal gain beyond my general desire for a free society. My perspective on keeping secular gay marriage legal is primarily one of altruism. Though I must confess that I am wary of a small percentage of the MAGA constituency who seem to want to destroy the tyranny imposed by the federal government so that they can implement their own brand of tyranny.
"Opinions and facts are two different things but while we're on the subject of opinions, I, personally, do not care for liberal anything. People need to pull their own weight, stop asking for handouts and recognition, and internalize the idea that if they want something out of life they're going to have to do it themselves."
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to convey here. I was very clear in my assertion that my statement was an opinion. At no point did I claim it to be a fact. Who exactly is asking for "handouts and recognition"?
"Conservatives don't want to pay for your man made vagina surgery when you decide to go full delusional gay."
I am very sorry about whatever is happening to you.
Who cares about Trump being blamed? Do you think Trump cares knowing what you've seen and know about him? I highly doubt he carries any weight from bad people blaming him for anything.
Why skip responding to the part about gay people reproducing through indoctrination of straight people's' children? Or are people born gay?
"Who cares about Trump being blamed?" Pragmatic people that want to see this Republic restored.
"Do you think Trump cares knowing what you've seen and know about him?" Yes, I think he's a very pragmatic, shrewd man who wants to see this Republic restored.
"Why skip responding to the part about gay people reproducing through indoctrination of straight people's' children?"
Because your statement was a non-sequitur and a straw man argument, much like liberals do when they disagree with a patriotic conservative. I simply said that I think it's a mistake to outlaw secular gay marriage. You brought up "gay people reproducing through indoctrination of straight people's children" because you couldn't think of a solid argument.
"Or are people born gay" Yes, they are. I did not choose to be straight. Most gay people I know would happily be straight if it was a choice because it's often a miserable experience to be gay. Primarily because of people like yourself.
Alright DS, warm up that downvote button!
Heh, I guess I'm the deep state now. Just to be clear, what was your position in which I brought up a straw man argument? I think that is a cop out from answering the question. You're trying to label what I said as a way of dodging a meaningful statement on "a subject" as a way of you dodging the question. You don't want to answer the question because you know you're answer is wrong. Gay people have no way to reproduce. Please tell me you're not one of those people that came up with or believe the idea that men can get pregnant or that a woman can be pregnant without participating in a straight person's sexual reproduction. Split hairs however you want but you know that gay people are incapable of reproducing in their ideal relationship scenarios.
Gay people NEED straight people to continue to exist. Not the other way around.
If people are born gay and you can prove it genetically, is it ok to abort gay babies before they're born? I'm asking because the same people that support homosexuals also support abortion. Weird. Nobody is born gay and just because you "didn't choose to be straight" doesn't mean that everyone else is like you. Your parents chose for you to be straight through parenting and guidance. It is the natural inclination of every living thing on our planet but it is also the moral position to take. I get the impression that you're not a Christian. If you are, I don't think you'd be so adamant about taking the position you are of personal freedoms. The devil is the one that convinces people that they should be free to do whatever they want. That is not the same as Constitutional Rights... it's very different. People should NOT just do whatever they want. Only a liberal would push such an idea that lacks a framework for morals.
I don't make any gay persons' life miserable. I just don't make any effort to associate with them or support any of their gay activities.... including being outward and public about your sexual orientation. My good friend's brother is gay, he hangs out with us often..... I wouldn't even know he was gay if his own brother hadn't told me. He NEVER brings it up in conversation or does anything that would make it obvious to anyone.
Trump does not care about being blamed for stuff he isn't responsible for. Your feelings and gay peoples' feelings do not care about facts. If your "experience" in life is miserable then you are at the helm of making a change. Society doesn't have to accept depraved behavior.
Please tell me more about this gay gene that less than 1% of all babies have. Don't worry, I will wait.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's religious, not governmental. The ONLY purpose of getting married as far as gov is concerned is so that you can get tax benefits and so that women can ruin men in a divorce. I wonder..... who gets all the property in the gay divorce if there is no woman?
Don't tell me you're one of those IRS supporting patriots. In before the "bUt wHo Is GoInG tO FiX oUr rOaDs?"
IMHO, the problem began with this alternative agreement being called same sex marriage. The word “marriage” is already taken and has a definite meaning legally and biologically. Why could there not have been another name for the participants wanting to commit their lives to each other (whether I agree with it or not) ? I hate it when words get co-opted by the left for an entirely different meaning and just become part of the lexicon.
Thank the Lord, I'm tired of their gay crap. I fully expect this to be less of a "ban" and similar to abortion where it becomes a state's rights thing again. Which is better than nothing.
For all of you saying "pick your fight", get over yourself. You're just plainly wrong. The overwhelming majority of faggots are leftist. This will have little to no effect on MAGA. Likewise, if anyone pays ATTENTION, this is something people are agreeing with more and more. The majority of people don't support gay marraige again (and don't quote me some stupid skewed poll). ESPECIALLY amongst younger generations, support for gays and the like has been gradually decreasing in every study/poll taken that wasn't skewed or biased towards a leftist perspective.
Acceptance and legalization of homosexuality was THE cornerstone of the slippery slope that led to kids cutting the nuts and tits off and predators in drag harassing women in bathrooms and sports. If you can't recognize that this is needed to reverse all of the damage the fag movements have done since legalization, then you're willfully ignorant and part of the problem.
This NEEDS to done for society to become normal again. So yes, this IS a battle to pick, and it NEEDS to be won.
The problem is that it doesn't remain just a matter between two consenting adults. With marriage came adoption of children. We've had the horror of pedophile couples adopting children and abusing them, even to death. Where do they get these children? They don't produce them themselves. How many come from the Child Protective Services? How many are children taken from those politically disfavored groups (Christians, anti-vaxxers, etc)?
Ban civil unions too please
If the government can tell gay people that they can't get married then that turns marriage into a privilege that is granted by the government. Put another way, if government says gay people CAN'T get married then the only reason straight couples CAN get married is because the government says it's ok for them. As much as some might believe that marriage should be restricted to male/female couples (and even if they are right), it's not government's role to get involved at all. 100 years ago we didn't have marriage certificates in this country...but people still got married. We don't need the government's permission to get married. Nobody does. That's absurd. And if two men want to get "married", you can believe that's not proper, you can even be correct that it's not proper, but it's still none of your business and it's none of the government's business either.
This.
Meh. I'm not down with this one. Nope.
Good. Can't happen fast enough.
If you're gonna be gay, be gay. Just don't be a fag about it.
Nahhhhh.
If you're going to be a serial killer, go ahead and kill people, just don't get caught.
^^ Same level of logic applied to crime.
If you want to do heroine go ahead, just don't puke in the lobby of MY hotel.
If you want to loot, go ahead, just don't do it in MY city.
If you want to be a flaming homo go ahead, just don't do it in front of MY yard.
etc etc etc.
There is no way to be gay without being a fag about it.
Tried to tell certain family members they didn't want gay marriage like that. A gift at the whim of the coyrt can be revoked by the whim of tbe court
this dude, Tim... I know it is off subject, but he is wearing that black beanie. I am in the thought process on how I believe ai trolls everyone. So I get random vids pop up with Tim and right next to his video is Mahdi.. Tim I will watch and listen to off and on but he is to leftist for me, but at times he can make sense which I understand is a way for retards to have a gateway to become somewhat rational.
head wraps have a symbolism but I do not know what black ones mean... maybe rebellion against what is perceived as good or evil depending.
Mahdi dude I have no idea.. I ignore that one.
Tim Fool should always be seen as possibly compromised.
Tim Pool was one of the early alt media personalities to heavily attack the Q research movement using the Q is Microchip false narrative.
Mr Pool's media contract is with Tenet Media who have taken in tons of AIPAC & USAID money but also worked to supply confidential reports to the FBI.
interesting. makes sense. when he uses his deep, mad voice.. it makes me laugh. He has a huge intelligence apparatus behind him and that is obvious.
I am just a weirdo. I will look this way and that way, but I always pray and try to be just me. If my wife did not grow up with me in the same neighborhood she would have left me years ago.
Those like you know way more than I do. We need more like you in the world. Those like me are essentially the ones who will look at evil right in the face and say 'not today'... hahah . and then get squashed.
Tim is controlled opposition like Alex jones is. He cannot be trusted and it wouldn't surprise me to learn he was connected with Mossad in some way.
I am a Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin.
But I'd like to know where in the Constitution does it give FedGov the authority to restrict or control marriage?
I would even go further and say that the 1st Amendment makes the Federal restriction against the Mormon's polygamy unConstitutional.
Marriage is only for tax purposes.
Tax is for the khazarians that have created and benefited off the fed bank.
You know them as "jews".
Family is the smallest unit of government.
Marriage is the core of the family.
You're right about everything else.
Yes 1A is definitely tricky bc it doesn’t define religion. It protected the founding fathers’ freedoms two hundred years ago but now it’s being used to protect ungodly acts. What would be a constitutional way to make this right?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams
Get the government out of anything to do with marriage beyond simple record keeping, which is typically done at the county level.
Likewise for education.
Remember gay people have no way to reproduce without indoctrinating a straight persons' child.
Gays are also liberal. Liberals support abortion. They also claim that people are "born gay" vs gay being a learned behavior. It is for this reason that I melt their brain by asking them if it is ok to abort your baby if you know it will be born gay. They cannot have it both ways and that line of logic really pisses them off.
I don't support gay anything or abortion. I think both are satanic.
Good. Something needs to happen to remove all the fornicating fudge packers and Walmart carpet munchers from the public eye. The internet and media gave all those nasty people a platform and a megaphone.
Good! That fruitloop is from my hometown. He's been an embarrassment, for a long time. I don't know what the deal is with Sandusky, but it's had a fair amount of attention over the years. For a small city in north central Ohio, it's been mentioned a good number of times in movies and TV. Perhaps a coincidence, but the center of town is laid out on the Masonic compass and square
Marriage is about property rights. Who belongs to who. Whose children belong to who. And ultimately, who inherits what. All else is window dressing. Why were the European nobility all intermarried with cousins? Property. Land, serfs, strongholds, titles. Its that simple folks. Romans did it too.
Marriage as an institution provided order in societies that screwed any other thing that moved. Got pregnant? It's your husbands. Irrelevent who the real father was. Knocked up the wife of the neighboring Duke? It's the Duke's. Order.
This was 2025 (5 months ago). The declined to hear the case.