ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Obama Defense Of Marriage

What are your opinions of President Obama directing the US Attorney General and the Department of Justice to no longer defend challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act has he considers it to be unconstitutional.

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Dating & Marriage Quiz
 ---Blogger9211 on 2/24/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



NurseRobert, I have wondered the same about the moderation here. Like you, I chalk it up to the fact that they pay the hosting bill and can do as they please. It's frustrating at times, but it teaches me to accept things that I can't change and keep it moving anyway.

I had to submit my 3/9 reply about five times before it was finally posted. Before resubmitting it, I edited it each time to remove words referring to gender or lifestyles. They weren't bad words, of course, but common, neutral words used to describe each. My thinking was that perhaps my submissions weren't approved because certain words would trigger undesirable AdSense ads that CN didn't want. I dunno, that's the only other explanation I can think of besides bias.
---AlwaysOn on 3/12/11


Donna ... The "Welfare State" started in the UK after the end of WW2, in which the Britih population had suffered great deprivation.

Intention was to provide safety net for those who could not work, or were unable to find work, and to provide for medical care for all, including those, the great majority, who could not afford to pay.

Sadly it was never funded properly, and people were not contributing to the Sate Retirment that was promised, and which is now so costly because of the much greater life expectancy

One great disadvantage is the widespread "entitlement mentality" which many of us feel has been encopuraged by left wing government, to create a "client" base who will vote for them
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/12/11


I agree that your view on this are not necessarily left leaning. I know a lot of republicans who feel the same way.

I really don't understand the criteria CN uses in posting. They want people to be Christ like in their posting, but some of the posts on here are anything but, and I have even been concerned about posts by moderators. Even when I temper my posts, they seem to go into a black hole and disappear.

Again, its their site and they can and will do what they want.
---NurseRobert on 3/12/11


I strongly agree with Shira, too, as far as the "entitlement mentality". How strange, this idea that "the government is supposed to take care us". That is not, and never has been, the function of government.This attitude is what has caused the economic collapse of Greece and other European countries. People are rioting in the street because they feel "entitled" to a free education or to retire at a certain age.

America has succeeded primarily due to the ambition and resourcefulness of her people... not because of her "enlightened social programs". Provide life long security and people lose their drive to conquer adversity. State funds deplete rapidly until there is financial collapse.
---Donna66 on 3/12/11


When the Jews "asked him for a king" (1 Samuel 8:10), instead of having the LORD "reign over them" (1 Samuel 8:7) . . . did God set up a law that stopped them from getting what they wanted? No, He gave them King Saul who turned out to be bad for them. God said, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them." (in 1 Samuel 8:7) So, the prophet Samuel was not required to control evil people, I can see. But he was told to warn them of what would happen > 1 Samuel 8:9-22.

We see what has happened because people want to rule by their own wills, instead of God reigning. Look at how democracy is turning out.
---Bill_willa6989 on 3/12/11




Thank you Donna ~ that's exactly how I feel TOO!
---Leon on 3/12/11


You're right, Shira, Americans have become lazy. To a certain extent, I also agree that welfare programs have handicapped some individuals because they have created a sense of dependency and entitlement in some who have forgotten (or never known) the power that lies within them...the power to succeed with raw determination.

On the other hand, there is a necessity, particularly where children are concerned, to use social programs to help those in need. I've seen the abuse and neglect children suffer from parents who truly don't know any better. If the government is willing to fund agencies willing to teach them better ways of parenting then for the sake of children I'm all for it. Still, I understand where you're coming from.
---AlwaysOn on 3/12/11


Nurse Robert--I don't know about bias. I read a lot of posts that sound really "left" leaning to me...but that's my viewpoint from the right.
(I do have some mixed feelings about some things like abortion)

The view I expressed is not strictly a "liberal" viewpoint.
"Libertarians" like Rand Paul also agree with this...who is often seen as an extreme rightest!
I don't consider myself a Libertarian, however, because I'm not the pacifist most of them are.
---Donna66 on 3/11/11


Thank you, Donna, that is exactly how I feel.

Im glad the Mods let you post. For some reason the mods have not let me respond. ---NurseRobert on 3/11/11

Same thing happened to me. I merely wanted to point out in agreement that if we had a theoretical Christian "tailban" in control of "defense of marriage", divorce and remarriage could become outlawed for straight couples too lest they commit the sin of adultery.
---obewan on 3/11/11


Thank you, Donna, that is exactly how I feel.

Im glad the Mods let you post. For some reason the mods have not let me respond. Maybe the moderators let you post because you are right wing, instead of left wing. I strongly believe there is a bias on this site, but then, it is their site.
---NurseRobert on 3/11/11




always on, maybe I just don't understand. I know I was raised in a very poor inviroment...mom and dad worked...she made all our clothes...we didn't ever have meat but we had lots of dried beans, peanut butter and potatoes. They just believed if you eat, you must work. No one handed them anything....not anything. The I WANTS has surpassed WORK FOR WHAT YOU GET. I am not really angry, just disgusted at how lazy america has become.
---shira3877 on 3/11/11


Girls used to learn infant/ child care in their own families. It is important training, esp. since some young women want to get pregnant because they think having a baby of their own will be FUN.

But do we need new government programs? Why not require Planned Parenthood (in keeping with their name) to give classes in infant care. PP already receives federal funds. It would good a good project for anti-abortion groups and churches, too.
---Donna66 on 3/11/11


Again, I hope moderators will allow me to clarify some things. I am NOT for "gay marriage". I am NOT for wasting government funds. But I do not expect our government to enforce all Christian standards of behavior... just as I don't want them enforcing Sharia law.

I don't want the government in peoples' bedrooms or churches or homes. That would rob us of our individual freedoms. Where one person causes damage to others, the law can fulfill it's purpose to protect.

The law may allow for selling and using marijuana...but Christians don't need to approve it. Adultery or abortion may be "legal", but Christians don't have to condone it. Even God did not force people to behave righteously.
---Donna66 on 3/11/11


I understand your frustration, Shira. Wasting money is never a good thing.

Consider, however, that some people lack common sense. Also, young folk who come from violent, abusive and neglectful environments tend to think that parenting styles that incorporate these things are normal and okay.

I don't consider it a waste for the government to fund programs to teach young parents better ways of rearing their children.

Occasionally, I run into former participants who are thankful for the life-changing skills they learned in these programs. See, what's common sense to you and I just isn't common sense to everyone else. I'm thankful that the government saw fit to put dollars into programs that families could benefit from.
---AlwaysOn on 3/11/11


always on, I get angry at the vast waste of money. The problem I see is common sense. If people would just use common sense, thats all.
---shira3877 on 3/11/11


Shira, it made you angry to see programs aimed at educating young girls on taking care of their babies? Why?

I've worked with pregnant and parenting minors. I've even organized some of the very government funded classes you speak of. Trust me, a lot of young parents need these programs for the child's safety. Many of them were actually court ordered. Consider for a moment that not everyone grew up in a loving home. Many grew up in abusive homes, foster care or institutionalized settings and have no clue about how to nurture and care for a child.
---AlwaysOn on 3/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Rom 1:21-32 is still valid.
Have we have progressed so far as to not need Scripture, Ministers, Churches or marriage?
How much longer Lord will you be long suffering?
---Elder on 3/9/11

Excellent Elder, excellent.

Your last question may be answered in God saying he will wait for others who were just like you and initially rejected him, or answer as he did Job that its none of your business and who are you to question (job 40)
Also remember you are asking a question based on time for which God operates outside the parameters of time.
---larry on 3/10/11


Were these republican presidents using the Constitution as "toilet paper" or does that only happen when a democrat is in office?
---NurseRobert on 3/7/11

Psalm 127:3
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Proverbs 12:12
The wicked desireth the net of evil men: but the root of the righteous yieldeth fruit.

Satan is his own party. Satan's boy is chopping at the moral foundations this country was established on.
GOD knows where ur homage given...now we do.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
---Trav on 3/10/11


\\Why is the directives of Scripture left out of this debate?\\

Because, believe it or not, the laws of the US and thee states are NOT based on the Bible.

if they were, we would be an Orthodox monarchy, and divorce would be very difficult and remarriage afterwards impossible.

But since our laws are not based on the Bible, born-again Christians can live in unions Jesus said were adultery with the blessing of their Bible-believing churches.
---Cluny on 3/10/11


Donna we can debate pros and cons forever. How about the common-law-wife/husband demanding benifits that would really promote marriage but is not required any longer? How about the children with no last name and the same gender unions?
What ever "good" someone can imagine from unions like this God is still against it.
Why is the directives of Scripture left out of this debate?
Rom 1:21-32 is still valid.
Have we have progressed so far as to not need Scripture, Ministers, Churches or marriage?
How much longer Lord will you be long suffering?
---Elder on 3/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


just think how much money we could save if we got rid of welfare (in most cases), free housing, free dr, free hospital, now free cell phones. On top of that I saw a commercial where young girls can "learn" how to take care of a baby at governments expense. that one made me roll laughing....not really, it made me mad.
---shira3877 on 3/9/11


elder--- If the non-working partner does not get SS benefits, and is impoverished because of it, won't the government end up supporting them anyway?

This would probably not be too common, since if one party is dependent on another( i.e your parent or developmentally disabled sibling) Chances are they will die first.
---Donna66 on 3/9/11


donna, this blog isn't about bail outs or anything else. It is about "civil unions" or to be clear sodomites. How can you even think your tax money won't be used for things you don't believe. IT WILL.
---shira3877 on 3/9/11


Is there a particular reason why, after multiple submissions, this reply will not post? Am I doing something wrong? I'll try again:

Shira, how do you feel your tax dollars would be distributed differently?

Theoretically, Donna's idea would actually keep fewer of your tax dollars from supporting low-income individuals currently receiving Medicaid since some could be added to a working partner's employee health insurance.

The majority of our federal tax dollars support military defense, Medicare and Medicaid, and social security.

Your tax dollars already benefit all sorts of people enlisted in each of these programs. What do you think would change?
---AlwaysOn on 3/9/11


Locate Christian Jobs


Correct Larry thanks for the good thoughts.
And, these civil unions will cost the taxpayers. When a non-working "partner" draws Social Security from a working partner along with other "benifits."
---Elder on 3/9/11


Leon-- It's always nice when SOMEBODY understands what you are saying. Thanks for taking time to think about a rather unconventional idea.
---Donna66 on 3/9/11


NurseRobert, while your recollection of facts, history and perspective is impressive it will not detour the idealouges who consider facts inconvenient.

Nice try.
---larry on 3/8/11


While Holder and Obama's decision on DOMA is unacceptable, AlwaysOn is correct. Secularists watered down the definition and Christians were dormant until it was too late.
The flailing definitions of family, marriage began to erode quickly in the 1950's first with the dissappearance of the word sin.
Lay the fault of this erosion at our feet, the redeemed who've scuttled prayer for fleshly fights of blogs, talk radio and politics as if the aforementioned could have knocked down Jerihco.
Father forgive us.
---larry on 3/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


That's nasty, stinkin' thinkin' Jerry. Wipe the thought from your mind, flush & repent! :)
---Leon on 3/8/11


Typical Nurse Robert comments.
shira3877 never said anything about two people loving each other.
She said she doesn't want to support the sodomites. That means people of the same gender having sexual relations.
She is against it, I am against it and God is against it.
Maybe Nurse Roberts likes it.
---Elder on 3/8/11


Ditto Donna!
---Leon on 3/8/11


Shira3877-- Expanding the scope of "civil unions" would not cost taxpayers one penny. It would save taxpayers a lot.
That's probably why the idea would never be considered. There's no "government program" nor expenditure!
---Donna66 on 3/7/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Jerry, During the Reagan administration, the DOJ chose not to defend a federal law in at least three cases. Since 2004, the DOJ has chosen not to defend a federal law in court at least 13 times. In 1992 under GHW Bush, the solicitor general at the time chose not to defend a US law in Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady, arguing that it wouldnt pass First Amendment scrutiny. In 2004, under the second Bush administration, the solicitor general chose not to defend a law barring the display of ads promoting medicinal marijuana.

Were these republican presidents using the Constitution as "toilet paper" or does that only happen when a democrat is in office?
---NurseRobert on 3/7/11


Trish: "Obama's oath of office was to protect, support and defend the Constitution. PERIOD. "

Then why does he use it for toilet paper?
---jerry6593 on 3/7/11


Nurse Robert -- I don't recall Shira3877 saying anything about war or corporate bailouts, what makes you assume she approves of THEM? How do you know?
---Donna66 on 3/6/11


Jerry: If Obama is dirty, then Bush was filthier than ever. Obama's oath of office was to protect, support and defend the Constitution. PERIOD.
---Trish on 3/6/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Sorry Leon, I don't want one impth of my tax money going to any sodomite anytime anywhere for anything.
---shira3877 on 3/5/11

You have a problem with two people who love each other, but you have no problem with your tax money going to fight an immoral war, bailing out banks and wall street, and big oil (to the tune of $40B a year)?

---NurseRobert on 3/6/11


Sorry Leon, I don't want one impth of my tax money going to any sodomite anytime anywhere for anything. I can see that it will eventually happen in this country because we have turned our eyes toward sodom.
---shira3877 on 3/5/11


Trish: You're Confused. To whom does the Attorney General report? To the President or to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Ditto for the FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Capitol Police ..... The President is indeed the Top Cop, and this one is dirty!
---jerry6593 on 3/5/11


Shira: I think Donna's idea is vitally necessary towards closing the gaps of disparity (socio-economic hell-holes) a great many Americans are currently trapped in. Her idea is fresh, innovative, reasonable, practical & do-able. Nothing in the world is perfect! :) I think Donna's concept could have a significant positive impact on our nation's future prosperity & well-being if only it were quickly put into law by our governing authorities (states & federal).
---Leon on 3/5/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


donna 66, what you are suggesting is for yet another door to be opened for abuse and mismanagement.
---shira3877 on 3/4/11


Shira3877 Let me explain other cases where a "civil union" might be helpful. Say, my mother, who lives with me since my father died, is under 65 (medicare age) and has some medical problems. She has no insurance...but if we had a "civil union" (having nothing to do with sex) She could be covered. under the coverage from MY employer.

Say 2 sisters live together to save on expenses. They would save more by filing their taxes "jointly" and choosing the better health insurance between their respective employers.

A "civil union" does not need to imply anything about a persons sexuality... IF the the benefits were extended to any two people who found it advantageous.
---Donna66 on 3/3/11


The President is sworn to support and defend the CONSTITUTION, and he is not a law enforcer. That is the Attorney General's job. The President is not in law enforcement at all. His branch of governement is the Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch is the Courts, including, but not exclusively, the Supreme Court. Before a law can get to the Supreme Court, it must be challenged in the lower courts.
---Trish9863 on 3/2/11


Leon, Donna 66, Always On, Leon and of course Cluny are correct.
However I would sub CONGRESS for the word Government. CONGRESS makes all the laws and spends all the money not the President. CONGRESS approves every piece of pork, every office building and tax loophole.
At least in the U.S. pagans and secularist are now four for four in having hijacked Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter and now the biblical institution of marriage.
President Obama has changed his tune on DOMA because while being a man of some principle he is a man without any conviction and stands in the mushy middle over and over again. I'm still praying for him as commanded daily, but dude please?
---larry on 3/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is current US law. The President is constitutionally required to enforce the law, and has sworn an oath to do so. He is not the arbiter of a law's constitutionality, the Supreme Court is. By not enforcing a current law, he is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office, and should be impeached.
---jerry6593 on 3/2/11


Well-stated, Trish! I agree that this presents zero threat to biblical marriage. I've often wondered the same thing about those who argue for less government, but want the government to define marriage.

Leon, Donna66 and Cluny, I agree with your posts, too.

I think the real problem here is that the government hijacked the word marriage a long time ago, the church went along with it and people have confused it with biblical marriage ever since. Compare the two side-by-side and the contrasts are glaring (a bit of which Cluny points out below).

Perhaps this will be a wake up call to believers everywhere and we will return to defining marriage by the Bible's example only.
---AlwaysOn on 3/1/11


donna 66, why would I want to form a union with my parent to take care of them? why would I want to form a union with my brother or sister to take care of a parent. All that can be done without forming a union. The only ones who will benefit is gays. Some will even use your tax money to help support their "spouses". I took care of my daughter and now my sister and believe me, we never formed a civil union. didn't need it.
---shira3877 on 3/1/11


Trish9863 --// Marriage is defined by us, based on Scripture...//
How DOES Scripture define marriage? Did God ever point to a relationship other than that Adam and Eve as an example of marriage.?

But "marriage" is not a "religious" term. Ask an atheist in India what a marriage is. Ask an Australian aboriginal what a marriage is. Ask ANY leader of any country what a marriage is. They will all speak of the relationship between a man and woman (or women in some parts of the world)..

In the USA, Marriage never needing "defining" until the present generation. Conservatives aren't asking the government to "change" anything! If you want "gay marriage", THAT is a CHANGE.
---Donna66 on 3/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Why is it that Conservative Republicans don't want government to be involved in the lives of the people, yet want government to interfere in the definition of marriage.

Also, how does this issue threaten any Christian marriage? It doesn't.

Marriage is defined by us, based on Scripture. That is not how the government defines it, and the Constitution gives the guidelines for how the government relates to religion.
---Trish9863 on 3/1/11


Ditto Donna! That's really thinking outside of the secular box & at the same time not violating the exclusivity & sanctity (sacredness) of God ordained "marriage" ~ the holy union of one man & one woman.
---Leon on 2/26/11


\\That God considers "marriage" a relationship between a man and a woman is clear. The Bible makes it plain\\

The Bible ALSO makes it plain that remarriage after divorce is in most cases adultery.

\\ and so does every culture everywhere...\\

Not true at all. There were some cultures that DID grant recongnition of some kind to same-sex couples.

And there were others that to this day recongize polygyny.

\\it's been that way for millennia.\\

Spousal abuse, domestic violence, and slavery have existed for millennia, too.

Does that make them intrinsically right?
---Cluny on 2/26/11


That God considers "marriage" a relationship between a man and a woman is clear. The Bible makes it plain and so does every culture everywhere...it's been that way for millennia.
But I'm in favor of "civil unions" for any two people who want to form such a legal entity. Gays could make use of it, or siblings, or an adult child supporting an elderly parent. The purpose would be so that the health insurance of the employed could cover the other. They could file joint income tax returns. And for every purpose they could be considered next-of-kin with all the legal privileges that entails.
---Donna66 on 2/26/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


\\CHUNY: James 2:17 (KJV)
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

That sums it up for me, he displays no works that indicates he has interest in Christianity....

And what are faith "works?" Is denial of a civil union between gays a faith "work"? Obama has already said he is against marriage between gays from a Church standpoint, and that is what really matters at the end of the day - NOT what the state allows.

Is care for the poor and lessor of us not a faith work? What about healing and healthcare for the sick among us who are denied care?
---obewan on 2/26/11


\\CHUNY: James 2:17 (KJV)
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

That sums it up for me, he displays no works that indicates he has interest in Christianity except how it might benefit his political life.\\

And just think: almost everyone here says that works have NOTHING to do with salvation!

\\ He has not ONCE endorsed or acted on behalf of Christians. In fact, he seems to be opposed to any Christian function. (For example he downplayed the prayer breakfast.)\\

And what makes you think the prayer breakfast is an intrinsically Christian event?

I myself would be hesitant to attend such an inter-faith hodge podge.
---Cluny on 2/25/11


\\Civil unions (not to be confused with marriage) are contractural agreements, between Adam & Steve or Ada & Eve, whereas they live together "kinda like" pseudo-husband & wife, but really aren't "married" in God's eyes. \\

How about remiarried divorcees who are married under the civil laws of the land--sometimes even in Christian ceremonies.

Jesus called these relationships adultery.

Would you say that THESE are really marriages in God's eyes?
---Cluny on 2/25/11


CHUNY: James 2:17 (KJV)
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

That sums it up for me, he displays no works that indicates he has interest in Christianity except how it might benefit his political life. He has not ONCE endorsed or acted on behalf of Christians. In fact, he seems to be opposed to any Christian function. (For example he downplayed the prayer breakfast.)
---wivv on 2/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Right On AlwaysOn regarding paragraph 2 of your comments 2/25.

God-ordained marriage is where man & woman become one flesh for God's devine purposes. Civil unions (not to be confused with marriage) are contractural agreements, between Adam & Steve or Ada & Eve, whereas they live together "kinda like" pseudo-husband & wife, but really aren't "married" in God's eyes. They however do, under the Law of the land, get the same spousal benefits as men & women who are really married.
---Leon on 2/25/11


Nurse Robert -- In this country people can opine all they want.... and everybody loves to do it. But where the Constitution is concerned, nobody DECIDES except the Courts.
---Donna66 on 2/25/11


\\"Obama is not a mahometan. Calling him that will not make him one."
Saying he is not one will not make it so either.\\

The fact is, he is NOT a mahometan, as can be seen by his actions that clearly contravene the mahometan faith, such as drinking alcoholic beverages and supporting abortion.

\\He has stated the he will never go against the Muslims.\\

Please give the source of this remark--when and where he said it, and where it can be verified.

(BTW--I didn't vote for Obama, and will not, but spreading slander and disinformation about him is simply lying.)
---Cluny on 2/25/11


It is what it is and what it is is unconstitutional, so this was expected. Once a state grants people the right to marry civilly the federal government cannot then turn around and discriminate against them.

Some have a hard time accepting this since they believe that civil marriage and biblical marriage are one and the same, which they are not. I saw this coming a long time ago and there's more to follow.

Cluny, how was the full faith and credit cause violated?
---AlwaysOn on 2/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Donna: You speak the truth with clarity & understanding. What President Obama did is no different from what ALL POLITICIANS DO with regularity, i.e., jockey for position.

You're definitely a stand out ray of hope (true Christian) amongst this crowd of mean-spirited, surly & hateful INO Christians. It's apparent you don't share their mob mentality. :)
---Leon on 2/25/11


\\You can't expect a non-Christian, such as President Obama, (not judging, just evaluating his actions), to make decisions using the Bible to guide him.
---wivv on 2/24/11
\\

Why do you think he's not a Christian, wivv?

There IS a difference between Christianity and politico-social conservatism, though this distinction is too subtle for some people to grasp.
---Cluny on 2/25/11


"Obama is not a mahometan. Calling him that will not make him one."
Saying he is not one will not make it so either.
He has stated the he will never go against the Muslims. If he isn't against their program then he is for it. Call it what you like. He was raised in Muslim schools so does anyone think he wasn't involved in their religion?
---Elder on 2/25/11


Cluny doesn't get to say.

Obama doesn't get to say.

The Supreme Court gets the final say. THAT's in the Constitution.

---Donna66 on 2/24/11

You left out the republicans and partiers don't get to say either. Why was that Donna?
---NurseRobert on 2/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


You can't expect a non-Christian, such as President Obama, (not judging, just evaluating his actions), to make decisions using the Bible to guide him.
---wivv on 2/24/11


Did anyone expect this guy to stand for the things of a Holy God?
---Elder on 2/24/11


He is playing the part of the supreme court. But i could find a law that Bush did not enforce because he thought it was unconstitutional also.
---Scott on 2/24/11


\\What do you expect from a anti-American Muslum? \\

Obama is not a mahometan. Calling him that will not make him one.

\\Did you know that there will be a demonstration by Muslums in DC March 3 Wanting the US to accept sharia law and to fly the muslum flag over the Capital?
\\

There is no such banner as "the muslum [sic] flag."
---Cluny on 2/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


my opinion is that the world continues to solidify scriptural prophecy.
---aka on 2/24/11


//DOMA itself clearly violated the "full faith and credit" clause thereof?//
According to whom?

Cluny doesn't get to say.

Obama doesn't get to say.

The Supreme Court gets the final say. THAT's in the Constitution.

This is just a political gambit on Obama's part. He's lost a lot of support on his extreme left (by continuing the Bush tax cuts etc). he trying to get them back.
---Donna66 on 2/24/11


>...there will be a demonstration by Muslums in DC March 3 Wanting the US to accept sharia law and to fly the muslum flag over the Capital?
---Pastor_Herb on 2/24/11

Pray.
Vote "OUT" sodomite leaders.

Phil 3:2Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Psalm 106:10
And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.
Amos 5:15
Hate the evil, and love the good,establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
Heb 1:9
Thou hast loved righteousness, hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
---Trav on 2/24/11


What do you expect from a anti-American Muslum?

Did you know that there will be a demonstration by Muslums in DC March 3 Wanting the US to accept sharia law and to fly the muslum flag over the Capital?

This is America, Love it or leave it. Also speak English.

We must do everything in our power to get rid of Obama next election.
---Pastor_Herb on 2/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


What are your opinions of President Obama .... Defense of Marriage Act ....he considers it to be unconstitutional.-----Blogg question

Opinion? He is the same "ungodley" approved (abomanation) he always was.

A reflection of what we will tolerate.
He is everyone who upholds him.
Law? Courts? They are us. Same reflection we allow and want.

Puking yet??
Speak up. Call your Representatives/Congressmen or whatever they may be.
"VOTE" these shameful abominable Reflections of us away...as soon as possible

1 Kings 14:24
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
---Trav on 2/24/11


I am not surprised at all. He will loose more votes than he will ever get when election time gets here. He is just an abomination and is doing everything he can to destroy what is left of our country. WAKE UP AMERICA....WAKE UP
---shira3877 on 2/24/11


\\This action by President Obama is a direct violation of his swarn duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land.\\

Actually, mima, the presidential oath obliges him to preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION. Nothing is said therein about other laws.

And what if an act of Congress is against the Constitution?

DOMA itself clearly violated the "full faith and credit" clause thereof.
---Cluny on 2/24/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.