Ask him where in the Constitution he read this.
For once, Lindsey is right ("a clock that's not working..." etc.), but if the American people tolerate this, they deserve what they get and vice versa.
The people need to vote on this via an amendment to the constitution. Plain and simple. Put it on the ballot for 2014. that should all but assure on great turn out for our side.
The federal government does not have “rights”, it has “enumerated powers”, and it’s telling that he doesn’t know the difference.
Why it seems there are as many Lot’s wives as there are perverts. God did not make a distinction between the two.
The ruling was challenged by people in the state of California. The US Supremes kicked it back to Caliphony and said "this is not my job".
Now, if a state amendment is "unconstitutional" then how can any amendments to the state constitution be "constitutional"? If the Caliphony Supremes thought it may not be federally constitutional, then the men in black dresses in DC did not do their job to determine whether it was constitutional.
If a gay man feels his rights are violated by the laws of the state, he "has ground" to challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court. Why doesn't everyone in the state?
Oh wait, gays get superior rights. Same as abortionists.
Activist judges suck socialist %^$#.
Maybe the 70% black voters who supported this amendment in California should take it back to the US Supremes since their vote was invalidated by the California Supremes for no other reason than sodomite love.
He’s lost his mind.
So all marriage certificates are going to be issued by the feds now instead of the states? They’ve nationalized everything else, why not marriage also? SMMFH!!!!!
Art 1 Sec 8 says nothing about the Federal government being able to define “marriage”.
However, Amd 1 does say something about “Congress shall make no law” in regards to freedom of religion though...
Maybe we should have stuck with that instead of handing the Gay Lobby a “win” on a silver platter.
At least people are showing their true colors lately.
The only time Grahamnesty takes a vocal stand against Dems is when the battle is already lost.
How's your constitutional amendment ending birthright for illegals going Grahmnesty?
So then who gives a ,,, what you think y?
On any real issues unresolved like amnesty he works with them(Dems) to get them victory,
I hate this deceitful sc...bag.
God help us if he is right. They will define it however the biggest money contributors to the Democrat Party want it defined.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Guess Lindsey likes to “play the field”.
Wow...Linda has lost his mind.
Lindsey Graham is as liberal as any northeastern democrat.
The difference is that the people of South Carolina have enough conservatives to elect someone better.
It’s sad that Linda is sitting in the seat that was for so long occupied by Strom Thurmond.
God defines marriage, Sen. Graham. God always has and always will have the final Word on this subject. Man can take any votes they want, but the results will never change God’s mind.
Jesus said, “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” (Matt. 19:5).
“Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,” (Hebrews 13:8.)
Lindsay Graham: Stupid POS.
Lindsay Graham = Lindsay Lohan without such a high degree of respect for the law, without her intelligence, and without her interest in the opposite sex.
decide for yourself...
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that addresses marriage, so the states make that call. If we had a real supreme court that ruled only on the basis of what is addressed by the Constitution none of this would be an issue.
He’s a worthless dick-licker for obama, like mccain.
The Republic is in dire need of a reboot back to startup parameters.
Graham is wrong, but right by default. That is, churches have abrogated their authority to establish the rules for sacramental marriage.
This authority could be reestablished with work and determination. It calls for ecumenism. That all conservative and Orthodox churches that are firm in their beliefs, should reach an accord setting the ground rules for marriage, and the *recognition* of marriage by them all.
The hard part comes later, as part of the agreement, by *refusing* to recognize marriages made in contravention of the rules, or by other bodies not party to the agreement; and the hardest part of all, to tell their congregants to, in the future, have only church marriages, not to get secular marriage licenses.
Since government’s involvement has been so diluted that unmarried couples are seen as in fact married as far as the law is concerned, government marriage licenses are useless.
Importantly, churches could “add to” this agreement, but they could not lower its standards.
In any event, by churches recognizing church marriages, but not those conducted by liberal churches or secular marriages, the sacrament would be restored as both important and outside the purview of government.
And while government could still issue marriage certificates, they could eliminate all the rules, so that some deviants could marry a whole herd of goats, and it would be legally recognized. But the churches could sneer at the proceedings as meaningless, and refuse to call the involved “Mr. and Mrs. and 12 goats.”