1 posted on
06/29/2015 8:50:20 AM PDT by
Biggirl
To: Biggirl
So gays can marry now. They’re going to love paying alimony, and in some cases, child support.
2 posted on
06/29/2015 8:50:55 AM PDT by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: Biggirl
I know Who wins in the end. That is enough for me.
4 posted on
06/29/2015 8:58:34 AM PDT by
Ingtar
(Capitulation is the enemy of Liberty, or so the recent past has shown.)
To: Biggirl
Rush, we will NEVER "DROP IT" !
8 posted on
06/29/2015 9:11:09 AM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Biggirl
Rush, like Ann said in her book,
HISTORICALLY, WHEN REPUBLICANS IGNORE WHITE VOTERS, THEY LOSE.WHEN they ignore minorities and drive up the white vote, they win.
OPPOSING IMMIGRATION IS OFF-THE-CHARTS POPULAR.
YOU'VE GOT ONE MOVE, GOP.RUN THE TABLE ON WHITE VOTERS, AS REAGAN DID !
9 posted on
06/29/2015 9:12:58 AM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Biggirl
Top Eleven?
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
11 posted on
06/29/2015 9:15:27 AM PDT by
LonePalm
(Commander and Chef)
To: Biggirl
Rush, it NEVER WILL be "Enough" !
Homosexuals had to "Earn their REPROBATE MIND" by
refusing God ~ not once, ~ not twice, ~ but THREE times!
You need to
not only read, BUT STUDY this link I especially agree with its last paragraph.
" The Church NEVER can and NEVER will give satisfactionand the homosexualist knows it,
for he knows the words against him are INERADICABLE
to the declared and impenitent homosexual,the person who, through an act of the vermiculate will,has identified his person with a sin,whether HE DEMANDS ACCEPTANCE OF HIS SINthrough "love,"
or VINDICATIONTHROUGH IDENTIFICATION OF HIS PERCEIVED ENEMIES AS BIGOTS.
Whether HE PRESENTS HIMSELF as an object of love or indignation,what HE DEMANDS in either case IS ACCEPTANCEnot of the person,but OF THE SIN-bound and SIN-DEFINED person.
HE DEMANDS the declaration of SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY thatTHERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED about this BINDING OF MAN TO SIN,and ASSURANCE that THIS MONSTROUS AMALGAM can indeed ENTER the kingdom of heaven.
This can NEVER HAPPEN among Christians UNTIL THEY ABANDON Christianity,WHICH IS AT WAR WITH EVERY SIN,and whose indelible constitutionplaces ALL PERVERSIONS of the perfect manAT THE MUZZLE of its canons. "
There will be NO HOMOSEXUALS ( NOT ONE ) in the afterlife.
They WILL BE
ASHES UNDER the soles of your feet ! ! !
26 posted on
06/29/2015 9:39:30 AM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Biggirl
27 posted on
06/29/2015 10:06:19 AM PDT by
ExCTCitizen
(I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
To: Biggirl
Rush, LAWLESSNESS from the SCOTUS or any court, does not make LAW.
It ONLY makes CONFUSION.
It will NEVER be accepted !
29 posted on
06/29/2015 10:10:38 AM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Biggirl
I think Limbaugh’s point about the left never being satisfied, and trying to fill some unmet need in their own lives by bringing others down, was brilliant.
I have also come to the conclusion, sadly, that the state should get out of the marriage business. Or rather, that if this ruling stands the state should give out “civil union” licenses only. It gives me no pleasure to say this.
What the “supreme court” (sneer quotes intentional) did on Friday was essentially to hold that marriage - the idea that the state may recognize, encourage, and support the union of two biological parents for the good of their children - is incompatible with and impermissible under the Constitution of the United States. It essentially abolished marriage as a legal concept. Divorce and welfare have weakened it, to be sure. But this essentially construes marriage so as to destroy it.
Still, the court kept the name “marriage;” no one claimed (yet) that the term itself was objectionable. Seems to add insult to injury, referring to the union of two men or two women with the same name as a sacrament. In any other context, it would be seen as demeaning. (It may be that Cold War Eastern bloc governments alternated between trying to stamp out religion and trying to co-opt it.) What’s next - referring to abortion as a “secular baptism?” As long as no one draws an offensive cartoon, I guess it’s OK.
Many, many people have faced a government hostile to their faith, and endured. This will end well for God and His people. For the country? Probably not.
30 posted on
06/29/2015 10:13:22 AM PDT by
cvq3842
(Thanks for all responses, and flames, in advance.)
To: Biggirl
Anyone have a link to the picture Rush zoomed in on?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
To: All
Thank-you for your support while I was away. :) =^..^=
191 posted on
07/07/2015 8:22:10 AM PDT by
Biggirl
("One Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Ephesians 4:5)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson