Sorry, Bill, It’s Not “Bible-Thumping” … It’s The Destruction of Marriage

Well, the huge breaking news today is NBA player Jason Collins’ “coming out of the closet” about his homosexuality. The long-knives are out for anyone not applauding the announcement, especially if they thump The Bible. But it was just a month ago that Bill O’Reilly, during the SCOTUS hearings on ‘gay marriage’, basically discounted Christian values and beliefs on marriage…

Rev. Marcel Guarnizo has responded Bill O’Reilly’s insult…

In recent weeks, Mr. Bill O’Reilly has reached his very large television and web site audience with several claims that more than “Bible thumping” will be required to defend marriage. He has stated that the battle to preserve marriage is in fact lost. He has reported that his libertarian position on the matter makes the defense of marriage irrelevant. And, further, he has implied that biblical teaching is unacceptable in the public square.

As far back as 2008, in an interview with PBS, O’Reilly stated, “Do I care about this? Not really. I don’t care what Lenny and Squiggy do. They want to get married, let them get married. If you open it up for one group, you’ve got to open it up for all the groups. And they have done that in Holland, by the way…” Interviewer: “In terms of gays, you would have no problem with marriage?” O’Reilly, “Personally? I don’t care.”

I think there are several issues that O’Reilly and others might be overlooking in this matter.

Nonetheless, one has to agree with O’Reilly on one count, namely as he claims: “…You rarely hear those arguments articulated in the media, which is largely sympathetic to gay marriage. And not only that, but people who feel strongly about maintaining a special status for traditional marriage have allowed themselves to be intimidated.”

Bill O’Reilly’s cavalier attitude toward something so serious is quite astonishing. And, as his April 3 nationally televised tussle with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham reveals, his attitude on this matter is also intellectually superficial. This is not an issue for Americans of any persuasion to take lightly. It seems to me that serious fundamental issues of law and justice are involved.


To presume that the public square is owned or exists because of the atheists of our modern day is historically false and an easy way out of a more complicated debate.

The post-modern secularists have been endeavoring to rewrite history and ignore the Christian roots and foundations of European and Western civilization. O’Reilly, while making the sound point that a faith argument presupposes belief in Revelation, goes too far in conceding the platform to the atheists of today’s society. To ignore that the civil law against murder and stealing, for instance, is no different than the Mosaic commandments, “Thou shalt not kill” or steal, is an obvious example. To think that all this is a triviality without any relevance betrays a superficial understanding of the crisis of our time.

The clamor for same-sex marriage is symptomatic of but not the root cause of our demise. The eroding of the philosophical and cultural foundations of the West is at the root of the problem. To ignore this is to miss the forest for the trees.


Homosexual Marriage and the Question of Justice

The question at hand has three aspects:

• Is normalizing the homosexual tendency in law in the best interest of men and women with a homosexual tendency?
• Is the common good in society furthered by such a step?
• Is it in the best interest of children who undoubtedly would be involved through adoption, step-parenting, or surrogate motherhood in such situations?

Read in full

If it is such a weak counter argument to “thump the Bible”, then why is it necessary for the pro-“gay marriage” side to discard their own dignity demanding dignity while trying to steal the dignity of someone devoutly religious?


A group of naked women bum-rushed Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard while he was speaking in Brussels and doused him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary on Tuesday.

The women were reportedly feminist protesters from the Ukranian-based FEMEN group, which is known for organizing topless protests against the Catholic Church and others.

According to AFP, the four protesters charged the archbishop during “a debate on blasphemy and freedom of expression held at the Brussels’ Free University (ULB) campus Tuesday evening, baring their breasts and squirting water at Archbishop Andre Leonard as they accused him of homophobia.”

However, there is far more to this push for “gay marriage” and it is not, as we are lead to believe, because they just want to be treated the same. It is a movement to destroy marriage at the core. In 2012 LGBT activist Masha Gessen revealed the truth behind the “gay marriage” movement, and it confirms what conservatives have been saying about the issue…

Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

•“Gay marriage is a lie.”

•“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”

•“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)

So … you tell me.



6 thoughts on “Sorry, Bill, It’s Not “Bible-Thumping” … It’s The Destruction of Marriage

  1. Last year, a youth on Coral Way asked me to sign a petition supporting “gay marriage.” I replied, “Are you willing to sign a petition supporting polygamy?” He responded negatively. I have yet to meet a homosexual or lesbian who, while demanding gay marriage, support polygamy, as practiced by Mormons, Muslims, Asians, Africans, and other peoples.

  2. @antonio,

    I am with you , polygamy, is also a belief,and should be open to discussion as same sex marriage. I think is the first step, since Mr. President B. Hussein Obama most probably is in favor, maybe he has three other Michelles in line!!!!

    However, from a legal perspective, secular marriage was developed basically as a commercial contract between two individuals. It was developed to protect property, difine inheritances among sibblings and to tax.

    Religious marriage has to do with faith, ie you cannot divorce, while in secular mariage you can, religiuos marriage not wantingto have children is basis for an anulment, secular marriage is not. You have to belief in a GOD to get married by the chirch, you csan be an atheist to get married secularly.

    Legal wise, the church marriage is not valid in the eyes of the law, regarding inheritance, tax, property.

    So, as JC said, “Lo que es del Ceasar al Cesar y lo que es de Dios, a Dios”.

    We critize the the Muslim goverments, as being driven by religiuos beliefs? This is the same, we are imposing our christian religiuos beliefs.

    Marriage between individuals is a secular issue, not a religiuos issue.

    I see more very fiscal conservative young replublicans, who really do not care about same sex marriage.

    • I agree with you on this, albeit in a side-ways sort of a way.

      Marriage (matrimony) is a sacrament in the eyes of Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and (according to John Calvin) is a union “instituted by God”. To call a union officiated by a secular government employee a “marriage” is to debase the concept of marriage, regardless of whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

      There should be no union known as marriage that was officiated by a government employee of unknown religious affiliations, and only unions officiated by clergy should be considered marriages.

      By the same token, no Church should be either forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or denied the ability to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies by the government, as either would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

  3. The same people who 40-odd years ago that insisted they didn’t need a piece of paper to be marrid are now demanding a piece of paper.

    I agree with O’Reilly on one point, that it should be a state issue, and not a federal one. And I strongly agree with Luis that nochurch should be forced to perform a ‘marriage’ on anybody. There have been times whe Catholic priests refuse to marry hetro couples. However, this idea that resistence to same sex marriage is only a religious objection is wrong. If you listen to the bottom video of the LGBT activist she admits the real and central reason for this gay marriage push is to liquidate the concept of marriage, there by opening our society to complete social anarchy. (BTW, the Mormon church does NOT allow polygamy. Those who practice the multiple marriages may be Mormons, but the church will not recognize them.) That marriage is important to the religious faiths is that ‘organized’ religions know in order for societies to function within barriers keeps order and peace (to Luis’s remark about the legal contract point).

    The destruction of the family is what is at the core of the liberal/left movement in this country. In the last weeks we have heard the MSNBC woman insisting the ‘idea’ that children belong to their parents needs to be tossed out. They belong to the collective. I don’t believe ALL gay ‘gay marrige’ proponents want marriage and the family abolished. I just know that there is a deeper ‘plan’ in play here. There an be no individual. There can be no individual ‘family’. We must be a part of the collective. Thre are a lot of tools being used right now to move us in that direction. One of the biggest tools is ObamaCare and the HHS mandates, especially on contraception coverage. The intent is to control the population, and keep ObamaCare costs down.

    This is just maybe 2 steps away from communist China’s “one child” rule, which Joe Biden likes (for economic purposes, of course):

    Now, I know I’ve digressed a bit here with going into this aspect, but just a day or two ago Nancy Pelosi insisted the next “pillar” of this “progressive” government directly involves our children:

    Did you see the story of the couple who had their bay taken away from them for simply seeking a second opinion on their baby’s medical condition (granted they left the first hospital without formal discharge … but to take that baby away from them?):

    It’s not just one sweeping move by the progressive-run government. They have little ‘tools’ tying up our courts at every turn. “Marriage” is just one ‘pillar’ they are trying to bust down.

    Everybody hears how things are so much like Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. Yes, the government interloping into business and technology. But read her other book “Anthem”. THAT is the other “pillar”, the government interloping into private and personal life. There’s a lot more going on here than who can or cannot walk into the courthouse and get a marriage license.

    These people have a lot of “plates spinning”, and gay marriage is just one of them.

    • One person’s opinion does not the movement make, so I don’t put much weight on the opinion of one gay “activist” being interviewed. Self-aggrandizement seems to be rampant among her type.

      I don’t necessarily consider anecdotal evidence as symptomatic of a movement at large either, so while the story about the baby being taken from their parents (I watched it earlier) is disturbing, the actions of misguided individuals will rarely be unavoidable, one can only hope that once the larger machine kicks in, the mistake will be rectified. In the case of that child, it has been.

      I have considered the notion of an agenda to destroy the family, and while the evidence seems to be there, it points me in a different direction.

      We (those of us who have enjoyed the privilege of entering into marriage freely, with the person that we love), have done a great deal more damage to the institution, than those who are simply trying to gain the ability to get married.

      We (heterosexuals) own the soaring divorce rate, and it’s not just liberals doing it either. To no one’s surprise, my next door neighbor’s multiple divorces have in no way diminished the worth of my marriage.

      “There’s a lot more going on here than who can or cannot walk into the courthouse and get a marriage license.”

      The day that we gave government the ability to license marriage, we debased marriage. To me, and my opinion is no more indicative of any larger movement than that lesbian activist’s opinion, the government licensing a union, conducting the ceremony surrounding it, and then calling the result of those actions “marriage”, is like defining “baptism” as the end result of the government issuing a birth certificate and a Social Security number for a new born.

      I was horrified at conservatives when they pushed for the Federal DoMA to be enacted into law BTW. It was blatantly unconstitutional and highly dangerous since in enacting the bill, we willingly transferred the ability to legally determine what constitutes a marriage away from the States, and to the Federal government. That will come back and bite us in the ass soon.

      If the family is being destroyed, we have been willing participants in its destruction.

      If we truly want to defend marriage, then we need to start looking at our own flaws, and correcting our own behavior.

      Hell… marriage’s first prize in a TV game show these days.

Comments are closed.