- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Are there any moral judges left who will oppose gay marriage?

Published: Mon, June 23, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

Are there any moral judges left who will oppose gay marriage?

I read this newspaper day after day, week after week, and ask myself: Is there going to be even one judge in this whole country who will have the decency and courage to lead by saying no to this abomination of same-sex marriage, this mocking of God’s law?

Are these judges’ positions so important in this world that they will sacrifice their own immortal soul, not to mention many other souls who will be affected by their wrongful decision (mainly children)? They are bringing down the judgment of God on this country. I guess they think Sodom and Gomorrah was fable.

This sin is so abominable in the eyes of God that it is one of the four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance. Anyone who is bold enough to be involved and allow by this jurisdiction something like this to go on, having no fear of almighty God, is truly more than foolish.

There is a place called hell, and many people do go there. At the end of life, every one of us, even the ones who deny God and his laws, are going to be judged and answer to him.

I ask again, is there even one judge in this, our beloved country, who will stand up for God and his law? I pray to God there is more than that.

Margaret Marsh, Youngstown

Liberty residents blackmailed

A RECENT editorial contains an interesting sentence. “In Liberty Township, residents this May approved one of the few additional levies that passed in the Valley to repair a plethora of pockmarked township roads.”

Really? Is that what you think happened? The trustees cried poor and blackmailed the taxpayers into a new tax with threats of unfilled potholes and crumbling roads.

No money was available for repairs, but there was plenty of money for a 4 percent pay raise for road department employees. I wonder how many township homeowners got a 4 percent raise this year.

Don Johnson, Liberty


1Millerh113(181 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Heaven, hell, and the last judgment are matters of faith. And as Mark Twain once said "Faith is believing in something you know ain't so."

Suggest removal:

2billdog1(3254 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Margaret, please tell us all how what another does is any of your business. I don't agree with many things in the world, but if it doesn't directly effect me, it is none of my business. Try removing your judgmental hate, and do as Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek."

Suggest removal:

3steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

While it looks pretty gloomy right now, I see the light at the end of the tunnel. In November, after we elect a Republican Senate, the Liar's tap of left wing extremist judges will be shut off. Then in 2016 after we elect Ben Carson as POTUS, his pen and phone can undo any of the damage that the Liar's pen and phone has done.

Suggest removal:

4jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

There are many judges who oppose gay marriage, but whenever a gay marriage case comes before a judge, it seems that the judge is a democrat.

Suggest removal:

5jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Margaret gave her opinion about gay marriage under the OPINOIN section of the Vindy, but all of you respondents assulted her, and did not give your opinoin about gay marriage.
Let' hear your opinoin, folks.

Suggest removal:

6rickking123(320 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Billdog if it doesn't affect you then you say it's none of your business. So why then did you feel compelled to make a comment?

Suggest removal:

7JoMarko(76 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Don what a silly letter. Instead of blathering about your beliefs in myths, superstition and ancient manuscripts you should familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason nearly all the judges are ruling the same way. Read about the Equal Protection Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause and I'm not talking Santa Clause or any other of you imaginary friends. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land not your vision of Christian Taliban sharia law.

Suggest removal:

8JoMarko(76 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

What a silly letter. Instead of blathering about your beliefs in myths, superstition and ancient manuscripts you should familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason nearly all the judges are ruling the same way. Read about the Equal Protection Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause and I'm not talking Santa Clause or any other of you imaginary friends. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land not your vision of Christian Taliban sharia law.

Suggest removal:

9jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I just read, in the newspaper, that some guy wants to marry his cat because he loves her.

Suggest removal:

10steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Get prepared for worse. I fully expect there will be a new movement to allow people to marry their dogs next.

Suggest removal:

11lajoci(597 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Oh yeah right Eivo! Marry their dogs! HA! That's a gooooood one!

Maybe their horses too.

Or maybe we'll go back to multiple wives, like the old Testament, or the Mormans!

Yep! That's the ticket! Why stop at dogs and cats and horses and gerbils?

Just go down to the everglades and grab some old croc and drag it to the altar!

That's exactly what will happen if same-sex marriage is the norm!

Pretty soon people will be marrying their parrots, or their guitars!

Then, they'll want their cross-species spouses to be able to vote, which they can't do, so the human spouse will have to vote by proxy.

So then humans will take multiple cross-species partners so that they can secure multiple votes, multiple SS pay-outs (assuming the non-human partners were employed at some point, say, as carrier pigeons, or in the film industry, or as farm labor, or political party logos).

Maybe the invisible man will marry the invisible woman (although I can't figure out what he sees in her). (I bet their children would be nothing to look at either.)

Suggest removal:

12steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Expect very soon there will be an all out effort to reduce the age of consent to 12 years old. After all the age of consent in many countries is already 12, so why should our laws discriminate against 13 year olds. A 12 year old can write their name on a piece of paper and consent so it should be all right.

Suggest removal:

13jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Many people sign their name with an X, so why can't the dog sign with his paw?

Suggest removal:

14tnmartin(426 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

and we shall no doubt next hear that it is unfair and a violation of "equal rights" that some people have a Ph.D. while others do not, to be followed by demands to mail the certificates to all who achieve age 22 or something. Why not? No sillier that some of the arguments we hear.
Next up: petitions to repeal, or at last modify, the law of gravity. It's so unfair that things fall down. Again, no sillier.
FIRE these idiot judges!

Suggest removal:

15billdog1(3254 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

The same reason you did Rick King.

Suggest removal:

16eevo(51 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I don't need a marriage license to have relations with my dog. Don't call me steivo anymore, call me Howard Stern, because I make stupid comments to shock and bait people to get mad. My next comment will be, "I don't even know who Howard Stern is."

Suggest removal:

17steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

That post is nonsensical like all of your other posts.

Suggest removal:

18walter_sobchak(2209 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I have heard of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause and it definitely applies here. But, no one is prohibiting any person to enter into a marriage as has been legally and morally defined for centuries as the union of one man and one woman in which they become husband and wife, with the exception of incestual relationships.

Suggest removal:

19dontbeafool(1391 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

no I'm sure that gays get married and have big weddings to just throw it into JS's face to spite him/her. Then they will probably stay married for 20 plus years to really flaunt it in JS's face. That gay crowd will go to any lengths.

Suggest removal:

20DACOUNTRYBOY(527 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Gay pride here in the country is still staying in the shadows. The pride and parades seem to only come out in the cities.

Suggest removal:

21ojanet22(134 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

It's none of my business what consenting adults want to do. It doesn't hurt anyone for a gay couple to be married.

Suggest removal:

22tnmartin(426 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

sigh. Yes it does hurt anyone.
First, stop using the word "gay". It's false advertising, at best. Most homosexuals -- and I've known a bunch -- are pretty miserable actually. Look up the suicide rate some time. Or any one of the several indices of personal happiness. Building a life out of loathsome behavior builds up no one, it consumes a person and leaves nothing but a hollow shell. Sad to see, actually. The correct term is "homosexual". If you wish to add the term "deviant" to that, you would be correct.
Second, damaging the language hurts everyone. Most would be upset if someone determined to change the word "arsenic" to "candy". We use words to convey meanings. Marriage already has a meaning, largely understood by people in all nations and cultures and throughout history. One man, one woman. Period. Oh, and it normally means particularly in Western culture -- particularly where the "progressives" haven't stunk up the place - for life. Compare that with the documented behavior in the homosexual community. Sexual involvement patterns go far beyond promiscuity, in regions that the most avid "player" in the local "meat market" bars can only fantasize.
If two homosexuals wish to engage in bad behavior behind closed doors, have at it. But don't expect sane people to approve, don't expect us to celebrate it, and don't expect decent people to rearrange the entire culture so you can feel good about yourself.
Finally, a word about the term "pride" as used by the deviants. It's indicative of a larger rot in the society. What there really should be is the word shame. We should be ashamed of bad behavior, our own and in the culture. Lots to be said in favor of shame. Among other things, it can lead to repentance, a worthy element of all of our lives.

Suggest removal:

23steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"It's none of my business what consenting adults want to do."
What is they lower the age of consent to 12? Is that OK too, so long as the 12 year old consents?

Suggest removal:

24steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Post of the Year!!!

Suggest removal:

25DACOUNTRYBOY(527 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

The sexual frenzy of the gays produces no offspring. The fact that they lure others into their world such as Jerry Sandusky's love for football and young boys keeps their way of life from dying out. The propaganda about being born that way has been worn thin. We should then with that excuse give thieves a free pass since they are hunter-gatherers with genetics from the past.

Suggest removal:

2676Ytown(1318 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

tnmartin - excellent post!

There is a spiritual battle going on for our lives and souls.

Suggest removal:

27cambridge(3334 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

It seems to me that the main difference between normal straight people and homophobes is that normal straight people don't spend any time thinking about gay sex, but with homophobes, it's all they think about. Makes you wonder.

Suggest removal:

28tnmartin(426 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

first, one truly doubts that concocted term of "homophobia" has any real meaning. "homodisgustia" might be closer to reality, most people recoil in disgust from accurate accounts of the detailed specific actions of homosexual sodomites. With good reason. Few people would locate their intimate activities in a toxic waste pipe. Your mileage may vary.
Second, the "studies" being cited are, to be polite, highly questionable. You can do a lot in conducting a survey to skew the results in a desired direction just be the simple means of carefully contrived wording of questions, and also by pre-selecting your survey population. Some may recall, as one example, the Kinsey report of past years. It was used to justify all manner of bad behaviors on the specious grounds, as here, that "everyone is doing it". Turned out that some of the populations were definitely not representative of the population at large: they were taken in prisons. Well, one of the real issues that should shame us all is the widespread awareness of, and de facto acceptance of, homosexual rape in prisons. there is much that can and should be said on that matter, but it does not represent the practices and preferences of the majority of the population.
now, have some percentage of people engaged at one time or another in bad actions? No doubt. We've all seen people get intoxicated and do things that they probably would not have done while sober. (another reason to avoid such intoxicants, but that's a separate issue). Ask any cops that you might know about some of the things they've observed, without names. Might be astonished. I've done stupid things too, though not this particular behavior. That's a very long way from asserting that this is somehow a legitimate preference.
Finally, some of us remember our mothers' words: "if everyone else jumped off a cliff, does that mean you have to as well?". I realize that it's not popular to say so, but morality, the definitions of right and wrong, are not up for a vote. You don't have to like that, any more than you have to like the value of the gravitational constant. But it is what it is. Ignoring that standard brings nothing but heartache. I have reason to know.

Suggest removal:

29eevo(51 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Someone wake me up when Tn is done babbling.

Suggest removal:

30steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"homodisgustia" just about sums it up.

Suggest removal:

31cambridge(3334 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

pleated....I totally believe what you are saying about the homophobes being into gay porn. Just read the posts on this site, it's the same people over and over again who are obsessed with gay sex and sex with animals. It's all they talk about when the subject of gays comes up.

I have no problem with gays getting married and the thought of gay sex never enters my mind. Ever since gays have been allowed to marry there has been absolutely no affect on my life, nothing. No one should ever be discriminated against. It's pretty obvious that the people that hate gays but are so focused on gay sex and sex with animals have some serious issues. Maybe if they go to texas they can be cured.

Suggest removal:

32steivo(540 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

My experience is that anytime someone starts talking about penile erection, nearly everytime it is a female who has a degree in Liberal Arts like Sociology or Psychology and is woefully underemployed and almost always is unmarried. They use that psycho-babble to cover for their own shortcomings.

Suggest removal:

33LtMacGowan(689 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

you do realize that everyone of us here were originally female? at approximately 9-11 weeks in the womb a fetus with the XY genes will develop as a man through testosterone, but its too big to cross the blood brain barrier on its own so it uses a form of estrogen. Its in this process that so many things can go wrong, Intersex, Hermaphroditism, lack of any sexual organ development at all. This is still Psychology's best idea as to where homosexuality, and gender identity disorder originate.

Suggest removal:

34dontbeafool(1391 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

These homophobes realize that they are they are just thiiiiis close to catching the gay virus. That is why they are so fearful of gays. It is like a person who is dieting having a piece of pie placed in front of them. They are fearful of it because they know that they are going to give in to it, if it is right in front of their face.

Suggest removal:

35kurtw(1312 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@tnmartin- "homodisgustia". Good phrase- about sums it up. Of course, I know some heteros who prefer anal sex too. One guy I know said he won't fraternize with any woman unless she agrees to have anal sex with him. My thought, at the time, was, I hope he gives her an enema first. It IS disgusting- the thought of having sex with a sewer pipe.

Good comments, TN. I'm glad you're using an alias, otherwise you might find yourself in need of a new picture window tomorrow. "Gay" activists can be anything but gay- downright vicious. (We shouldn't forget that a high percentage of the Nazi Leadership in the SA and SS were gay- some of the most violent and bloodthirsty men in history. The idea of changing our definition of marriage to include them is ludicrous.)

Suggest removal:

36hugenpb(1 comment)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"I ask again, is there even one judge in this, our beloved country, who will stand up for God and his law?"

I think you're asking the wrong question. As a Christian I cannot help but to understand your moral question although it is OT based; but as an individual I cannot help to wonder why you support a political figure dictating personal behavior.

The correct question is: "Do I want a another person to determine that an activity I engage in is now unacceptable? Do I want the government to tell me what I cannot do if it harms no other person?"

I say no. Unless your actions impose undue harm to threat to another, they are not the duty of government to impose as a restriction. Gay marriage, as an example, does no harm to you.

Paul Hugenberg
Libertarian Party of Ohio
Central Committee Member
District 13

Suggest removal:

37thirtyninedollars(508 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Don Johnson is absolutely correct. The liberty residents were stonewalled and blackmailed into passing the levy. Or else the road dept wasn't going to patch any roads. They proved that by going out the next day and patching holes in the RAIN!! Those patches will last real long..

Moral agenda has no place in law. What one considers moral another may consider immoral. The writers of our constitution were god fearing men, yet they were wise enough to keep religion out of the government. Which is what the "moral agenda" people want. Are we not a country of diverse people? Than why push one religons moral agenda? How are we any different than this new caliphate in the middle east by pushing the moral agenda? I'm not saying I'm a fan of the idea myself but people have rights without religious doctrine they don't follow impeding on their freedom of choice.

Suggest removal:

38tnmartin(426 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

moral agenda is the basis of basic law. That leaves out parking regs, but the path from "thou shalt not do murder" to laws against murder is pretty straightforward. Ditto those against theft and others.The path from some Old Testament strictures regarding weights and measures are reflected in Bureau of Standards rules today.
Freedom of choice does not entitle you to make marks on paper and call them $50 bills. Anybody have any arguments on these, or would some prefer that they define a pound however they wish? I think that's an outgrowth of moral agenda against lying. Or shall we permit perjury, since that's an outgrowth of moral agenda?
Words have meaning. Societies come to consenus on the meanings of those words. "Arsenic" means something. "Candy" means something else. And "marriage" means a formal union of one man and one woman. If you wish to invent a new word to mean the affiliation of two or more homosexuals in an arrangement that lasts as long as is convenient, have at it. That by no means is license to debase the plain meaning of another word. Having temper tantrums and pouting when 98% of the society dos not engage in, nor wish to, bad behavior, makes the pouters look like self absorbed spoiled brats. Which may be part of the root cause.
While we're at it, a clear eye and plain words regarding the details of sodomy isn't "hate". It's reality. Evidently the truth hurts.

Suggest removal:

39stievo(17 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@tnmartin, you are absolutely correct that morality is the basis for our laws. Another great post!!! For example, the Afrdable Care Act is a law which does the morally correct thing, which is provide health care for the poor and those in need. Have the rich pay a little more to help out the poor and less fortunate. Matthew 19:24. I admire your unselfishness and good morals.

Suggest removal:

40arteesto2(3 comments)posted 1 year ago

In the garden of Eden, God created Adam. From Adam, he created Eve. That was it. Their duty was to make children and begin POPULATING the world that he created. He did not create another male for Adam or another female for Eve....ENOUGH SAID?!

Suggest removal:

41IslandMike(757 comments)posted 1 year ago

After having read both articles above by Ms. Marsh and Mr. Johnson and hearing both of them whining and crying about how unfair the world is treating them, I realize that I'm fortunate not to be so crazy to let everything in the world bother me.

I recently heard that two men on the Liberty Township Road Department used their 4 percent raise to marry each other. There names are Adam & Steve, just like in the Bible!!!

Suggest removal:

42kurtw(1312 comments)posted 1 year ago

re: JS "To just say no to the gay way is now considered hate speech!" Good Point! The biggest "corruption" we now face is the corruption of language by the Left- not just in this but in every other area: race relations - criticize a Black and you're a "racist"; call for Border Security to stop wetbacks and you're "anti-immigration"; ask for a strong national defense and you're a "militarist"; say you like a big juicy hamburger and you rile the PETA crowd; call for an expanding economy- to provide jobs for the layabouts on Uncle Sam's Big Plantation (which, of course, they won't accept)- and you're a Polluter who want's to wreck the environment - the List is Endless- whatever the Left want's to do is Holy and Sacred- Untouchable- and if you criticize their Agenda you get attacked.

It seems to me that calling a Male Homosexual a Sodomite is just Plain Speech describing their behavior- a lot more accurate than "Gay"- but, then again, these are the same people who refuse to call a Terrorist a terrorist- a description of what they do- preferring the wish-washy (and inaccurate) "Militarist" instead. Every part of language touched by Lefties gets corrupted.

P.S. I like to collect books and I look for old ones in flea markets. Recently I came across a volume by the New York actress Cornelia Otis Skinner (long dead) published in 1942 and describing a trip to Europe she and a girlfriend made in the twenties when they were both in their late teens. (A great read). The Title of that Book: "When our Hearts were Young and Gay". Gay! Remember what that word Used to mean- "happy" "lighthearted", etc- before it was corrupted by the Left to describe Homosexuals.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes