Same-Sex Marriage: Stealing Rights from God - Christian Research Institute

This pretty much sums up his entire piece, ",,,human rights cannot exist unless God exists. Without God, everything is simply a matter of personal preference." You would think that after 2000+ years they would come up with something a bit more original; same shit-different day.

A right is something that a person has even if the majority of people disagree with it. In other words, rights are not based on human opinion but on an unchangeable authoritative standard beyond human opinion. That’s why human rights cannot exist unless God exists. Without God, everything is simply a matter of personal preference.

Some say, “Our laws are the basis for rights!” No, they are not. Human laws can only recognize God-given rights—they are not their ultimate justification. To claim otherwise would be to admit that your “rights” would vanish if a majority of humans or a dictator changed the law. No advocate of same-sex marriage would agree with that. In fact, those advocates are arguing that in states where the majority is against same-sex marriage, they still have a right to it. They are correct if same-sex marriage is actually a right. But since when does God consider same-sex marriage a right?

Forget about the “separation of church and state” objection. It doesn’t apply here. We are not establishing a religion through our laws. But we are protecting moral rights through our laws, which is what good laws are supposed to do (all laws legislate a moral position). Our founders didn’t demand adherence to any particular religious denomination, but they recognized that our moral rights come from the Creator and founded the country on “Nature’s Law” consistent with Christianity. Nature’s Law (which Jefferson said is “self-evident”) says that the natural design of the human body and the natural procreative abilities of the man and the woman serve to perpetuate and stabilize society, which same- sex behavior cannot achieve. Therefore, there is a right to “natural” marriage, but no right to same-sex marriage. That’s not bigotry, that’s biology.1

Homosexual activists say we’re wrong. But we can’t be “wrong” unless there is a real standard of “right” from which we deviate. So we should ask same-sex marriage advocates, “What’s your standard? Who said same-sex marriage is a ‘right’? You and your friends? That’s not a right. That’s an opinion. You’re calling it a right, but you’re stealing the grounding of rights from God and then misapplying it to your own personal preferences.” There is no grounding in the God of Nature’s Law for same-sex marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage: Stealing Rights from God - Christian Research Institute

Turek: States Should Defend The Institution Of Marriage Just Like The South Defended Slavery | Right Wing Watch

Turek was advocating for a governor to simply refuse to recognize or enforce any federal court ruling striking down their state's gay marriage ban, much like how Andrew Jackson refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling concerning relations with Native Americans. He predicted that if they were to do so, President Obama would then send out the National Guard to arrest them, at which point Christians would rally around the governor, resulting in all of them ending up in jail.

When hosts Tim Wildmon and Ed Vitagliano wondered just where they might find a governor courageous enough to take such a stand, Turek suggested that South Carolina would be a perfect choice because that state has a history of being willing to fight for states' rights, as demonstrated by the Civil War.

"It started in South Carolina with the Civil War as you know," Turek said, "for the same kind of issue: states' rights. Obviously the issue is different. I mean, slavery was different than obviously this. But, I mean, it was a states' rights issue"

So again we have a Reicher doling out a standard canard: that laws passed by referendum - by direct vote of the people - are somehow superior to laws adopted by ordinary statute and are therefore beyond judicial review. But hidden in Turek's diatribe is nullification, the theory advocating a state’s right to declare a federal law unconstitutional and therefore void. An issue decided on by the SCOTUS in Cooper v. Aaron that states do not have the right to refuse to enforce federal laws simply because they don’t like them. [See also: Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 364 U.S. 500 (1960), Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), and United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)]

What is boils down to,,,

1. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI - the Constitution and federal laws are "the supreme law of the land,,,"
2. Article III of the Constitution - the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution.

Sorry Frank, stick to the bile, there is no precedence and easier to twist to your own agenda.

Turek: States Should Defend The Institution Of Marriage Just Like The South Defended Slavery | Right Wing Watch