These establishment Republicans have requested that social conservatives remain silent so they can gain or maintain power to deal with jobs, the economy and excess government spending. But recent research has found that Tea Party and other conservative supporters and voters for Republican candidates, are largely social conservatives that are also Pro-Life, Pro-Traditional Marriage, Pro-Family and anti-homosexual agenda.

Many of these Republican supporters see our fiscal difficulties as a moral issue rooted deep in their social conservative, religious and moral, right versus wrong foundational beliefs. Elected officials selling taxpayer favors to the highest bidders is a moral issue. Overspending and incurring insurmountable debt that destroys our prosperity and passes this burden to our children is clearly a moral issue.

The Crony Capitalism that goes on between government and powerful business and financial interests provides monopolistic and anti-competitive advantages in return for campaign and other direct or indirect support. These powerful interests have been propped up by corrupt government officials, and these interests and their political cronies are greatly enriched at the expense of the taxpayer and their homes, small businesses, and the American economy. Without question, this is also seen as a major moral flaw.

Tea Party and other conservatives, that have in recent times supported Republicans, may have been less vocal and demanding on social issues over the past few years. But Republicans who presume that these supporters are unattached to social conservative issues and that these issues can be deferred indefinitely, do so at their own risk.

If these Tea Party and many other conservative Republican supporters have truly given their efforts and votes to these candidates to restore honor and morality in government, not solely to fix money problems, any demand for social conservatives to sit down and shut up, if obeyed, would be disastrous for Republicans.

The Tea Party and other social conservatives are not an obstacle to Republican successes that needs to be beaten back to allow Republicanism to flourish, they are the very substance of Republican victories. As we have relearned recently, politicians that disrespect their constituents, their voters and supporters, often suffer dramatically shortened political life-expectancies. For more information on the Tea Party and social conservative issues, go to the following link:

http://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-tea-party-ducking-social.html

Where contracts are to be made with private companies to perform any such funded project, the contract is properly put to competitive bid, and the bid with the highest cost-to-benefit value wins the contract.  This process is wholly transparent, is subject to public scrutiny and serves to involve rank-and-file congressional members in the process of deciding how much will be spent on which projects.

Earmarks (Em) are a perversion of the constitutional provisions for funding government.  Earmarks are requests by individual congresspersons to congressional leadership that portions of the year’s total appropriated money be directed to specific entities for specific projects, bypassing the open bidding process.  While the constitutional appropriations process is based on merit and cost-benefit value, Em are not merit-based, but based on seniority, state or locality, congressional district, committee assignments, party power, political connections, and perceived need for reelection campaign support

These earmark requests are often funding projects, companies, universities, organizations and individuals that are located in the congressperson’s district (bringing home the bacon), or benefit those that provide generous campaign contributions for the congressperson’s reelection and preservation in office, whether or not these entities are located in the particular district.

Proponents of congressional earmarks argue that it is the only way for Congress to specify how the allocated dollars will be spent each year, that earmarks allow Congress to fund local projects and industry, providing jobs in their districts, and that earmarks only provide for congressional dollar allocation while not increasing total spending levels.

Ems are made anonymously without public hearing, transparency or accountability, are granted by congressional leadership on a seniority/majority/party/political connections basis, are placed inside other bills at the discretion of the leadership, are not vetted, debated or voted on for their merits, and the congressperson who submits the earmark request is obligated to vote for whatever bill the leadership attaches the Em to, even if that bill entails bloated budgets or wasteful spending.  In this manner, congressional leadership, controlling the very structure of Congress and every step in the process of passing bills, exerts an undue dominant influence on what Congress does each year.  This Em interplay between leadership and rank-and-file members, serves to continually raise levels of government spending.

As explained above, the Constitution provides an open process for funding government activities including specific projects or programs desired by Congress; the Em process is not required for Congress to exercise its prerogative of designating how taxpayer funds will be spent.  In the self-serving rush to assure each congressperson’s share of the federal pie, and to assure that the executive branch doesn’t get to spend all the money by itself, the option of not spending all the appropriated, hard-earned taxpayer money is rarely considered.

Ems to fund projects in the congressperson’s district (to garner local support for reelection) or to specific entities in exchange for campaign contributions are a corrupt mechanism to promote an individual congressperson’s interests over the interests of the American people.  Bypassing the open bid process leads to government paying more than the actual value and getting lesser quality of the service or product provided, and fosters corruption behind closed doors.

The fact that earmarks are granted by congressional leadership at their discretion allows leadership to carry out their top-down agenda and control rank-and-file members, often at odds with fiscal responsibility and the goals of the people and their representatives.  Leadership, seeking support for unpopular legislation, will insert many Ems into such a bill, guaranteeing the votes of those who requested the Ems, even where the individual representative may be opposed to the bill in question because of its excessive spending or other significant objections.

Government agencies estimate the direct cost of Ems at less than 2% of federal spending, and many have suggested that due to the relatively small amount of money spent on Ems, the practice should not be condemned.  However, indirect and hidden costs are considerably greater and are truly significant.  When major appropriations bills go through Congress, lawmakers pad each bill with excess dollars in anticipation of taking Ems further on down the line.  Data showing a direct correlation between the annual costs of Ems with total annual federal spending suggests that the practice of earmarking contributes significantly to excessive government spending.

Many Ems are simply add-on expenses to bills that, without question, directly increase total spending.  In other instances, involving only redirection of previously appropriated funds, projects unvetted for merit are funded by defunding other programs that had been justified on a merit basis.  With the Em redirection of funding away from merit-based programs, a greater portion of taxpayer dollars is spent on non-meritorious and often frivolous and wasteful projects.

Many Ems are not even included in a bill, but in the conference reports on the bill.  In this case, the Ems are given the full effect of U.S. law, despite the fact that they are not an actual part of the bill that was given public hearing, debated and voted on by Congress, and signed into law by the President.  A convincing argument can be made that such Ems are illegal and unconstitutional and should be publically declared as such.

The entire system of congressional rules and structure greatly favors leadership agendas, which are often contrary to fiscal discipline and the best interests of the American people.  Eliminating Ems would greatly diminish leadership power and influence; a bitter battle is likely to ensue with Washington powerbrokers desperately resisting any reduction in their influence and power despite this being a necessary component of government reform to further the interests of the American people.

The Heritage Foundation and others have called for complete elimination of Ems and total reform of the majority/seniority system congressional rules and structure with the goal of real power-sharing with rank-and-file members, full disclosure of interested party/lobbyist/lawmaker relationships, and full reporting of campaign or favored cause support by those making and receiving contributions.

Other sound proposals for government reform include the institution of term limits, moving congressional members and their retirement funds into Social Security, moving congressional members from congressional health plans to those that are available to the public, eliminating members voting on their own salary increases, and assuring that lawmakers are subject to every law they pass.  The prime motivating factor for lawmakers must be the best interests of their constituents and the American people, not what’s best for self or party.

This election, many are Independents who identify with the Tea Party and plan on voting for a Tea Party-backed Republican. How do they answer this question? Many others are Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, how do these individuals answer this question? And what about those few Democrats that identify with the Tea Party and plan on voting for Republicans?

What if you are affiliated with the Libertarian or Constitution Party, sympathize with the Tea Party and are voting for Republicans? Because conservatives are divided into several categories in these polls, the conservative vote, and ultimate support for Tea Party-backed Republican candidates is underreported. This means that the anticipated wave of Republicans elected to office will be more of a Tsunami.

Bibles printed in Afghan languages, sent by a stateside church to an American soldier stationed in Afghanistan for distribution to Afghans, were confiscated by the U.S. military and burned. Violently incensed Christian rioters around the world could not be found.

With the very real threat and actual commission of violent rioting and murder, muslims, along with their Obamacrat and lame stream media appeasers, are demanding that a U.S. citizen be barred from exercising a constitutional right to burn the Koran because of strong muslim sentiments.

At the same time, with the very real threat of violent rioting and murder, these same people are demanding that muslims be allowed to exercise their “right” to build a victory mosque at ground zero, trampling with total disregard the sentiments and broken hearts of the families and nation that have suffered since that dark day on 9/11.

What the new Democrats call Centrist Republicans are really the new Democrat Moderates. What Democrats call the Right is the new Center, and what Democrats call far-right extremists are the new Right of Center, in reality, mainstream Conservatives. Although Democrat terminology has shifted, the American Mainstream remains still Right of Center.

Far from being condemnation of Conservatives, current Democrat terminology is only further evidence that the Democrats are out of touch with the American people. I am hopeful that, despite past successes and current efforts to steal the Mid-Term Elections, the Democrats will receive due punishment at the polls.

Some claim that the American people have abandoned the Democrat Party. Many in the Republican Party complain that the people have abandoned it as well, especially former “Centrist Republicans”. The truth is, while America has remained steadfastly Right of Center, both Democrats and Republicans in large numbers have abandoned the American people.

The ABC article ignorantly or intentionally missed the point. Americans are confused about Obama’s religious underpinnings precisely because they cannot accept the word of our President as fact. On too many occasions, Obama has bald-faced lied to the American public for political gain, and what he says can no longer be believed. While the confusion about his religious beliefs is of Obama’s own making, the fact that the President can neither be believed nor trusted is perhaps the greater sin.

The depth or breadth of stated presidential religious belief is not customarily a topic of civil conversation. However, the extent to which a president subscribes to American, Judeo-Christian values and principles, and how that influences government, is of import to the public. While the truth of Obama’s religion is hidden deep within his heart, clues to how his presidential actions are influenced by his religion are apparent in his behavior, and his behavior as President has a direct effect on the daily lives of the American people.

Evidence exists that he does not hold strong Christian beliefs in that he canceled the National Day of Prayer, he actively promotes abortion and homosexuality, and he favors censorship of Christian speech. The fact that he has abused the traditionally close relationship between the U.S. and Israel indicates that he is anti-Jewish. His 20+ years of support for Reverend Wright, speaks to his belief in Black Liberation Theology with its associated anti-American and racist sentiment.

When it comes to Islam, Obama identifies with the Muslim culture and belief system because of his background and he consistently makes unwarranted concessions to Muslim nations and causes. He has initiated a campaign through NASA to work to establish good-will especially with these particular nations and he refuses to identify and name the enemy in the War on Terror as Islamic Jihadist Extremists.

Obama wants to give these Islamic terrorists, who brought about the murders and destruction of 9/11 and beyond, a World Stage to air their grievances against America in open court. He sides with Islamic Extremists in building their mosque and command and control jihad and shariah center at 9/11 Ground Zero, where the feet of the victorious Muslims will tread on “the bones and ashes” of the murdered 9/11 victims, well-known as a supreme insult in Muslim culture.

To all outward appearances, Obama seems to identify most with Islam, if only on a cultural basis. But Obama has the uncanny ability to morph into any persona he chooses, as the circumstances demand. This ability, and a great deal of behavioral evidence, confirms the impression that he truly has no foundation in any real religious belief. Without moorings in the American, Judeo-Christian value system, President Obama sees no restrictions on government domination of the human spirit. The truth of Obama’s faith will continue to remain hidden, deep within his heart, and perhaps rightly so. But his lack of a solid grounding in American values, coupled with his position as the most powerful leader on earth, threatens the very foundations of our liberty.

Reference:  Sawyer D. The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama Was “Born a Muslim”: Comments Come as Poll Shows One in Five Americans Wrongly Believes Obama is Muslim. ABC World News with Diane Sawyer, August 20, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/2dlgmsx

Even the potential for amnesty rewards lawlessness, penalizes legal immigrants &  lawful citizens, leads to a dramatic increase in illegal alien immigration, contributes to the deterioration of American sovereignty, culture & language, undermines our socio-economic stability & growth, and promotes unchecked, single-party dominance, destabilizing our two-party political system. No Amnesty should be offered and no illegal aliens should ever be allowed to vote.

One of the key components of the current illegal immigration crisis is “birthright citizenship”, based on misinterpretation of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, where it says:

__________________________________________________________________

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

__________________________________________________________________

Based on this “Citizenship Clause”, even children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are currently considered citizens. This definition of birthright citizenship has led to the practice of foreign women crossing the border into the country illegally, for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child in an American hospital, so that baby would be a citizen of the U.S. and serve as an “anchor baby”, facilitating the legal immigration of the entire extended family. Recent reports have found that, while illegal aliens comprise only 4% of the U.S. population, they account for more than 8% of babies born in the United States.¹

Considering this rate of birth of anchor babies, the subsequent family members that will immigrate based on these births, and the current and projected rates of illegal immigration, the sheer numbers of illegal aliens constantly breeching our borders are overwhelming. There is a huge toll to be paid for this; the cost to American taxpayers and culture vastly outweighs any benefit from work done and taxes paid by illegals.^2,3,4 Illegal aliens must not receive welfare, medical coverage, Social Security, or any other services at the expense of taxpayers, as this costs the public millions of local and federal dollars, and voraciously consumes local and national resources.

This clause of the 14^th Amendment was intended to assure citizenship to the children of African-American, former slaves, in anticipation of Southern challenges to black citizenship rights. Many have the erroneous belief that birthright citizenship applies to all children born on U.S. soil. In fact, children of foreign diplomats born in this country are not U.S. citizens.⁵ Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. U.S. Senator Jacob M. Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment “Citizenship Clause”. During debate over this clause, Senator Howard confirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign or alien parents were not birthright citizens. This was recorded in the Congressional Record of the time:

__________________________________________________________________

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”⁶

__________________________________________________________________

To fix the anchor baby portion of the illegal immigration crisis, it is not necessary to repeal the 14^th Amendment, as some have proposed. Rather, congressional legislation could reaffirm the original intent of the “Citizenship Clause” and all children subsequently born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers would no longer be birthright citizens or serve as anchor babies.⁷

Immigration law mirroring federal statute was passed in Arizona in 2010, in response to a virtual invasion of illegals, with thousands of people crossing the border from Mexico each day. Other States have also noted an influx of illegals and are planning similar legislation. State immigration laws like Arizona’s are necessary when the government fails to uphold, and continues to delay, fulfilling federal obligations to provide border security and protection from violent illegals and foreign drug cartels.^{8, 9} While Arizona went to great lengths to assure there would be no racial profiling and the law would meet constitutional muster, many, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, criticized the Arizona law as racist and unconstitutional, before admitting they had not yet read the law.

In fact, President Obama indicated to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona that he is holding border security hostage until he gets the necessary political cooperation to pass Amnesty law.¹⁰ In addition, rather than provide assistance to this embattled State, the Obama Administration, acting through the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, filed against the State of Arizona in federal court and was granted a stay of several key portions of the law. The injunction was reported to have been issued based on the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause”, where, if there is overlap, federal statutes supersede those of the States. This temporarily halted meaningful implementation of the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070, pending appeal.¹¹

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate “naturalization”, which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate “immigration”, the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws.

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution clearly gives Arizona the right to wage a defensive “war” based on the imminent danger of the illegal immigrant invasion of Arizona and President Obama’s persistent delay in providing assistance:

__________________________________________________________________

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

__________________________________________________________________

Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution organizes the judicial system, and determines that where a legal action involves a State, the Supreme Court is the only court where such actions can be tried:

__________________________________________________________________

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

__________________________________________________________________

Having filed an invalid action in federal court and obtained an invalid ruling from a federal judge in regard to the State of Arizona, Mr. Holder finds himself in another awkward situation. Any action the federal government wants to take against Arizona, must be correctly tried only by the Supreme Court. Whether the federal or State government, in the end, takes responsibility for the border, it is essential that it be secured without delay. The imperative of border security is a key part of National Security and is heightened by the ease with which known terrorists can illegally traverse the border without detection, to infiltrate American society with murderous intent.

Some have proposed, as a solution to our illegal immigration crisis, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, which is Washington-speak for Amnesty. However, we have seen that Amnesty is no solution and would only worsen the problem. The key to a real solution is strengthening and enforcing current immigration law. If proper enforcement prevents U.S. employers from hiring illegal aliens, these jobs will “dry up” and illegal aliens, most of who came here to work, will pack up and go home without further incentive.

Those choosing to commit the crime of illegal immigration understand that family separation is an integral part of this choice. However, families should not be torn apart, if at all avoidable. Rather, as unemployed illegal aliens repatriate themselves, they are encouraged to keep their families intact by taking them along with. If some industries truly need foreign laborers, programs can be expanded, & workers can apply for temporary, guest-worker status from their home country. Consideration should also be given to the legal immigration and naturalization of more highly-educated and skilled workers, if demand exists.

References

1.  Jordan M. Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births. The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News, August 12, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/2cmgbp2

2.  Wagner PF, Amato D. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Facts, Figures and Statistics on Illegal Immigration. http://tinyurl.com/ybtwl8s

3.  McNeill JB. Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal Immigration Problem. May 18, 2009, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/25nyobo

4.  Smith L. Immigration: Many Questions, A Few Answers. October 3, 2007, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/2gyz7rj

5.  Gordon R. The Diane Rehm Show: The Debate Over Immigration and Birthright Citizenship. Case Western Reserve University School of Law News. http://law.case.edu/Home/News.aspx?id=807&content_id=57

6.  Howard JM. The Congressional Globe, 39^th Congress, Senate, 1^st Session, May 30, 1866, p. 2890. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg.html

7.  Lee M. More Key Issues: Illegal Immigration. Mike Lee for U.S. Senate 2010. http://www.mikelee2010.com/

8.  Archibald RC, Cooper H, Hulse C. Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. April 23, 2010, New York Times. http://tinyurl.com/22q2h4b

9.  Brewer J. Arizona Border Security Information: Brewer Letter to President Barack Obama on Immigration. April 6, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer’s website. http://azgovernor.gov/AZBorderSecurity.asp

10. FOXNews.com. Kyl: Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package. June 21, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/358m6au

11. Markon J, McCrummen S, Shear MD. Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 – Judge Blocks Some Sections. July 29, 2010, The Washington Post. http://tinyurl.com/28ry299

On the other hand, President Obama has failed to provide any decisive leadership in this war. The World Apology Tour projected weakness, lack of resolve and a sense of American decline as a world leader. Bowing to and coddling of muslims, acts of appeasement towards muslim nations, disrespecting and making unreasonable demands of our closest allies, refusal to identify islamic extremist terrorists as the enemy and naming a date for American withdrawal from Afghanistan has puzzled Americans, confused and disheartened our allies (including the Afghans), and emboldened the enemy.

The Obama Administration has been either unwilling or unable to make a clear case for, or explicitly define our mission in this war to the American people or the world. Strategies of gradual buildup of limited forces, failure to provide the “overwhelming force” needed for victory, defensive posture with few major offensive actions, and placing “winning the hearts and minds of the people” over victory by tying the hands of our military with onerous rules of engagement have failed dramatically. Lack of a constructive relationship between civilian and military leadership has hopelessly stalled progress, and there is no apparent resolution in site. Obama’s justification for continuing this war seems to be “because we are there”. Many of the factors involved in our current march to failure in Afghanistan, parallel those leading to the quagmire and eventual defeat of America in Vietnam.

For most Americans, the obvious imperative is that of securing Afghanistan from the occupation of an enemy we can face and deal with, being unabashed about calling out islamic extremist terrorists for what they are, and preventing them from abusing the country as a training and staging ground for international terrorism. However, Obama appears incapable of grasping such simple concepts and well-defined objectives, or of receiving and utilizing sound advice and guidance from the more experienced military leaders. If we are not willing to devote all our resources, with overwhelming force & winning strategies, with well-defined objectives, with the clear goal of victory, we should cut our losses and get out immediately. However, the United States should rather correct factors that are hurting us, and adopt winning strategies that will help us succeed.

The failed Obama leadership in the Afghan War has left the people no choice but to cast an extreme vote of “no confidence” for our Commander-In-Chief, who by his particular ineptness stands in the way of victory in Afghanistan. Obama has been tested in the fire and found wanting; he is clearly not up to the task. Many questions remain. Is there still time to turn things around, or are we too late and have no good option other than to withdraw immediately? Obama has a talent and proficiency in oratory that has been used more for evil than good; were he to use his gift to make a clear case for the war, define clear objectives, and eliminate his withdrawal date, there is a possibility that Americans and our allies might take faith in these actions and stand firm with us against the terrorists. If ever real change was needed, it is now, and Mr. Obama has a strong history of accomplishing change, although not always in the right direction. Will we make the necessary changes for winning, or will we descend into another Vietnam?

The traditional definition of marriage, that is, the union of one man and one woman, has existed for thousands of years. The traditional purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. The traditional family, made up of a father, a mother and children, is the unit building-block of society. Society has an interest in nurturing and preserving the traditional family, as a successful society depends upon the successful, propagating, traditional family. The best situation under which children grow and flourish (physically, socially, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually and sexually) is in the presence of an intact family, a traditional family with both a mother and a father.

In the best interests of children, and to preserve and enhance society, children must be raised in the traditional family. Because of these interests, laws have been passed to protect the traditional family, including marriage, guardianship of children, adoption and foster care laws, property and inheritance laws, and even divorce. Where in this diagram of society, you might ask, do homosexual couples have a place? The simple answer is that homosexual couples have no legitimate place in a successful society. In the best interests of children, homosexual couples should not be considered for adoptions or foster care.

Gay activists demand that society recognize, approve and accept homosexuality as a respected lifestyle. Steps being taken toward this ultimate goal include: counterfeit marriage with usurpation of the laws and rights granted to traditional marriage, adopting and raising children, and creation of “hate speech crimes”. When a pastor or priest teaches, from the Bible, that homosexuality is wrong and a sin, this is hate speech and it will be censored and the speaker punished. Homosexuals claim that they should enjoy the same “equal rights” as do “straights” or heterosexuals, including their private interpretation of the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution, believing that it permits them to have counterfeit marriage with all the rights, privileges and protections attendant to real marriage.

Heterosexuals have the right to traditional marriage with someone of the opposite sex, the right to have and raise children within a traditional family with all attendant benefits, leading to a stronger and more successful society. In rejecting counterfeit marriage, society in no way denies homosexuals the exact same “equal rights” that heterosexuals enjoy under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Homosexuals have the equal right to traditional marriage with someone of the opposite sex, and the right to have and raise children within a traditional family with all attendant benefits. All things being equal, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals have any “right” to counterfeit marriage.

Homosexuals and progressives claim that resistance to the Homosexual Agenda is due primarily to issues of morality, and that society opposes the homosexual lifestyle as intrinsically wrong, immoral and a sin before God. These people, insisting on an absolute separation of church and state, claim that no law should be influenced or founded upon the religious issues of morality or sin. However, in the real world, a great number of our laws are indeed based on religious views of morality.

There are laws against murder, stealing and lying, There are laws against pedophilia and against an adult marrying a child. There are laws against a brother and sister marrying, even if they are a loving couple. Bestiality, and marriage between a human and an animal, are also forbidden by law. All of these are laws based upon religious understandings of morality and sin, the violation of which damages society.

Is there anyone among us demanding that these laws be struck down simply because they are based on a biblical view of what is right and wrong? Laws denying homosexuals the alleged “right” to counterfeit marriage, do not violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution, and are likewise appropriately based on the religious view that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, immoral, and a sin, and damages the foundations of society.