Delegate Bob Marshall sent out email today. He announced an Op-Ed posted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Friday, July 4, 2014.  Of course, that was a holiday, and almost nobody read the newspaper that day. I wonder if the paper decided to bury his Op-Ed.

What did Marshall have to say?

Bob Marshall: Elites betray will of the people on homosexual ‘marriage’

In February, a federal judge in Norfolk misused her position to force homosexual “marriage” on Virginia, which embraces traditional marriage in its constitution. She has done violence to children and also to government by the people.

Now, three more judges are also considering whether they know better than 1.3 million Virginia voters.

She asserts her decision was required by the 14th Amendment. But this amendment, a constitutional provision written in the blood of 600,000-plus Americans, had a wholly unrelated purpose. As Justice William O. Douglas explained succinctly, “The 14th Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship.”

The Equal Protection Clause had and has no bearing whatsoever on homosexual “marriage,” except in the vain imagination of activist judges. Congressional debates and documents show that no part of marriage or family law was altered by its passage. The same state legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment overwhelmingly also enacted laws criminalizing sodomy in their states. (continued here)

Not too long ago Marshall announced he had introduced two resolutions in the Virginia House of Delegates designed to begin the process of impeaching Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (here). Instead of enforcing the laws of Virginia, Herring is representing his own agenda.

Herring announced in January that he found the 2006 amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. He also decided to side with the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit aimed at overturning the law. (from here)

Speaker Bill Howell said he did not support Marshall’s resolutions.

Marshall’s latest inquiry is unlikely to find much support from House Republican leaders, who have repeatedly stated that impeachment is not an option.

“The Speaker has expressed his concerns regarding the Attorney General’s actions, but does not believe impeachment is an appropriate or practical recourse at the moment,” said Matt Moran, a spokesman for Howell.

“An impeachment process requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict,” Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said in March at a Clergy and Christian Leaders Summit in Richmond. (from here)

Unless we offer victory up to them upon a silver platter — unless we give them no other choice — Republican leaders will not fight. In fact, Republican leaders usually show more ferocity to those who would fight to defend our nation’s traditions and republican form of government. Therefore, even though the majority of the people still support traditional marriage, in state after state such weak men and women have stood by as devious judges have overthrown traditional marriage.

James 4:17 New King James Version (NKJV)

17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

These judges tell us the Law says what it clearly does not. These judges calmly explain that what is good is evil and what is evil is good. With outright lies, these judges have foisted same-sex “marriage” upon us as a “right.” In fact, they insist that to believe otherwise is the worst sort of bigotry.

Such judges — and the men and women who chose them — will have Hell to pay.

Isaiah 5:20 New King James Version (NKJV)

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Of course, there is plenty of blame to go around. We each must consider who we voted for, and we must ask ourselves why.

May our Lord have mercy on us all.


  1. Tom- go back and read what I said. Slowly. Out loud if it helps. Drag your finger along the words. Make a little diagram. You are truly confusing yourself.

    I am not advocating anything other than clear thinking. I am certainly not advocating recreational sex or sodomy. I have said (I think this is the third time) that when one considers the current debate over same sex marriage, one has to be aware that we are not talking about religious marriages, we are talking about state marriages. The two institutions are, in my mind, completely different, one belonging to the temporal world, the other to the spiritual.

    Not all heterosexual marriages are about raising children. I know a number of childless couples, some of them having elected to structure their relationship that way and who are quite happy for having done so, some of whom married after child-bearing years. Not all marriages are mere licenses to have sex. Some men and women marry late in life as helpmates to one another. Prohibitions against abuse of children apply regardless of the underlying marital circumstances of the perpetrators.

    I am not against stable marriages (although unstable marriages do not seem to be particularly a unique attribute of same sex marriages – I have seen quite a few heterosexual unions, religious and civil that seem wildly unstable). Why would you even suggest that? I have said that my concern is only religious marriages, and I do not see them impacted in any way by the constitutional disposition of what the state does with its marriages. I have no reason to believe a civil marriage (same sex or otherwise) cannot be “stable”. Stability in these relationships has a lot to do with the people involved, not whether they are child bearers.


  2. Judges who have looked at this have not said that same sex marriage is a “right”, Tom. They have said that under the Constitution, the state cannot dispense favored status on some citizens and not others (that’s generalizing, but that’s the nub of it). I’ve offered no “rules” about same-sex marriage (you are either one of the most reading comprehension-challenged persons I have ever encountered, or you are constantly confusing me with other people, or you just make things up), I have simply said that civil marriages are different than religious marriages.

    I don’t think I have advocated that people of faith should not put their trust in God (again, you are either confused, can’t read well, or are just creating straw men and attributing them to me). I advocate trusting God in things spiritual and living under the Constitution in things temporal in the United States.

    I have not endorsed any kind of sexual activity, hetero or homo, outside of marriage, although both kinds of surrender to temptation are rumored to have occurred more than occasionally over history. The issue of the religious status of homosexuality is not at issue here.


    1. Even to state that same-sex marriage exists is a rule change — or a lie. Take your pick.

      Marriage exists to protect the rights of children and the rights of parents to raise their children. Same-sex relationships don’t produce anything except the spread of disease and emotional turmoil.

      Do I seem harsh? Well, I intend to be blunt. What you are advocating is evil. Sodomy is just plain dangerous. Recreational sex does not produce joy; it produces innumerable problems. Go read 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. Think about it.

      When two people of the opposite sex form a marriage union, because children are involve, government has good reason to be involved. Moreover, a union of a man and a woman makes biological sense. The need for a stable marriage union is so obvious I do not have to explain it. “Marriage” between two people of the same sex is just stupid. Nevertheless, as you first suggested, it is in the nature of man to do things he should not do, stupid things.


  3. I don’t agree that “every society forms its government based upon what it believes about the nature of God.” There have been a lot of governments formed, particularly in the last couple of hundred years that are based much more on what the founders, be they representative of the population or a small group imposing its will on the population, believe about the nature of Man, not the nature of God. Our country certainly reflects much more of a wariness about the nature of Man, than any other single factor. Modern political conservatism (at least the serious kind, not the cartoon versions so popular today) is very much rooted in a general suspicion about the nature of man, particularly in political groupings.

    The American approach to same sex marriage is very much rooted in the constitutional requirements of equal protection and governmental neutrality on religious issues. It actually works rather well – the state can’t dispense favors and privileged statuses (stati?) on groups based on governmental religious preferences, and the state can’t force churches to accept same sex marriages. The religious field remains the domain of theology and religion, state activities remain subject to constitutional protections. No civil same-sex marriage has any negative impact on any religious male-female marriage. They exist in separate realms.

    I appreciate that this issue gets a bit heated, but it is very important to be precise that religious and civil marriages are two quite different things, and that when we talk about constitutional issues relating to marriage, we are talking about the civil, not the religious side.


    1. I have to wonder how you can miss the irony in your own argument. You say that recent history shows that some governments form based upon what their founders believe about the nature of Man, not the nature of God. You argue our government reflects much more wariness and suspicion about the nature of man. Where do you think this wariness and suspicion comes from in practice? Doesn’t Christianity speak of our need for redemption because we are fallen? And if we are fallen and so easy tempted to do wrong — abuse each other — does it not make sense to establish our government based upon the principles God has given us in the Bible? And yet with silly sophistry you would have us arbitrarily establish our own moral principles and set what God has given us aside.

      So I ask you: from where have you derived all your fine rules for same-sex “marriage.” If not religion, where? Tradition? How old? Law? From judges? To prove same-sex “marriage” is a “right,” don’t these judges have to tell outright lies?

      But lies are like that tree falling in the forest. We can pretend we did not hear it fall. We can ignore the fact we saw it fall. And if we did not hear it fall or see it fall, even if that tree is lying upon the ground, rotting before us, we need not believe that it fell. Right?

      Therefore, I must agree with part of what you said. Wherever man is concerned, we must be wary and suspicious. I just think your “solution” is a nonstarter. Instead of having us place our trust in God, you would have us place our trust in men in black robes selected by politicians.

      Trust, but verify. — Russian proverb often attributed to President Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify)

      How do we verify whether something is right or wrong? Christians pray and read their Bibles, and the Bible says the practice of homosexuality is sin.


  4. You’ve said things like that before, but marriage is not an institution confined to child-bearing couples, and children are entitled to protection of the law against abuse by anyone, independent of the abuser’s marital status. Civil marriage does not detract from the right of any married couple, religious or civil, to raise children.

    My point is that one has to recognize that civil and religious marriages are quite different institutions, and have different consequences. In most jurisdictions the two can be combined into one ceremony and, when religious, the priest is deputized by the state to finalize the civil ceremony. In some places inEurope, for example, the two are different ceremonies, the civil side mandatory, the religious component elective for those who choose it.

    For some reason, I don’t feel the slightest shame or in the least bit stupid. I don’t think I have said anything that is factually incorrect and have certainly said nothing against either civil or religious marriage, the latter state being one of which I am a strong advocate. But, frankly, I really don’t care much what the state does with its marriages unless it intrudes on my religious beliefs.


    1. So you are shameless? You are certainly factually incorrect.

      Every society forms its government based upon what it believes about the nature of God. Hence how the government defines marriage is a reflection of how the People believe God would have them define marriage.

      Through nature and through the Bible God has defined marriage. Marriage is what it is. We can make the institution work by doing what is right and proper, or we can harm each other (see 1 Corinthians 6:12-20).

      Because it is so damaging, government has no legitimate interest in same-sex “marriage.” However, just as some profit from prostitution, the sale of hard liquor, gambling, and narcotics; some can profit off of homosexuality.

      What is happening in this country? Too many define “success” as wealth and fame. Too many don’t care how they achieve wealth and fame so long as they have “success.” So it is that our elites no longer share the religious values of the people. Hence, in their arrogance they would define marriage according to their own corrupted morals and use the government to force their values upon society — for our own good, of course. As if they cared.


  5. The word may be the same, but the institution it describes is very different. The state licenses these arrangements and gives them certain legal status. The religious rites are sacred vows between a man and a woman, often, but not always, of child-bearing age. The state is bound by the Constitution to dispense legal status even-handedly, and we all think that that is a good thing (I assume). Religions keep their own counsel on who should be able to avail themselves of the rites of churches and temples in unions before God. The semantics are similar, the underlying content quite different.


    1. Our government exists to protect our rights. Marriage exists to protect the rights of children and the rights of parents to raise their children. When people attempt to use government endorse sexual perversion, they pervert the government.

      And you should be ashamed for spouting such stupid sophistry.


  6. “Traditional marriage” is alive and well, Tom. The litigation Marshall is referring to is only civil marriage under state auspices, not the religious status of marriage. And, of course he is right that the motivating factor for the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect newly freed slaves from state governmental quasi-re-enslavement through the imposition of differential legal burdens. But it was broadly worded to embrace “equal protection of the laws” and the “privileges and immunities” of US citizens. So it pretty much covers, ex proprio vigore, virtually any legal status that a state might bestow. You have to adhere to the language of the document.

    As long as religious institutions are not harassed by the government to abandon their scruples re marriage, I think we can be reasonably sure that civil status constitutional requirements have no impacts on the practices of people of faith. If a sufficient number of citizens have a problem with the disposition of these civil marriage cases, the Constitution can be amended.


    1. “Traditional marriage” is alive and well.

      When the rulers of a society insist upon defining as marriage the union of two people of the same sex, that statement is blatantly absurd. It is not even worthy of discussion.


  7. Well said – well spoken truth. We, The People, need to keep replacing the Rs in the GA until they do their duty. We, The People, need to keep replacing the Rs from VA in Congress until they do things like impeach that Fed Judge over-ruling the Constitution of Virginia.


Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

The Wesleyan Tribe

A lifelong United Methodist Speaking Into The Chaos Of Today

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

Christian Insight Through Gods Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom


Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: