Economically deprived, i.e. poverty is one of the main examples. Crime is another. Kids being raised in one-parent households is another. It's a continual cycle that is the result of the breakdown of the family unit.



I realize you believe that but that isn't the question. The question is, is there Constitutional support for gay marriage? The activist judges are using "Equal protection under the law" to justify allowing gays to be married to but it is, needless to say, quite a stretching and liberal interpretation. Much like "Right to privacy" was used to justify abortion. Gay people have the same rights as the rest of us - to enter into a marriage between one man and one woman. If they want to enter into a gay marriage, that is recognized and sanctioned by the government, that is an issue that should be left up to each individual state. Whether it directly infringes on the rights of straight people, although we've already seen that it does, is beside the point.



Once again, it doesn't matter if religion is the primary reason why people are against gay marriage. The federal government, under the Constitution, has no right to "step in" in this matter. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives it the right to usurp the state's rights in this issue. But you, and other gay marriage supporters, are all to happy to do that anyway and pretend that there is justification for it, even if it means ignoring the Constitution altogether. The Constitution means something or it doesn't. Liberals shouldn't have the luxury of misinterpreting it according to their own social whims which they then use activist judges to enforce.



That's just it, it isn't a matter of our personal definition. Or how we (or even the Supreme Court justices) choose to interpret it. The Constitution says what it says. If you really cared about freedom, you would be fine with leaving it up to the citizens of each state to decide for themselves. It's you and those like you who want to force your agenda on everybody, despite what the Constitution says, through the courts. Ironic, to say the least.



Matthew and John were two of the original 12 apostles and were eye-witnesses to what happened. Mark wrote his account based on the eye-witness of another original apostle - Peter. Of course Luke was a missionary companion of Paul later on. The argument secular people make about the gospels being written "years later" doesn't really hold water.



Well that's one thing we can agree on. But I would submit to you that a reason for that is because the scriptures need to be read - and can only be understood - through both reason (don't forget that comes from God too) and faith. Secular unbelievers throw faith out altogether, and because they do so, the scriptures will always be largely "closed" to them.