Op-ed:
Three Issues Soon to be Decided...Part 1 of 3
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media cprworldwidemedia.net

And so we wait.

Three important issues will be coming to a head within the next week, two will be decided by the Supreme Court, and one basically by the pen of our traitor-in-chief. In this 3-part series I will go into depth about each possible decision, starting today with how I believe the Supreme Court will rule on the legalities...and it is all about legalities...of 'same-sex marriage'.

The nine justices have been given the daunting task of ruling in regards to marriage rights specifically if prohibiting 'same-sex marriage' violates equal-protection guarantees. And if they follow the words of law, as in “...all men are created equal...” people better get used to NOT the reinterpretation of marriage in the biblical sense but the redefinition of what constitutes a marriage in the legal sense.

And this issue of 'same-sex marriage' has divided we Conservatives into two camps as a red-line of sorts has been drawn between we 'secular' Conservatives (Conservatives who believe as per Thomas Jefferson in 'separation of church and state') who have NO problem with 'same-sex marriage' and religious Conservatives who find 'same-sex marriage' an affront to the words of God. And know that first, the left will use that division to try and hurt us come November 2016 and second, some state legislators who will assuredly be unhappy with a pro 'same-sex 'marriage' ruling will work to find other ways to discourage same-sex couples from marrying, thus dividing us even more.

And with the media generated, focused, and fueled brouhaha over wedding cakes and pizza parlors now in full operational attack mode, many religious Conservatives have lost sight of the all-important fact that the SCOTUS decision on 'same-sex marriage' is in regards to whether the 14th Amendment requires all states to perform 'same-sex marriages', the power of the states to ban 'same-sex marriages', and/or to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state in their state.

So again, it is about legalities and legalities alone...as in benefits, protections, security, and responsibilities...leaving the religious interpretation of 'marriage' as is. The biblical interpretation of marriage being between 'one man and one woman' (even the SCOTUS would NOT dare tamper with the word of God) remains intact, as well as the fact that NO clergy member will be forced to perform a 'same-sex marriage' ceremony if 'same-sex marriage' does indeed become of law of the land.

And with this being an issue that most definitely should have stayed on the state NOT federal level...what with 37 states and the District of Columbia already having marriage equality laws in place...as in recognizing 'same-sex marriage' or 'unions' to some degree through legislative developments, ballot initiatives, or rulings from their state courts...it must be understood by all that the word 'marriage' is but a legal term granting legal status alone to couples by a state government...period...and that 'marriage' by definition is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and the Constitution alone...NOT the Holy Bible (or we would be a theocracy and NOT a republic)...is the definitive law of our land.

And while most same-sex couples would be just as happy with the words 'domestic partnership' or 'civil union' being used to describe their relationship... even while knowing that both terms confer something of a second-class status...as long as their commitment to each other was viewed as 'equal' under the eyes of the law...there are legally valid reasons as to why the word 'marriage' must be used in describing such unions, and it has NOTHING at all to do with infringing upon the beliefs or practices of the religious.

For example, if the term 'domestic partnership' was used to describe same-sex unions the couple would legally only be afforded the lowest legal level of relationship recognition, and the rights and responsibilities of such partnerships varies drastically from state to state, that is if a particular state even chooses to provide such rights at all. That coupled with the fact that tangible and intangible protections and benefits that only marriage can afford are usually minimal at best in a 'domestic partnership' and are NOT recognized if the couple travels outside their home state, meaning that all legal benefits afforded the same-sex couple in their home state will probably NOT be recognized by another state. So what does the couple get from these two words... basically NOTHING of legal substance at all.

Next we have the term 'civil union' being bantered around as the term that should be used instead of the word 'marriage.' While the legal protections and benefits of a 'civil union' are indeed greater and more encompassing than those of a 'domestic partnership,' these protections and benefits are only available at the state level while the all-important federal protections, such as tax and social security benefits, are missing. This translates into 'civil unions' still being a separate but unequal union falling far short of providing the same-sex couple with all the legal benefits, security, and protections afforded by the word 'marriage'.

And while some gay couples have NO problem with the words 'civil union' and the limited benefits those words afford, legally problems remain stemming from the fact that a 'civil union' recognized in one state might NOT be recognized outside the state in which it was performed making a 'civil union' still NOT equal in status to 'marriage'. Also, 'civil unions' would still negatively affect medical emergencies that might happen while traveling in the sense that one partner may NOT be allowed to make medical decisions for the other. And private employers may or may NOT offer health insurance for those in a 'civil union' meaning that those couples must take additional legal steps on their own to provide greater legal and medical protections for themselves and their children...something 'married' couples do NOT have to do. And even if the same-sex couple does take said legal steps on their own... just like they would have to do with a 'domestic partnership'...those protections will still fall far short of what's afforded by being legally married.

So that brings us back to the actual legal concept and meaning of the word 'marriage'...and by 'legal' I mean 'civil marriage' NOT 'religious marriage'. 'Civil marriage' would afford same-sex couples many but NOT all of the secular rights, benefits, security, and responsibilities of those in a 'traditional marriage', including providing some of the all-important protections for their families. And while gay and lesbian families can further protect themselves in additional ways by drawing up wills, health care proxies, and co-parent adoptions, even a 'civil marriage' is NOT legally equal in the protections that a traditionally recognized marriage would provide.

And I CANNOT say this enough...legal equality is what 'same-sex marriage' is truly all about...it is NOT about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms...it is NOT about forcing the clergy to perform 'marriages' that go against their religious beliefs...it is simply about the equality afforded to all men (and women) under the eyes of the law. And with the SCOTUS decision now fast approaching many legal experts (rightfully) predict that the high court will legalize 'same-sex marriage' nationwide...by their overturning the 'same-sex marriage' bans in Michigan and three other states...by finding that the Constitution does guarantee equal treatment and protection under the law for all persons...with due-process then prohibiting all states from banning 'same-sex marriage.'

So as it stands right now, we know that the four liberal justices will vote in favor of 'same-sex marriage' and that the four conservative justices will most like vote against it leaving the ninth justice, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, to be the deciding vote. And while some say that Kennedy will use the 'federalism-based' argument about the right of states to define marriage for themselves along with his knowing that a ruling against same-sex marriage would have NO bearing in the 37 states who already have 'marriage equality' laws in place...meaning same-sex couples in those states could continue to marry and those same-sex couples already married would remain so...coupled with Kennedy's history of supporting 'legal' gay rights, the odds are more than likely that he will rule on the side of favoring 'same-sex marriage' based upon the Constitution's wording alone. And that along with the fact that the SCOTUS left in place rulings from several lower courts striking down state bans still leaves us to wait a bit longer to see how this plays out.

And so as we await the SCOTUS decision, and while I know some will NOT like it, I will say that if 'same-sex marriage' does indeed become the law of our land the world will NOT end, our country will NOT collapse, God will NOT desert us nor we Him, and the sun will still rise in the east the next morning whether the gay-bashers and haters like it or NOT. And then maybe when the dust settles...and know that it will...we can get back to the truly serious and all-important issues that face our country today.

******************************************************
Today, Wednesday, June 24th, on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media, from 2 to 4pm EST, Craig and Diane will discuss Obama's so-wanted gun control in the wake of the Charleston shootings, the upcoming SCOTUS decisions on same-sex marriage and ObamaCare, and Obama's very bad decision to allow the paying of ransom to the enemy.

Hope you can tune in:
http://cprworldwidemedia.net/radio
And chat with us live at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cprworldwidemedia/

Investigative Report:
God v. The Constitution...Part 2 of 2
By: Craig Andresen and Diane Sori / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media cprworldwidemedia.net

Yesterday, in Part 1 of our report 'God v. The Constitution' we laid out the legal aspects of the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage but, at the bottom of all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth however, is the mantra chanted endlessly by those on the far, far right and the holier than thou set...that being...”traditional biblical marriage is only between one man and one woman.”

What this really is, is the ultra-religious ascribing words either to the Bible or directly to God that simply aren’t true but let’s give them a chance and see how it lines up with the facts.

To imply that biblical marriage is between one man and one woman would need a Bible verse or passage as backing to make it fact however, no such verse or passage exists. In fact...the Bible never uses the word “marriage” nor in fact does the Bible ever define marriage. Sure, there are plenty of verses and passages regarding love or husbands and wives that one can look up but none of them, not one, offers any definition regarding the institution of marriage.

That said however, the Bible does offer a great deal of insight into what's called “traditional” marriage.

Throughout history, including a wide swath of biblical history, “traditional marriage” is a topic which has received a good deal of written examination and while not laying out a definition of it or providing hard and fast rules to be followed at all costs, biblical history does make clear what “traditional marriage” was.

Abraham for example, had a traditional biblical marriage which included his wife Sara and his other wife...Sara’s handmaiden Hagar. One might well question the wisdom of Solomon after realizing that his biblically traditional marriage consisted of some 700 wives and around 300 odd concubines.

Tradition in those days stood on the principle that if a man takes extra wives, he would have to continue to provide for his previous wives as per Exodus 21:10 and let us not forget that, as per Exodus 21:16 "...if a man were to have sex with a virgin"...he would be required to marry that virgin...as per tradition of course.

In fact, the traditions written of in the Bible makes it clear that marriage was the norm between a man and the woman he had raped and historically, if an army conquered a city or a nation, the wives of the men so conquered would then become the spoils of war and were to be married to the conquerors.

Biblical tradition also held that girls of the age of ten were acceptable wives and should a man die, his younger brother, by biblical tradition, was required to marry the widow and to produce heirs that would not be considered his heirs but those of his dead brother.

But, if the whole marriage is between "one man and one woman" thing is ordained by God, how can certain biblically historic relationships be explained? There was Ruth and Naomi where it was written..."Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Sure sounds like a marriage doesn’t it? Especially when one reads just a bit further and sees these words..."Ruth clave onto her." For the record, the Hebrew word translated as “clave” is the exact same word describing marriage in Genesis 2:24.

There were also the relationships between David and Jonathon recounted in the Book of Samuel where it was written...”The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul,” and..."From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house,” and... "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

Jonathon, stripping naked in front of David doesn't sound platonic either biblically or currently does it?

However, perhaps the most telling verse regarding this relationship came later in Samuel where it was written..."I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Sounds like a marriage there too doesn’t it?

And then there was the relationship between the two eunuchs, Daniel and Ashpenaz as related in the Book of Daniel as another example of a same-sex, biblical union, and none of these relationships was ever besmirched in any biblical texts to follow.

Now, before the ultra-religious start in on the notion that these are Old Testament traditions which are thousands of years old and have no bearing on Christian traditions let us remind them that the Old Testament is the only place in the Bible where the actual laws, the only laws ever ascribed directly to the hand of God...the Ten Commandments...can be found and even there...not a single definition or law regarding who can marry whom can be found and not a single condemnation of same-sex relationships is there either.

In the New Testament...again...no definition of marriage nor the word “marriage” exists. In fact, St. Paul himself was no great fan of the institution stating that marriage itself was a compromise between the ideal of celibacy and the human nature regarding the desire for sex. “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (I Corinthians 7:1-2)

There are those who point to this being the decisive "marriage is between one man and one woman” tradition but, in fact, that is a far stretch of what Paul was actually saying. Paul was simply providing a remedy for people having multiple sex partners and nothing more.

Throughout the New Testament, arranged marriages were the tradition and remained the tradition up until about 250 years ago with the idea that people would meet, fall in love, and get married by happenstance regarded as wholly inappropriate.

The fact is, the New Testament is replete with mentions of husbands and wives but most of it has to do with how they should live and whether or not they were allowed to divorce but none of it has anything to do with rules regarding who is allowed to marry whom as New or Old Testament times regarded marriage itself as a human condition and not as either a right or a rite.

Marriage rites came later in history and that creates yet another paradox for the ultra-religious.

It wasn’t until the 6th century that laws regarding marriage were created by the church and those laws were written not by God...not by Jesus but by Pope Gregory...a man...and they included such things as outlawing marriage inside of the 4th degree of separation to cut down on inbreeding, outlawing non-related inmarriage to the same degree to cut down on people marrying their in-laws and outlawing concubinage and polygamy as all of these things previously had been considered...traditional.

Here’s a little something else Pope Gregory put into church law or doctrine...both parties in a marriage had to consent to the marriage but not for the reasons we now find to be traditional. Back then, consent was required to keep marriages within the church and those not of the Catholic persuasion were not allowed to consent to marriage. Until Pope Gregory...not consenting to marry was...traditional.

What we have here is societal evolution and as society evolved, so too did traditions but even in those early centuries of Christianity no church law was written prohibiting people of the same-sex from entering into marriage.

In fact, the strongest condemnations of same-sex relationships assessed to the Bible came from later political translations and not from the original Bible itself which does condemn same-sex rape and infidelity just as it does with opposite-sex rape, and infidelity but all of those references in the Bible are the result of interpretations of men and not the direct word of God.

Taken out of context, cherry-picked verses of biblical scripture can be interpreted to mean whatever one wants them to mean in a political light if and only if other parts and verses of scripture are completely ignored but in context, in their original form, those mentions of same-sex relationships are not roundly or wholly condemned at all.

Regardless of what some, the ultra-religious far right, purport to be biblical fact... marriage did not become a religious rite or sacrament until the 12th century, some 1,100 years after the birth of Jesus, and the notion of marriage being between one man and one woman didn’t enter into the picture until the 16th century making both the religious rite and the currently seized upon definition of “traditional” marriage the concept of man, based in political doctrine rather than the law of God based on religious doctrine.

Given that the Constitution does not define marriage and neither does the Bible specifically define the institution...given that the former has everything to do with the rights of all Americans and the latter pertains only to the rites involved with those of certain faiths, given that marriage itself wasn't even a church right until 1,100 years after the birth of Christ and therefore, arguably not a religious but a political matter even in biblical times, and given that marriage has always been a state's issue rather than a federal or Constitutional issue...here is what we believe will be the eventual outcome of the Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage.

If the Supreme Court, as is its mission, upholds the Constitution, it will render a decision that leaves same-sex marriage in the hands of the states with certain stipulations. One stipulation should be that government cannot and shall not interfere with the doctrines or practices of the church meaning that should a state, either by manner of their Constitution or by a vote of their people allow within their individual states, same-sex marriages, neither the state nor the federal government can impose penalties upon a church that refuses to participate or perform such a ceremony.

Another stipulation should require all states, whether sanctioning the legality of a same-sex marriage or not, to recognize all legal adjuncts to such a marriage regarding any and all benefits offered to opposite-sex couples for same-sex couples.

And the last stipulation, we believe, should be that government...the courts...must not redefine the definition of marriage in regards to any and all religious doctrine for that is the purview of only the church. This also keeps Thomas Jefferson's founding principal of 'separation of church and state' intact.

In closing, we do know that there will be a winner and a loser as a result of the Supreme Court's decision but we truly hope that the Court comes down on the side of sending this issue back to the individual states because that is what our Constitution intended.

Op-ed: 
Gay Marriage, Gay Weddings, and the Candidates 
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media cprworldwidemedia.net

Last week was a busy week for the regime...first we had Barack HUSSEIN Obama calling to task Senate Republicans for delaying a vote on his attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch, and then Samantha Power, our Ambassador to the U.N., telling the foreign operations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that the U.S. would continue to support Israel “when it matters” but that Obama would NOT rule out the possibility that the U.S. would support anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N...or as I call them the U(seless) N(ations). Also, we had DEA agents once again cavorting with hookers but NOT a one was fired, and a postal worker went 'postal' and landed a gyrocopter on the White House lawn.

And let's NOT forget Hillary's big week as she and her mini-van headed out to Iowa to 'test the waters' if you will. Let's see...multimillionaire Ms. 'I Left the White House Broke' stiffed a waitress of a tip, parked in a handicapped parking spot and was NOT ticketed, and hid behind dark sunglasses so NO one would recognize her...the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The 'Butcher of Benghazi' did NOT want people to know it was her...one has to wonder why.

But the big news story carried by all the media was...drum roll please...Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio...and my personal first choice...being asked in a recent interview with Fusion network's Jorge Ramos if he would attend a gay wedding...oh the inhumanity of it all.

Gay weddings have now become the media's cause de jour once again....yawn. As if we did NOT have enough of this nonsense a few weeks ago with all the bruhaha over wedding cakes and pizza being splashed all over the news almost non-stop.

NOT jobs creation, our limping economy, immigration reform, sealing our borders, Obama's sellout to Iran, or other issues of true importance but gay weddings...a social issue...a state's issue...is what the left wants brought to the forefront so it can divide we conservatives even more over religious lines just like Mitt Romney being a Mormon was used by the very same left...and successfully I might add...to get the ubber-religious right in a tizzy. And while those candidates who have declared they will run or those whose announcements are expected to come shortly all hold the traditional view that marriage is between a man and a woman, Marco Rubio dared to say that he would attend a gay wedding, Ted Cruz told the media that since he had yet to be invited to any gay weddings he does NOT know at this point in time if he would or would NOT attend, while Jeb Bush as usual hemmed-and-hawed, and Rick Santorum said he most assuredly would NOT.

“If it's somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,” Rubio said, adding that “I'm not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they made... you respect that because you love them.”

Very wise words in my opinion from a very wise man who knows that the issue of gay marriage is a state's issue and who does NOT let his personal religious beliefs...that marriage is between one man and one woman...to overrule the love he might have for someone who he refuses to define by their sexuality alone...as many sadly on our side do.

And what of the other 'in the media spotlight' Republican hopefuls...

Ted Cruz...my personal second choice...at least was honest enough to say he's NOT sure and would decide when and if he was ever asked, but also rightfully blamed the news media for trying to“twist” the same-sex marriage debate into a “battle of emotions and personalities” that comes off as though “any conservative must hate people who are gay.” And Cruz, like Rubio, also rightfully believes that questions about marriage should be left to the states and NOT be decided in court.

Scott Walker has already attended a wedding reception for a gay member of his family, while still holding onto his religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And he too, like Rubio and Cruz, believes this issue should be a state's issue and should be honored if passed and becoming law.

Jeb Bush...my former once great Florida governor who should now just put a 'D' next to his name and be done with it...is a bit more accepting to some degree of gay marriage and gay weddings in general. While NOT an endorser of marriage equality he still believes that America needs all forms of loving families, including loving same-sex parents who “should be held up as examples for others.” And one thing I will say in Jeb's favor... maybe the only thing I can say in Jeb's favor right now...is that he too knows this issue of gay marriage as a whole is a social issue and as such belongs on the state's level, and said so during a recent Hannity interview.

However, Rick Santorum...the darling of those basing their vote on their religious convictions alone...emphatically said when asked if he would attend a gay wedding, “NO I would NOT...as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith.” But Santorum added that he “would love them and support them but NOT participate in that ceremony.” Now my question to Rick Santorum is this...if you love someone and support someone how can you turn your back on that someone on what to them is the happiest day of their life...that is NOT love nor is it support...it is hypocrisy plain and simple.

As for Mike Huckabee...a genuinely good and decent man but like Rick Santorum NOT presidential material in my opinion (although he might might make a good VP choice)...a man set to announce his presumed run for the presidency on May 5th...but again like Santorum his stance on gay weddings mirrors his personal religious convictions on gay marriage in general in that he wants gay people...even those NOT of his personal religion...to practice his religion by NOT getting married. Very odd stance from the man who has said time and again on national television that he has close personal gay friends.

And last comes Rand Paul...the Libertarian dressed in the guise of a Republican... who has now flip-flopped to some degree in order to appear more conservative as just this past March, while pandering for votes when speaking to a group of pastors in Washington D.C., said that “a moral crisis is leading people to believe that same-sex marriage is acceptable...it's not.” This from the man who also like Rubio and Cruz once believed that gay marriage was solely up to the states to decide whether to accept it or NOT.

So why now has gay marriage and gay weddings suddenly become the issue de jour facing the Republican candidates...first, because later this month or early next month the Supreme Court is set to decide to either strike down the remaining state bans on gay marriage or leave them in place. Second, because...gasp...gay marriage in general is becoming more acceptable to people of both both parties. And third, because what better way to divide we conservative than to drive a wedge between religious conservatives and the growing number of non-religious conservatives.

Drive a wedge NO matter that Pew research polls show that 55% Americans believe that homosexuality is something people are born with and thus favor gay marriage, compared with just 21% of those who think it is just the way that some people prefer to live. And 49% of those who think homosexuality cannot be changed favor gay marriage, compared with 19% of those who think it can. And 51% believe homosexuality should be accepted, while 42% disagree.

And according to the Public Religion Research Institute more than 62% (6-in-10) of 'millennials' favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 69% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, 71% favor civil unions, and 79% favor employment discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people. And 67% of non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans, 52% Catholics, and 51% of white mainline Protestants favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

But the bottom line in all this is people love who they love thus boiling this issue down to legalities on the state's level in that committed gay couples need access to 'civil marriage'...legally binding marriage...for the same reason that heterosexual couples need it for only the law can create a family relationship between adults that will be recognized by the state and third parties...third parties like employers and insurance companies. And gay couples want the cultural status of marriage...NOT just civil unions...because that’s what people in general rightfully look for when they want to show their family and friends their commitment to each other.

And gay couples marrying in NO way affects traditional marriage for even traditional marriage officiated by a clergyperson still needs governmental legal status. And when you think about all the ubber religious who say that marriage is all about reproduction just think about all the childless 'traditional' couples you know...because they could NOT reproduce either by choice or by circumstances...does that damn them to hell in religious people's eyes...I would sincerely hope NOT.

So the bottom line is this...we have important issues facing 'We the People,' our country, and our candidates right now...Iran, our unsealed borders, our limping economy, those out to kill us all, just to name a few...who marries whom...who shares ones bed with whom...who would or would NOT attend a gay wedding...should NOT and must NOT be one of them.

Focus people focus...the true issues and priorities for the candidates and for us are in plain sight if you just open your eyes to see them.