Gay marriage another sign of moral decay

August 10, 2010


— A nation that does not see in law a right to life for its unborn children and a court that allows more than 50 million of them to be killed claiming a nonexistent “penumbra” in the Constitution is not about to acquire a moral — much less a constitutional — backbone when it comes to same-sex “marriage.”

The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia (not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, to also invalidate) is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe vs. Wade.

As this case proceeds through appeals courts, to think another federal judge, one Justice Anthony Kennedy, could be the deciding vote on a divided Supreme Court, recalls the power Julius Caesar had over gladiators in the Roman Coliseum. Their fate was ultimately determined when the emperor turned his thumb up or down. At least Caesar, on occasion, was responsive to public opinion. Today, too many federal judges act more like dictators when it comes to the law.

Most great powers unravel from within before invading armies (or in America’s case, terrorists) conquer them. A preacher might develop a good sermon on how nations fare when they mock God.

No less a theological thinker than Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God’s judgment for America’s toleration of slavery. If that were so, why should “the Almighty,” as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?

There is more than one way to experience bankruptcy. America under the Obama administration is on the verge of economic insolvency, and now Judge Vaughn Walker has joined a conga line of similarly activist judges who are accelerating us down the path to destruction.

We have been spiraling downward for some time, beginning in the ‘50s with the Playboy philosophy that gave men permission to avoid the bonds of marriage if they wanted to have sex. In rapid succession came the birth control pill (sex without biological consequences), “no-fault divorce” (nullifying “until death us do part”), cohabitation, easily available pornography, and a tolerance for just about anything except those who deem something intolerable. Such persons are now labeled “bigots” when once they were thought to be pillars of society.

A nation that loses its moral sense is a nation without any sense at all. Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot: loss of a fear of God, immodesty, especially among women, materialism and much more. While their solution — Sharia law — is wrong, they are not wrong about what ails us.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese tells me, “There was absolutely no knowledge, rumor or suspicion” of Vaughn Walker being a homosexual at the time of his nomination by Ronald Reagan. But if it had not been Walker, it would have been another judge, because America’s problem is not entirely at the top; rather it is mostly at the bottom. What we tolerate, we get more of, and we have been tolerating a lot since the Age of Aquarius generation began the systematic destruction of what past generations believed they had sacrificed, fought and died to protect.

None of this should surprise anyone who takes the time to read and understand what happens to people and nations that disregard God. A Google search provides numerous examples for the biblically illiterate. Two in particular stand out: “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint,” which is paraphrased in The Living Bible, “When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild.” (Proverbs 29:18); and “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” (Judges 21:25)

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services. tmseditors@tribune.com


whats_going_on 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

mickeyrat 7 years, 10 months ago

Why does Cal think "their" solution — Sharia law — is wrong? It is perfect for him & his ilk.

sourpuss 7 years, 10 months ago

For a book with a talking snake, people believe an awful lot of what's in it.

yankeevet 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

yankeevet 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jimmyjms 7 years, 10 months ago

Um, having served this country (thanks), I would have thought that you might understand the laws and principles that the country is founded upon.

Obviously, I was wrong about that.

Psst: they're home too, and many of them are vets.

unklemonkey 7 years, 10 months ago

You probably also believe that a woman's place is "in the home."

yankeevet 7 years, 10 months ago

That is something u said; not me...............i think it is sick for the same sex too mate............thats what i am saying..........monkey

jehovah_bob 7 years, 10 months ago

There is no mating involved in a homosexual relationship. It is probably the best form of birth control on par with abstinence.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 10 months ago

You are a bigot and that means you fail God, America and your family. Bigotry is a cancer to America and a mental illness.

Hardly seems fitting that anyone should do anything more than pity you.

pace 7 years, 10 months ago

Making sharks happy? Do you mean it would be better for same sex folks to die? I like the same sex minded folks, It gets me off thinking about it. Oh no, I am ashamed. It is their fault

Jay Keffer 7 years, 10 months ago

Another attack on state's rights. We are moving to a national government instead of a federal government. We are the United States, not the United State. This federal judge went way too far, and no matter your standpoint on this particular issue, everyone should be very wary of the Feds stomping on California's constitution. This does not bode well.

Cait McKnelly 7 years, 10 months ago

But it's a-ok for California to stomp on the US Constitution, huh?

Scott Drummond 7 years, 10 months ago

mix one part right wing destruction of our free public education system with one part ceaseless indoctrination via our monoculture media to make one HomeSlice. Serve with sour grapes to your best T party conspirators.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 10 months ago

Where in the Constitution does it say individuals have a right to marry?

Brian Laird 7 years, 10 months ago

It doesn't, but it does guarantee "equal protection under the law". That is the basis for the decision.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 10 months ago

And that dealt with race. Not marraige.

Brian Laird 7 years, 10 months ago

That is incorrect. 14th amendment says nothing about race.

Kendall Simmons 7 years, 10 months ago

Home Slice...You might want to read the 14th Amendment again. Section 1 certainly didn't single out blacks or males. Rather, it assured protection for all of us against states deciding to take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights from some of us.

(Plus...do you seriously think that "race" had nothing to do with marriage???? Apparently you've never heard of "anti-miscegenation laws"...those charming felony laws against interracial marriage (or cohabitation or sex)? SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional in 1967.)

ivalueamerica 7 years, 10 months ago

State's rights has NEVER trumped an individual's Constitutional freedom.

The legislature and the electorate went to far when they stripped the rights of American Citizens.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 10 months ago

Again, what rights? Marriage? Can't seem to find it in the Constitution.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 10 months ago

well, you do not know your document and case law very well.

Equal access under the law, or do you think that only applies to some people some of the time?

Significant rulings from the Supreme´s that defy legislating a second class citzenry (separate but equal is out, you know).

yankeevet 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Keith 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jimmyjms 7 years, 10 months ago

Perhaps you could cite any instance in which states rights ever took precedence over constitutional rights?

You don't even understand the constitution, but here you are assailing it. Teh stupid, it hurts.

Cait McKnelly 7 years, 10 months ago

In 1891 Lady Nancy Astor said, " It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." We should have such enlightened people now.

Keith 7 years, 10 months ago

Every Cal Thomas column: Things have changed since I was a lad, and I don't like it.

frankenstien 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal Thomas - It is so sad when it is not enough to live your own life but that you feel the need to impose your views and beliefs on others is sad. I pity you that your life is so inadequate that you feel you need to fuel hate and bigotry. Maybe you should focus more on your life and let others live theirs.

notaubermime 7 years, 10 months ago

"If you want to get your soul to heaven Trust in me, don't you judge or question You are broken now, but faith can heal you Just do everything I tell you to do."

Kris_H 7 years, 10 months ago

Why do all these straight people keep having gay babies and then moaning about their existence, and feeling put upon that they believe they have rights?

Why do all these heteros keep getting married and making promises, then breaking the promises and getting divorced?

Mind, I don't care much for the institution of marriage no matter who's participating in it, but if anyone wants to tie up their life that way, it should be the right of everyone to burden themselves. :)

staff04 7 years, 10 months ago

"Cal Thomas Another Sign of Moral Decay"

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

" why should “the Almighty,” as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage? "

Ummmm.....'cuz homosexuals are made in His image ALSO? It never ceases to amaze me when someone asserts that homosexuality is an assault on morals, a perversion, an example of the downward spiral of society; as if these millions upon millions of people made a choice in the matter and weren't born with such predilection. God is great, He is The Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and Man and Beast and ..........#$%! me runnin'!? What are all these homosexuals doing running around???? He really naughtied the pooch on that one.

Wake up troglodytes!

ivalueamerica 7 years, 10 months ago

stupid comment. If you do not want to be called a bigot, then do not say bigoted things, especially trying to support legislation relegating human beings, Americans to second class citizens.

That is bigoted and you support it, what other name is appropriate for you?

SnakeFist 7 years, 10 months ago

Women have the same rights as men - they just need to change their gender; blacks have the same rights as whites - they just need to change their race. More generally: Those I discriminate against have the power to end the discrimination, they just need to become like me. Do you see how dumb your argument is?

How convenient that the "order" you espouse benefits you.

pace 7 years, 10 months ago

I don't think avoiding calling a homophobic or bigotted act what it is, is unfair. It is adult. It is not intolerant, it is precise. I don't like the idea we are suppose to be so polite that a hate mongering bigot or racist is called just another guy with a misunderstood opinion. I call heroes hero, and I call a racist a racist. That is more than polite, if it is true.

kernal 7 years, 10 months ago

The religious right is another sign of moral decay.

ou812mr2 7 years, 10 months ago


lamb 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal, I couldn't agree with you more! God is holy and the depravity that is accepted now is abhorrent to Him.

cato_the_elder 7 years, 10 months ago

Whether or not one agrees with Thomas's column, it's entertaining to observe how he again vexes so many of the left-wing mindless lemmings who post on this forum.

SnakeFist 7 years, 10 months ago

See my post below, cato_the_old. Its probably too late for you to stop hating, but at least give it a try - you might actually enjoy life.

cato_the_elder 7 years, 10 months ago

SnakeFist, I enjoy life to the fullest despite having to tolerate the kind of "hope and change" recently inflicted on the free citizens of this country by hard leftists. The common-sense belief that as many of them as possible will be thrown out of elected office soon is one of the things that keeps me enjoying my life as I do. Have a nice day.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

There's no "vexing" going on here.

Cal shouted at the top of his lungs, "God and I hate fags," and this and presumably many other newspapers gave him a megaphone to do it with.

It was a temper tantrum, and it wasn't intended to have any other effect than to be inflammatory. He succeeded.

voevoda 7 years, 10 months ago

Vexes the right-wing mindless lemmings even more.

whats_going_on 7 years, 10 months ago

I think he vexes people regardless of their political pole, to be honest

MyName 7 years, 10 months ago

I don't think that word ("vex") means what you think it means. I think Cal is ridiculous. How can you take someone serious when they do more damage to their own cause than if they'd stayed silent. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but Cal Thomas is not only wrong, he can't even justify his wrongness with decent writing.

SnakeFist 7 years, 10 months ago

The hate, fear, and scorn spewed by commentators like Thomas, Hannity, Savage, Coulter,..., and Limbaugh is the best argument against conservatism. Reject the dark side, embrace hope and change for the better.

Truthspeaker 7 years, 10 months ago

"...embrace hope and change for the better"

I'd love to. Too bad the other side has shown absolutely zero of that, either. Oh there's plenty of hope, but shortsighted change and just as horrible results.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 10 months ago

Those who believe in an imaginary friend have NO right making the rules for the rest of us.

Truthspeaker 7 years, 10 months ago

You mean like the founders of the country who initally set up all the rules?

SnakeFist 7 years, 10 months ago

Worship "The Founders" if you wish, but the rest of us know they were fallible men who made several mistakes - including slavery and the subjugation of women - in spite (or more likely because) of their religion.

Truthspeaker 7 years, 10 months ago

Who's worshiping? I was making a point based on the previous posts idiotic statement.

She said people who believe in God have no right to make rules for those who don't, and I was pointing out that all of the basic rules of this country were, in fact, written by God fearing men. Simple as that.

mom_of_three 7 years, 10 months ago

Ah, the founding fathers, who dabbled in various religions beliefs, including agnostic.

Cait McKnelly 7 years, 10 months ago

Not sure where you got your info about the Founding Fathers being "god fearing men", Truthspeaker, but I suggest you study a little of what they wrote. You sound like the state of Texas and have the scent of tea.

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

That's an incredibly ignorant post, Snake, as if those men invented slavery and the subjugation of women. Those things are deplorable by today's standards, but it's nothing but hindsight to ridicule now. That is the way things were, thank the Lord we do evolve, but those were simply the signs of the times.

kthxbi 7 years, 10 months ago

we will be saying the same thing about gays being allowed to marry in 10 years. BET!

terrapin2 7 years, 10 months ago

You clearly don't know anything about the founding fathers then. Two of the most prominent "fathers", Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were anti-clerical and opposed organized religion.

whats_going_on 7 years, 10 months ago

Never really thought of it that way. HOWEVER, when polygamy comes to mind, I automatically think of FLDS...which makes me think of child rapists, brainwashing, forcing women to marry, etc etc. I suppose if people really wanted to do this, then we couldn't rely deny them the right. Although I can't imagine too many normal thinking people standing in line for that kind of abuse :\

Kendall Simmons 7 years, 10 months ago

I don't think it's a sign of moral decay per se. Heck, I know a very happy threesome that's been together for years.

But I do have a huge problem with the way FLDS handles it...which is what most of us are probably most aware of. The brainwashing that leads to child "marriages" and subservience. The collecting of welfare by all the "wives" who aren't legally married and their children. The one-sidedness where men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 10 months ago

One of our state legislators once said, "You're either for Fred Phelps or you're against him". Thanks Cal for letting us know who's side you're on.

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

Aaah, ya just gotta love how one lame-brained, biased, unintelligent argument breeds another in the exact same vein. Cal is obviously and woefully out-of-touch with this column and wields his prejudice and ignorance like the foolish friend we know is gonna play the moron after a few too many. But in response here come the religion bashers, brandishing their 'distaste' for other's belief in a higher power as derogatory support for their argument on why Cal is wrong on this. Briiiiiillllllliant!! Congratulations, folks, you've just proven to be every bit as intolerant and hateful as Mr. Thomas. Well done!

MyName 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm not bashing religion, but considering the fact that Thomas's only argument in this column seemed to be "we can't let gay people get married because god doesn't like it", I don't see how you can avoid pointing out how dumb that is.

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

And that's fine, people pointing out the fallacies in his argument is what should happen. Instead, many here have resorted to ridiculing religion and those with faith apart from the subject at hand. Cal's blunders are multi-fold, and one is blind adherence to a book that men wrote without context, rationality, and centuries of evolution and critical thinking at hand to hone its message. Millenia of prejudice are cited as gospel. That doesn't make a rebuttal like "imaginary friends shouldn't make the rules" any less close-minded.

terrapin2 7 years, 10 months ago

It's not about liking or disliking religion, but when religion and the bible are used as the sole excuse for stripping homosexuals of their basic rights, you are going to have people pointing out the hypocrisy. Leviticus 18:22 states that homosexuality is an abomination. Here are some examples from an article called "Why can't I own a Canadian" that show why you can't just pick and choose which lines in the bible you are going to believe and practice in your everyday lives.

  1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

  2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

  3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

  4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

  5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

  6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

  7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

  8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

  9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

  10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Randall Uhrich 7 years, 10 months ago

I see christianity as no more than glorified superstition. For that matter, all the other religions, too. Get a load of what they ask you to accept on faith alone. Ha!

Kirk Larson 7 years, 10 months ago

Actually, I think that voice is Newt Gingrich. He of wife number three.

pace 7 years, 10 months ago

I consider bigotry, prejudice, homophobia, witch hunting, signs of moral decay. I think each person having the same civil rights as the rest of the population a sign of moral responsibility.

kuhusker 7 years, 10 months ago

Not to nitpick, but Caesar didn't do squat at the Coliseum, because it wasn't built until a good 100 years after he was dead.

Not that this matters, Cal Thomas is so inaccurate and hysterical about everything else that making up historic "facts" is no big deal, but hey, would it kill him to read a book?

Kirk Larson 7 years, 10 months ago

"would it kill him to read a book?" I don't know. It might. Facts make conservatives' heads explode.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 10 months ago

This article is a waste of good paper. It is a lot of hoopla about nothing.

Personally, I like the idea of two people making a commitment to one another that is much healthier than the alternative. If you look past your personal prejudice, it is a beautiful thing.

God made folks different. If you have an issue with it, take it up with him/her.

That being said, gays have their own peculiar issues to deal with, just as heterosexuals do. I think we need to work together to make our country safer and better for our children. There is too much conflict in this country.

Lindsey Buscher 7 years, 10 months ago

Hey cal if the flying spaghetti monster that you quote is so against gays then why did he create them with a craving for meatballs and noodles??? the flying spaghetti monster is who is and is great!

Daniel Bone 7 years, 10 months ago

All Hail the FSM!!!

Meatballs and noodles - Ha!

Kris_H 7 years, 10 months ago

I simply cannot figure out how two men marrying one another, or two women marrying one another, does anything to harm anyone, or the country as a whole. There is no way to say it does without bringing the religious argument, which Mr. Thomas quickly does. and that argument cannot be valid as a basis for law, unless you want to live in a theocracy. I can't seem to find one on the globe I'd care to live in.

If you want to talk about the morality of a whole nation, let's talk about the morality of waging war needlessly and endlessly. Or the morality of continuing to use resources heedlessly, resulting in the profiteers' complete disregard of the possibility of an incident like the BP Gulf disaster.

But two guys want to get married, and the sky is falling? Please.

jimmyjms 7 years, 10 months ago

Denying the benefit of marriage to all citizens based on sex, sexuality, race, or religion is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

There's really nothing else that needs to be said.

It's amazing, those who wave the flag the hardest seem to understand it the least.

hail2oldku 7 years, 10 months ago

I saw the title of the article and thought it was one of the Westboro Baptist "Church" folks writing a LTE.

I didn't realize Cal was related to Fred.

pizzapete 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal is right on the money, we should force women to have babies and take away the civil rights of all the non-believers.

SBH 7 years, 10 months ago


Nice work, thank God that we still have free speech.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

And here I thought such an intelligent column would bring insightful conversation.

Personally, I don't care if gays marry, I just don't want them abnormal left-handed people marrying one another! It is against God. They are in the minority and are thus abnormal, and there can be no denying it. They should write with the correct hand, not the abomination of a left hand. Next thing you know, they will be using their left hand in public and flaunting it in front of children as a way to recruit the young to their sick ways!

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

No, I use it as an example of the absurd logic used by those who wish to deny equal rights to gays. Yes, gay people are in the minority. So are left-handed people. For a long time, society tried to force left-handed folks to write with their right hand. It didn't work.

Also, who are you to define what is perverse? What if strict pro-creation only people were to check in on your sex life? Think we should outlaw masturbation since it is spilling seed not for creation purposes? If it is between consenting adults, then let each determine their own ideas on what is right and wrong with regard to their own sex life. Certainly that decision shouldn't be left up to you!

Kendall Simmons 7 years, 10 months ago

Can you believe someone actually took you seriously??? Pretty sad, huh?

preebo 7 years, 10 months ago

Again, Tom and people of his ilk equate Gay and lesbian with "...perverts, rapists and child molesters..."

Insinuating that Gays and Lesbians are at a minimum criminals, and it is not far to assume that by extension, they view them as 'less than' others.


hail2oldku 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm not one to defend Tom, but I don't see how you make your leap from his comment to him equating gays and lesbians with perverts, rapists and child molestors. I also can't see where, from this post anyway, you make the jump to gays and lesbians are at a minimum criminals.

He may say some things that are provoking, but in this case you need to look in the mirror since a bigot can take many shapes.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 10 months ago

Again Cal equates religion with morality. There are actually two moralities in conflict in America.

One is based in biblical nonsense and the idea that one must act according to human interpretation of a non-existent sky god. What this morality provides is restriction on individual freedom and the righteousness to persecute and prosecute those who do not toe the line. This morality is rooted in the dark ages, so called because they were dominated by christian totalitarianism.

The other morality is based in our constitution and thoughts from the enlightenment and science. Personal freedom, reason, respect of all humanity, equality, economic freedom, and self-determination. This other morality recognizes the commonality and equality of all humankind regardless of religion, and encourages behaviors based upon common humanity, reason, and observation of what is real in the world, not that which is "unseen" and "unknowable" (in other words god).

So, Cal, there is a battle of moralities in America. Giving the rights granted to heterosexual marriage to gay couples recognizes freedom, self-determination, equality, reason, and reality. To not do so is to capitulate to the morality of the christian dark ages.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 10 months ago

Abortion, gay marriage, rampant divorce, pornography, STDs, swearing now accepted in almost any venue, drug legalization, lack of shame and remorse, non-apology apologies, corruption with little to no loss of reputation, blurring lines of right and wrong, hatred of religion, music that promotes promiscuity, drug use, cursing, rape, disrespect of women and violence, and on and on.

Slouching, and now sprinting towards Gomorrah.

The heck with it - let's get stoned and all jump in a pile - there is nothing but this one life, right? Silly rules.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

Look again at your list of "bad" things.

Gay marriage doesn't belong on the list. Why? Becuase all the others are either about harm to other people against their will, hate, or a general lack of respect for others. On the other hand, gay marriage, like straight marriage, is about love. It is about two people who love one another and want to make a bond. Love. Does love belong in your list of bad things? A same-sex partner isn't the type of partner you and I might choose to love, but it is about love regardless. It is about respecting others, the lack of which is on your list.

Why hate on love?

jehovah_bob 7 years, 10 months ago

HomeSlice, "The heck with it - let's get stoned and all jump in a pile - there is nothing but this one life, right? Silly rules."

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 10 months ago

"Abortion, gay marriage, rampant divorce, pornography, STDs, swearing now accepted in almost any venue, drug legalization, lack of shame and remorse, non-apology apologies, corruption with little to no loss of reputation, blurring lines of right and wrong, hatred of religion, music that promotes promiscuity, drug use, cursing, rape, disrespect of women and violence, and on and on."

What are your solutions, HomeSlice?

Jay Keffer 7 years, 10 months ago

Ag, I assume this is a shot - I am not saying I am free from sin, far from it. But it is not a sin to call sin 'sin'. The Commandments still stand, and all they represent. No absolutes? Then we end up with what we are seeing, and it is going to get worse.

The tax collector humbled himself before God, and repented of his sins (extortion, unrighteousness, adultry or whatever he may have done). God had mercy on him, vs. the Pharisee who had a 'said' faith, vs. true faith. So the tax collector aspired to the absolute truth and realized his fallen nature. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

voevoda 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal Thomas is free to call homosexuality a sin if that's how he sees it. He can call divorce and birth control sins if that's how he sees it. However, he is insisting that the American government enact in law prohibitions of his vision of "sin"--and that would deprive large numbers of American citizens of their right to define "sin" differently.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 10 months ago

I say good riddance to the morality of christian totalitarianism and the dark ages. Let it decay and rot away.

Let the morality of our Constitution, equality, common humanity, reason, science, and freedom ring throughout these United States.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

It really is just stunning that a newspaper would run such a hateful article. What next, an article on why Whites and Blacks shouldn't marry?

frank mcguinness 7 years, 10 months ago

Nothin like some good old (and I do mean old) bible quotes to start off my morning. Cal should really run for Kansas Governor, He might win. sigh

Paul R Getto 7 years, 10 months ago

Deep breaths, Cal. You'll be OK. Remember, 'morality' like the skygod/s is an invention. Clearly we need common definitions of what is good civil behavior and we do....they are called laws. No one is threatening you. Again, deep breaths. Try it, it works and has been, in the past, promoted by some of the other 'gods.'

voevoda 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal Thomas is a bad historian. What empire ever fell because of sexual immorality? Rome? The Western Roman Empire collapsed decades after Christianity had become its official religion. Most reputable historians see a complex of causes, including the impoverishment of the rural and urban lower class and the transfer of wealth to the very rich, who became stingy about providing charity to the poor when their income decreased. The "immorality" most people associate with the Roman Empire--Nero, Caligula, gladiators, etc., occurred at its height in the first century. China? An argument can be made that opium use (promoted by the British over the objections of the Chinese government) contributed to its decline in the 19th century, but there were many other causes as well--none of them related to sexuality. The Soviet Union? It kept a strict lid on homosexuality, pornography, and prostitution, and limited the opportunities for birth control (although abortion was available) and cohabitation. It collapsed because of economic failure (unsustainable military expenditures) and an unresponsive government that ignored people's legitimate complaints.
A variety of different standards concerning sexual conduct have existed in equally successful states. Ancient Athens promoted male/male pairings. The Persian Empire had homosexuality, polygamy, concubinage, divorce, and pornography, and it outlasted most of its enemies. As for Christian states, medieval Western Europe (until the 13th century) regarded marriage as a secular arrangement between two individuals, devoid of religious meaning; the Byzantine Empire approved divorce and openly tolerated concubinage.
The Bible is an excellent moral guide at the individual level. Individuals can use it to spur self-examination. (Other works, including the Qu'ran and Sharia, the Talmud, the Church Fathers, the Vedas, Stoic philosophers, etc., can do the same.) The Bible does not work as a basis for American law. Why not? 1) Of the Ten Commandments, usually taken to be the "synopsis" of Biblical law, only three are actually illegal: murder, stealing, and perjury. The rest conflict with the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech. 2) The Bible prohibits in the strongest terms all sorts of activities that are socially harmless: Cf. for example, the prohibition from touching (in any way) a menstruating woman (Lev 15:19-30), or the condemnation to death of anyone who collects firewood on the Sabbath (Num 15:30-36). 3) There is no Biblical prohibition on birth control, or pornography, or (for that matter) sex with children. Divorce is permitted in the Old Testament; in the New Testament, the instructions are conflicting. In this editorial, Cal Thomas proves only that bigots can invoke religious justifications for their hatred. Fortunately, tolerant people can do the same: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

verity 7 years, 10 months ago

I saw the title and checked to see if my assumption was right. Yes, another lovely spewing by Cal Thomas.

jonas_opines 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal makes that game way too easy, like Pitts does. Cal might be a little tougher than Pitts, because once in a while either Krauthammer or Will get oxygen shortages in their brain and revert downwards, but not very often.

Kontum1972 7 years, 10 months ago

hey whitney doesnt your head hurt after all day here?


Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 10 months ago

Yes, we need to go back to when the country was more moral...like when we were slaughtering American Indians and enslaving Africans.

jonas_opines 7 years, 10 months ago

Oh, I'm sure he's fine with just returning to the glorious 50s when his life stopped. The glorious 50s that he's absolutely certain existed in reality.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

from the article: "Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot ..."

Cal Thomas agrees with Muslim fanatics about what ails America. Stunning.

whynaut 7 years, 10 months ago

Hear hear! Seriously LJWorld. Have some integrity. Drop this guy. He is a laughing stock.

redmorgan 7 years, 10 months ago

Liberals have no tolerance for those whose views differ from their own, Mr Thomas. Surely you know that.

whats_going_on 7 years, 10 months ago

well that statement is just too ironic to put into words.

please tell me you're just being silly

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

Indeed. We liberals do not tolerate intolerance.

Catbacker 7 years, 10 months ago

Jews have no tolerance fr those whose views differ from their own, Mr. Hitler. Surely you know that.

50YearResident 7 years, 10 months ago

The best way to begin and end gay & lesbian marriages: Rules, 1) I take thee in sickness and in health until death due us part. 2) All assets will be devided 50%. 3) I will be responsible for all health care of my partner. 4) I will not reproduce. 5) I am bound by all laws of the traditional marriage vows. 6) To desolve my gay marriage I will be bound by the same laws as hetrosexual marriages. 7) So help me God. I guarantee this will end all gay marriages within 20 years.

50YearResident 7 years, 10 months ago

My final thought: Let them marry and join the rest of us. For better or for worse!

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago


You do know that there are many gay couples who have been together for decades, do you not? Besides, even if gay couples were to have a higher divorce rate than hetero couples -- and there is NO evidence that this will be the case -- isn't it their right to make that decision?

50YearResident 7 years, 10 months ago

Bea, I gave my approval, let them (the gays & lesbians) abide by our rules and see what happens.

blindrabbit 7 years, 10 months ago

Cal should realize that every major civilization in history has eventually faded away, many say due to "Moral Collapse". Cal is too old to understand anything other that the 1950's mentality. In his final years, he should "tune in, turn on and drop out"; enjoy the rest of his time, we would all be better for it.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

On a lighter note --

Gays should absolutely be allowed to marry. Why shouldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us? (not sure who first said it, but it is still funny, as is ...)

All this talk about "same sex" marriages. Isn't that the case with all marriages? It is the same sex, over and over and over ...

(All in good humor. I actually love the bond of marriage and wish everyone a happy one.)

Fred Whitehead Jr. 7 years, 10 months ago

I think that old Cal is one of Freddie Phelps' customers, even though he did not mention that God hates the good old USA. Be intresting to know just who old soggy Cal contacts to get his morality tales from.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 10 months ago

He implied that god hates the USA, as he agreed with the fundie muslim assessment of the USA (see post below).

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 10 months ago

"Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot: loss of a fear of God, immodesty, especially among women, materialism and much more. While their solution — Sharia law — is wrong, they are not wrong about what ails us."

So, Cal agrees with fundie muslims about the evilness and rot of America. Birds of a feather...

So Sharia law is wrong? How is your solution different from many non-violent aspects of sharia law"

"loss of a fear of God": madrassa schools and religious indoctrination.

"materialism": the idea that the real award is in heaven, so don't worry about reality on earth.

" immodesty, especially among women": headscarfs, wraps or full-body burkhas.

"and much more": don't allow gays to openly live their lives; ban pornography and sacrilegious materials; try to create a theocratic state based on god;

How would your solutions differ, Cal?

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 10 months ago

In the human heart, God cannot win against sex and money.

MyName 7 years, 10 months ago

You can't debate an argument that you've already lost. What does letting people who want to get married do so have to do with either liberal or conservative values? And why do you think you know what every person is automatically like because of their politics? That's just dumb.

RogueThrill 7 years, 10 months ago

So is eating shrimp, clam chowder, clam chowder or wearing a cotton poly blend. We pick and choose which dumb crap christianity tells us to follow and this item isn't one of them.

mom_of_three 7 years, 10 months ago

and to add to your thoughts, Cal assumes men did not cheat on their wives in the "old days" and no one had affairs (although we know there were plenty.) Heck, back then, prostitution was legal most everywhere.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

AppleJack, you stated your views clearly. I totally get it. If your religion and your feelings towards others tells you that gay marriage is wrong, well fine. I am not asking you to change. Clearly, gay marriage isn't for you. So, don't marry someone of your own sex.

What I don't get is when people want to deny the right for others to do so if that is what they want. If you really and truly respect the rights and beliefs of others as you say you do, can you honestly deny others the right to love and marry who they wish? If you want people not to be divided, then you can't think that who you want to marry is okay, but that it isn't okay for others to make that same decision for themselves.

I hope this makes sense, and I am in no way attempting to demean your beliefs or your religion. Just know, that your beliefs don't hold true for everyone. Agreeing that we will believe in things differently will keep us from dividing as a nation. I won't try to force my beliefs on you, and I just ask that you do the same.

jonas_opines 7 years, 10 months ago

Why should other people be deprived due to your beliefs and values? What makes your values so important?

whynaut 7 years, 10 months ago

"If the vote comes up in Kansas, I will not be among those who will vote for it because of my personal beliefs. " ... "I do not think I am depriving anyone."

Homosexual Kansans are currently deprived of certain rights that heterosexual Kansans are granted. It will take action to rectify the inequity. Thus, by inaction, you uphold the inequity, do you not?

jafs 7 years, 10 months ago

Voting against gay marriage because of your beliefs means you want to impose those beliefs on others.

The mistake that the right-wing Christians seem to make is that of equating their right to believe something (freedom of religion) with that of imposing those beliefs on others through legislation.

You have the right to believe whatever you like about gay people.

That doesn't give you the right to legislate against gay marriage.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

The people you are voting against are the ones having their rights violated.

What if things happened in this country and suddenly a majority decided it should no longer be allowed to celebrate Christmas in your own home. The people vote, and bam, Christmas is banned, even though your celebrating Christmas in your home didn't bother my celebration of Festivus in my home. We just decide we don't believe in it, the people have spoken and Christmas is from now on banned. Would that be okay with you?

Your beliefs are your beliefs, they aren't mine. Your beliefs shouldn't tell others how they should live their lives, just as mine shouldn't dictate your life. That is the point being made.

As far marriage and the continuation of the species goes, certainly heterosexuals get to do this. Should hetero couples incapable of having children, or even those who choose not to have children, be denied the right to marriage?

Thanks for stating your opinions. However, we shouldn't base others' lives on your opinions, just as my opinions shouldn't inform how you live ... or who you can marry. There was a time in this country when people really believed Blacks and Whites shouldn't be allowed to marry. It was based on personal beliefs, not on how people wanted to live.

jafs 7 years, 10 months ago

Wrong again.

A judge has ruled that the "will of the people" in this case violates the Constitution.

You may continue to believe whatever you like, value whatever you like, and go to whatever church you like.

The majority doesn't have unlimited power in this country, and was never intended to have such.

jafs 7 years, 10 months ago

That has been said, as have many other things.

If he is gay, and if that means he cannot be impartial as a judge on this issue, then that would have to apply logically to other demographics.

That would mean that heterosexuals can't rule on cases involving heterosexuals, etc.

Of course, I'm sure the right won't come to the logical conclusion there.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

Yes, it is your values -- not everyone's. Live by your values, if that is what you wish. Who is asking you to marry anyone of your own sex? Why is it your "right" to tell others how to live? Just because you really don't want others to do something, you don't have the right to force that opinion, even if a majority of people want to agree. That is why we have the Constitution. Once more, it used to be the majority who was against Blacks and Whites marrying. The majority isn't always correct.

Fortunately, while your position is steadfast in wanting to deny others the right to live their lives as they choose, it won't be up to you. It will end up going to the Supreme Court where such denials of rights are generally struck down.

jafs 7 years, 10 months ago

I hope you're right, but with this Court, ...

jonas_opines 7 years, 10 months ago

"I am simply going to say that homosexuality is against the laws of nature and God ==as I understand Him.=="

Lynchpin of the argument, right there. Your understanding is fine for yourself, but your potentiality of error in understanding, and that of those who wrote the book that you likely base that understanding on, make it highly questionable to use that understanding to guide anybody but yourself and those of like mind.

jonas_opines 7 years, 10 months ago

Well, at least you're honest, so I don't have to waste the time.

jafs 7 years, 10 months ago

So your beliefs are founded on no understanding of the subject, and you're not interested in understanding it.


jimmyjms 7 years, 10 months ago

AppleJack, was does your god keep making the gay babies?

mr_right_wing 7 years, 10 months ago

Yeah I figured a headline like that wouldn't generate much interest in Lawrence, Kansas.

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

Yes, publishing hate brings out strong emotions.

cklarock 7 years, 10 months ago

Wow, the "poor me" story from the Religious Right never fails to boggle my mind. Get over yourselves. God doesn't smite nations; if He isn't smiting all the closeted gay baptist ministers preaching anti-gay sermons while getting male hookers on the side, He isn't going to smite the country.

In fact, doesn't your own holy book warn you against exactly this kind of hyperbolic and judgmental stance; mote from your neighbor's eye, first stone, etc.? Hey, you can't take the whole book seriously, right? Just the part that lets you justify your bigotry and support your political views with irrefutable magic from the sky.

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

"irrefutable magic from the sky"

And people wonder why there can't be civil discourse.

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

First of all, I didn't say that such a statement "prevents" civil discourse, but such inflammatory aspersions on someone else's belief system sure as hell doesn't open up civil dialogue on the matter. Second, unless you are posting under two different user names, it sure seems like you took that personally which is rather odd.

jaywalker 7 years, 10 months ago

No sweat! I was just scratchin' my head tryin' to figure if that was simply a veer or if you took umbrage, didn't really think it was the latter. And I too have been known to rant from time to time (:<)

kimmydarling 7 years, 10 months ago

Look, I lived and voted in California during the 2008 election. I protested against Prop 8, I donated for the No on 8 campaign, I wept for my friends who suddenly had to stop planning their weddings the moment it passed. I prayed God would open the hearts of the people who would vote against it.

Why? Because whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not, we live in a country that states that all citizens have equal access and protection under the law. When a noted conservative lawyer argues AGAINST this proposition due to the unconstitutional nature of the prop, what does that tell you. Our judiciary is in place to police the legislative branch and make sure that nothing goes against our nation's constitution. When our federal government has declared more than a dozen times in the last 120 years that marriage is a fundamental right in this country, it falls under the scope of the 14th amendment. End of story.

Why is it then, that when it involves states rights and votes against guns, those who claim they are more conservative scream that nothing at all trumps the constitution. Yet when it comes to moral actions, the constitution should fall to the will of the people. Luckily, in our country, the tyranny of the majority is not recognized. You cannot, to date, determine that an underrepresented minority cannot have equal access under the law simply because you dislike them.

The people spoke, Mr Thomas, and they were wrong. Just as they were wrong when they spoke about slavery, women's rights and civil rights for minorities. How great, then, is our country for creating a system to make sure that when the people speak, it doesn't silence the voice of millions of other citizens simply because they are the "unapproved of" minority

igby 7 years, 10 months ago

Shouldn't worry to much about it Cal. We are all going to die soon and God and Satan can sort out the MotherF'er and the Sonabeces in Hell. I ran Hell for 75,000 years and it's a tiring do little kind of job where all S**t runs down hill. I do miss the growling of all the demons though.

gogoplata 7 years, 10 months ago

Killing innocent people in Afghanistan is an even worse sign of moral decay. How many Christians have you hear condemning the actions of our military?

All Christians should be antiwar!

The Prince of Peace said "Blessed are the peacemakers"

gogoplata 7 years, 10 months ago

So if the Taliban kills innocent people does that make it OK for our government to kill innocent people?

The answer is no. Killing innocent people is wrong and a much more important issue for Christians to raise than gay marriage. Christians are correct when they rail against the murder of babies in their mothers womb but so many American Christians are silent about the murder of thousands of innocent civilians at the hands of our military. It is unGodly.

gogoplata 7 years, 10 months ago

I know that war is full of evil. Innocent people die. That is why Christians should take an antiwar stance. War should only be an absolute last resort. This nation now attacks nations that never attacked us. That is the behavior of evil empires like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

If you want a war you should demand that our government declare war constitutionally. You should demand that they tell us how the war will be payed for instead of borrowing money from China and Japan and using the Federal Reserve to just make more money. There should be clearly defined objectives.

I thought we went in to get Bin Ladin. Why did we let him escape into Pakistan at Tora Bora? Why have political and military officials told us that getting Bin Ladin is not the goal? What is the goal? Why did we attack Iraq?

Our government is corrupt and war is a racket. As a Christian I condemn the murder of innocents.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9

jimmyjms 7 years, 10 months ago

Who is Ben Ladin? Doesn't he work over at Watson's?

beatrice 7 years, 10 months ago

This is so simple -- anyone who doesn't believe in same sex marriage shouldn't have one. Also, when gay marriage is legalized, it won't become mandatory. People do know this, don't they?

If you aren't gay and you aren't interested in marrying someone of your own sex, then it doesn't really concern you, now does it?

jehovah_bob 7 years, 10 months ago

As it has been mentioned, heterosexual relationships are God's or nature's way to propagate a species and genetic diversity. What happens to animals that reproduce beyond their available resources and boundaries? They are culled.

Since man has no natural predator to limit his propagation, what if homosexuality is God's or nature's way to cull the human herd along with war, famine, and disease?

What if by inhibiting or preventing homosexual relationships we are actually contributing to the downfall of humanity?

Hypochristian 7 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Jimo 7 years, 10 months ago

If Thomas is such an expert of the topic of gays, where was he when California needed experts to testify under oath?

Not that it would have done much good as federal rules of evidence don't extend to Bible verses!

If Thomas has something to demonstrate an error of reasoning in this case, some misstatement of law, I'm sure the appellate court would be happy for him to point that out. Otherwise, Thomas just likes to hear his own voice echoing in the cave of irrationality (where he seems to be happily imprisoned).

nekansan 7 years, 10 months ago

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Gay citizens have every right to be offered the legal and tax status available to heterosexual married couples. Fortunately some federal judges can actually read the 14th amendment. It is not a moral issue or a religious one. That is not the role of government, law is. Simply put laws, state or federal, which exclude gay couples from marrying do not meet the test of providing equal protection under the law and are therefore unconstitutional. But I guess it is easier to spout a bunch of irrelevant religious drivel to justify your immoral position of discrimination as somehow having applicability to the law and the US Constitution.

Jonathan Becker 7 years, 10 months ago

This should be titled, "A fatuous commentary is a self-evident sign of moral decay."

One has to question the lack of editorial judgment that determines this commentary has any merit. It is nothing but moralistic, self-righteous palaver, not worth the paper nor the ink.

Chris Golledge 7 years, 10 months ago

Well, as if we need another opinion on the matter, I've known a number of people in my life both hetero- and homosexual. I've never seen any correlation between a person's sexual preferences and morality. Known some honest, responsible, etc. people of both flavors, and I've known lying, cheating, etc. jerks on both flavors. (And a couple of flavors in-between.) I've known people that were hard-working or lazy, self-centered or altruistic, the same. There's a major misfire if you think that someone's sexual preferences determine the things that really matter.

pternz 7 years, 10 months ago

Marriage is a sham anyway as evidenced by the number of people who enter it without thought or leave it with ease. Being only a religious ceremony it is easily and more adequately replaced by a proper contract to protect the rights and interest of the individuals in the relationship.

As to quoting from the Story Book in Proverbs 29:18 after saying the Civil War was his Invisible Friend's reaction to slavery... he should have read the immediately following Proverbs 29:19. "A slave cannot be disciplined with words. He will not respond, though he may understand". Yes his Invisible Friend, or the primitive people who actually made these stories up, is actually all for slavery. So much for the "war as evidence of divine justice" theory. But let's face it - there is no evidence of the divine anywhere, just a mutual psychosis.

As for quoting the last line of Judges 25. Oh ho ho. Read the whole thing. It is not any word from the Invisible Friend about people but a pseudo historical tale that refers to a group of people slaughtering, pillaging, raping, enslaving and forcibly taking only the virgins as trophy wives while using the Invisible Friend as justification because that lot didn't turn up to the big meeting. If this person was to really read the earliest version of the Story Book and not just pick out the bits that sound good and suit their purpose out of context then they might realise how stupid and deluded they are.

lawrencenerd 7 years, 10 months ago

Why the hell is this bigoted hate speech on the front page of the website? Are you taking an anti gay stance LJW? This should be removed entirely, or you are promoting hate speech, and in turn hate crimes. I certainly won't give any of my money to a company that promotes bigoted agendas.

blindrabbit 7 years, 10 months ago

The anti-gay stance (if true) is understandable by the LJW; as they are about to turn us over to some Southern outfit "Kno-whatever" The LJW is just softening us up.. If like most of The South, the bigoted nature will shine through.

Jimo 7 years, 10 months ago

Hmmm...today's ruling from the same judge indicates that this may be finished asap as there seems to be no one to appeal the ruling!

The State isn't going to appeal as both the Governor and Attorney General endorsed the decision. And there's no one else with standing, that is, no one harmed by the decision who can independently file.

There it is. Done.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.