Yesterday I demonstrated clearly how the Founding Fathers viewed homosexuality and the response was good from people who understand that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a crime against nature. Despite the Supreme Court, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, claiming that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, Socialist Democrat Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on Wednesday that both she and Barack Obama are "honoring the Constitution" by opposing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). At the same time talk show host Rush Limbaugh claims that the same-sex "marriage" issue is "already lost."

After attending the second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the issue, Pelosi said, "And given a choice I think we would all say we're honoring, as the president does, the Constitution."

"When you pass a bill in the House, as we did with the health care bill, we made it iron clad constitutionally," she continued.

"You have a responsibility to honor the Constitution," she added. "In fact, we take an oath to do just that, and that is the oath that President Obama is upholding."

"We weigh equities," Pelosi continued. "Congress passes a bill. It's questionable in terms of constitutionality. There's no question about your oath to the Constitution of the United States, and the behavior of the Republicans in the House of Representatives on this subject has been so irresponsible."

"First of all, why in this time would you pass a bill that increases discrimination?" the House Minority Leader said. "We're going in the direction of the arc of Justice Benning in favor of more justice not more discrimination. Why would you do such a thing in the first place?"

The problem for Pelosi is that there is no at "this time." In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996! It's been nearly 17 years ago. It was also signed into law by a philandering Democrat President, Bill Clinton. In fact, the vote passed 342-67. Twice as many Democrats voted with Republicans on the issue.

"And then when it is questioned in terms of its constitutionality to spend money in the tune of millions outside the regular order of how that money should be spent to defend increasing discrimination in our society, it's just plain wrong," Pelosi said.

"And given a choice I think we would all say we're honoring, as the president does, the Constitution," she added.

The California Congresswoman was "optimistic" about DOMA being declared unconstitutional and said that same-sex "marriage" is "inevitable."

"From our beautiful place in San Francisco, the city of St. Francis, we knew that it was inevitable that all of this would happen," she said. "It was inconceivable to others that it would, and it was our job to use whatever influence we could have to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable."

"And I think that's what's happening at the court because of many people's courage, especially those directly, personally affected," Pelosi said.

With all of that said, the Federal government should not be defining marriage. Since they have usurped that authority, they should not be redefining it either for homosexuals. Get that? If you want government out of your bedroom and you want them out of marriage, then don't go running to them to rule that you can marry a member of the same-sex! That is hypocritical.

But conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh concedes defeat on the issue saying,

"The language game, the left really excels at changing the language to benefit them politically, and they do it in such a way that a lot of people on our side have no idea what's happened until it's too late and the issue is already lost, which this issue is. This issue is lost. I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable -- and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this. I mentioned the other day that I've heard people talk about 'opposite-sex marriage,' or you might have had heard people say 'traditional marriage.'"

"You might have heard people say 'hetero-marriage," he continued. "I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it, because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything. 'Marriage' is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

I agree that people not standing up and letting Socialists redefine words is a serious issue, which is why I always use the term homosexual, sodomite, or queer for those who are such and not the term "gay." It's why there are quotation marks around the word "marriage" when I reference a perversion of marriage (which I am now going to try and refrain from using). It's why I don't speak of government investments, but of spending tax payer money or calling it revenue when it's taxation. This is how Socialists achieved their ends and they are doing it with the entire "marriage equality" verbiage now. There is nothing equal about what homosexuals want and Biblical or traditional marriage. On this Rush is right, but I suggest that if we were wise we would learn from what he just said and start changing our language to address that issue and turn back the tide. After all, if the Socialists can do it one way, why then can it not be reversed? I think it can, which is why I brought the definition to the forefront previously.

However, what I am often amazed at is that people would rather not offend a perverse group of individuals behaving badly than honor their Creator. The fight is not over. If you think for one moment that if the homosexual lobby gets to redefine "marriage" they won't look to redefine "family" and adopt children and pervert them and engage in criminal activity with them, you are incredibly naïve.

Second, just so I'm fair on the issue, yes, Rush Limbaugh has a history of multiple marriages, which the Bible condemns, seeing that they were "no fault" divorces, so he's not off the hook here. But that didn't change the definition of what marriage is and that point must be made, just like when interracial marriages were banned and blacks and whites married didn't change the definition of the word or institution of marriage. It was still between a man and a woman.

Christians and conservatives you are being hoodwinked by both sides. The only reason the Federal government has in even trying to address this issue is because of its tax code and nothing more. If the tax code were actually dealt with fairly, there would be no need for them to deal with the marriage issue, as it should be. States could then deal with sodomy laws as they use to and as our Founders intended it, thus removing any argument for the same genders to marry.

Finally, while some have told me that sodomy laws were struck down because they were a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and a right to privacy, they fail to understand sodomy laws in general. The issue, at least biblically would require that the individuals not be engaging privately. For if it was private, no one would know. There would have had to have been witnesses, at least two or three, which means it was public and that just isn't a "public decency" issue, it's a crimes against nature issue and even our founders had the sense to see that. The Left doesn't give up when they lose a battle and neither should we. King Jesus is still on the throne and we must press for His crown rights in the society, which brings true liberty, not a license to engage in immorality.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.