Bob Marshall | Gay Marriage | Gay Marriage Quotes | The Bible | Virginia

Republican Wingnut Rep. Frank Wolf Blasts Presbyterian Decision To Allow Gay Marriage: VIDEO

Frank wolf

Virginia Republican Representative Frank Wolf took to the House floor Tuesday in a pre-retirement rant regarding the Presbyterian church’s decision to allow same-sex marriage.

We recently reported that anti-gay bigot Bob Marshall intends to run in the upcoming race to succeed Wolf.

 During the four minute speech, Wolf had the following to say about same-sex marriage:

“After several years of internal discussion and debate the assembly voted overwhelmingly to take a position which runs counter to the counsel of Scripture, which defines marriage as divinely inspired joining of one man and one woman.”

Arguing that the church has historically been “a bulwark against the cultural whims of the day,” Wolf went on to say:

“In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, "Haven't you read...that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore, what God has joined together let man not separate."

This passage, and others like it, remind me of Reverend Billy Graham's comment in the lead-up to the 2012 North Carolina ballot initiative regarding marriage, when he remarked, "The Bible is clear - God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman."

Watch Wolf’s June 24 speech in full, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. As a sitting US Senator you just violated the US 1st amendment.

    "or excessively involving itself in religion"

    so resign.

    Posted by: Pat | Jun 27, 2014 1:52:16 PM

  2. Rep. Wolf, the "scripture" you quote as an allegedly ringing endorsement by "god" for marriage between "one man and one woman" is actually not quite saying just that. It's all about context and translation, sir. I suggest you re-read that and a few other passages. Marriage is not "divinely inspired". Get back to me. We'll discuss.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jun 27, 2014 2:00:50 PM

  3. So, Rep. Wolf is against Freedom of Religion.

    Posted by: Daniel | Jun 27, 2014 2:07:47 PM

  4. So, he doesn't believe in "religious liberty" after all?

    Posted by: John | Jun 27, 2014 2:07:55 PM

  5. This is really about a decades long struggle between mainstream and far right members of the PCUSA. The right wingers rarely have the votes to win but have funding to keep complaining.

    Posted by: Harlan | Jun 27, 2014 2:10:23 PM

  6. WOW.
    Separation of Church and State: It's a good thing.

    Posted by: Ken | Jun 27, 2014 2:37:55 PM

  7. I an't believe they allow them to speak such way in Congress, I mean about religious, faith etc.

    Posted by: Matt27 | Jun 27, 2014 2:39:42 PM

  8. He lost all credibility once he quoted the Gospels which also said "Jesus" was born of a "virgin", hardly a one man one woman normal relation he is extolling.

    Posted by: simon | Jun 27, 2014 2:44:21 PM

  9. I want NO part of your "devine" effing marriage and the legislature should have NOTHING to do with enforcing this "devine" interpretation. The legislature should however, be fully involved in granting "LEGAL" marriage to everyone EQUALLY! If a church choses to be inclusive, fair and loving then that is a step in the right direction of that church taking a less judgmental stance. And being this is a FREE country with freedom to privately exercise ones religion, I fully support the members of said church to CHANGE denominations to a more judgmental and bigoted cult that continues to support their way of thinking.

    Posted by: ToThePoint | Jun 27, 2014 2:47:39 PM

  10. @Simon: what he quoted was actually Jesus quoting Gensis - and if you get a good translation, with footnotes, you'll find one that says that the word or grammatical structure rendered as "therefore" simply tied a current custom (current from the standpoint of the writer of Genesis) to an alleged historical event (the creation myth). All it was saying was that a contemporary custom was motivated by something in their creation myth.

    One might add that given the practice at the time, they probably meant that a man would leave home when he married his first wife, and could marry additional women later. A very strict interpretation would be that each wife got her own marriage ceremony.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 27, 2014 2:57:59 PM

  11. "The Bible is clear - God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman."

    Well, that actually is true. Of course, it is also clear that divorce is a sin, but you never hear the same people who cry foul when it comes to same-sex marriage castigate their fellow church members for getting divorces.....or castigating themselves for doing so.

    So it is really the hypocrisy and insincerity of these people when it comes to their supposed religious beliefs that I have a problem with, not that they are wrong about the Bible when it comes to defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

    Of course, none of this should make any difference when it comes to CIVIL marriage, but, yes, when it comes to Scripture, you really cannot reconcile same-sex marriage with it, any more than you can reconcile women becoming ministers.

    Posted by: Rixk | Jun 27, 2014 3:09:09 PM

  12. Bill:
    I never said he misquoted anything. I am calling into question the reliability of his source. That fascinating book describes virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, assumption. OOP the last one was the Church's mistake. Even the less outrageous things like the census, "Sea of Galilee', "star of Bethlehem" are all suspects.

    Posted by: simon | Jun 27, 2014 3:22:16 PM

  13. He quotes the Bible: 'Therefore, what God has joined together let man not separate'. So why isn't this hypocrite railing against DIVORCE in our society?

    Posted by: Kieran | Jun 27, 2014 3:24:55 PM

  14. In a single sentence:
    "The book is NOT divinely inspired"
    It was the works of some charlatans.

    Posted by: simon | Jun 27, 2014 3:26:01 PM

  15. And when did the UC House become the overseer of Church policy?

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 27, 2014 3:30:32 PM

  16. wow, he actually went there...virginia is the new florida!

    stop commenting on religianity in congress, then stop talking politics in church, and everyone in both houses will be a lot better off (and happier).

    Posted by: northalabama | Jun 27, 2014 3:40:48 PM

  17. Do Y'all in the States have some kind of fetish for electing the nearly-dead to represent you in government? I'm glad The Crypt Keeper here has found something to crank-on about with his dying breath. Maybe his replacement will be under 80 years old and have some of those modern ideas instilled in him during the great depression.

    Posted by: Island Planet | Jun 27, 2014 3:53:30 PM

  18. @ BILL :

    That 'book', just like all the other books of each creed, Koran, Mormon, Dianetics, etc are all creations of whoever you want them to be.

    The bible was written by starving homeless derelicts eating hallucinogenic mushrooms in the desert.
    "Leviticus' was obviously written on the morning after guilt trip......oh, you boys !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jun 27, 2014 5:10:48 PM

  19. @ BILL :

    That 'book', just like all the other books of each creed, Koran, Mormon, Dianetics, etc are all creations of whoever you want them to be.

    The bible was written by starving homeless derelicts eating hallucinogenic mushrooms in the desert.
    "Leviticus' was obviously written on the morning after guilt trip......oh, you boys !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jun 27, 2014 5:10:48 PM

  20. 'morning-after guilt trip'.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jun 27, 2014 5:11:36 PM

  21. A perfect example of the need for separation of church and state: in the US, the state cannot demand or forbid that churches hold certain doctrines. Congress doesn't get to resolve theological questions like a medieval pope.

    Posted by: Profe Sancho Panza | Jun 27, 2014 5:24:00 PM

  22. Ignorant Christian bigot has read only one book.

    Posted by: Richard | Jun 27, 2014 6:46:35 PM

  23. Unimportant. Insignificant. Go argue with the Presbyterian church instead of wasting our time.

    Posted by: randy | Jun 27, 2014 9:38:32 PM

  24. old geezer. Heis presbyterian, cant tell which of 3 groups but prob evangelical - another evil group so similar to most southern baptists, who at their convention also condemned trans people


    wants to force his ideas on others

    BTW congrats to the presbyterian church USA

    Posted by: billy wingartenson | Jun 28, 2014 12:08:40 AM

  25. @Simon: I didn't say that you said he misquoted something. I was saying that he misrepresented something due to not bothering with the footnotes provided by a translator. I.e., I was adding additional information to what you wrote.

    You can think the Bible is a hogwash, but the least you'd expect from a religious guy quoting it would be for him to not misrepresent what the Bible actually says.

    The interesting story is not that he believes things because he read them in the Bible (a sizable fraction of the U.S. public does that), but that he didn't even understand what he read in the Bible.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 28, 2014 3:03:16 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Grindr Pride Survey Reveals How Many of Its Users Aren't Proud Enough to Be Out« «