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


  1. jamal49 says

    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.

  2. Harlan says

    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.

  3. simon says

    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.

  4. ToThePoint says

    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.

  5. Bill says

    @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.

  6. Rixk says

    “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.

  7. simon says

    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.

  8. Kieran says

    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?

  9. northalabama says

    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).

  10. Island Planet says

    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.

  11. JackFknTwist says

    @ 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 !

  12. JackFknTwist says

    @ 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 !

  13. Profe Sancho Panza says

    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.

  14. billy wingartenson says

    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

  15. Bill says

    @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.

  16. simon says

    The American Congress is truly bizarre. In European parliaments like the French or British, he would have been ridiculed and shouted down by members in the same chamber.

  17. anon says

    He’s in the House, not the Senate.

    Simon: All parliaments have “free” time for members to give speeches that almost no one hears because the place is essentially empty. The US has a more open debating style than other countries. In the House, you get a few minutes to give a speech on the debate topic, though there’s a lot of give and take over those minutes, which can be traded back and forth between members. In the Senate, the debate is unlimited until a vote is taken to end it (cloture).

    The first amendment doesn’t bar religious inspired laws, just enforcement of religious doctrine that’s truly sectarian. For example, enforcing the Sabbath by requiring everyone to pray. States have blue laws barring commerce on Sunday, but that’s not considered sectarian.

    It doesn’t matter what the Bible says about marriage. The law is one thing and the Bible is another. You don’t have to worry about what the Bible is or is not trying to say.

  18. simon says

    I have heard speeches in the legislature of some countries where the chairman or speaker has the duty and authority to enforce the rules. I don’t see why someone should be given “free time” to talk about irrelevant things. It is a waste of time and tax payer money. Whenever someone wanders off topic, the chairman will warn him/her to stay on topic or the chairman can turn the microphone off.
    If anyone wants to give a “free speech”, they can do it in a park.

Leave A Reply