US Senator Preaches @ Delaware’s First Lesbian Wedding after Campaigning on “Separation of Church & State”

US Senator Preaches @ Delaware’s First Lesbian Wedding after Campaigning on “Separation of Church & State”

Who defeated Christine O’Donnell in 2010 in Delaware? He is up for re-election this November 2014 against Republican Kevin Wade. (2010 was a special election for the last 4 years of Joe Biden’s term.)

When Christine O’Donnell debated Democrat Chris Coons in 2010 in the special election for U.S. Senator, Chris Coons couldn’t name the Five Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But there was a firestorm from the national news media  when Christine O’Donnell exposed the truth the liberals don’t want you to hear:
There is no “Wall of Separation of Church and State” anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, the words “wall” and “separation” and “church” are not even in the U.S. Constitution — anywhere.
This author posted a $1,000 reward for anyone who could find a “wall of separation of church and State” in the U.S. Constitution.  (Hint:  There are two sides to the First Amendment on religion:  Free exercise of religion is usually ignored.)
The news media mocked Christine O’Donnell as ignorant.
Then in 2012, that same Chris Coons — while a sitting Democrat U.S. Senator — is preaching the sermon in church at Delaware’s first homosexual wedding.  Hey…!  What happened to that “Wall of Separation of Church and State” Coons bashed the Republican over?

In fact, Chris Coons thinks that the U.S.A. has had at least four (4) different Constitutions:


Delaware U.S. Senator Chris Coons Thinks the U.S.A. has had many DIFFERENT Constitutions — at least 4 

But more shocking is what Democrat Senator Chris Coons preached.  In these excerpts from the full 15+ minute sermon.


Delaware U.S. Senator Chris Coons Preaches 15+ Minute Sermon in Church at Delaware’s First Homosexual Wedding — EXCERPTS (3:20)

  Most of the sermon is just a lot of happy, upbeat, cheerful talk as one would expect in any wedding or celebration.  But included amidst that fluff…
  • Coons praises the elderly lesbians for “THE GOSPEL THEY HAVE CHOSEN.”  Listen to it carefully, several times.   In context, U.S. Senator Chris Coons clearly believes — and is talking to other church-goers who believe — that one CHOOSES one’s own gospel. You can choose any gospel you want to believe in.  Go back and listen again carefully.  Don’t take my word for it.

  • Coons attacks narrow-minded Christians who misinterpret “the law” (in context he means the Bible, the law presented in the Bible, he is quoting from references in the Bible to “the law” of God)

  • Coons totally leaves out the role of Jesus paying for our sins by dying for our sins.  Jesus as Savior, Jesus as Lord plays no role in the “Christianity” that Coons is aggressively spreading through his role as a U.S. Senator.  Jesus did not need to die on the cross, and Jesus dying on the cross is not relevant to this concept of Christianity.

  • Coons argues that Christianity is simply freedom from compliance with right or wrong, no responsibility, no accountability,   pure license to do whatever one wishes.

Now, of course, Chris Coons is free to his own religious beliefs the same as anyone else.  That is not the concern.  But being aware that some are out there aggressively — very aggressively — spreading a concept of Christianity that may be nothing like what you read in the Bible is something that Bible-believing Christians may simply want to be aware of.  Those with a more traditional concept of Christianity may need to speak up themselves and not let the public square be dominated by a false Christianity.

Republican businessman Kevin Wade is challenging Democrat Chris Coons for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware this November 2014.

  1. @Moseley,

    Saying that Coons thinks there have been 4 constitutions is pretty disingenuous. Seems pretty clear he is referring to the Constitution as an interpreted document, from the time when it was written to the document as amended up to the 1920s (that is, women’ suffrage, direct election of senators, the abolition amendments, etc.). Then the document as interpreted by the Supreme Court through the 1970s, or the document as it is interpreted today.

    That is, NOT 4 separate documents.

    Your agitprop is unfortunate.

    • Well, speaking of interpretation, you can interpret what you think Chris Coons meant. But that’s not what he said. Senator Coons explicitly and specifically said he wants to know WHICH Constitution Christine O’Donnell supports. That’s what he said.

      Now if Christine O’Donnell or any other conservative meant one thing but said it badly they would be crucified… for saying it badly, regardless of what they meant.

      Frankly, what he said begs the question what did he mean. I think we ought to get an explanation.

      But much more important, the difference between the actual Constitution and the interpreted Constitution is important. Very important. So if we could understand what Coons is trying to say — if Coons wanted us to understand that clearly — it would be an important discussion.

      Many people reject the concept of the Constitution as interpreted being legitimate, if it is different from what the actual Constitution clearly says.

      But what Coons said was that he was demanding to know WHICH Constitution Christine O’Donnell supported. He was not making a philosophical comment. He was trying to be specific about WHICH of (at least) 4 different Constitutions Christine O’Donnell supported.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.